My suggestion about holding the articles of impeachment has taken hold…somewhat.

I wrote that this might be a good idea, having not a clue that it would be even considered by the Democrats.

“The notion of impeaching Trump but holding the articles in the House has gained traction among some on the political left as a way of potentially forcing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to conduct a trial on more favorable terms for Democrats. And if no agreement is reached, some have argued, the trial could be delayed indefinitely, denying Trump an expected acquittal.”

For those who cannot access WaPo, there seems to be a movement of about 3 dozen Democrats in the House who are open to the idea. The leadership is going to consider it.

What is ironic is that McConnell has complained that the process has been rushed and that his refusal to call crucial witnesses like Mulvaney and Pompeo is because of the “slapdash” nature of the impeachment inquiries.

Well, I say give him what he wants until he don’t want it no more. Kind of like waterboarding a man dying of thirst.

In the nicest way of course.

32 thoughts on “My suggestion about holding the articles of impeachment has taken hold…somewhat.

  1. Great, that will give him all the justification he could need for simply rejecting the articles without a hearing when they do come.

    But you have to give the Democrats credit for Chutzpah for complaining about not being able to call witnesses in the Senate after not allowing the GOP to call any in the House.

    But go ahead and pull that trick, the voters are watching, and all these things you think are cute and clever are just building their rage for 2020. How do you think they are going to see rushing to impeach, with no time to let the courts determine what is fair, and then holding them for better timing?

    They know a rope-a-dope when they see one and they are not amused.

    So go for it, the more thoroughly the Democrats are destroyed in 2020, the happier I will be.


    1. The trial is in the Senate. The GOP can call for 100 witnesses if they want. and bring 5 lawyers each. But here is the rub. There are few, if any, that can back up the pack of lies from the regime.

      Which is why they pushed for a court ruling on subpoenas for the inquiry. Knowing full well that the Senate will not convict.

      The rope-a-dope is what the Administration and its toady, Moscow Mitch, is doing. Him saying that he is not going to do the job that the House should have done with the 3 or 4 key witnesses closest to Trump is evidence that those guys would expose the regime completely.

      Bottom line: Mitch is the key man in this whole shooting on Fifth Avenue.

      Trump ought to give him a medal.

      Come to think of it, the regime has already paid off the crook from Kentucky with infrastructure money no other state could dream of getting and pulled sanctions on Russian oligarchs for money in that state.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Adam Schiff did a masterful job of laying out the criminality of trump and his cronies.

    There is no reason to not proceed and let the Senate GOP humiliate themselves as the House GOP has done.

    Servility has become an art form for this version of the GOP. One can easily understand why true conservatives are banding together to work against trump in 2020 and primary the sycophants that kneel before him.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The GOP is so conflicted. They really don’t like DJT.

    They really want to get this impeachment thing out of the way and not hanging over their head going into campaign time.

    And, they really have nothing to legitimately defend Trump with or jump up and down about, so NOW, they’re pushing the “Oh, why are we RUSHING to judgement, impeachment, voting . . . etc.?” whine.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Agreed, and it’s all Trump & McConnell’s fault.

    The House has legitimate cause to delay sending the articles to the Senate until the SCOTUS rules on whether Trump’s refusal to allow administration officials – and former administration officials – to testify is unconstitutional. That case won’t be heard until March at the earliest; we won’t have a ruling until June.

    McConnell could have avoided this, but he stepped right into the trap laid for him.

    Then, come June, if the SCOTUS rules in the House’s favor, they get to call the witnesses and burnish their case. If the SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor, no doubt by then we’ll have more evidence by other means and the House will add more counts.

    Once the Senate gets the articles, the first order of business will be for Chief Justice Roberts to rule on whether the Republican Senators who met with Trump to allow Trump to dictate the conduct of the trial have violated their oath. to do impartial justice according to the constitution.

    It’s very clear that they have already done so – here’s McConnell: “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.” Make no mistake, no Democratic party senator said anything of the kind back in 1998, and witnesses were allowed in the Senate trial of Clinton, albeit Republicans were satisfied with them being deposed and not open live testimony. Roberts will do great damage if he doesn’t disqualify them.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Get serious.

      If Pelosi were concerned with the testimony of those officials being necessary to get the whole picture, then her remedy was to delay the vote on impeachment while waiting for the courts. By taking the impeachment vote yesterday, she determined that whatever they had to say, or not say, was unnecessary in making a determination.

      She can’t have it both ways.

      The public knows bad faith when they see it, so go for it. Drag this out until Superbowl Sunday and the voters won’t wait for November, they’ll recall half the Democrats in Congress immediately.


      1. You are blaming Pelosi for dragging it out. McConnell is the one who said that the fix is in and no witnesses. If he allowed the testimonies, then we move forward.

        Put another way, the House has said that they have enough information for impeachment, so they did just that. The Senate is saying we are rigging the trial. And they have done so.

        So we wait for the Senate to come to their senses.

        McConnell can’t have it both ways, since you put it that way.

        Remember that the SCOTUS ruling is the new wrinkle. If they had declined, the subpoenas would be valid.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. You are assuming that impeachment is conviction. It is not. It is merely bring charges to go to trial.

        But the trial, though always political, can’t be predetermined and announced as such. That changes the picture considerably.

        If McConnell says its a done deal, then those White House witnesses are more crucial.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. In impeaching the President, Democrats have claimed they have a case adequate for conviction. They are free to present their case as it stands, but Trump is not required to answer the charges. the Senate can simply determine that even viewed in the best light, there is insufficient evidence to convict and vote to reject the charges.

          If the Democrat’s case was not ready for the Senate, then it was not ready for an impeachment vote in the House.

          And of course the Senate can say it’s a done deal, they have the 600+ page report, and again, if viewing it in its best light, it falls short of what the Senate sees as an impeachable offense, they can declare their intentions any time they want.


          1. “If the Democrat’s case was not ready for the Senate, then it was not ready for an impeachment vote in the House.”

            Actually, it is the Senate who is not ready to hold a fair and impartial trial. All we have heard from Magic Mitch is that acquittal is forthcoming, without holding a trial. Because Trump told him to. Magic Mitch strikes again.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. RE: “Get serious.”

        Agreed. The House has zero leverage over the Senate. The articles of impeachment have no practical reality until they are released. Delaying the release is the same as nullifying the impeachment vote itself.

        Also, the Senate oath to do “impartial justice” has no enforceable meaning. Assuming the Senators who take the oath are in fact partial or biased, there is no possibility of a “mistrial” in the Senate.


      4. You should re-read the first two words of your post.

        Pelosi took one of the few useful tools away from the trump Cabal; TIME.

        Now they can’t delay and must use their other two weapons; distract and deflect….

        And, yes, the “public knows bad faith when they see it”…..

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Indefinitely I think. Or at least until the Democrats feel there will be a trial in the senate. Right now McConnell says there will be no trial, effectively, just a vote as dictated by the White House.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence


    1. That is criminal defense, NOT impeachment. The same rules do not apply in Congress as they do in a court of law.

      I also note you have no issue with Republican senators (3 that I have seen) who have already stated unequivocally, that they will violate the oath that Senators are to take before an impeachment trial to do impartial justice. You seem to have no issue with that violation, so long as you get what you want. That alone is reason for McConnell, Graham, and Paul to recuse themselves or be barred from the Senate trial.

      Also, let’s talk speedy for a second. If the subpoena appeals aren’t heard by SCOTUS until March and a decision not due until June, as Mr. Davidson postulated, how is that “speedy”? It is the same kind of delaying tactics the GOP in the Virginia GA tried to hold off on redistricting. Maybe the clock will just run out. That didn’t work out for them so well, did it?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Impeachment is reserved for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” but does not define the term. However, when the House adopts articles of impeachment, they have defined those articles as crimes by definition. That makes this a criminal trial.

        The method of the Senate trial is not specified in the Constitution, it is left the the Senate rules, There is nothing in the Constitution nor the Senate rules that permits a delay.

        The House impeachment is public record, the Senate is within its powers to demand the House managers present their case on a specific date or the case can be dismissed. At this point the Senate makes the rules.

        If Pelosi wanted to maintain control of the process, she should have done so before taking the impeachment vote.


        1. The Constitution does not call for the 6th Amendment to be available in impeachment. Solely because, and we all have said as much, impeachment IS a political process. The 6th also calls for an impartial jury. Only the GOP has come out and stated that they will not be impartial. Call the witnesses with first hand knowledge (Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, etc). Can’t have a speedy trial without an impartial jury in this instance as has been stated numerous times by McConnell, Paul, and Graham.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Don said earlier…
          “Great, that will give him all the justification he (McConnell) could need for simply rejecting the articles without a hearing when they do come.”

          Not if he is not Majority Leader. 2021, for example.

          As to your BS on “speedy trial”. The Senate trial is NOT a criminal trial, says so right there in Article 1. The important part for his speedy CRIMINAL trial.

          “…but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

          He ain’t been indicted, yet. Clock doesn’t start on speedy trial until indictment, BUT the clock has started on indictment, i.e., statutes of limitations.

          Liked by 3 people

        3. @tabor

          I hope they do dismiss it.

          It will make no difference; courts will be ruling on other corrupt actions and facts will come out (as they always do) that create more grounds to impeach and remove.

          Trump’s criminality will render the election moot.

          Liked by 2 people

        4. It is kind of fun to listen and read both sides. Yes, I have my biases as do you and everyone else.

          You are saying the House investigation was biased, improper and without rights for the defendant.
          But the Senate is doing just fine with making its own rules and predetermining the outcome.

          I would bet that were the roles reversed, and Obama was impeached by a Republican House and tried by a Democratic Senate, you’d be screaming “the fix is in!!”.

          The facts are that both the House and Senate leadership determine the rules within very vague guidelines from the Constitution. Even the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not spelled out, but rather inferred by historical accounts dating to old English law.

          Look, the conservatives opened this can of worms when they decided to try to remove Clinton from the day he was elected. The whole Whitewater investigation was for impeachment for what Clinton did BEFORE he was elected. A true witch hunt since the parameters changed as “new” things popped up until a blue dress, costing $55 million, came out of the closet.

          Bush should have been impeached for lying about WMD’s. But the conservatives ranted “unpatriotic”
          about anything criticizing the war. 9/11 loomed large if you can recall. You think Obama should have been impeached for Libya. Perhaps. But he was already struggling against a plot to destroy his presidency so that may have helped him. And he was the first black president in a country still trying to reconcile its racist history.

          So Bush and Obama came through. Of course it might have helped somewhat that neither one told every opponent to go #&@% themselves before and after the election.

          Trump was elected to stir things up. And he has. Unfortunately righting a ship of state as large as the US still requires working with it existing structure. You could no sooner jump into commanding a carrier without any knowledge other than your business experience as a sole proprietor and a small boat captain. You couldn’t do as you please and hope for the best.

          To me, that is what Trump has been trying to do from the get go. Barring becoming a king, it doesn’t work that way. He promised to be the president for all the people, but the second he butts up to resistance, he strikes out without any consideration of consequences. And of course his mendacity and ethics are legendary, both before and after election.

          It was only a matter of time before he did something totally illegal and egregious.

          His own party could well have protected him, but he would have none of that. So his supporters in Congress do that out of fear, not respect or with a willingness to assist.

          I have asserted many times that he should be voted out of office. But that’s not how it is going down.
          We are living history.

          Sorry for the length. And I’m not on painkillers, either.


          Liked by 2 people

          1. Why shouldn’t the Senate predetermine the outcome?

            They have seen the report by Schiff, and the Articles of impeachment.

            Even taken in their best light, can you find 20 Republicans who would agree to the articles? If not, then why waste another minute.

            When you watch a criminal trial in a real courtroom(I know this is not exactly the same) one thing you can count on is that immediately after the prosecution rests, the defense will ask the judge to dismiss the case before the defense says a word.

            The judge then determines whether the prosecution has made a case and if even assuming the prosecution is correct on all matters of fact, the standard of proof has not been met, the the judge will dismiss the case.

            That is where we are right now. The prosecution made its claims and has had their turn.

            If, even taking the charges and report in the most favorable light for the prosecution, there is no case, the Senate can dismiss it,

            Personally , I want a trial, in which the Bidens, Chalupa, and the other 5 witnesses Schiff would not allow testifying under oath. I want the Democratic party as thoroughly destroyed as possible, and that would do it.

            And save your painkillers for Nov 3, you’re going to need them.


          2. “So Bush and Obama came through. Of course it might have helped somewhat that neither one told every opponent to go #&@% themselves before and after the election.”

            Well, as much as I hate shopping anytime for anything, I must finally begin my Christmas shopping. HOWEVER, you have sent me off with a loud snicker and full-faced smile. Thank you!

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “ That is where we are right now. The prosecution made its claims and has had their turn.”

            The prosecution hasn’t made its case in the Senate trial. If you want to carry this analogy further, all we have is enough evidence from an investigation to warrant a trial.

            No prosecutor in his right mind would agree to a trial in which he could not subpoena witnesses.

            The articles of impeachment were enough to bring charges, now it is supposed to be up to the prosecution to show that they are valid for conviction and for the defense to argue otherwise.

            BTW, it is the judge, not McConnell, that could honor a dismissal plea.

            If McConnell wants to play games, then I think it is “game on”. I am just guessing, but I think he is going to find out what Trump learned a while back. Don’t underestimate Madam Speaker.

            Liked by 2 people

        5. Pretty hard to dismiss a case that hasn’t arrived yet. If the regime won’t testify without a court order, then it is up to the conservative SCOTUS to get going.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That would have been a viable position to take BEFORE passing articles of impeachment, but passing them is a statement that they are complete and ready to proceed.

            Doing it Pelosi’s way, you could just pass vague articles of impeachment the day a President is inaugurated and then wait for the evidence fairy to come along.


          2. “ Doing it Pelosi’s way, you could just pass vague articles of impeachment the day a President is inaugurated and then wait for the evidence fairy to come along.”

            You mean like what was effectively done to Clinton.

            I told you that Whitewater set a bad precedent. Oh sure, they did not call it impeachment. That was because the Republicans hadn’t a clue what they were looking for.

            Not the case here. The articles are clear and their is enough evidence to have a fair trial with witnesses that were unavailable even though the courts agreed until SCOTUS.

            Liked by 1 person

  6. Speaking of speedy trials, lemme regale you with yet another of my life stories.

    Had a friend, Keith Darby, he’s dead now, but this is all public record so…

    Keith was a deckhand on a BIG yacht. Keith was on the yacht when the owner loaded it full of cocaine and weed in some foreign port, and had it set sail for the owner’s property on the York River. The owner flew home. This was NOT the first time this was done. But, this was the first time that when the yacht arrived home, the USCG was waiting. They arrested the crew including, alas, poor Keith.

    The FBI offered Keith the deal of a lifetime, “Testify against the owner and we won’t prosecute you.” Keith agreed, and his testimony, along with the another deck crew’s, put the owner and the captain away for a long time. Sadly, Keith did not have a lawyer because he didn’t think he needed one, and he took the FBI at its word, and worse, didn’t get it in writing.

    Move ahead some 6 years and one MAJOR change in the DoJ — software that flagged Statute of Limitation cases

    The FBI issued a “fugitive outlaw warrant” on poor ol’ Keith. They claimed Keith fled prosecution, that they had been searching for him for 6 years, and that is why he had been denied a “speedy trial”.

    But this time he had a lawyer. His lawyer pointed out to the judge that his client “was still living in the same house he was when he was arrested 6 years ago, AND MOREOVER, that his car’s vanity tag was ‘DARBY’.”

    There was a brief discussion at the bench wherein, Keith agreed to plead “guilty” to some administrative misdemeanor, and receive a fine.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Good story. It pays to remember that in a adversarial system of jurisprudence, there are winners and losers.

      Prosecutors and defense attorneys prosper or not based on the score pad. Justice is the proclaimed goal, but promotions and elected office for one side and private jets for the other are too often the drivers.

      It is a numbers game and woe be it to you if you are an enumerated one without good resources.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s