Bloomberg: Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

Noah Feldman, the author of the Bloomberg piece, was one of the scholars who testified on impeachment before the House Judiciary Committee.

I expect Nancy Pelosi’s delay won’t last long for two reasons. First, because Mitch McConnell doesn’t care if he never receives the articles of impeachment. Second, because it is no fun for Democrats having the whole planet laugh at them.

40 thoughts on “Bloomberg: Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

    1. It is a technicality. It fascinates me that the Speaker appears to be interested in exploiting it. Perhaps she is secretly working for Trump, or for AOC.


  1. You must be living on a different planet because I know very few people laughing about this.

    I see Pelosi as the smarter of the 2 leaders, but you think Magic Mitch has all of the power. In a fight I take the gentlelady from California over the gentleman from Kentucky.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “But not all of Congress.”

        When it comes to the articles of impeachment specifically, McConnell does in effect control all of Congress at this point.


        1. So he’ll just file his copy in the desk where he keeps all of the bills passed by the House. A strong leader that is. He is a spineless coward doing the bidding of Trump and not the job he swore an oath to do: Uphold and defend the Constitution. Maybe HE should be held in contempt of Congress for doing nothing, except confirming activist judges to the federal bench.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “So he’ll just file his copy in the desk where he keeps all of the bills passed by the House”

          There’s no reason to believe McConnell will “do nothing” as you pretend to know that he will. In his comments on the Senate floor after the impeachment vote, he said that the Senate must act to clean up the mess the House has made.


          1. Once he clans out his drawer of the bill that have passed out of the House, including those dealing with prescription drug prices and election security, then he can talk about the House’s mess. The “grim reaper” attempts to strike again.


          2. If McConnell’s going to clean up anything – he ought to lend a mighty hand over at the WH and in the Oval Office. The chaos over there with the toddler-in-chief going ‘impeachment berzerk’ surely needs to be Cloroxed, big time.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. @Roberts

    If you really, really believe that the whole planet is laughing at the Democrats for FINALLY holding Mr. Trump accountable, then you have spent far too long in the Fox News bubble.

    YOU may be laughing but it is clear from his insane letters and tweets that Mr. Trump is not. Believe it or not, being found not worthy of office by a majority of the House of Representative is a BFD. Even for a popular and effective President like Bill Clinton it is a painful stain on his legacy. For someone like Trump it is likely to be the only thing that History will remember about his pitiful tenure.

    As for the Senate trial, the GOP is once again showing its disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law. As the “jurors” they have a solemn duty to organize a real trial and to keep their opinions to themselves until it is over. They even owe it to Mr. Trump. An acquittal by a corrupt jury will always smell to high heaven.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “it is clear from his insane letters and tweets that Mr. Trump is not.”

      Right. That’s why he was cracking jokes about impeachment at his rally the other night.


      1. Trump cracks “jokes” at rallies incessantly, as has done so since starting his campaign. Actually, not jokes so much as insults about people who are not there.

        Maybe “whistling past the graveyard” is more apropos.

        He is sure the jury has been bought…but, then again.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. RE: “Maybe ‘whistling past the graveyard’ is more apropos.”

        Either way, Mr. Murphy’s statements are debunked by facts.


        1. @Roberts

          This is a typical exchange with you. You offer nonsense and I offer a fact based response. NOBODY outside of your bubble is laughing at the Democrats. Around the “whole world” Trump is viewed as a clownish figure and a threat to global stability. People everywhere want him gone and are pleased to see this note of sanity in our politics. They are not laughing at the Democrats for trying to do the right thing.

          You, with your obvious disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law, may not agree with my opinion that being impeached is a BFD, but I stand by that opinion. And, in spite of some gallows humor on the subject, Trump’s letters and tweets are compelling evidence that he finds it to be a BFD as well. As so he should. THAT will be his story in the history books.

          But, please share, which of my statements is “debunked by facts?” I mean actual facts, not alternative ones.


  3. Interesting opinion. Feldman is a respected scholar and his words and opinion may have more traction than most. But not all.

    McConnell has stated often and with clarity that he intends to hold a sham trial. That is, no witnesses and to follow the wishes of the White House. Negotiations are in progress and McConnell still needs 51 votes to approve those procedures. Plus there is the matter of a SCOTUS ruling that the regime sought.

    Regardless of the results, even if Trump is acquitted, he will still have been one of 3 presidents who were impeached. And 71% of all Americans, including 64% of Republicans and 72% of those well sought after Independents, want witnesses to testify. Those are folks who know a sham trial when they see it and they are not so sure that the articles are without merit.

    McConnell is corrupt, but he is not stupid.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “McConnell has stated often and with clarity that he intends to hold a sham trial.”

      No, he hasn’t. “Sham” is your characterization, and a dishonest one.


      1. @Rothman, @Green

        Boo hoo for the both of you. You apparently thought the impeachment action in the House was a serious project undertaken by grown ups. But, like the 2016 election, serious people kept telling you Trump was going to win, and you refused to believe it.


        1. RE: “So what?”

          If you’re asking about your list of synonyms, they are just as dishonest and wrong as the word “sham.” How so? Because they are not based on a single factual occurrence.


          1. Again, you and the GOP Trump sycophants are entitled to say or believe what you want. The facts are 1) McConnell has publicly admitted a predetermined outcome in the trial, and 2) that he would violate the oath that will be taken to determine “impartial justice”. How can you say that “sham”, or the synonyms are anything but accurate? Oh, yeah. You don’t believe the facts. Common among Trump and his supporters.

            Again, you are entitled to be wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. It’s not a sham.

      The articles of impeachment may not have been officially delivered, but they have been published, as well as the 600+page supporting report(supporting is a generous assessment).

      The Senate holds a trial, not a continuing investigation.

      If, viewing the articles and supporting report, in their best light, with no further testimony to challenge them necessary, a majority of Senators vote that they find them lacking, then there is no way to reach the 67 votes to convict, and dismissing the impeachment is proper.


      1. Another option: the Senate could set a date for the trial to begin. If the Democrats don’t show up, they can dismiss the charges. Pelosi is powerless over the Senate.


      2. “It’s not a sham.”

        If it is not a sham with the leader of the Senate telling the world he has already determined the outcome, then what would you call it? Also, stating that he would violate the oath to be taken by the Senate prior to the trial is malfeasance and disqualifying from sitting as a juror for the trial. Hamilton is spinning in his grave to the point there are earthquakes in New Jersey. Even Trnet Lott thinks McConnell is acting in bad faith with the American people.

        You Constitutionalists once again prove that it is a document worth obeying only when it gives you what YOU want.


        1. Hamilton’s greatest fear regarding impeachment was that it would be used in a partisan manner,

          The proper time to call those witnesses was before the vote on the articles of impeachment,

          But I would be fine with them being called, subject to executive privilege where appropriate, so long as the 8 witnesses the Republicans were denied in the House are also called and the two attorneys who testified to matters of fact NOT under oath are reexamined under oath.


          1. The witnesses the GOP wanted to call in the House are irrelevant to the charges against Trump. They may be relevant to an investigation in to corruption by Americans in Ukraine. They are NOT germane to the abuse of power charges.


          2. They provide probable cause for Trump to call for an investigation and for him to ask for the assistance of governments where the corruption occurred. There is no abuse of power if Trump was justified in calling for the investigation as it would be his duty to do so.

            That’s why Schiff and Nadler called them irrelevant, they were irrelevant to PROVING their case, but that are relevant to showing the case to be BASELESS.

            In any case, Schiff and Nadler’s opinion on their relevance does not carry weight in the Senate.

            In calling for witnesses in the Senate, Democrats should be very careful what they wish for.


          3. There is a treaty in place with Ukraine to request such assistance. I don’t care how handsy Mr. Trump is in his dealings. If he had followed the treaty, ordered an invesitgation HERE that had evidence leading to Ukraine, tehn the request could be made. He abused the power of his office to forego said treaty.

            You may not like those facts, but they are the truth.


          4. I am not that familiar with the Treaty, so I don’t know if it was violated or simply not used. But in any case, asking a newly elected Ukrainian President who ran on weeding out corruption to do as he promised and investigate corruption involving US citizens doesn’t seem out of line to me.


          5. It’s only been discussed several times here. Maybe “not used” would be the correct phrase, but to me that would be a violation of the terms.

            If there is corruption involving US citizens in Ukraine, the procedure is to open an investigation here, have actual evidence that leads to Ukraine, and request assistance. Not “I need you to do us a favor,though”…Immediately after discussing the aid. It is not the request that is out of line, it is the lack of protocol, and linking the aid to an investigation. And as testimony showed, it was just ANNOUNCING an investigation, not actually conducting one that was requested.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. The strangest thing is seeing all these left wingers call the Senate trial a partisan sham before it even started, were they asleep during the House impeachment partisan sham? The House had it’s turn being ignorant partisan jackasses trying look like virtuous angels protecting the constitution with zero success, it’s the Senate’s turn to toss it in the trash where it belongs. Too bad!!!


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