obstruction of congress?

If Pelosi does not send the articles of impeachment into the senate for a trial,  wouldn't that be obstruction of congress? If so couldn't she be impeached as well under the same charge?

I would think that would be like declining to prosecute. 

Historically other Senate phases have had gaps of time before proceeding. 

EmRR said:

I would think that would be like declining to prosecute. 

Historically other Senate phases have had gaps of time before proceeding.

Click to expand...

o.k.  interesting. 

pucho812 said:

If Pelosi does not send the articles of impeachment into the senate for a trial,  wouldn't that be obstruction of congress? If so couldn't she be impeached as well under the same charge?

Click to expand...

No since there is no such crime... especially within the same branch of government. More like obstruction of the opposite political party but that is just business as usual in the swamp.

JR

PS: Has anybody noticed that they passed the usually contentious federal government omnibus spending budget (actually two mini-bus spending bills) in a matter of hours. I somehow doubt the congressmen had time to even speed read the over two thousands pages of spending bills in that short of a time interval. As before spending is up so they are not fiscal conservatives***.  But they have been busy lately. They are in a hurry to get out of town before Christmas break. Holding back the impeachment filing is a new twist but it hard to say that their old strategy was working, so who knows how this will play out probably can't go any worse. .

***I noticed a new change in retirement rules where program start gets pushed out to 72YO from current 70.5 YO, this is actually prudent, as we are living longer.  The rioting in France is because Macron is trying to do something similar to reduce retirement spending.

I wish business were more unusual and stuff got done.  ;D

pucho812 said:

I wish business were more unusual and stuff got done.  ;D

Click to expand...

They have started to do some of the people's work (like federal budget and MCAS). Since they are willing to sign bills like the budget without even reading them they can move pretty quickly when they want to.  Nobody wants to be blamed for shutting down the government again. The year for passing new legislation is running out fast so anything from here needs to be done quickly.

Right now they want to avoid being labelled a "do nothing" congress, so like the doctor gives you the lollypop last so that is what you remember, they want their final impression before christmas recess to be something successful. The Trade bill is likely to be declared a victory by both sides (all sides, even the unions like it). The impeachment not so much... (while opinions about that vary between districts).

JR

JohnRoberts said:

No since there is no such crime... especially within the same branch of government. More like obstruction of the opposite political party but that is just business as usual in the swamp.

JR

PS: Has anybody noticed that they passed the usually contentious federal government omnibus spending budget (actually two mini-bus spending bills) in a matter of hours. I somehow doubt the congressmen had time to even speed read the over two thousands pages of spending bills in that short of a time interval. As before spending is up so they are not fiscal conservatives***.  But they have been busy lately. They are in a hurry to get out of town before Christmas break. Holding back the impeachment filing is a new twist but it hard to say that their old strategy was working, so who knows how this will play out probably can't go any worse. .

***I noticed a new change in retirement rules where program start gets pushed out to 72YO from current 70.5 YO, this is actually prudent, as we are living longer.  The rioting in France is because Macron is trying to do something similar to reduce retirement spending.

Click to expand...

The spending budget has been in motion for some time now...it was either pass it or shut down the government...

As far as waiting to send over the impeachment to the Senate there is no rule as to how long it can take or what the process entails, it is generally assumed it should be done in somewhat of an urgent fashion, but to her credit Pelosi is pushing Trumps buttons and he's terribly impatient...Congress has to assign essentially "deputies" who will try the case in the Senate and this must be agreed by Congress and some of this becomes bargaining chips with Mitch, so its not like he has all the power here, besides the Senate also must include the minority leader so Schumer also has a voice here...Moscow Mitch does get to establish some of the rules but they must be voted on as well...so no one person holds the entire process...then there's Chief Justice Roberts who has the final say unless the Senate votes to overturn his decisions (which include some of this)...he might get over ruled once, but chances are no GOP lacky is going to push him around too much and he won't let them either.

Its seems naive to complain that Pelosi might be obstructing Congress when the WH has been obstructing the actual impeachment process by blocking witnesses from testifying who clearly have information regarding the charges being leveled, and McConnell is openly announcing he will not do a proper trial in the Senate, with similar noises from Lindsey Graham.
This is a cover-up.

It is also naive to imply that Dems are responsible for nothing getting done, when McConnell has refused to bring to the Senate floor most of the many bills that have been passed by the House in the last year.  This is shirking the job he was elected to do, solely for political purposes.

tchgtr said:

Its seems naive to complain that Pelosi might be obstructing Congress when the WH has been obstructing the actual impeachment process by blocking witnesses from testifying who clearly have information regarding the charges being leveled, and McConnell is openly announcing he will not do a proper trial in the Senate, with similar noises from Lindsey Graham.
This is a cover-up.

It is also naive to imply that Dems are responsible for nothing getting done, when McConnell has refused to bring to the Senate floor most of the many bills that have been passed by the House in the last year.  This is shirking the job he was elected to do, solely for political purposes.

Click to expand...

It's naive to  say the WH obstructed witness from testifying when  the gop submitted a list that Adam Schiff refused to allow to testify.
It's naive to to think the house has any rights in the matter of how the senate chooses to conduct its business.
In other words we can easily go tit for tat all day long and point fingers but it's not getting anything accomplished.

tchgtr said:

... when McConnell has refused to bring to the Senate floor most of the many bills that have been passed by the House in the last year.  This is shirking the job he was elected to do, solely for political purposes.

Click to expand...

It's much worse than that. McConnell is waaay more of an obstructionist than anyone else including Rump. McConnell has been blocking anything dem / Obama for many years. He's bragged about blocking all of Obama's judicial appointments for the last 2 years of his presidency. And now he's stacking the courts with people who have literally no experience inside an actual court house.

tchgtr said:

Its seems naive to complain that Pelosi might be obstructing Congress

Click to expand...

Agreed, she is just playing partisan politics, which is business as usual in the swamp.

when the WH has been obstructing the actual impeachment process by blocking witnesses from testifying who clearly have information regarding the charges being leveled,

Click to expand...

I have addressed this before... the house could sue the executive branch in the courts to get their witnesses but that would take time and not fit their political time line for maximum pre election negative impact. 

and McConnell is openly announcing he will not do a proper trial in the Senate, with similar noises from Lindsey Graham.

Click to expand...

The senate's role is not to perform a "proper" trial but serve as a jury to decide the articles of impeachment proffered by the house (ASSuming the speaker ever releases them, perhaps it wasn't as urgent as she argued). 

Be careful what you wish for, if the senate opened up investigations calling new witnesses, we may get some embarrassing testimony from witnesses ignored by the house.

This is like betting on a bowl game where everybody knows the final outcome.... this is all about generating sound bites for campaign purposes. Only media is getting rich from this, while both bases are energized and raising record campaign funds. 

This is a cover-up.

Click to expand...

Not sure there is any high crimes or misdemeanors to cover up...Mueller and several investigations did not find them, just a lot of "feelings".  This is turning out to be a purely political exercise where they have been desperately searching for impeachable crimes for the last several years.

There is a normal pendulum swing of minority opposition investigations every time the party in power changes, but these generally run out of steam after a year or so. The partisan enmity this time is so much stronger than usual.

It is also naive to imply that Dems are responsible for nothing getting done, when McConnell has refused to bring to the Senate floor most of the many bills that have been passed by the House in the last year. 

Click to expand...

that is how the legislative branch works, and why a divided government is actually a good thing... The less bills they pass, the less damage they can do to the private sector. That said they still manage to spend too much taxpayer money passing record budget spending bills. The canada/mexico trade package they passed almost seems accidental. I suspect they wanted it to get passed quickly, signed,  and put into the rear view mirror so impeachment kabuki can dominate the news cycle.

This is shirking the job he was elected to do, solely for political purposes.

Click to expand...

Umm no, but I understand your perspective.

JR

JohnRoberts said:

The senate's role is not to perform a "proper" trial but serve as a jury to decide the articles of impeachment proffered by the house (ASSuming the speaker ever releases them, perhaps it wasn't as urgent as she argued). 

Be careful what you wish for, if the senate opened up investigations calling new witnesses, we may get some embarrassing testimony from witnesses ignored by the house.

JR

Click to expand...

This is only half-true when the Senate Judiciary Committee writes and can change trial rules any time they feel necessary for impeachment trials  and the Chief Justice only has to make sure those rules are followed. Yet again, this is where the uproar should be.

The Chief Justice’s other job is to make sure the line of questioning toward any witness reasonably pertains to the charges of the person actually on trail... If there actually ends up being a “proper” trail... Any new charges toward anyone as a result of what comes out during this trail, I’m all for. Therefore, I’m not at all concerned with what I wish for.

Recording Engineer said:

This is only half-true when the Senate Judiciary Committee writes and can change trial rules any time they feel necessary for impeachment trials  and the Chief Justice only has to make sure those rules are followed. Yet again, this is where the uproar should be.

The Chief Justice’s other job is to make sure the line of questioning toward any witness reasonably pertains to the charges of the person actually on trail... If there actually ends up being a “proper” trail... Any new charges toward anyone as a result of what comes out during this trail, I’m all for. Therefore, I’m not at all concerned with what I wish for.

Click to expand...

I think you mean trial...

I thought Pelosi was still holding the articles back, I heard somewhere that the senate had enough votes to start the impeachment trial without the articles. Whatever, same outcome... maybe without new sound bites, for campaign ads.

FWIW the 2020 election is now only months away...  I plan to vote in that.

JR 

What would they vote on if no evidence is  presented to the jury? It’d be interesting to hear what Chief Justice Roberts would have to say about that if they actually do try to pull that one.

...To think that the talk of starting a trail without the articles is not any less of a political-strategy than holding the articles...

Vote all you want in the next election. That doesn’t change anything going on here to me. Without follow-through, we have anarchy; or worse, eventually, we really will have that deep-state. Oh the irony.

I find all of this very unusual, but then again nothing about this  impeachment from the get go has been usual.

Pelosi was quoted with saying they can impeach again, I assume that is the case I don't know for sure. I do know that unless the senate gets their homework from the house, there is no impeachment.  even the lawyer who helped the house draft the articles of impeachment said so.
At this point the only real norm is for both sides to get their moment of a sound bit and then move on to the next one.  IN the end will it really be that effective for an election cycle? there are diehards on both sides so who knows.

Recording Engineer said:

What would they vote on if no evidence is  presented to the jury? It’d be interesting to hear what Chief Justice Roberts would have to say about that if they actually do try to pull that one.

Click to expand...

I do not expect that to happen. Sounds like a public negotiation. The House has been collecting "evidence" for years, and will be given the opportunity to present their case, if and when Nancy Pelosi gets back on the page.

...To think that the talk of starting a trail without the articles is not any less of a political-strategy than holding the articles...

Click to expand...

This is 100% political...  are you typing "trail" on purpose?

Why impeach a President months before an election? The logical answer is that the House does not trust the public to share their disdain for him.

Vote all you want in the next election. That doesn’t change anything going on here to me. Without follow-through, we have anarchy; or worse, eventually, we really will have that deep-state. Oh the irony.

Click to expand...

Opinions vary....

JR

I missed it/ was confused the first time you pointed it out. Caught it this time you pointed it out. No, not doing that on purpose.

I’ve laid out my reasoning as to why impeach a president before an election. It’s not for political-party agendas. It’s for the American process.