DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Can Nancy Pelosi be held in contempt of the Senate?

Can Nancy Pelosi be held in contempt of the Senate, if she continues to not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, for a vote, as the constitution specifies?

Just an honest question!
---

Furthur discuss Pelosi here.

Does the Constitution have a time limit for sending them? I honestly don't know.

I normally wouldn't be in support of holding them, but when the Republicans openly admit they don't intend to do an honest trial, then I have no issue holding them up. That, and McConnel held on to the Supreme Court nominees for 8+ months to get the results he wanted, so it's only fair.

The Senate Republicans don't have to hold a trial, the trial is only held in the "House" and is already complete.

The Senate's role is to act as the Jury, in trials we are all familiar with, and pronounce a verdict on the trial, already held in the House.

If there was a dishonest trial, House democrats have only the House, and House leadership, (democrats),(i.e. "themselves!") to blame.

I am not sure if it would be considered the same, but all people deserve timely due process IMO. If there is a solid case, deliver the articles.

The trial already happened. Its the senates job to rule on it.

And if that's the case, and there is actual hard evidence, the R are only hurting themselves. But the fact they refuse to submit it, hurts the Dems. See my above comment for why.

if the dems have sufficient evidence, and the reps don't even look at it, its on them and they will have to live with that vote when election time comes. But it seems the dems are afraid for the info to get there and get out.

Your deflector shields are strong today.

This literally has 0 to do with the impeachment.

According to McConnell impeachment is a political process and not a judicial process.



According to him he has to take an oath to be impartial but doesn't have to honor that oath.

No. She has no defined timeframe in which she must send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Wrong. The trial is held in the Senate and the Senators are jurors. The house acts like a grand jury handing down the indictment during an impeachment process. Their job is to investigate, gather evidence, and reach a determination of rather or not an impeachable offense or act was commited. The Senate then holds a trial allowing the prosecution (House managers) and defense (team Trump) to make a case. Then they decide rather or not removal is needed.

It's crazy how wrong you are here. Like OldCold said, the House is like the Grand Jury, deciding if there is enough evidence or reason to impeach. Once that has been decided and they have decided to impeach (go to trial) the Senate holds the trial. How can the Senate reach a verdict if they haven't decided yet if he is guilty.

In case you aren't aware, a jury is involved in the trial and decides innocence or guilt based off of the evidence presented to them.

It isn't directly related, but when the Republicans just sit on something until it is more advantageous for them, that sets a precedence for the Democrats to do the same. Both parties are guilty of it and it's insane.

should have stopped there.

The rest still has 0 to do with the impeachment.

You mean withholding articles of impeachment and the legality of holding articles of impeachment has nothing to do with impeachment?

Nancy can send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, or not.

The Senate may end up dismissing the case if she doesn't send them over due to lack of prosecution.

Nancy can withhold the articles and retry the case.

Nancy can also take a flying leap as far as I am concerned.

Lol...boo hoo...a women in control.

That's called double jeopardy, I think that's not allowed.

If it doesn't go to trial (the Senate) it wouldn't be.

Double Jeopardy???

So now you want to drag the Law into this Farce?

BS politics doesn't have double jeopardy. It also doesn't allow the accused to have council sit in on the hearings to represent him. Then it bases its decisions on second and third hand innuendo. Next it calls in 3 Constitutional experts against the defendant and one for.

Nope, if'n Nancy wants to reopen or retry the case, she will just up and do it. All in defense of the Constitution.

This is now the second time he's been corrected about this. Pit was there for round one. I don't care enough about this to chase down his individual time stamps, but rest assured, he was corrected about this 3 or 4 hours ago.

Earlier, I even set him up with a link to a law site that explained the procedure.

Either he didn't follow it to read what was there, or he went, read... and chose to continue believing something that's simply not based in fact- something a basic High School Civics class would have covered.

pffft

Further efforts along this line would be time wasted. It is however, your time to spend as you see fit.

If this were a criminal trial, double jeopardy would be in play. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political process. Articles of impeachment can be filed at any time, multiple times, over any set of facts.

Civics class, Junior. Your lack of background should be sending you to a library, instead of back to your keyboard for more embarrassment.

The simple answer is that being held in contempt of the senate has no legal recourse.

It's just like ignoring a Congressional subpoena.

Frankly they should not call it a subpoena if you can ignore it and not have a police officer at your door requesting your presence in jail.

Agreed.
No legal ramifications, at all.

As things stand, they should refer to it as a sub-subpoena.


Toothless.

Whether by incompetence or by design, the end results are exactly the same.

good one.

Pfft...the trump era.

You mean like the 400+ pieces of legislation that the "do nothing Dems" have siting on McConnells desk that he refuses to bring up for debate and vote? Like that?

I don't know specifically if there is something in the constitution that requires the House to release the articles within a certain time limit.

I'm pretty sure that Nancy Pelosi would have done it already if there were.

There is no time limit and there is no limit to the number of articles that may be tendered. As the inquiry is ongoing, any number of new or continuing investigations can take place.

I'm a regular subscriber to a legal podcast, and they just dealt with this exact subject last week. This entire affair is fascinating, as it's only happened 2-3 other times. Hardly enough to set precedent, so much of this is still being worked out as they progress (or not progress, as the case may be).

The mistake here is that one would even consider that they are interested learning about civics or the facts.

And THROW LONG stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so that Trumps what you think you know.

I see you missed your civics classes too.

He sat in the back of the room and lobbed spitballs at all the kids who made honor roll.