It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.
Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.
That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."
The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach. There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.
That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.
In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.
That is why...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClotureI'm not saying there aren't guidelines. There are. Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them.
If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate. Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote. Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the
sole power of impeachment.
It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first.
There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation.
All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment.
And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE.
It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-caseYeah, Mitch is definitely capable of doing that. That's basically what he did with Merrick Garland.
I doubt he would though, unless he thought Trump could actually be convicted, which is very unlikely. Having the trial and not convicting him seems like the best result for the GOP. At least in the short term politically.
I hadn't read about this ruling before:
The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a trial, and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senates sole power to try means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.
I would think it probably affirms that since the House has "sole power" to "impeach" it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Although with impeachment there is no required proceeding like there is in a Senate trial. They just need to have one vote. So maybe it's not the same. Who knows.
Actually I think the Senate should decline to hear the case, if it is frivolous and due process has been flagrantly violated, and if the Dems keep acting like spoiled brats. But that's just me, others may feel differently.