Quote from: nutildah on December 21, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2019, 03:42:20 PM

At the absolute best for your position, this is a stalemate

It's not. My Harvard professor is of a more senior ranking than yours, and level of authority is what you are going by, so I win.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2019, 03:42:20 PM

Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/legislative

Until the articles of impeachment are transmitted to The Senate, the act of impeachment is not complete as it is their responsibility to do so to meet the constitutional standards of impeachment.

That quoted section infers none of your personal conclusion. How can a senate try an impeachment if it didn't happen? We're not talking about a conviction by the senate -- that's not even part of what is being debated.

C'mon, try harder. Its not like I'm asking you to produce documents that aren't available to the public.

That is a nice appeal to authority you have there. It would be a shame if some one were to point out it was a logical fallacy. My quoted section infers just as much of my personal conclusion as your quoted section does to yours, but of course you REALLY want to be right so, reality bends to your will.

How can The Senate try an impeachment that didn't happen? Exactly my point. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either it did happen and The Senate must be allowed to move it to trial, or it didn't happen and the articles haven't yet been transmitted to The Senate. Good job proving yourself wrong there Nutilduuuhhhh.

Just for fun, have some precedent:

"(b) The language and structure of Art. I, 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose - that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and [506 U.S. 224, 225] that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried - the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.html