Pelosi won't rule out new impeachment to delay SCOTUS vote if Biden wins

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Would McConnell just immediately call an impeachment vote and that would be the end of it?

The point is that there will be a constant stream of impeachment resolutions that will clutter senate's schedule.

That's absolutely hilarious. Could SCOTUS intervene?

[7,052,770]

Obviously there are a lot of valid reasons to impeach Trump, but this seems like something that would play horribly to the public.

On the other hand, are there any Republican senators who would vote to convict in the lame duck period? Collins after a loss in November?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Obviously there are a lot of valid reasons to impeach Trump, but this seems like something that would play horribly to the public.

On the other hand, are there any Republican senators who would vote to convict in the lame duck period? Collins after a loss in November?

Why is everyone talking about Trump? He is not the only member of his administration. There is plenty of material to impeach Barr or DeJoy without causing any backlash.

[dotard]

DeJoy would be a good person to impeach too. Wilbur Ross also lied to Congress. Kristjen Nielsen also lied to Congress. There's not a clear consensus on impeaching people who aren't active gov employees anymore but it's worth a shot imo.

[Badger]

How does this actually stop a senate vote whatever nominee Trump brings to the table? It's not like the Senate can't do two things at once, right? What am I missing here?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

This seems like a good idea for me. They could always do separate impeachments. Impeach for corruption, emoluments, COVID, etc for Trump. Impeach Barr. Impeach Kavanaugh for perjury, etc. Just keep on jamming them through.

LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP!

[Landslide Lyndon]

How does this actually stop a senate vote whatever nominee Trump brings to the table? It's not like the Senate can't do two things at once, right? What am I missing here?

I explained it in my first post. According to the rules, if the House sends impeachment resolutions to the Senate then the latter must drop all other business and start a trial. So theoretically if the House constantly sends these resolutions, there will be no time left for the Senate to consider Trump's nominee.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

How does this actually stop a senate vote whatever nominee Trump brings to the table? It's not like the Senate can't do two things at once, right? What am I missing here?

I explained it in my first post. According to the rules, if the House sends impeachment resolutions to the Senate then the latter must drop all other business and start a trial. So theoretically if the House constantly sends these resolutions, there will be no time left for the Senate to consider Trump's nominee.

Couldn't Cocaine Mitch just immediately cancel the trial and hold the vote immediately, or hold a one hour trial?

[emailking]

Isn't it just the Senate rules that an impeachment must be taken up right away? That can be changed with a majority vote. Is there a law that says they must be processed immediately?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Isn't it just the Senate rules that an impeachment must be taken up right away? That can be changed with a majority vote. Is there a law that says they must be processed immediately?

It can be done, but that doesn't mean that Democrats should just sit on their hands and do nothing.

[Mr. Illini]

Nothing should be taken off the table. Republicans have no right to appoint a new justice after the precedent they set in 2016. We’re talking about the orientation of the court for a generation.

If you excuse it as scorched earth politics, then Democrats have every right to go scorched earth as well.

Republicans should get used to getting it once in awhile. They’ve been giving it for decades.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

No one cares about impeachment and no one cares about her Unions wanting to rid the Dems of Citizens United. Democratic lawmakers wasm fair in nominating Biden or reelecting Markey and she talks about dark money, whom is she kidding.

Citizens United is here to stay and a 6/3 CRT probably is here o stay too

Impeachment had the lowest viewer ship and it ended like Iran contra, in a whimper. With no indictment of Don Jr, whom should of been indicted

[Badger]

How does this actually stop a senate vote whatever nominee Trump brings to the table? It's not like the Senate can't do two things at once, right? What am I missing here?

I explained it in my first post. According to the rules, if the House sends impeachment resolutions to the Senate then the latter must drop all other business and start a trial. So theoretically if the House constantly sends these resolutions, there will be no time left for the Senate to consider Trump's nominee.

Couldn't Cocaine Mitch just immediately cancel the trial and hold the vote immediately, or hold a one hour trial?

Plus, are those rules embedded in the Constitution? Otherwise was to stop McConnell and his caucus of thugs from Simply changing the rules by a majoritarian vote?

[lfromnj]

Wouldn't  Pelosi have to basically hold a 2-3 day impeachment or whatever to get it to the senate in time?So effectively speaking Coccaine Mitch will just hold a 1 hour trial.

[Dereich]

Nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to immediately take up the House's articles of impeachment. I'd assume McConnell would pull a Merrick Garland and refuse to schedule a trial saying that the voters should decide.

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

Do it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What if in the lame duck period the senate decides to quickly convict Trump and then let Pence be president during the lame duck period so their won’t be anymore impeachment sent

[OBD]

What if in the lame duck period the senate decides to quickly convict Trump and then let Pence be president during the lame duck period so their won’t be anymore impeachment sent

I mean, Barr and perhaps other cabinet officials are still in the line of fire.

That said, I entirely support this. Give the b*stards a taste of their own medicine.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Lol she won’t do it. Any of their standard Dem hissy fits will screw them over measurable in November.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Don’t be dumb. Presidents aren’t supposed to tell the public everything.

“We have to pass the ACA to see what’s in it” isn’t exactly transparency from Pelosi.

Do you think GWB to us everything so out AlQaeda? Actually, when he did pass on terror warnings, people complained all he was doing was fear mongering.

You can’t have it both ways. Sorry.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1308033225932058625

[TDAS04]

Interesting idea.  I’d support it after and if Biden wins.  Before would be too politically risky.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Obviously there are a lot of valid reasons to impeach Trump, but this seems like something that would play horribly to the public.

It seems that way, cable news hosts and reactionary lobbyists insist it will be so, polls say voters "disapprove" (in the Susan Collins sense of the term) and Democrats back down, guided by leaders obsessed with running away from their electorate's ambitions.

Manoeuvres like these rarely have much oelectoral impact for Republicans and there's a strong case that it wouldn't have much of one for Democrats, either - their obstructionism during the Trump presidency hasn't really hurt them, for the most part.

Is "muh disapproval" really a higher price to pay than a Supreme Court seat or some judiciary-dismantling court packing solution?

[TDAS04]

Obviously there are a lot of valid reasons to impeach Trump, but this seems like something that would play horribly to the public.

On the other hand, are there any Republican senators who would vote to convict in the lame duck period? Collins after a loss in November?

A defeated Collins wouldn’t.  She’d want to stick it to the lefties who had just voted her out of office.

[lfromnj]

Obviously there are a lot of valid reasons to impeach Trump, but this seems like something that would play horribly to the public.

It seems that way, cable news hosts and reactionary lobbyists insist it will be so, polls say voters "disapprove" (in the Susan Collins sense of the term) and Democrats back down, guided by leaders obsessed with running away from their electorate's ambitions.

Manoeuvres like these rarely have much oelectoral impact for Republicans and there's a strong case that it wouldn't have much of one for Democrats, either - their obstructionism during the Trump presidency hasn't really hurt them, for the most part.

Is "muh disapproval" really a higher price to pay than a Supreme Court seat or some judiciary-dismantling court packing solution?

Yeah I don't think this is likely to have much impact, people will it as political and Mitch will just give a 1 hour vote in return and no hearing. However Pelosi did smartly say threatening the CR was off the table as that would actually hurt Democrats.