How many votes does Pelosi need to impeach President Trump?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democratic caucus members in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday that the body will vote on sending the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate on Wednesday.
So if they don’t get enough votes to send the articles to the Senate, then what? Is this yet more mendacity? Another stalling tactic? An attempted un-impeachment? (We can only hope.)
From that same story:
Pelosi also said that the House would take up a resolution to appoint impeachment managers who would present the House’s case against the president during a Senate trial, Rep. Carolyn Maloney confirmed to the Post. …
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, speaking to reporters after the caucus meeting, said impeachment managers who will present the House’s case against Trump in the Senate will be named “between this moment we are in now and the articles being debated on the floor.”
They’re going to debate the articles again?
Pelosi has said that Trump has already been impeached and will forever have that mark against his name.
So what’s left to debate about the articles?
Does she believe that if the resolution to send the articles fails, then the President remains impeached even if there’s never a Senate trial?
When the articles finally, if ever, get to the Senate, then more games begin and more mendacity will become evident. Count on it.
Delaying the articles of impeachment sets up a situation where individual witnesses could be called by the vote of a simple majority. That puts pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to keep defections below four as names get teed up by Democrats.
Shall we name the potentially mendacious ones? Senators Collins, Romney, Murkowski.
If Chief Justice Roberts is the tie-breaker, can he be counted upon, all things considered? (Roberts appointed Judge Boasberg (the first Democrat) to replace Judge Collyer, and the rest is Deep State history.)
If, by simple majority, witnesses can be called, then by the same simple majority, witnesses can be rejected. Right?
In other words, if Trump wants to call Biden or Schiff or the so-called whistleblower, count on the selfsame mendacious ones to block that and also to be joined by other mendacious ones who would prefer to protect their former (and even current) colleagues.
On the other hand, the mendacious ones will surely wish to hear from witnesses, such as John Bolton, whom the Democrats want to call.
The House could have subpoenaed Bolton during their inquiry, but deliberately chose not to, so their steamroller wouldn’t be stalled by litigation when President Trump claimed executive privilege. Their mendacious route avoided giving the President his day in court on that issue, too.
Mind you, Romney has already said he wants to hear from Bolton (certainly a prime candidate for a mendacity label himself).
How many of these Republicans have said they want to hear from Schiff, Biden, or the so-called whistleblower? Crickets …
The President was denied due process in the House and was possibly duped by deliberately poor advice into not contesting that unfair process while it was happening. (My personal suspicion and fear.)
A “fair” trial in the Senate should follow what a fair trial for any other defendant would look like:
- the defense gets to call any witness he wants;
- cross-examine each one fully under oath and penalty of perjury; and
- obtain discovery from any source that he or his lawyers believe will shed light upon his innocence.
Do you have any faith that’s what will happen?
Pray for our President, his family, and our country.
Buckle your seat belts; it will be a bumpy ride because of a strong probability of