Happy Impeachment Day, America! Trump's Nightmare Becomes Reality.

[PoliTalker]

None of the Republicans honored their oath of office.

As far as Republicans are concerned it is perfectly OK for any President to bribe a foreign official to try to rig a US election.

It is perfectly OK to compromise American security interests and to weaken the position of our allies in NATO in return for personal political favors.

One thing stands clear. And let there be no mistake, everybody knows it:

If Obama had done this every single one of those Republicans would vote to impeach him.

They are that shallow.

 

[PoliTalker]

OK, word association time.

What's the first word that comes to your mind when you hear the following:

"Trump"

 

[Micawber]

OK, word association time.

What's the first word that comes to your mind when you hear the following:

"Trump"

Asshole

 

[Micawber]

If Obama had done this every single one of those Republicans would vote to impeach him.

This is among about 3 questions you never get an answer to.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Micawber,

This is among about 3 questions you never get an answer to.

You got that right.

That is a guaranteed subject-changer.

NONE of them wanna go there.

Forbidden territory. Will not comment on that. No way!

Way too close to the truth.

Q: Hey, how do you make somebody who is lying to themselves really super-frustrated?

A: You speak the unspeakable truth they won't admit.

 

[Micawber]

Hello Micawber,



You got that right.

That is a guaranteed subject-changer.

NONE of them wanna go there.

Forbidden territory. Will not comment on that. No way!

Way too close to the truth.

Q: Hey, how do you make somebody who is lying to themselves really super-frustrated?

A: You speak the unspeakable truth they won't admit.

A serious detour but reminds me of a musicians joke.

Wanna make a guitarist quiet? Put some sheet music in front of him/her.

And still no answer....

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

It has nothing to do with Mullet lol.

Democrats *allege* that Trump linked the aid to Ukraine with an investigation of the Biden’s.

That’s fact one:

Fact two: the DNC and Hillary campaign paid an ex British spy to get campaign dirt from the Russians. That seems kind of the same thing to tens of millions of voters. Furthermore, this bought/paid for campaign dirt from foreigners [ultimately Russians] somehow managed to find its way into a FISA application.

Note the crime in this instance has an actual victim in Carter Page. Page has a slam dunk civil rights case and a multi-million dollar settlement any time he wants it. I don’t know what he’s waiting on. I’d be all over that.

That seems many, many, times worse than what Trump is *alleged* to have done. Again, tens of millions of voters see it exactly that way.

Where are they wrong? Or are they?

I do not see what any of that has to do with the impeachment unless you are claiming that a) what Hillary did was wrong, b) two wrongs make a right, so c) that somehow exonerates Trump and makes what he did now 'OK.'

You have failed to show proof of your claim, and even if you had, you have failed to establish how two wrongs make a right. None of what you say changes what Trump did or the fact that is was wrong.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Micawber,

A serious detour but reminds me of a musicians joke.

Wanna make a guitarist quiet? Put some sheet music in front of him/her.

And still no answer....

That's good. The other one is:

What do you call a guitarist with no girlfriend?

-Homeless.

 

[Earl]

Warning lights are flashing for Democrats as they impeach Trump

“(CNN)The House has voted to impeach President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- both tied to his actions around a July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.

But there's growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings may actually be helping Trump politically.


In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!
Take a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, before the House vote, which shows two things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up a formal impeachment inquiry in October regarding Trump's conduct with Zelensky:
1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.
Those results largely affirm other data out over the past week or so that suggest support for impeachment has dipped. In a CNN national poll released earlier this week, 45% said they supported the impeachment and removal of the President -- down from 50% who said the same in a mid-November CNN survey. That same poll showed opposition to impeachment/removal at 46%, up 4 points from mid-November. And a CNN "poll of polls" -- an average of all six most recent quality/credible national polling conducted between December 4 and December 15 -- showed 46% favored impeachment and removal as compared to 49% who did not.“
cnn.com

 

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



I do not see what any of that has to do with the impeachment unless you are claiming that a) what Hillary did was wrong, b) two wrongs make a right, so c) that somehow exonerates Trump and makes what he did now 'OK.'

You have failed to show proof of your claim, and even if you had, you have failed to establish how two wrongs make a right. None of what you say changes what Trump did or the fact that is was wrong.

Democrats just impeached a president without *proof*. Your opinion doesn’t reign as ‘proof’. The only way the allegations can be converted to a crime is if the defendant is able to exercise the right of due process. House Democrats were stomping on due process even as they were wrapping themselves in the Constitution.

And it made for a sorry sight.

Do you realize what all that means? Democrats lowered the bar on impeachment. Trivialized it, actually. As a result, future impeachments will be easier. All because Democrats wanted to lay a glove on Trump.

Yesterday was a low point in our republic.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

Democrats just impeached a president without *proof*.

Proof is not required. All that is required is that convincing evidence is shown which warrants a Senate trial. There was plenty of evidence, including Trump himself stating that he wanted this investigation from Ukraine. And another one from China!

Your opinion doesn’t reign as ‘proof’.

Proof is not required.

The only way the allegations can be converted to a crime is if the defendant is able to exercise the right of due process.

There has not even been a trial yet. Trump was not a defendant last night. Impeachment is not a criminal trial and cannot be compared to one. This part of the process is like the indictment. House members were voting to indict based on the evidence. The President is still considered innocent in the eyes of the law. He is not convicted of any crime. That is not required for an impeachment. He is named in the high crime of violating his oath of office by abusing the power of his office. The trial will go to the Senate just as soon as it can be assured that a fair trial will be conducted. McConnell now needs to recuse himself as he has already indicated that he is not an unbiased juror.

House Democrats were stomping on due process even as they were wrapping themselves in the Constitution.

Please name the specific law, House rule, or part of the Constitution they failed to follow. I have zero doubt that if there was something there the WH would loudly name it. The idea that 'due process' was not followed is a non-descriptive sound byte that plays well on twitter, but has no legal basis.

Do you realize what all that means? Democrats lowered the bar on impeachment. Trivialized it, actually. As a result, future impeachments will be easier. All because Democrats wanted to lay a glove on Trump.

It is Republicans whom have weakened our Constitution by raising the Presidency above the law. Every Republican who voted nay broke their sworn oath of allegiance to the Constitution when they placed their party power above the Constitution.

Yesterday was a low point in our republic.

On that, we completely agree.

 

[In the Night]

America stumbled when we elected President Trump.

An election isn't a 'stumble'. Trump has done a fine job in office.

He only got into office through a fluke of circumstances.

No, it was because he was elected.

Democrats fielded a candidate with too much baggage,

You idiots picked her!

and Putin meddled to tip the scales.

He can't.

That was the only way a completely inappropriate candidate like Trump could get elected.

There is no such thing as an 'inappropriate candidate'.

Trump didn't know what he was doing.

Trump has accomplished practically everything he set out in his campaign. You just can't stand that, can you?

He didn't originally expect to win.

Yes he did.

He only ran for the free publicity to sell his highly lucrative brand name.

No. He ran to win.

He had a lot of debts to service.

He is servicing them. That's normal for a real estate developer.

He owes Russian oligarchs tons of money,

He doesn't owe Russia anything.

and he probably pays impossible interest rates.

They're obviously possible, since he is paying the loans.

They've got their hooks into him big time.

Who is 'they'?

Comey didn't have to make an announcement of an investigation into Hillary one week prior to election day. The polls indicated she had a slight but diminishing advantage going into election day.

No. Comey committed perjury. That's why he was fired.

Election day 2016 is history and we have all had to accept the results.

You are not accepting the results.

Trump always wants more.

Why not? There is still a lot of Democrat mess to clean up.

He was not satisfied with the tremendous power of being President of the USA.

Guess he is, since he is running for re-election.

He had to have more. He seized powers not granted to the President,

...such as?

and he has abused his power to prevent Constitutional oversight of the Executive Branch,

Not possible. How would one prevent the Constitution?

thus attacking the balance of powers set up by the Constitution.

He has done no such thing.

That was wrong and now he has to pay the price.

What was wrong?

A President is not allowed to use his office to meddle in elections.

He can't. Not physically possible.

A President is not allowed to solicit election meddling from foreign powers.

He didn't. Not physically possible.

And the President DOES answer to the House. The Constitution says so.

Where? Please specify exactly where it says this.

Now it is time for the House of Representatives of WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States of America to vote to impeach President Trump.

They did.

He deserves it!

Why? What crime?

And if the Senate honors their oaths of office, President Trump will be removed from office.
If the Senate does not honor their oaths of office, President Trump will remain in power.

No member of the Senate took any such oath to remove the President from power.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

They are doing just exactly that.

What do you think that phrase means where the Senators swear they will bear allegiance to the Constitution "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion?"

Just exactly what it means. Do you need someone to translate? Is English not your first language?

I'll tell you what it means. It means they won't be partisan.

No, it doesn't.

If they have to choose between Trump and the Constitution, they swore to choose the Constitution.

They do not have to make any such choice. False dichotomy fallacy.

Trump demands absolute loyalty to himself.

If Trump is not loyal to himself, who is?

That is why he fired Comey, because Comey refused Trump's power-grab and instead honored his oath of office to be loyal to the Constitution over Trump.

No. Comey committed perjury. He also never took such an oath. Trump can fire him for any reason whatsoever.

Republican Senators will now face the same decision. Trump or their job. How noble do you think they are?

There is no title of nobility in the United States.

People don't hold Congress or US Senators in very high regard.

What else is new? You're now just discovering this?? Where have YOU been the past 100 years?

What do you think their choice will be?

Speculation is useless.

Is it OK for US Senators to trash the Constitution they swore allegiance to without partisanship or 'purpose of evasion?'

They are not trashing the Constitution. The Democrats in the House sure did though.

Will Republican Senators even RISK their jobs by doing the right thing?

YOU don't get to vote for any Senator except the ones from your State (if they are even up for election).

The only reason Trump is being impeached is because Republicans lost the House.

A fair way to put it. Unfortunately, being a politician that is not a Democrat is not an impeachable offense (until now, apparently).

If Republicans had the majority they would surely violate their oaths of office and instead choose loyalty to Trump.

There is no such oath to be disloyal to the President.

But in 2018: We, The People, voted more Democrats into the House than Republicans. And they are thankfully doing their duty to the Constitution.

By violating it???

Today is history in the making.

It sure is! It is the first time in history a President was impeached for winning an election.

History will not look back kindly on today's disloyal Republicans.

uh...that would be the Democrats.

Our country is on the chopping block.

Nah. Just the Democrats.

Republicans are holding a knife to the throat of our Constitution, and they are drunk with power.

That would be the Democrats again. You seem confused.

 

[In the Night]

OK, word association time.

What's the first word that comes to your mind when you hear the following:

"Trump"

'America'

 

[In the Night]

If a president finds there is possible foreign corruption by a citizen who is running for president, isn't it his responsibility to ask the foreign government to investigate?

Absolutely.

 

[In the Night]

Today is D-Day for Trump: Democrat Day!

Democrats are firing on all cylinders today.

I can't imagine a better Christmas present for Trump. The Democrats have been stupid enough to expose themselves to cross examination by the Republicans under oath! The Democrats have accomplished NOTHING while Trump has accomplished pretty much everything he promised in his campaign.

Democrats put sugar in their own engine!

 

[Earl]

An election isn't a 'stumble'. Trump has done a fine job in office.

No, it was because he was elected.

You idiots picked her!

He can't.

There is no such thing as an 'inappropriate candidate'.

Trump has accomplished practically everything he set out in his campaign. You just can't stand that, can you?

Yes he did.

No. He ran to win.

He is servicing them. That's normal for a real estate developer.

He doesn't owe Russia anything.

They're obviously possible, since he is paying the loans.

Who is 'they'?

No. Comey committed perjury. That's why he was fired.

You are not accepting the results.

Why not? There is still a lot of Democrat mess to clean up.

Guess he is, since he is running for re-election.

...such as?

Not possible. How would one prevent the Constitution?

He has done no such thing.

What was wrong?

He can't. Not physically possible.

He didn't. Not physically possible.

Where? Please specify exactly where it says this.

They did.

Why? What crime?

No member of the Senate took any such oath to remove the President from power.

They are doing just exactly that.

Just exactly what it means. Do you need someone to translate? Is English not your first language?

No, it doesn't.

They do not have to make any such choice. False dichotomy fallacy.

If Trump is not loyal to himself, who is?

No. Comey committed perjury. He also never took such an oath. Trump can fire him for any reason whatsoever.

There is no title of nobility in the United States.

What else is new? You're now just discovering this?? Where have YOU been the past 100 years?

Speculation is useless.

They are not trashing the Constitution. The Democrats in the House sure did though.

YOU don't get to vote for any Senator except the ones from your State (if they are even up for election).

A fair way to put it. Unfortunately, being a politician that is not a Democrat is not an impeachable offense (until now, apparently).

There is no such oath to be disloyal to the President.

By violating it???

It sure is! It is the first time in history a President was impeached for winning an election.

uh...that would be the Democrats.

Nah. Just the Democrats.

That would be the Democrats again. You seem confused.

Great post.

Best of the day.

 

[PoliTalker]

I really enjoyed that Impeachment.

That was awesome.

Democrats were on their best behavior, cool, calm, collected. Focused on the task at hand, dealing with the facts. Getting to the bottom of the story. Following the Constitution and the law all the way.

Republicans were a sight to see. All the feigned indignation. Oh, they were so mad, hurt, acting as if something horrible had been done to a completely innocent person, just out of the blue for no reason. Like a grizzly bear was attacking a baby and they had to save it. Really great acting job. Special acknowledgement goes to Jordan, Gaetz and Collins. Wow. What an act. They must be really effective lawyers. They can sure get on their high horse and make up a lot of nothing and really sell it like they think they are saving the world. And all of it made up. Republicans telling you what Democrats think. Hello. Alarm bells there.

High marks go to pretending the reason the Democrats are 'so mean' to do 'this terrible thing' is that they 'simply hate the Republicans' for creating such success with the economy by running the nation on credit and not collecting enough taxes to pay for the government.

It's funny how time and time again as they were trying to explain that Trump is innocent, they came back to mentioning the economy. That was like a dead give-away for the real reason they refuse to acknowledge such overwhelming evidence. The economy.

McCarthy even came out and said so at the end. 'If you are pleased with the economy you should vote nay on both articles.'

He wasn't even tricky about it.

Republicans are willing to accept Trump as he is, with all his baggage, as long as we get low taxes and a fake economy running on borrowed time. How long do they suppose it is possible to run such high deficits? Are they in it for the long run, or the here and now, grab and run?

What pathetic nonsense. What foolishness. What irresponsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves. How cheap. How shallow. Terrible budget management. Insufficient revenue. Irresponsible tax cut. What sell-outs to big money they are. And sell-outs for this terrible President. Willing to violate their oaths of office for him. Pathetic. I am ashamed to see it. They disgrace our government.

Yup. The impeachment was quite a show.

And the message came through loud and clear for me what each side is up to.

 

[Stretch]

I really enjoyed that Impeachment.

That was awesome.

Democrats were on their best behavior, cool, calm, collected. Focused on the task at hand, dealing with the facts. Getting to the bottom of the story. Following the Constitution and the law all the way.

Republicans were a sight to see. All the feigned indignation. Oh, they were so mad, hurt, acting as if something horrible had been done to a completely innocent person, just out of the blue for no reason. Like a grizzly bear was attacking a baby and they had to save it. Really great acting job. Special acknowledgement goes to Jordan, Gaetz and Collins. Wow. What an act. They must be really effective lawyers. They can sure get on their high horse and make up a lot of nothing and really sell it like they think they are saving the world. And all of it made up. Republicans telling you what Democrats think. Hello. Alarm bells there.

High marks go to pretending the reason the Democrats are 'so mean' to do 'this terrible thing' is that they 'simply hate the Republicans' for creating such success with the economy by running the nation on credit and not collecting enough taxes to pay for the government.

It's funny how time and time again as they were trying to explain that Trump is innocent, they came back to mentioning the economy. That was like a dead give-away for the real reason they refuse to acknowledge such overwhelming evidence. The economy.

McCarthy even came out and said so at the end. 'If you are pleased with the economy you should vote nay on both articles.'

He wasn't even tricky about it.

Republicans are willing to accept Trump as he is, with all his baggage, as long as we get low taxes and a fake economy running on borrowed time. How long do they suppose it is possible to run such high deficits? Are they in it for the long run, or the here and now, grab and run?

What pathetic nonsense. What foolishness. What irresponsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves. How cheap. How shallow. Terrible budget management. Insufficient revenue. Irresponsible tax cut. What sell-outs to big money they are. And sell-outs for this terrible President. Willing to violate their oaths of office for him. Pathetic. I am ashamed to see it. They disgrace our government.

Yup. The impeachment was quite a show.

And the message came through loud and clear for me what each side is up to.

They didn't transfer the articles to the Senate yet.

 

[Stretch]

From their team's own lawyer, Noah Feldman...

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.
By Noah Feldman
December 19, 2019, 4:35 PM EST

Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?

The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.

But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.

That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.

Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution’s clear expectation.

For the House to vote “to impeach” without ever sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial would also deviate from the constitutional protocol. It would mean that the president had not genuinely been impeached under the Constitution; and it would also deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.

The relevant constitutional provisions are brief. Article I gives the House “the sole power of impeachment.” And it gives the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article II says that the president “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Putting these three different provisions together yields the conclusion that the only way to remove the president while he is in office is if the House impeaches him and the Senate tries and convicts him.

The provisions say nothing about timing. Taken literally, they don’t directly say that articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate. But the framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote.

The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole point of impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought against the accused in the House of Lords.

Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means.

If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.

A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.

To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.

But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

 

[Stretch]

If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen?
By Andrew C. McCarthy

December 19, 2019 5:44 PM

It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long.

I’ll confess: Last night, when I was first told that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was toying with the idea of not delivering the two articles of impeachment voted by the House against President Trump, I assumed it was a joke.

For these last weeks, the Democrat-dominated chamber has been in a mad rush to impeach the president. Democrats even tacked on article two — “obstruction of Congress” — because, they told us, time could not be wasted engaging in the usual negotiation and litigation over legislative demands for executive branch information. Trump is a clear and present threat to “continue” undermining our elections, we were admonished. That’s why he needs to be impeached right now. That’s why the political class cannot responsibly leave his fate up to the sovereign, the People, who will vote in November.

But now that the deed is done, it’s . . . hey, not so fast.

Pelosi and Democratic leadership have convinced themselves there may be advantage in delaying the formal, ministerial delivery of the impeachment articles — as if Mitch McConnell were in as much a hurry to receive them as Democrats were to conjure them up. The thought is that this latest strategic petulance might pressure Senator McConnell into promising a full-blown trial, including summoning as witnesses top aides of the president whom the House didn’t bother to summon because tangling over privilege issues would have slowed up the works.

So it’s not a joke, but I still have to laugh. When I was a prosecutor negotiating plea deals, I always found the most pathetic defense lawyers were the ones who acted like they were playing with the House money when, in stark reality, it was they who needed something from me. Now here’s Pelosi trying to play hard to get with McConnell who, I imagine, couldn’t care less how long Democrats want to dither.

What we’ve just seen is the most partisan impeachment in American history, every step of it politically calculated. Obviously, if Democrats perceived advantage in stretching the process out, it would still be going on. There would be more witnesses; more 300- or 600-page committee reports to try to add heft and gravity to vague allegations of inchoate misconduct; more speeches about Trump as a threat to democracy and life as we know it; etc., etc.

To the contrary, Pelosi & Co. want this train wreck in the rearview mirror ASAP. The public is indifferent and polls are edging in Trump’s favor. On our local news this morning, the third impeachment of a president of the United States in American history couldn’t crack the top stories — it came in behind cold weather (in December) and the rescue of an elderly man in a gym by a couple of off-duty cops.

No one, of course, has to explain this to McConnell. In public, at least, he’s not a laughing-his-head-off kinda guy, but if he were, he would be.

It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long. In the Senate this morning, the Democrats’ minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, renewed his demands about trial procedures, discovery, and witness testimony. There was no discernible hint of doubt that the House would soon deliver its impeachment articles, such as they are.

But since we’ll be playing trivial pursuit for a more few hours (days?), we might as well ask: As long as the House withholds the impeachment articles from the Senate, has Trump been impeached?

In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.

So it’s all well and good for the Speaker to hold up the works that Democrats, five minutes ago, were breathlessly telling us had to be carried out with all due haste. But many scholars take the position that the Constitution requires a trial if there has been an impeachment. If such a trial cannot properly occur unless and until articles of impeachment have been transferred from the House to the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi won’t transfer them, has President Trump actually been impeached?

Sure, it’s a stupid question . . . but we’re living in stupid times.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...les-are-not-delivered-did-impeachment-happen/