House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Rules for Impeachment – 116th Congress

[livingston]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Rules for Impeachment – 116th Congress
Sometimes dates are just data-points. However, sometimes data-points help structure information timelines showing a connection between two seemingly disparate events. When this happens, dates start to tell a story.

The CIA operative “whistle-blower” letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and Senate Intel Chair Richard Burr, was on August 12th (link). Now here’s Speaker Pelosi’s modified House rules for impeachment [116th Congress]:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Rules for Impeachment – 116th Congress (Full pdf)

 

[livingston]

From the comments section
donaldthegreat20 says:
October 8, 2019 at 3:26 am


Pelosi’s primer on impeachment contains a very chilling statement, p. 4, paragraph 1: “The Senate could also separately decide to disqualify an officer from holding future federal office. Disqualification requires ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE.” (my emphasis).
This is not found in the Constitution, so it would be presumably a Senate rule. If so, the Senate, by majority vote, could prevent Trump from serving a second term, AS I READ THAT STATEMENT!
I have never heard anyone ever make such a statement in regards to a presidential impeachment. The Constitution only states that “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law”

LikeLiked by 1 person

 

[livingston]

Pulling every trick they can to keep Trump out of the next election

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

If you can't win the game.....

 

[GOYABEAN]

If you can't win the game.....

Make up none binding rules and regulations to fit your agenda

 

[MuttCat]

Remember the sports guy on Imus? Wolf...Warner Wolf...80 years old now..

Change the rules!

 

[Modean]

From the comments section
donaldthegreat20 says:
October 8, 2019 at 3:26 am


Pelosi’s primer on impeachment contains a very chilling statement, p. 4, paragraph 1: “The Senate could also separately decide to disqualify an officer from holding future federal office. Disqualification requires ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE.” (my emphasis).
This is not found in the Constitution, so it would be presumably a Senate rule. If so, the Senate, by majority vote, could prevent Trump from serving a second term, AS I READ THAT STATEMENT!
I have never heard anyone ever make such a statement in regards to a presidential impeachment. The Constitution only states that “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law”

LikeLiked by 1 person

Not in the Constitution, therefore a power not granted.

 

[Twogunwilly]

This is coup attempt and solidly within the presidents authority to start executing usurpers.

 

[Mosinitis]

 

[pjzwtl]

All fluff for the lemmings and not for nothing the speaker of the house can’t tell the Senators what the can and can’t do.

 

[tirwin1]

It's calvinball....

 

[Acer-m14]

if you can't win .. join them .. to win .. like the boys running with the girls because they feel like a woman . keep changin the rules ..

 

[Jmac00]

From the comments section
donaldthegreat20 says:
October 8, 2019 at 3:26 am


Pelosi’s primer on impeachment contains a very chilling statement, p. 4, paragraph 1: “The Senate could also separately decide to disqualify an officer from holding future federal office. Disqualification requires ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE.” (my emphasis).
This is not found in the Constitution, so it would be presumably a Senate rule. If so, the Senate, by majority vote, could prevent Trump from serving a second term, AS I READ THAT STATEMENT!
I have never heard anyone ever make such a statement in regards to a presidential impeachment. The Constitution only states that “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law”

LikeLiked by 1 person

A classic way to start an actual civil war. Pelosi and Schitt are playing a very dangerous game. They actually think, no one will react to their treason. I think they are both in for a very big surprise.

Also this is why it is critical that the Senate stay in GOP hands.

 

[Truebeliever]

From the comments section
donaldthegreat20 says:
October 8, 2019 at 3:26 am


Pelosi’s primer on impeachment contains a very chilling statement, p. 4, paragraph 1: “The Senate could also separately decide to disqualify an officer from holding future federal office. Disqualification requires ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE.” (my emphasis).
This is not found in the Constitution, so it would be presumably a Senate rule. If so, the Senate, by majority vote, could prevent Trump from serving a second term, AS I READ THAT STATEMENT!
I have never heard anyone ever make such a statement in regards to a presidential impeachment. The Constitution only states that “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law”

LikeLiked by 1 person

this her rules or the senate rules. If it’s her rules, it is not binding on the senate in any fashion.

 

[Defilade]

@Diesel Tech So WHAT say you? You in favor of the cheeto as you put it or are you in favor of the cheaters??