Because of these recent military developments, should Speaker Pelosi announce a hold on Articles?

[kentuck]

The longer the Articles of Impeachment are held, the more likely there will be new evidence coming out, just as it has in the last week or so.

So it would be good for the impeachment trial and it would be good for our country if the Senate is given more time to contemplate their positions in history?

It is unlikely that Republicans will be screaming too loudly for the "trial" to begin, so long as we are under a terrorist threat.

Perhaps Nancy should take this opportunity to make the announcement?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Is there a connection? NT

[Thomas Hurt]

2. that is just what the pig wants...

[kentuck]

3. Naw, I think he wants it over quickly, while he has the votes.

They could change as circumstances change.

[Pachamama]

4. There has been no hurry or change in the conditions

But if there are the conditions as required (witnesses and documents etc) it may become even more vital to have the trial and remove him from office.

[MineralMan]

5. I think that Nancy Pelosi will consider everything and make the best

possible decision. I'm not going to second guess her or presume that I might know what the best course of action is.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. NO.NO.NO !!!!!!!!!.

NO.NONONONONONONONONONONONONO

[kentuck]

8. Why not?

???

[C_U_L8R]

7. If only to add new charges and evidence.

The crimes are ongoing.

[ecstatic]

9. Nope. Don't give RW media more ammo to spin

trump is impeached and is now committing war crimes. It's more important than ever to get his ass out.

[kentuck]

10. Well, they don't have the votes to get him out right now?

I agree it is important to get his ass out.

Democrats need four Republicans that will agree he should be convicted. that would not remove him from office but it would be a huge symbolic vote if the majority, however slim, were to vote to convict him.

[htuttle]

11. She should add to it

If the strike was 'retaliatory', as some Trump officials are stating (before they get their stories straight), then Trump violated the War Powers Act by not consulting Congress ahead of time.

If the strike was 'pre-emptive' as a couple of clued in Trumpanzees are stating, then it was allowed, with consultation after the fact.

Given that we know that Junior, Lindsey Graham and China (!) were all notified ahead of time, there was no reason not to brief Congress first, hence the violation. There was no 'imminent threat' as required for strikes without prior consultation.