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

[RKP5637]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-won-t-rule-out-new-impeachment-delay-scotus-vote-n1240568

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Sunday would not rule out impeaching President Donald Trump or Attorney General William Barr if the Senate seeks to push through a Supreme Court nomination during the lame-duck session should Joe Biden win the November election.

Speaking with ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi about suggestions some have made that if Democrats win this fall and Republicans move forward on a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the House could move to impeach Trump or Barr in an effort to stall the nomination.

"Well, we have our options," Pelosi said. "We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made."

[Under The Radar]

1. The title line is a bit confusing

[Mike 03]

2. We'd have the upper hand in a way we didn't in the first impeachment.

Not that I expect the senate to remove Trump, but it would be icing on the cake. Mark Kelly could well be in the senate by that point--one more vote. Personally, I'd like to go after William Barr. On the other hand, we could make Trump the first president ever impeached twice.

[Under The Radar]

41. The Republican Party can sue for a recount and keep Kelly out

Just as they kept Al Franken out for nearly a year when he won against Norm Coleman.

[greenjar_01]

3. McConnell can call snap floor votes on the articles as well as on the SC nomination

It doesn't even have to go through the Judicial Committee. Those are all just changeable Senate "rules" and understood "norms." He can do whatever he wants.

[jorgevlorgan]

5. Pelosi can do the same with impeachment

But I also don't think senators would be on board with no hearings.

[PTWB]

8. What the fuck is impeachment going to do to stop McConnell if he has the votes?

Not a damn thing.

He is either able to muster 51 votes or he isn’t. If he has the votes we have NO RECOURSE to stop him. That’s the way the constitution works.

That said, if we win the senate and win the presidency and keep the house, we have many options:

1. Pack the court
2. Add 2-5 new states to the union that will be heavily Democratic
3. Investigate and, if warranted, prosecute every member of the Trump administration who committed crimes including corruption and treason. Those who are found guilty of treason ought to hang.

While we can’t stop McConnell from filling RBGs seat if he has the votes... we can go nuclear on their treasonous asses when we win. VOTE!

[RKP5637]

11. Thanks for the additional clarification!

[jorgevlorgan]

12. Constitutionally the Senate has to prioritize impeachment over courts

So if there are a thousand impeachment cases sent to the Senate, even if they are snap votes, thy likely couldn't get through them before the next president is sworn in. It is just a postponement thing, running out the clock - and Pelosi does have the upper hand in this case.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. True-- I seriously doubt she will, but she could impeach every cabinet member and...

a bunch of judges.

That should tie up the Senate for a while.

And maybe even get some Republicans to say how they really feel bout the whole thing.

[jorgevlorgan]

15. That's what I'm thinking.I really do think this will be a losing battle for mcconnell in the long

Run. He is digging his own grave.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Which reminds me of a Nikki Glazer roast comment...

"The only person he'll make happy is the Mexican who digs his grave."

[PTWB]

19. Nope.

Although the impeachment rules prescribe that the Senate convene at noon for a trial, six days a week, a Senate majority can alter this schedule. It is possible for the Senate to conduct legislative and executive business on the same calendar days that it meets for a trial, but it must meet in legislative or executive session to do so. When the Senate is sitting as a Court of Impeachment, legislative and executive business cannot occur.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46185

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Yeah-- impeachment takes precedence. And a third of them are busy with re-election...

which is not conducive to either a tricky judge selection or impeachment hearings. And if it all goes past Election Day, there's Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses to deal with.

[PTWB]

23. So...

Can you provide any senate rule or section in the constitution that would support the argument that flooding the senate with impeached persons would stop McConnell from confirming a justice if he had the requisite 51 votes?

I’ll go by what is written on Congress.gov that indicates McConnell can both hold impeachment trials AND conduct legislative/ executive business on the same calendar day, unless you have a better source.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. No, but no one has since this has never happened before. Do you really think he could pull it off...

with election day coming up? That could be a vote a day.

And if he has a lame duck Senate after ED, who knows what could happen...

[PTWB]

25. If he has 51 'yes' votes then absolutely.

There’s literally no reason he couldn’t.

[sandensea]

33. +1

Bitchy Mitchy goes by the Jimmy Chao school of governance:

Not matter how illegal, if it fits it ships.

[PTWB]

18. Really?

Where do you get this idea: “Constitutionally the Senate has to prioritize impeachment over courts”

Where in the constitution does it say that McConnell has to resolve any impeachment matters prior to dealing with other senate business?

The senate rules quite clearly give McConnell much leeway on when to schedule an impeachment trial and how to conduct that trial. Further, McConnell can conduct legislative and executive business on the same days as impeachment trials - just not at the exact same time.

Although the impeachment rules prescribe that the Senate convene at noon for a trial, six days a week, a Senate majority can alter this schedule. It is possible for the Senate to conduct legislative and executive business on the same calendar days that it meets for a trial, but it must meet in legislative or executive session to do so. When the Senate is sitting as a Court of Impeachment, legislative and executive business cannot occur.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46185

[MoonlitKnight]

28. Correct, not a constitutional issue

But a rules issue.

And yes he can open the floor for other business- but in so doing it opens it to all business. So we get votes on everything sent from the House plus whatever else Schumer want to bring up. It grinds the Senate to a halt.

Same consequence for trying to change the impeachment rules, which is why they didn’t do it earlier in the first impeachment.

[backscatter712]

29. That's probably the angle of attack right there.

The House can at least delay the Senate's proceedings by impeaching Trump, Barr or someone else. The current Senate rules state the Senate must try the impeachment. Though I imagine Mitch could declare the "trial" to be a motion to dismiss that takes five minutes to get a party-line vote.

Though I don't seen an impeachment doing a heck of a lot to derail a SCOTUS nomination, and it would have to be rushed, which increases the chances of a backfire.

[PTWB]

39. Even if Mitch honored the impeachment with a full blown trial...

The rules allow them to conduct normal business on the same calendar days as impeachment trials. He could call a vote to confirm RBG’s replacement in the morning and exonerate Trump (again) that same afternoon.

We are barking up the wrong tree here. Mitch will NEVER do the right thing and we don’t have a constitutional leg to stand on when it comes to blocking this nomination.

Our only recourse is to apply political pressure to vulnerable Republicans who may not want to look like extreme hypocrites to the electorate. That said, after Election Day, that card has a lot less weight.

If Republican holdouts have lost, there is nothing preventing them from confirming the nominee during the lame duck session.

Our real recourse will be adding 2-5 new states and adding 20 seats to the Supreme Court next legislative session assuming we win the senate and the presidency, and keep the house.

VOTE - that’s really our only viable action.

[Bradshaw3]

17. So Pelosi is lying?

She said they have options. You are saying the Democrats don't have options, at least until after the election, and that is all up to McConnell.

As for the three options you listed I think ever one of them is far less likely than stopping McConnell, especially trying to add five new states; wait, prosecuting and HANGING members of this administration is off the rails.

[PTWB]

20. I'm not sure what her end game is with those comments.

But she is powerless to stop McConnell from seating RBG’s replacement if he has the votes.

Although the impeachment rules prescribe that the Senate convene at noon for a trial, six days a week, a Senate majority can alter this schedule. It is possible for the Senate to conduct legislative and executive business on the same calendar days that it meets for a trial, but it must meet in legislative or executive session to do so. When the Senate is sitting as a Court of Impeachment, legislative and executive business cannot occur.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46185

[Bradshaw3]

21. She said options - plural

So perhaps it is not an endgame gambit (which would mean basically she's lying, right?) but there are other things besides impeachment they can do that you don't know about.

[FBaggins]

4. It could be all over by then nt

[triron]

7. Yep.

[Nexus2]

6. I'm confused

Is an impeachment(s) delay path viable or no?

[PTWB]

9. No, it is ridiculous and has nothing to do with McConnell's ability to fill the seat.

[RKP5637]

10. Same here, guess we have to see what develops and more info. n/t

[Tommymac]

38. Possibly. Nancy knows ropes that posters on boards have no clue about.

Naysayers be damned. ANYTHING that can delay the Killer Clown should be used...these are NOT normal times.

We are at War with the Authoritarian Trumpists like it or not.

I trust our Democratic leaders to do everything in their power to fight back.

Use every arrow.

[Cha]

13. Kick for Nancy!

[backscatter712]

26. Another arrow in the quiver: Inherent Contempt

There are a few ways this can be used.

Probably the most likely path is this. The House concludes that after Barr and other executive branch members have flouted subpoenas, and that the normal methods (civil courts & referring contempt charges to the DOJ) have not been able to get results.

Break out the old inherent contempt power, and direct the Sergeant at Arms to go get 'em.

Once they're arrested and hauled before the House, the House can impose a sentence, either as a punishment, or as a way to coerce testimony. So they can easily sentence Barr to 60 days of jail, which takes him out of circulation until after the election. Or they can jail him indefinitely (which means he can be held until the Congressional term ends in January.) House Dems can also do this to DeJoy, Pompeo, etc. I recommend hitting Barr first, to decapitate the DOJ before they cause any more damage.

I'm not sure how this can be used against the upcoming SCOTUS ram-through though...

[RKP5637]

27. I wish they had done some of this during the Trump impeachment hearings. Many just

basically told the House to F off.

[backscatter712]

30. Well, now Pelosi has that as ammo now.

They've already been subpoenaed, they refused to show, so she can bring the House to a vote to hold them in inherent contempt, and send the Sergeant at Arms.

If she chooses to use it...

[RKP5637]

32. I hope so! One can be sure if the tables were reversed, they would not hesitate to do

that against democrats.

[Escurumbele]

31. I appreciate wwhat Pelosi is saying, but I would like to see more action and less talk

Barr's impeachment should have began months ago.

[bucolic_frolic]

34. Democrats will have a stronger hand in November if Biden wins

I'm thinking that some of the criminality they might pursue in 2021 could be moved to impeachment now. No necessity to not show your hand at that point.

[RKP5637]

36. Yep, I think a lot of people are getting fed up with Trump and his cohorts tactics.

Before, some might have thought it was overkill, but now I think many would feel it justified. The gloves really need to come off on some of this crap going on.

[triron]

40. It may be too late by then.

[Catch2.2]

35. It's now or never!!!

Dems need to take the gloves off (which they should've done a long time ago). If Moscow Mitch rams through a SCJ, then The Dems need to expand the SC to 11, Appoint more judges, etc. Stop being afraid and start kicking some rethug ass!

[RKP5637]

37. Agree, the dems have been too damn nice, and cautious. Gloves off now!!! n/t

[former9thward]

42. It would not work.

The Senate would not take the impeachment up. They don't have to.

[RKP5637]

43. It sounds a little bizarre and also no time ... n/t