5331

There is, I assume, a formal process by which each of the branches communicates stuff like this. You can’t have the Senate just assuming something has happened in the House because they saw it on c-span.

5332

The rules for that resolution contain the following:

“After adoption of House Resolution 755, it shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House a resolution
appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of Donald John
Trump, President of the United States, if offered by the chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary or his designee.”

Without that resolution having been voted on, there is no provision for a trial, whether the Senate “knows” about the impeachment or not. House resolutions, as a rule, regardless of their text, aren’t voted on by the Senate. The House also has the right to unilaterally change or suspend its own rules, something that the Speaker can simply do without objection if she is reflecting the will of the majority. A point of order would have to be raised to prevent this and then it would be voted on (so it would be pointless if the majority agreed with the Speaker).

So basically, McConnell could introduce a Senate bill dismissing the House resolution or stating that they exonerate Trump of all wrongdoing in regard to the articles voted on in H.Res 755 or w/e, but he can’t hold a trial without the House participating. If he gets the votes to dismiss out of hand, he can do that, but I bet that will look quite bad unless the public agrees that the Dems are out of line here. He is probably better off continuing to complain about the process and claiming his hands are tied.

5333

Technically, the Senate can start a trial without waiting for the House to appoint managers. In fact, nothing in the Constitution says that the House is responsible for prosecution, or plays any other role in the trial.

The only thing the Senate needs from the House is a vote on this:

That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors

5334

True, they could appoint their own counsel to each side. That would look great, especially after refusing to call any witnesses.

5335

I don’t think it’s clear at all that having a vote is sufficient. They often have voice votes and then proceed to roll call votes.

5336

A voice vote is meant to speed things along when the vote is expected to be unanimous or nearly so. Roll call is time consuming, and there is no point in wasting hours on resolutions to rename buildings or whatever.

If a voice vote is ambiguous (or a representative just wants to make a point) then anyone can ask for a roll call. It’s basically analogous to a recount.

5337

And the Senate can’t just go ahead and pass a law that seemed like it had a majority of voice votes, while the the roll call vote is in process. So, a vote alone is not enough.

5338

I think you understand what I meant. The House voted to impeach Trump. There is no question regarding the vote totals. It has been formally passed and recorded as such by the House.

And that’s all the Senate needs to proceed to trial, at least according to the Constitution. It might not be enough according to Senate rules, but those can be changed at any time.

5339

The Constitution says nothing of the sort. It says the power lies with the House to impeach the president. If the House doesn’t say that the president has been impeached, then there is nothing to hold a trial over. Show me a legal scholar who is claiming that the Senate doesn’t need Pelosi to transmit the resolution.

5340

This is what they said:

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors

This is literally published on their website.

5341

There are lots of other things that say the same- click over to literally any resolution

5342

Until now, no impeachment resolution was passed by the House.

This one is passed. It’s done. They aren’t going to have another impeachment vote.

You seem to be suggesting that if the House votes in favor of something, it doesn’t take effect until Nancy Pelosi announces it. That’s not how it works. She doesn’t have that power.

I mean, the Senate certainly expects her to appoint managers as usual, but if they really wanted to then they could proceed without any more input.

5343

I, and everyone else, are saying that it doesn’t take effect until the House transmits it to the Senate.

5344

Yes, there is a Senate rule that after the House votes for impeachment, the Senate must wait for official notification from the House. Pelosi is currently exploiting this rule.

But Senate rules can be changed at any time. And there is no “transmission” requirement outside the Senate rules.

5345

That sure sounds like the President* has been impeached but he cannot be tried until the House transmits it to the Senate.

5346

Yep, Trump is impeached. Totally impeached. It’s done.

And the only thing preventing an immediate trial is the Senate rules. According to Senate rules, first the House needs to appoint managers. Then the managers transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

When the managers of an impeachment shall be intro- duced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ‘‘All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ——— ———’’; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

5347

And you propose that they amend that to say, “whenever a House resolution exists that declares the impeachment of an individual, the Senate will appoint managers to conduct a trial”?

5348

I’m proposing that there is a nuclear option that would cause an immediate trial. But I don’t think McConnell will use it.

5349

I don’t think it makes a lot of sense for the Senate to start declaring what are or are not validly-passed House resolutions.

5350

The House itself declares when a resolution is passed, by the act of voting in favor of it.

Who do you think should be able to decide that a resolution is valid? Do you think the House should have another vote to decide whether to announce that the impeachment is valid? Because that’s never going to happen.

Or do you think that it should be totally up to the Speaker, so if she doesn’t like what the House just voted for then she can declare it invalid? You’re putting way too much trust in the Speaker.

Remember when McCain saved the ACA? Do you think that McConnell should have been allowed to declare that vote invalid? That doesn’t sound like democracy.