# Nancy should hold on to Articles of Impeachment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2019, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079 "2019-12-19T14:27:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Clu-Me-In](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@Clu-Me-In](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu-Me-In)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/41 "2019-12-19T17:09:38Z")
Supreme court decides between 2 opposing interpretations of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/42 "2019-12-19T17:12:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I already stated in post #29 that I don’t know if it can be changed. The Constitution Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 says they can. Also: > [@](#): > > Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was a political question and could not be resolved in the courts. > **[Nixon v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States)** > > Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that a question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was political in nature and could not be resolved in the courts if there was no applicable judicial standard. > The Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon, was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury but refused to resign from office even after he... ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/43 "2019-12-19T17:18:25Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The Constitution Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 says they can. > Also: > [Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States) Once again: Would you approve of such a change? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/44 "2019-12-19T17:19:34Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Why can’t rule XXV be changed, like any other? Why do you believe it should be changed? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/45 "2019-12-19T17:30:21Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Can the Supreme Court tell the Senate how to conduct business? SCOTUS cannot do that. I understand that in cases of impeachment, the role of the Chief Justice is to verify that the Senate abides by its own rules, and that the rules are lawful. I expect Roberts would gladly show utter disinterest in the political heist he’s presiding over, contenting with portraying the narrow balls-and-strikes image he’s worked so hard to polish. But I am interested to see how he handles putting McConnell and Graham under oath, knowing that both of them are on record stating they won’t be bound by that oath. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/46 "2019-12-19T17:32:53Z")
She’s doing the smart thing here. Without a sham trial in the Senate, Trump can’t crow that he’s innocent. He can accuse the Dems of being afraid of “losing” their case, but it takes away some measure of his ability to gloat. In addition, she can hope that McConnell loses his seat and that someone better suited takes his place, or that the Senate flips blue. That wouldn’t insure an impeachment, of course, as that requires 2/3 majority, but it would give leverage for passing bills and shooting down judicial nominees. A failed trial in the Senate would make the Dems seem weak to the voters and probably insure another four years of not being able to get anything significant enacted. ---
**Author:** ![Clu-Me-In](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@Clu-Me-In](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu-Me-In)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/47 "2019-12-19T17:33:03Z")
If he administers the oath of impartiality to them without the recanting then the House needs to impeach him. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/48 "2019-12-19T17:34:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Once again: Would you approve of such a change? I’m not required to answer your questions about the Senate SHOULD do. Asking repeatedly is badgering, IMO. I’m telling you what the Constitution says the Senate CAN do. Do you see the difference? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/49 "2019-12-19T17:34:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My understanding is that he wants it “over and done with” in the sense that he doesn’t want the impeachment itself to occupy the Senate for a long time and detract from other business. But if Pelosi puts impeachment on hold, then he can turn to other business now. _That_ is your understanding? He wants it over and done with so he can stop thinking about it. He’s really good at ignoring trouble he’s had in the past. Not so good with present threats to his image. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/50 "2019-12-19T17:36:35Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I’m not required to answer your questions about the Senate SHOULD do. > > Continuing to ask is badgering. > > I’m telling you what the Constitution says the Senate CAN do. > > Do you see the difference? I accept that you refuse to give your personal opinion on this matter, and I will move on. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/51 "2019-12-19T17:45:11Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I’m not required to answer your questions about the Senate SHOULD do. > > Asking repeatedly is badgering, IMO. Do you think answering the question would contribute positively to the debate? I think so. So IMO it’s not badgering, it’s a fair attempt at getting you to fully participate, or if unsuccessful, to highlight that you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/52 "2019-12-19T18:08:13Z")
My prediction, if Nancy does this, I Mitch simply says “no”, then public support for impeachment slides further, then Nancy capitulates. There’s no way in hell Mitch is doing to concede anything to Nancy, and even if he did, he could, and likely would, reneg on whatever that was. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/53 "2019-12-19T18:21:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Won’t work. The only promise they care about is the promise to fuck over the Democrats. You think they don’t know what he is by now? If he takes that oath he has already promised to break, take it immediately to the SCOTUS. He is a vile scheming ass, but he is on their side, so it’s ok. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/54 "2019-12-19T18:24:03Z")
Must the articles be sent together, or can they be sent separately? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/55 "2019-12-19T18:28:57Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > My prediction, if Nancy does this, I Mitch simply says “no”, then public support for impeachment slides further, then Nancy capitulates. There’s no way in hell Mitch is doing to concede anything to Nancy, and even if he did, he could, and likely would, reneg on whatever that was. Nope. Public support for impeachment is going to continue to rise as courts rule on pending subpoenas demanding Trump tax returns and Trump administration witnesses come forward to testify about various investigations, including those related to the current set of Articles of Impeachment. So I doubt this is going to work out in Mitch’s favor as time passes and this moves well into 2020 and closer to the coming election. Even if he holds some sort of half-cooked show senate vote without the articles, time is not on Mitch’s side, and Nancy almost can’t lose. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/56 "2019-12-19T18:51:25Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Do you think answering the question would contribute positively to the debate? I think so. So IMO it’s not badgering, it’s a fair attempt at getting you to fully participate, or if unsuccessful, to highlight that you don’t. I’m only interested in debates based on facts, not what people _think_ the facts should be. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/57 "2019-12-19T18:51:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Nope. Public support for impeachment is going to continue to rise Well, I suspect we’ll know whether this is true or not within the next 2 weeks. There is already polling [which suggests otherwise](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/474832-poll-support-for-impeaching-and-removing-trump-dips). I don’t think it will get this far however, as I don’t think they will be held onto past the new year. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/58 "2019-12-19T18:56:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I agree with this. She knows what she’s doing, and there’s no one I’d rather have making these kind of decisions than her. Pelosi may be very smart, but this is 4-D chess, and the Demos track record for political gamesmanship is dismal. What will happen? At some point (soon?) the Dems will deliver impeachment articles to the Senate. _ **After that, I do not think the Dems will be allowed to lay additional charges.** _ (Several crimes of various natures and the House is ONLY going with the phone call and associated cover-up? Bah!! This is a major concession by the Democrats.) What happens in the Senate? The Majority will want Hunter Biding to testify, and have the votes to compel it. (Trump and his mob will decline all demands for evidence or testimony, Mitch grinning.) But Hunter lacks immunity and might be arrested if he defies the subpoena. Moscow Mitch and the other Bitches will be able to play any game they want, for as long as they want. Sure they won’t want to drag it for more than a month or three, but the January-February framework is PERFECT for them. Throughout spring and summer they will rave about how the trial vindicated Trump, and how Hunter Biden refused to testify. After Moscow Mitch acquits Trump, that brat’s tantrums will be insufferable. A smirky joke about the trial will be his answer to any puzzle. _ **The whole Impeachment scenario is playing out in the GOP’s interest.** _ What \*should \*Pelosi do? I dunno; I can hardly play 2-D chess let alone 4-D. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/59 "2019-12-19T19:03:24Z")
I don’t know if this is 4-D chess. I DO know that if there is ANY way for McConnell to fuck Democrats over, he will take it. He has a stellar track record in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079/60 "2019-12-19T19:10:38Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > I don’t know if this is 4-D chess. > > I DO know that if there is ANY way for McConnell to fuck Democrats over, he will take it. He has a stellar track record in that regard. It doesn’t matter how good the Democrats are at chess when the Republicans are play Knattleikr. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-should-hold-on-to-articles-of-impeachment/845079.md?page=4)