Is refusal to send the impeachment to the senate "obstruction of congress"?

I’m sure the senate can dismiss it if its not presented in timely fashion.

All that the house did is voted for impeachment…it’s not impeachment until its officially sent to the senate.

That’s what I’m getting as I’m learning up on it.

Has N Pelosi refused to send it to the Senate? Do managers need to be selected before it can be sent to the Senate?

Exactly what period is “timely fashion” in the context of your post?

“Some House Democrats imply they are withholding the [impeachment] articles for some kind of leverage,” McConnell said. “I admit, I’m not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want. Alas, if they can figure that out, they can explain.”

What does Nancy think she is going to gain? Is she really just going to back out and she thinks this is a way that will save some face?

The Articles of Impeachment begin with:

“Resolved . . . that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.”

It does not say, “if the Speaker feels like it”.

From what I see, if Pelosi refuses to send the articles to the senate, she is logically violating the impeachment resolution. Either that or the publication of the resolution already qualifies as exhibiting it to the senate.

1 Like

I don’t know that she can be charged with obstruction of congress. If she doesn’t transfer the articles of impeachment to the senate, she could be expelled or censured, but it would take 2/3 of congress to pull it off, so that’s not likely to happen.

She could be lambasted by the MSM for dereliction of duty. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ultimately, the senate can shrug its shoulders, sit back and laugh at their hand wringing. And the American people can scratch their heads at why, if it’s such an urgent matter of national security that this president be removed from office, they aren’t presenting the articles to the senate so they can proceed to do so?


They haven’t turned over a single document, not one piece of paper and they’ve received 71 subpoenas for documents. Describing that as not “immediately turning over everything” is more than just misleading. This isn’t just stalling, it is obstruction.

1 Like

Yes, as far is I can tell there is no such crime as “obstruction of congress”; it was just made up to provide an excuse for impeachment for political purposes. Pelosi could be removed from her position as speaker by a simple majority vote, but I doubt Democrats are going to allow that.

In any case, Pelosi’s actions certainly demonstrate hypocrisy and political machinations.

The Speaker in the House of Commons used similarly obscure parliamentary maneuvers to try to defeat Brexit. It did not end well for him; I doubt end well for Pelosi either.


So take the President to court. That is the normal way to handle these kinds of disputes.

Instead the impeachment article claims that the dispute amounts to a “high crime”. Give me a break.

That is the best we can hope. But man at the crazy that sits in waiting.

Exactly what time frame is acceptable to pass it to the Senate once the manager(s) have been appointed?

The President is claiming absolute immunity, that is also the argument in McGahn’s case. That case is scheduled in SCOTUS.
If Trump loses that case, he will probably claim executive privilege. If he were to lose that case, he could make another argument to narrow the scope of questioning and relevent documents.
I agree that these disputes should go to court, but I don’t believe they will be resolved in a timely manner.

The high crimes part was discussed with the 4 constitutional lawyers. Didn’t all 4 agree that the abuse of power raised to “high crimes”? Even Turley?

Can we agree that the time that it takes to transfer the articles to the senate should be less than it actually took to impeach him?

In other words, if they hold it more than 90 days, will you call them on it?

1 Like

I can’t emphasize this enough, and I’ll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a “high crime and misdemeanor” out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches. And what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.

–Prof. Turley


@GWH I would think that if it was not passed onto the Senate by around the 26th January, 2020 N Pelosi is derelict in her duty. I am allowing a little more time because of the holidays at this time of the year otherwise I would have suggested the 15th if it had been in another part of the year.

Yep…it’s called “manipulation.” There is a two-house legislature for a reason- so that no one branch has sole control of the legislature. Nancy Pelosi trying to control the other branch like this should be a huge red flag.


So you discovered politics…congrats

1 Like

Perhaps impeachment should require bipartisan effort, or 2/3 majority. It can only too easily be abused, as we’ve just seen yesterday.

You mean Chicago-style politics? The term reminds me of a certain president that served before Trump…

This isn’t how American politics work and it isn’t how the Constitution works. It’s corruption plain and simple, and you are unwilling to admit that. Speaks volumes.

1 Like

Read the Federalist Papers and try again.