IMPEACHED

The two articles [of impeachment], which charge Trump with abusing power in his dealings with Ukraine and obstructing Congress in their investigation of those actions, passed almost exclusively along party lines.

[...]

Lawmakers voted 230 to 197 on the resolution accusing Trump of abusing his power, with all Republicans opposed and only two Democrats — Reps. Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.) — crossing the aisle in dissent. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), a Democratic presidential candidate, voted “present.”

  The Hill

Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat in name only.  And on the second article, one Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, voted against it, while voting for the first article.

Jeff Van Drew will now switch parties, and the Republicans are welcome to him. Holding off on actually doing it until after the vote, when he'd already announced that he was going to switch, in order to give the historic record another Democratic no vote is just the kind of dishonesty and lack of integrity today's Republican party requires.

The real heros are the Democrats who hold seats in districts that voted for Trump in 2016, knowing their constituency might possibly kick them out of office if they voted for an impeachment trial, and did it anyway because, unlike Van Drew, they do have integrity: Tom O'Halleran (AZ), Lucy McBath (GA), Cheri Bustos (IL), Lauren Underwood (IL), Cindy Axne (IA), Abby Finkenauer (IA), DaveLoebsack (IA), Jared Golden (ME), Elissa Slotkin (MI), Haley Stevens (MI), Angie Craig (MN), Susie Lee (NV), Chris Pappas (NH), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Andy Kim (NJ), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Antonio Delgado (NY), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Max Rose (NY), Kendra Horn (OK), Matt Cartwright (PA), Conor Lamb (PA), Joe Cunningham (SC), Ben McAdams (UT), Elaine Luria (VA), Abigail Spanbeger (VA), and Ron Kind (WI).

Some of those representatives are particularly heroic, because they barely beat incumbent Republicans in 2018: Abigal Spanberger, who won by only 2 percentage points; Elaine Luria won her Republican-held seat also by only 2 points; Ben McAdams, by less than a point; Joe Cunningham, the first Democrat in his district in more than 20 years, who won by a point; Kendra Horn, by one point, in a district that has been Republican for 40 years; Anthony Brindisi, by 2 points; Xochitl Torres Small, by one point; Mike Sherrill, by one point in a district that had been Republican since 1982; Andy Kim, by one point; Cindy Axne, by 2 points; and Lucy McBath, by 1.5 points.

One Democratic lawmaker described such votes as “seismic,” warning that there will be some blowback at the polls in 2020.

“Some of them are going to lose,” the lawmaker said.

[...]

With much at stake and the TV cameras rolling, lawmakers from both parties dug deep into their rhetorical closets to mark the historic debate, invoking the Founding Fathers, Jesus and the crucifixion, Pearl Harbor and Maya Angelou — among a long list of other cultural touchstones — to make their case.

[...]

The debate was largely civil; lawmakers from both sides — so far apart on the merits of the impeachment effort — seemed to agree on the historical significance of the moment.

But there were also some flare-ups, most notably when Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) promoted the conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 election, in addition to Russia. All of America’s intelligence agencies have determined that Russia was the culprit, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) wasted no time lambasting the claim.

“I'm concerned that any representative of the United States would spout Russian propaganda on House floor,” he said.

Gohmert marched back to the podium and sought to shout over the banging of the gavel in response to the accusation fired against him, but his yells were drowned out by demands that the House return to order.

[...]

Republicans gained more gusto as the day wore on, responding at times en masse with boos, groans or other knee-jerk reactions at the later statements from the Democrats.

  The Hill

They must have gotten a message from Trump that they weren't doing enough.

Wednesday’s votes send the two articles to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he’ll hold an impeachment trial early next year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not commit on Wednesday to sending the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Republican-held Senate, a surprise move that injects new uncertainty into Congress' timeline of the President's trial in the chamber.

"That would have been our intention, but we'll see what happens over there," Pelosi said at a post-impeachment vote news conference Wednesday night when asked about sending over the articles.

[...]

Some progressives have urged Democratic leaders to withhold the articles until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, agrees to the parameters for the Senate trial that Democrats have called for, as well as agreeing to bring in firsthand witnesses like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to testify.

While Pelosi's comments create a new level of confusion to the impeachment procedure and timeline, it's unclear what the specific advantages there would be to withholding to the articles of impeachment from a Senate trial.

Pelosi said Wednesday night that House Democrats will make the decision "as a group" on when to send the articles to the Senate.

[...]

There are procedural concerns behind not sending the articles to the Senate on Wednesday night immediately after the vote. Among them: Democrats can't send the articles Wednesday night because the Senate would have to take it up Thursday, blocking votes on two spending packages that must pass before week's end to avoid a government shutdown.

[...]

In the coming days, the House must also name impeachment managers for the Senate's trial, another step Pelosi was not ready to make Wednesday night.

"We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side, and we hope that will be soon," Pelosi said. "So far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us, so hopefully it will be fair."

  CNN

I suspect they'll go ahead and send them to the Senate.  Not sending them if McConnell refuses to cooperate - which is likely - would leave the Democrats open to charges that they weren't serious, that the whole thing was indeed a sham.  His Impeached Lardship has already started.

No, it's not the Senate's call.  The Senate can't demand them.

Also, it's "night", not "might".

They can't lose if there's no trial, and the Senate can't hold a trial if they aren't given the articles, and that's not the "Senate's call".

Stamping your feet won't change anything.

What precedent-breaking thing(s) he's talkinga about will by necessity have to be made up.

Indeed they are.  Vote Democratic in 2020.

UPDATE:

A delay.  But they will deliver them.  As far as I'm concerned, a delay until the 2020 presidential debates are held would be fine.

“The only thing that matters is the president of the United States was impeached today,” said Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). As for the Senate? “One step at a time,” she said.

“We defended the Constitution and we defended our democracy,” said Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). “Right now, that’s the story,” he said.

  Politico

Actually, Jerry, it's not. Right now the story is the delay.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said he's approached every member of House leadership about the idea and received responses ranging from interest to outright support. He said Pelosi, in particular, “indicated she was interested and considering it.”

“As long as we have the articles of impeachment under our control, we have an opportunity to prevent a travesty,” Blumenauer said.

No, the travesty has been upon us for three years.

Blumenauer argued that the House could use the delay to continue to build on its evidence for impeachment, and possibly to score additional legal victories that could unlock troves of new evidence and witness testimony that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. Some of those court cases could be decided within weeks.

“You can continue to build the record, you can get information and you argue for fairness and don't surrender until it’s clear that that is in the best interest of the process,” Blumenauer said.

That's an....interesting....approach.

To be continued...

UPDATE: