Do impeachment charges carry over from one Congress to a new one?

[ABNAK]

Let's say the libtards try to impeach Trump again (there is already talk of it), hoping they win the Senate this November and in case they lose the House. If the impeachment wasn't heard until AFTER the election, is a new Congress legally bound to hear the case, or do the charges die with the old Congress?

[Diamondback]

My understanding is any Unfinished Business dies when Second Session adjourns.

Hmmm, could Pelosi try to use an in-progress impeachment to refuse to adjourn and thus keep the gavel a while longer?

[duece71]

It appears they will stop at nothing so I would not be shocked.

[Diamondback]

It appears they will stop at nothing so I would not be shocked.

Tell me that Pelosi and the other Demofascists DON'T sound like this guy:

[markm]

I'm all for them doubling down on stupid. Alienate all the moderate voters possible.

[Diamondback]

I'm all for them doubling down on stupid. Alienate all the moderate voters possible.

I'm all for encouraging them to keep doubling down... alienate even the Less Left, gaslight them to go so extreme that even Seattle and Portland say "WTF Already?!".

[yoni]

They can move on impeaching the President tomorrow, with the same charges.

Unlike criminal charges which carry protection under double jeopardy, impeach the President has no protection.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I can't see them doing it before the election, you'd have to do it as a lame duck and try to punt it to the Senate.

BUT, say that they take the Senate- they can run the trial how they want, but they still wouldn't be able to remove him. AND would Schumer, having taken back the Senate, really want to take on a long hard slog trial against Trump- who would have just been re-elected- only to lose in a trial again.

But if they were successful in getting Trump removed- mere months after being elected- how do you think that would go over?

I don't know what level of stupid the Collectivists will go to. They seem to lash out in random directions with no strategic intent or goal.

[glocktogo]

I can't see them doing it before the election, you'd have to do it as a lame duck and try to punt it to the Senate.

BUT, say that they take the Senate- they can run the trial how they want, but they still wouldn't be able to remove him. AND would Schumer, having taken back the Senate, really want to take on a long hard slog trial against Trump- who would have just been re-elected- only to lose in a trial again.

But if they were successful in getting Trump removed- mere months after being elected- how do you think that would go over?

I don't know what level of stupid the Collectivists will go to. They seem to lash out in random directions with no strategic intent or goal.

Nancy is licking her woulds and taking stock, for a week or two. After that she'll have Schiff and Nadler calling up Bolton and every other traitor in the WH sphere to dig harder. She's not going to stop now.

[ABNAK]

They can move on impeaching the President tomorrow, with the same charges.

Unlike criminal charges which carry protection under double jeopardy, impeach the President has no protection.

Got that, but what I'm referring to is say this current Congress impeaches Trump again before the election. It never gets heard by the Senate. Is a new Senate in a new Congress legally bound to pursue it?

Think about it: the Dems control the House right now. They could decide on new (bullshit) impeachment charges, but wait too long for it to be dealt with by the Senate before the election, or even if they impeached him as a lame-duck Congress between November and January. The Dems lose the House but win the Senate and are seated in January 2021 as a new Congress. Are the "charges" brought by a previous Congress still valid?