Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:18 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Aasahi you just don't get it. There is NO VOTE for an impeachment trial. There is nothing for McConnell in his power as SML to block. The trial is automatic and directed by the VP or in the case of Trump by the CJOTUS.





None of this make sense because McConnell has no power beyond that of an ordinary Senator once the House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. He can by rule neither allow or disallow anything. What do you not understand about this?
1. How long doe the trial have to be? Can it be long enuf to call a vote and that's it? Show me where it can't be.

2. How much evidence must be debated?

Technically, you are correct, in reality totally wrong.
  #102  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:46 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So explain this to me and be very precise. The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that. Oh and assume Murkowski is the maverick so any motion the Pubs make fails due to a tie 50-50 (the VP cannot vote during an impeachment trial since he is not a senator).

C'mon tell us all how it'll happen.
We could just as easily assume that Doug Jones (running for re-election in Alabama) would be just as likely to nullify maverick Murkowski's vote. Perhaps Joe Manchin, Senator of a state where Democrats are an endangered species, might also join him.

Keep in mind that the Senate can change its rules, and it takes a bare majority to do that. In fact some senators might agree to change the rules specifically to duck their responsibility of having to deal with the impeachment spectacle itself. The constitution doesn't instruct the senate how it proceeds with impeachment, only that it shall impeach.

Whether McConnell would or wouldn't block an impeachment depends on his calculus of the consequences. I could just as easily see him allowing a sham trial to proceed in which only Democrats explain why Trump should be removed from office. We'd be no closer to removing him than we are today, and it might actually strengthen Trump politically.

As I've said before, though, it really all comes down to the economy and how Americans feel about their personal situation. It's the economy, and the people who vote on that basis, who are the ultimate deciders on whether Trump stays in office.
  #103  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:14 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
Trump is not scared of impeachment trial. He knows he won't be convicted. Then he can just shout "witch hunt" and pickup more support.
  #104  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:35 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
1. How long doe the trial have to be? Can it be long enuf to call a vote and that's it? Show me where it can't be.

2. How much evidence must be debated?

Technically, you are correct, in reality totally wrong.
1) Yes but with a 51-49 split and excluding the VP who cannot vote then every Pub would have to vote for it. And all of the Dem hystrionics around this leaves out the wildcard of Lisa Murkowski. She has shown repeatedly that she refuses to go against her ideals and is willing to vote with the Dems. If that happens then all of your hyperbole is gone. Also Susan Collins needs to be re-elected and there is a lot of blowback over her Kavenaugh vote.

2) The Senate changed the rule so that evidence can be collected by committeIIRC in the Louderback impeachment so it it really depends if you mean evidence given or evidence that makes it to the full Senate.



And I would also point out that the Dems on this Board talk about how the Pubs break rules. I'm really at a loss to see how the Pubs specifically violate the letter of the rules. There was a huge debate about the Garland nomination. Well there is no rule that require the Senate to take it up within a certain time so what rule was violated? Can anyone point out ANY time where the Senate Rules explicitly say to do A and they did not?

And as an an example, the House rules require upon the request of any Representative that the full text of a bill must be read on the floor by the clerk. That is a rule. What do you think happened as Pelosi was trying to ramrod ACA through the House and a Republican requested that a certain (long) amendment was moved? Give you a hint, the motion wasn't read although it was required by the Rules. Do y'all have any examples of the Senate under McConnnell doing that or is it all irrational hyperbole not based on any facts.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #105  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
1) Yes but with a 51-49 split and excluding the VP who cannot vote then every Pub would have to vote for it. And all of the Dem hystrionics around this leaves out the wildcard of Lisa Murkowski. She has shown repeatedly that she refuses to go against her ideals and is willing to vote with the Dems. If that happens then all of your hyperbole is gone. Also Susan Collins needs to be re-elected and there is a lot of blowback over her Kavenaugh vote.

...



And I would also point out that the Dems on this Board talk about how the Pubs break rules. I'm really at a loss to see how the Pubs specifically violate the letter of the rules. There was a huge debate about the Garland nomination. Well there is no rule that require the Senate to take it up within a certain time so what rule was violated? Can anyone point out ANY time where the Senate Rules explicitly say to do A and they did not? .....
Except, dude, it's 53-45, not 51-49. If it was 51/49, then your point is valid.

The senate has many traditions, that arent "rules". The Constitution has been interpreted by some legal scholars that say yes, Mitch crossed the line there. Others say no. It's debatable and has been debated.
  #106  
Old 08-10-2019, 05:10 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Except, dude, it's 53-45, not 51-49. If it was 51/49, then your point is valid.

The senate has many traditions, that arent "rules". The Constitution has been interpreted by some legal scholars that say yes, Mitch crossed the line there. Others say no. It's debatable and has been debated.
Your right, sorry looked up wrong numbers.

And I'm still waiting for an actual example of Senators breaking the letter of the written rules. Have any or just hyperbole?
  #107  
Old 08-10-2019, 05:31 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Your right, sorry looked up wrong numbers.

And I'm still waiting for an actual example of Senators breaking the letter of the written rules. Have any or just hyperbole?
I'd like your comments on my hypothetical:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad
So explain this to me and be very precise. The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that. Oh and assume Murkowski is the maverick so any motion the Pubs make fails due to a tie 50-50 (the VP cannot vote during an impeachment trial since he is not a senator).

C'mon tell us all how it'll happen.
Originally posted by ThelmaLou
Quote:
Wikipedia: "The Secretary of the United States Senate"

The secretary's responsibilities include both legislative and administrative functions. By agreement of the two parties, the Majority Leader selects the Secretary of the Senate, and the election is merely ceremonial. The current secretary (for the 116th United States Congress) is Julie E. Adams.
The Secretary was appointed by Mitch. When the bill comes over from the House, Mitch tells Julie to sit on it, notify no one, and do nothing. If she refuses, he fires and replaces her with someone who will follow his orders. Done.

Do you think this is impossible? I say who's going to stop him?
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 08-10-2019 at 05:32 PM.
  #108  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:00 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,599
I’m a little unclear on the key detail of your hypothetical:

Saint Cad says “The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that.” You say: “When the bill comes over from the House, Mitch tells Julie to sit on it, notify no one, and do nothing. If she refuses, he fires and replaces her with someone who will follow his orders. Done.”

What’s the timetable you’re envisioning? You’re countenancing the idea that she’d refuse, because she’s willing to notify the Chief Justice; and that Mitch would respond by firing her, so her replacement won’t notify the Chief Justice; but what if her act of refusal is her so notifying the Chief Justice?

(Because, really: why do it sooner?)
  #109  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:28 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I’m a little unclear on the key detail of your hypothetical:

Saint Cad says “The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that.” You say: “When the bill comes over from the House, Mitch tells Julie to sit on it, notify no one, and do nothing. If she refuses, he fires and replaces her with someone who will follow his orders. Done.”

What’s the timetable you’re envisioning? You’re countenancing the idea that she’d refuse, because she’s willing to notify the Chief Justice; and that Mitch would respond by firing her, so her replacement won’t notify the Chief Justice; but what if her act of refusal is her so notifying the Chief Justice?

(Because, really: why do it sooner?)
I'm not 100% clear on your question. Are you saying that whether or not Julie officially notifies the Chief Justice, he will know about the impeachment?

I don't know about the timetable. I'm addressing this part of Saint Cad's statement: "The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts..."

Saint Cad is saying that Mitch can't interfere with the impeachment proceeds being brought to the Senate because it happens automatically and he is not in the chain of events.

But I'm saying that if it's the job of the Senate Secretary to notify the Chief Justice, and if the Senate Secretary was APPOINTED BY MITCH, then what's to stop him from telling her NOT to present the articles to the Chief Justice? And if she says, "But, sir, it's my job," Mitch says, "Correction: it WAS your job. You're fired."

In case I still haven't made my point: Saint Cad says that Mitch can't interfere with the process of articles of impeachment being presented to the Senate, but I say he CAN step in and interfere with the articles being presented officially to the Supreme Court, according to rules and protocol. Mitch can do anything he goddamned well pleases, including ignoring rules and protocols, and no one can or will stop him.

Don't know if that addresses your question or not.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 08-10-2019 at 07:30 PM.
  #110  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:59 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
I'm not 100% clear on your question. Are you saying that whether or not Julie officially notifies the Chief Justice, he will know about the impeachment?

I don't know about the timetable. I'm addressing this part of Saint Cad's statement: "The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts..."

Saint Cad is saying that Mitch can't interfere with the impeachment proceeds being brought to the Senate because it happens automatically and he is not in the chain of events.

But I'm saying that if it's the job of the Senate Secretary to notify the Chief Justice, and if the Senate Secretary was APPOINTED BY MITCH, then what's to stop him from telling her NOT to present the articles to the Chief Justice? And if she says, "But, sir, it's my job," Mitch says, "Correction: it WAS your job. You're fired."
What I’m saying is, I figure anyone who’d say “But, sir, it’s my job” to Mitch and get fired as a result — you know, right before she notifies the Chief Justice — would be sensible enough to not say that to Mitch before notifying the Chief Justice: instead notifying the Chief Justice (for the It’s My Job reason) and thus bringing to Mitch’s attention that she’s just now done her job.

The idea being, she can then get fired one second after noon — having done her job one second before noon. Or whatever.

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 08-10-2019 at 08:01 PM.
  #111  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:10 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What I’m saying is, I figure anyone who’d say “But, sir, it’s my job” to Mitch and get fired as a result — you know, right before she notifies the Chief Justice — would be sensible enough to not say that to Mitch before notifying the Chief Justice: instead notifying the Chief Justice (for the It’s My Job reason) and thus bringing to Mitch’s attention that she’s just now done her job.

The idea being, she can then get fired one second after noon — having done her job one second before noon. Or whatever.
Ooooo...that's interesting. Certainly possible.

My point still stands: Mitch can try to interfere in the process even if he has no official standing or authority. The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc. That's why we have the expression here: IOWRDI, it's okay when Republicans do it.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #112  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Trump is not scared of impeachment trial. He knows he won't be convicted. Then he can just shout "witch hunt" and pickup more support.
He knows *now* he won't be convicted. If the economy plunges, it's a whole 'nother story as they used to say down where I grew up. It's all in the timing. Right now Trump and the GOP feels emboldened. But if the economy leads the headlines in a bad way, it's over. And McConnell won't try to save him. It's Trump's party, but not Trump's alone. That's one reason why Democrats need to go after McConnell aggressively this election.
  #113  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:22 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Ooooo...that's interesting. Certainly possible.

My point still stands: Mitch can try to interfere in the process even if he has no official standing or authority. The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc. That's why we have the expression here: IOWRDI, it's okay when Republicans do it.
I don't see Republicans being able to stop impeachment once it starts; what I could envision is McConnell preemptively inserting rule changes in advance of an impeachment if it looks like it's gathering steam. Again, though, a lot of this depends on how McConnell perceives Trump's value. If the economy tanks or if there's some big event that hurts Trump in states he won in 2020, and especially if it looks like Trump is threatening the senate's grip on power in 2021, then McConnell might let impeachment happen, come what may from it.

My point last night - and I admit I made it clumsily - wasn't that Trump wouldn't be impeached or that the senate could just shut it all down whenever they want, and even if they could, they could perceive it more advantageous just to let impeachment play itself out. I was just saying that we've moved beyond the era in which we can assume that mechanisms like impeachment will function as we expect them to. Republicans are no longer bound by the same rules and norms that were in place even 5 years ago, so there's no reason to expect that they wouldn't use their senate majority in whatever manner they could to undermine the constitutional process of impeachment.

Last edited by asahi; 08-10-2019 at 09:25 PM.
  #114  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:51 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Ooooo...that's interesting. Certainly possible.

My point still stands: Mitch can try to interfere in the process even if he has no official standing or authority. The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc. That's why we have the expression here: IOWRDI, it's okay when Republicans do it.
Again we see an assertion without proof. You Dems keep doing this. Show me one example that the Pub Senators have violated a rule as written. DrDeth certainly hasn't done that although he still makes the claim as well.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 08-11-2019 at 12:52 AM.
  #115  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:04 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
I did make an error. All the Secretary has to do is notify the Managers that the Senate is ready to receive them when they arrive to present their case. If there were any attempt to prevent this the presiding officer (in this case CJ Roberts) would use their power under Rule V to enforce the rules.

It is actually the VP that notifies the Chief Justice that they are needed to preside, not the secretary (Rule IV). So basically McConnell would have to intimidate Pence into not setting the time for the trial.
  #116  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:12 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Again we see an assertion without proof. You Dems keep doing this. Show me one example that the Pub Senators have violated a rule as written. DrDeth certainly hasn't done that although he still makes the claim as well.
It wasn't an "an assertion without proof." It was a HYPOTHESIS. And I asked if it was impossible for Mitch to do this. Don't refer to me personally as "You Dems" when I'm trying to respond directly to you, "C'mon tell us all how it'll happen." I took your question seriously, but I observe you do not care to dialogue. So be it.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #117  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:00 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Again we see an assertion without proof. You Dems keep doing this. Show me one example that the Pub Senators have violated a rule as written. DrDeth certainly hasn't done that although he still makes the claim as well.
I made no such claim.


However, the GOP have pushed rules to the limits and run roughshod over senate traditions.


Mitch doesn't have to violate a rule to make sure there is nothing like a fair trial in the senate.
  #118  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:46 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
It wasn't an "an assertion without proof." It was a HYPOTHESIS. And I asked if it was impossible for Mitch to do this. Don't refer to me personally as "You Dems" when I'm trying to respond directly to you, "C'mon tell us all how it'll happen." I took your question seriously, but I observe you do not care to dialogue. So be it.
I was referring specifically to this line you wrote
Quote:
The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc.
That assertion is quite common on this board and this thread. And I am not the one you should be accusing of not dialoging. I have pointed out rules and scenarios and it is others in this thread that dismiss everything being discussed to assert that McConnell and the Pubs can and will do anything they want regardless of rules. They are the ones that don't want to debate the reality of the hypothetical.
  #119  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:04 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I made no such claim.


However, the GOP have pushed rules to the limits and run roughshod over senate traditions.


Mitch doesn't have to violate a rule to make sure there is nothing like a fair trial in the senate.
So just to clarify, according to you there is no evidence that the Republicans in the Senate have broken any rule as written? Do you then believe that the Senate will allow the Managers to exhibit the articles of impeachment under Rule 2?

Do you believe it was appropriate for Robert Byrd to make the motion to dismiss in Clinton's trial when it was clear he would not be convicted?
  #120  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So just to clarify, according to you there is no evidence that the Republicans in the Senate have broken any rule as written? Do you then believe that the Senate will allow the Managers to exhibit the articles of impeachment under Rule 2?

Do you believe it was appropriate for Robert Byrd to make the motion to dismiss in Clinton's trial when it was clear he would not be convicted?
How long do they have to exhibit?

Past history
  #121  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:42 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How long do they have to exhibit?

Past history
Exhibit in this case means present the articles of impeachment. If you mean present evidence it can be to a committee or to the full Senate. The time may vary depending on the forum.

And it is not past history. When Andrew Johnson was on trial after he was acquitted of disparaging Congress (felt to be the easiest charge for conviction) and violating the Tenure of Office Act the Senate stopped the trial knowing they could not get a conviction on the other nine charges. The motion to dismiss made by Robert Byrd was after it was clear they could not convict. The vote failed but we do not know what the vote was since it was held in private although we know that many Dems were in favor of it. They still voted against it because the Senate takes its responsibility of holding a full trial very seriously. Note that this is NOT the same as not holding confirmation hearings because that happened several times before Garland. So it is important to bring up because all history indicates that despite the politics of the situation this Senate will hold the full trial despite a senator's attempt to shorten it.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #122  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Exhibit in this case means present the articles of impeachment. If you mean present evidence it can be to a committee or to the full Senate. The time may vary depending on the forum.
....
So, as I said, it could be like a hour? read the bill, hold a vote, not guilty.

And what use would it be in any case? The GOP is not gonna vote trump out.
  #123  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:49 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, as I said, it could be like a hour? read the bill, hold a vote, not guilty.

And what use would it be in any case? The GOP is not gonna vote trump out.
Did you read the rules I linked to at all? That's not how it works. The ONLY way to prevent a full trial would be for 51 Senators to vote to dismiss charges. Otherwise CJ Roberts would conduct a full trial complete with Managers presenting evidence, a defense team for the President, ect.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #124  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:03 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
...It is actually the VP that notifies the Chief Justice that they are needed to preside, not the secretary (Rule IV). So basically McConnell would have to intimidate Pence into not setting the time for the trial.
This scenario, envisioning a Mike Pence intent on Doing What's Right in defiance of Mitch McConnell's wishes, appears to be completely independent from the reality of the characters of the actual persons involved.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
... When Andrew Johnson was on trial after he was acquitted of disparaging Congress ... They still voted against it because the Senate takes its responsibility of holding a full trial very seriously. ... So it is important to bring up because all history indicates that despite the politics of the situation this Senate will hold the full trial despite a senator's attempt to shorten it.
Again we see an apparent disconnect with reality. Something that the Senate did 151 years ago is offered as evidence of what the Senate will do today, on the theory that "the Senate" involved is, in some unexplained way, made up of the exact same decision-makers during both time periods.

Mitch McConnell is not going to permit a "full trial" under any circumstances. He is not going to let Americans hear one minute of any presentation critical of Donald Trump. And he is not going to turn over the running of his Senate to John Roberts.

The posts quoted are unfactual. John Roberts would "preside" over a Senate trial if one happened. That is the beginning and end of his power to decide what happens in that Senate. Whether a trial happens or does not happen is not, in any sense known to humankind, up to John Roberts.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 08-11-2019 at 06:03 PM.
  #125  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Did you read the rules I linked to at all? That's not how it works. The ONLY way to prevent a full trial would be for 51 Senators to vote to dismiss charges. Otherwise CJ Roberts would conduct a full trial complete with Managers presenting evidence, a defense team for the President, ect.
And what's stopping them from doing so?


How long due the rules say a 'full trial" must be?
  #126  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And what's stopping them from doing so?


How long due the rules say a 'full trial" must be?
McConnell isn't the one running the impeachment trial; the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is. If the Senate plays by the letter of the law with the rules they have in place now, then yeah, Saint Cad is right. But what's keeping the Senate from changing a few of the rules preemptively?

Last edited by asahi; 08-11-2019 at 07:32 PM.
  #127  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
This scenario, envisioning a Mike Pence intent on Doing What's Right in defiance of Mitch McConnell's wishes, appears to be completely independent from the reality of the characters of the actual persons involved.
Agreed, but it's possible the Republicans believe an impeachment to nowhere works in their favor. One might ask, why would the House push for a Senate trial if they know it could backfire politically. The answer is two-fold: a) they might badly misread the public's reaction; b) The might push so hard that the inertia of the impeachment proceedings forces them to push vote for a trial even with many Democrats knowing it would backfired.

If, OTOH, Trump plummets in popularity, then who knows: maybe Pence sees himself as savior of the Republican party and lets impeachment happen, or maybe he sees a coming backlash and retires from politics, and still lets impeachment happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Mitch McConnell is not going to permit a "full trial" under any circumstances. He is not going to let Americans hear one minute of any presentation critical of Donald Trump. And he is not going to turn over the running of his Senate to John Roberts.

The posts quoted are unfactual. John Roberts would "preside" over a Senate trial if one happened. That is the beginning and end of his power to decide what happens in that Senate. Whether a trial happens or does not happen is not, in any sense known to humankind, up to John Roberts.
I agree with Saint Cad in the sense that McConnell needs to have some legitimate way to tinker with the system. He can't just declare the Chief Justice's role null; he at least has to invoke the powers of the senate. The optics look terrible otherwise.
  #128  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:49 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Agreed, but it's possible the Republicans believe an impeachment to nowhere works in their favor. One might ask, why would the House push for a Senate trial if they know it could backfire politically. The answer is two-fold: a) they might badly misread the public's reaction; b) The might push so hard that the inertia of the impeachment proceedings forces them to push vote for a trial even with many Democrats knowing it would backfired.

If, OTOH, Trump plummets in popularity, then who knows: maybe Pence sees himself as savior of the Republican party and lets impeachment happen, or maybe he sees a coming backlash and retires from politics, and still lets impeachment happen.



I agree with Saint Cad in the sense that McConnell needs to have some legitimate way to tinker with the system. He can't just declare the Chief Justice's role null; he at least has to invoke the powers of the senate. The optics look terrible otherwise.
The optics looked terrible when McConnell refused to let a legitimate candidate for the Supreme Court have hearings. (my emphasis)

For the rest: yes, McConnell and/or Pence may have correct or incorrect views on whether the current mood of the nation makes a vote on impeachment good or bad for the Republican party (not to mention for McConnell and Pence as individuals). And as time moves on, all those calculations are likely to change to one degree or another.

But there's one thing on which (I believe) we can all make book: McConnell is not going to permit the American public to hear testimony or manager-presentations that would lead to any votes being lost for Republicans. Whether or not he decides to deep-six Trump, he's not going to want the party to suffer embarrassment.
  #129  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:39 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
McConnell isn't the one running the impeachment trial; the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is. If the Senate plays by the letter of the law with the rules they have in place now, then yeah, Saint Cad is right. But what's keeping the Senate from changing a few of the rules preemptively?
The Constitution that says when the President is impeached the CJOTUS presides over the trial.
  #130  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:40 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
But there's one thing on which (I believe) we can all make book: McConnell is not going to permit the American public to hear testimony or manager-presentations that would lead to any votes being lost for Republicans. Whether or not he decides to deep-six Trump, he's not going to want the party to suffer embarrassment.
They could go into closed session. I believe that is a majority vote.
  #131  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:42 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
The optics looked terrible when McConnell refused to let a legitimate candidate for the Supreme Court have hearings. (my emphasis)
But it did not violate any rules. That's my point. It is a large step to go from what the Pubs have done to actually violating written rules. And the last time leadership broke rules to advance a political agenda it was Pelosi during the debates on ACA.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 08-11-2019 at 08:43 PM.
  #132  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:42 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
The Constitution that says when the President is impeached the CJOTUS presides over the trial.
Understood, but there are rules that are not spelled out in the Constitution
  #133  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:15 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
But it did not violate any rules. That's my point. It is a large step to go from what the Pubs have done to actually violating written rules. And the last time leadership broke rules to advance a political agenda it was Pelosi during the debates on ACA.
I think we need an expert on the rules to chime in on this. I wonder what Merrick Garland is up to these days?

Perhaps there are no specific instances of Republicans breaking the rules and perhaps there are. Regardless, the Republicans know and understand that if they do decide to break the rules there are no consequences. Pundits and politicians will bitch, Trump will declare it a hoax and/or fake news, the Republicans will back him in absolute lockstep and nothing will happen. Who is going to impeach the Senate when the Senate refuses to impeach Trump?
  #134  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:30 AM
Elusive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 16
Wow. I haven't posted on this board in...I don't even know how long, but DWMarch, that last line of yours was absolutely chilling.
  #135  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:50 AM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Trump is not scared of impeachment trial. He knows he won't be convicted. Then he can just shout "witch hunt" and pickup more support.
That can only happen if McConnell allows a trial (assuming he has the power to prevent it). And then if it were to appear to the American public that the Republicans were running a sham trial to prevent conviction they would likely reject the verdict. Finally, even if a fair trial were held the Republicans will look like fools if they fail to provide a valid defense to Trump's actions and just shout "Steele Dossier!"

Yes Trump will probably avoid conviction in the Senate. Doesn't mean the Republicans will avoid the consequences.
  #136  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:38 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciurophobic View Post
That can only happen if McConnell allows a trial (assuming he has the power to prevent it).
He does not allow or not allow the trial. All that has to happen is Pence notifies CJ Roberts that there will be a trial and cited numerous times in this thread.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #137  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:27 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
He does not allow or not allow the trial. All that has to happen is Pence notifies CJ Roberts that there will be a trial and cited numerous times in this thread.
It's possible that Mike Pence never notifies Chief Justice Roberts of anything. How likely that is, how they would manage the backlash...I don't know. But we can't say it's not a possibility. The Republicans, particularly in the Senate, have shown on more than one occasion a willingness to violate political norms, and while some of the breaches have not technically been rules violations according to the letter of the law, they are nevertheless close enough in terms of breaking implicit rules that they in effect could be counted as relevant precedent in terms of foreshadowing how the Senate could simply block impeachment.

In short, the Republicans in the Senate don't play by rules anymore. They might ultimately decide it's in their best interests to play by the rules if they make a political calculation that it's wise to do so, but they could just as easily decide the opposite.

Last edited by asahi; 08-12-2019 at 04:27 PM.
  #138  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:54 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciurophobic View Post
That can only happen if McConnell allows a trial (assuming he has the power to prevent it). And then if it were to appear to the American public that the Republicans were running a sham trial to prevent conviction they would likely reject the verdict. Finally, even if a fair trial were held the Republicans will look like fools if they fail to provide a valid defense to Trump's actions and just shout "Steele Dossier!"

Yes Trump will probably avoid conviction in the Senate. Doesn't mean the Republicans will avoid the consequences.
Republicans have been shouting "Steele Dossier" for more than two years, and while they did lose the House, it's not as if they've suffered any serious, party-weakening consequences. In fact, millions of Americans cheer their foolishness. What makes you think a sham Senate trial will lead those Americans to "reject the verdict?" (And what would rejecting the verdict even mean? Riots in the streets?)
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #139  
Old 08-12-2019, 05:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
He does not allow or not allow the trial. All that has to happen is Pence notifies CJ Roberts that there will be a trial and cited numerous times in this thread.
Yeah, a five minute "Not Guilty" trial.
  #140  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:41 PM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Republicans have been shouting "Steele Dossier" for more than two years, and while they did lose the House, it's not as if they've suffered any serious, party-weakening consequences. In fact, millions of Americans cheer their foolishness. What makes you think a sham Senate trial will lead those Americans to "reject the verdict?" (And what would rejecting the verdict even mean? Riots in the streets?)
Those Americans will not "reject the verdict" because they will take any excuse as proof of Trump's innocence. For others "reject the verdict" just means they won't consider Trump not guilty just because the Senate voted that way, especially if it appears it did so by ignoring the evidence. They will see it as the Senate helping Trump "get away with it" and his, and the Senate's, popularity will go down, not up.

And if you think a majority of the American public will support Trump just because the Senate refuses to convict, just think about how popular OJ is.
  #141  
Old 08-13-2019, 08:45 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciurophobic View Post
Those Americans will not "reject the verdict" because they will take any excuse as proof of Trump's innocence. For others "reject the verdict" just means they won't consider Trump not guilty just because the Senate voted that way, especially if it appears it did so by ignoring the evidence. They will see it as the Senate helping Trump "get away with it" and his, and the Senate's, popularity will go down, not up.

And if you think a majority of the American public will support Trump just because the Senate refuses to convict, just think about how popular OJ is.
I sincerely wish you're right about all this, but I doubt it. Trump's approval ratings have barely budged since he took office, despite the American public having had ample opportunities to "reject the verdict." My concern is that little new will be revealed during a Senate trial, and most people won't pay attention to the details -- but everyone will know he was acquitted.

As has been stated upthread, the House making the case for impeachment is the best way to slowly, surely and unambiguously demonstrate how Trump has abused his office and cheated the American people, giving the Dem candidate a constant arsenal of evidence to level at him during the campaign. A Senate trial ending with acquittal risks throwing all that evidence into a dumpster while Trump crows about exoneration.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #142  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:16 AM
SingleMalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah, a five minute "Not Guilty" trial.
That may well be, but it will be CJ Roberts that calls that vote.

Here are the Senate rules governing impeachment proceedings. Basically, VP Pence turns over the gavel to the Chief Justice until the end of impeachment, and the trial is the only business that is conducted for its duration. (Preemptive apologies if I misinterpreted something.)

The devil in these details is that all of these rules are Senate-approved, and can be amended or completely rewritten with approval of a simple majority. The fix, as it were, is not yet in, but I don't trust McConnell or his cohort to not put their thumb on the scale. And Roberts, for all of his fretting about the Court's legacy, cannot be trusted to hold an impartial trial, I fear.

As it stands, Saint Cad's assessment looks accurate to me. For now.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017