Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-19-2019, 02:52 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,773

Please explain how McConnell will prevent the Trial of Trump


Now the articles of impeachment have been passed, we have a fresh round of disinformation that SML M. McConnell will somehow stop the trial or run it in a partisan fashion. I thought we had dispensed with this ignorance but apparently it takes longer that we thought.

The trial will be run by CJ John Roberts. That is in the Constitution. The Senate Rules on Impeachment (please read) confirm this. We have had at least two threads that went through and debated the rules and the conclusion was McConnell cannot stop or derail the trial. It is true that the Senate as a deliberative body can make the rules to run the trial but in this McConnell is 1% of the Senate

So rather than just assuming that McConnell has power during the impeachment trial, why don't all of you that are spouting this tell us exactly (rules, procedures, etc.) how McConnell can derail the Trial of Trump?
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #2  
Old 12-19-2019, 03:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,443
McConnell can direct his caucus to vote for rules that result in a sham trial. If he is successful in this, then McConnell will have prevented a real trial of impeachment.
  #3  
Old 12-19-2019, 03:08 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
McConnell can direct his caucus to vote for rules that result in a sham trial. If he is successful in this, then McConnell will have prevented a real trial of impeachment.
Except it takes a 2/3 vote (67 if all Senators vote) to amend the current rules I linked to. How many people are in McConnell's caucus?
  #4  
Old 12-19-2019, 03:14 PM
penultima thule is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,313
There is that quote from “Yes, Minister”
Hacker: I thought these inquiries were impartial?
Woolley: Minister, trains are impartial too, but lay down the tracks and that’s the way they go.
  #5  
Old 12-19-2019, 03:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,443
It was my understanding that the Senate can change Senate rules with simple majority vote.
  #6  
Old 12-19-2019, 03:32 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,895
MCConnell doesn't really have to follow the rules. Who's going to stop him? Roberts wants to do as little a possible, though he might take a stand on something particularly egregious, just so that his reputation stays more or less intact.
  #7  
Old 12-19-2019, 03:41 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,991
A couple articles about the process:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...k/?arc404=true
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...t/?arc404=true
  #8  
Old 12-19-2019, 04:02 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,416
As best I understand it, there are some rules in the "Official Rules of the Senate" (or whatever they're called). That's like 10-15 rules or so but vastly distant from the hundreds of minutiae that could be used to run the trial under.

As example, a few Senators have explicitly stated that they will not judge in good faith. Does the presiding officer (Roberts) have any ability to deal with that? He would have to carve that power out with a very large spoon, if we were talking about the handful of official Senate rules.

The minutiae could provide a clarification on that.

But, go for what the Washington Post says over me. I'm paywalled.
  #9  
Old 12-19-2019, 06:48 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,709
Can the Senate just not address the issue? It's already established that they can just not address a Supreme Court vacancy, so who's going to make them do their jobs if they decide they don't wanna?
  #10  
Old 12-19-2019, 08:50 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
The Senate can override any of Roberts' rulings with 51 votes.
  #11  
Old 12-19-2019, 09:02 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Now the articles of impeachment have been passed, we have a fresh round of disinformation that SML M. McConnell will somehow stop the trial or run it in a partisan fashion.
The man is literally on record stating that he plans to run the trial in a partisan fashion, and he is coordinating with White House counsel on his trial strategy. It's frankly not credible that you don't know this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch McConnell
“I'm not an impartial juror,” McConnell said. “This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it... I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch McConnell
Everything I do during this, I will be coordinating with White House counsel,” McConnell told Fox News last week, adding that there will be “no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”
  #12  
Old 12-19-2019, 09:11 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The Senate can override any of Roberts' rulings with 51 votes.
That is unclear. That Roberts will preside is directly in the Constitution.

What "preside" means is unclear but if they tried to set up rules that, in essence, made it impossible for Roberts to preside in any functional sense, the Democrats could take that to the Supreme Court with the argument that the Presiding role implicitly has powers to ensure that the trial is conducted fairly.

Usually, the Supreme Court opts to have no opinion where the Constitution already provides a mechanism (e.g. withholding money, impeaching, etc.) and let Congress and the Executive branch or the House and the Senate to duke it out as they will.

In this specific circumstance, though, I think that they would come to an opinion and vote to give the Presiding officer certain powers.
  #13  
Old 12-19-2019, 09:22 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
That is unclear. That Roberts will preside is directly in the Constitution.

What "preside" means is unclear but if they tried to set up rules that, in essence, made it impossible for Roberts to preside in any functional sense, the Democrats could take that to the Supreme Court with the argument that the Presiding role implicitly has powers to ensure that the trial is conducted fairly.

Usually, the Supreme Court opts to have no opinion where the Constitution already provides a mechanism (e.g. withholding money, impeaching, etc.) and let Congress and the Executive branch or the House and the Senate to duke it out as they will.

In this specific circumstance, though, I think that they would come to an opinion and vote to give the Presiding officer certain powers.
During Andrew Johnson's trial the Senate repeatedly overruled CJ Chase. It cannot be taken to the Supreme Court as the Court has ruled that this is a political question. The Constitution is clear: The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments.

To "preside" doesn't mean or imply absolute and/or irrevocable power. The Vice President otherwise "presides" over the Senate, but he or she cannot rule with impunity. That would be a rather absurd construction of preside: to give Roberts the power to determine "fairness" in his own non-reviewable way. It would rob the Senate of its power.

I think the analogy is pretty apt. The Chief Justice stands in with all of the powers, but no more, than the Vice President would have if he or she was in the chair. The Vice President is disqualified only because of his conflict of interest in that any guilty verdict means that he becomes President. Other than that, all remains the same.
  #14  
Old 12-19-2019, 11:22 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
During Andrew Johnson's trial the Senate repeatedly overruled CJ Chase. It cannot be taken to the Supreme Court as the Court has ruled that this is a political question.
A brief Google does not present a supreme court case regarding Senate overruling of Chase during the impeachment of Johnson. Cite?
  #15  
Old 12-19-2019, 11:44 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
A brief Google does not present a supreme court case regarding Senate overruling of Chase during the impeachment of Johnson. Cite?
Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean to say that there was a Supreme Court ruling on overruling the CJ during an impeachment trial.

My first point is that it was done during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson:

Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment
The second question is the extent of the Chief Justice's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings. In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice.
The Supreme Court furthered held 6-3 that the Senate power to try impeachments was a non-justiciable political question that the Court would never involve itself in. White and Blackmun would have held it to be justiciable (but agreed in the result) and Souter would have held it justiciable in very few circumstances such as if the Senate immediately convicted someone after taking no evidence or decided the case on a coin flip.

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (note, not that Nixon)

Taking those two together, or even just taking the last one, if the Senate overrules Roberts, 1) precedent allows it, and 2) the Supreme Court won't do anything to stop it.
  #16  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:39 AM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Except it takes a 2/3 vote (67 if all Senators vote) to amend the current rules I linked to. How many people are in McConnell's caucus?
This was dealt with by the invocation of the "nuclear option" which permitted a simple majority to change Senate rules.

Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to change the Cloture rule by a simple majority vote in November 2013. Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell again invoked the nuclear option in April 2017 during the confirmation hearing of then-nominee to the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch.
  #17  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:40 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
The man is literally on record stating that he plans to run the trial in a partisan fashion, and he is coordinating with White House counsel on his trial strategy. It's frankly not credible that you don't know this.
It's frankly not credible that you don't know this.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that impeachment is a political exercise.

Of course it's going to be partisan, one way or the other.
  #18  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:55 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Except it takes a 2/3 vote (67 if all Senators vote) to amend the current rules I linked to. How many people are in McConnell's caucus?
Yes, if they amend the rules through formal replacement of the official text. It only takes a simple majority to adopt an interpretation of the rules that is directly contrary to the text (the nuclear option). The effect of this is exactly identical to a formal amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The Senate can override any of Roberts' rulings with 51 votes.
As far as I know, Roberts doesn't even have to make rulings. He's free to move straight to a vote without expressing any opinion whatsoever. (I expect him to do this on all matters of any dispute whatsoever. He will be a potted plant in a robe, just like his predecessor, whose opinion of his role was "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.")

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 12-20-2019 at 12:58 AM.
  #19  
Old 12-20-2019, 01:27 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,672
All McConnell needs to do is set a standard of evidence admissibility that's favorable to Trump. Declare that the President has the authority to rule that evidence can be withheld if its release would violate national security. Then get his fellow Republicans to agree.

Trump declares all communications with Ukraine, including witness testimony, is covered by national security. Without the evidence, the impeachment managers will not be able to present any proof that Trump committed any crimes. The Republicans announce that no evidence of Trump's guilt was presented and find him innocent of all charges.
  #20  
Old 12-20-2019, 01:30 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Except it takes a 2/3 vote (67 if all Senators vote) to amend the current rules I linked to. How many people are in McConnell's caucus?
Are you sure? I've seen commentators saying that these are Senate rules and only require a majority vote to change them.
  #21  
Old 12-20-2019, 02:50 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Are you sure? I've seen commentators saying that these are Senate rules and only require a majority vote to change them.
Obviously he's sure. Doesn't mean he's correct, but he's certain, either way.
  #22  
Old 12-20-2019, 09:56 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
It's frankly not credible that you don't know this.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that impeachment is a political exercise.

Of course it's going to be partisan, one way or the other.
Of course your post is misdirected, because I was addressing Saint Cad who was just confidently assuring us that the trial is definitely *not* going to be partisan and there's no evidence to the contrary. You guys should get together and get your story straight.
  #23  
Old 12-20-2019, 11:58 AM
Some Call Me... Tim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
It's frankly not credible that you don't know this.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that impeachment is a political exercise.

Of course it's going to be partisan, one way or the other.
It's frankly blah blah blah blah blah know this, but the impeachment was completed earlier this week.

The topic of this thread is the trial, not the impeachment. The trial requires all jurors(Senators) to swear an oath of impartiality.
  #24  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:53 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
As far as I know, Roberts doesn't even have to make rulings. He's free to move straight to a vote without expressing any opinion whatsoever. (I expect him to do this on all matters of any dispute whatsoever. He will be a potted plant in a robe, just like his predecessor, whose opinion of his role was "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.")
He only won't have to make rulings if there are no disputes presented to him. Let's say that the Senate refuses the Dem requests to call John Bolton. One of the House Managers could rise and say, "Mr. Chief Justice, the House calls John Bolton to the witness stand." There would be cries of "Objection!" as it would be in violation of the rules presented by the Senate. The House Manager could then say "Mr. Chief Justice, the Senate has denied us the right to present a complete case and the rule is an unconstitutional interference with the House's ability to prosecute these articles of impeachment."

CJ Roberts will have to rule one way or the other. And either way he rules, the Senate may overrule him with 51 votes.
  #25  
Old 12-20-2019, 03:52 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
He only won't have to make rulings if there are no disputes presented to him. Let's say that the Senate refuses the Dem requests to call John Bolton. One of the House Managers could rise and say, "Mr. Chief Justice, the House calls John Bolton to the witness stand." There would be cries of "Objection!" as it would be in violation of the rules presented by the Senate. The House Manager could then say "Mr. Chief Justice, the Senate has denied us the right to present a complete case and the rule is an unconstitutional interference with the House's ability to prosecute these articles of impeachment."

CJ Roberts will have to rule one way or the other. And either way he rules, the Senate may overrule him with 51 votes.
I agree. The Chief Justice does not make the rules in an impeachment trial. His role is simply to enforce the rules the Senate has made. And the Senate is free to change those rules at any point by a majority vote - even after the Chief Justice has made a ruling.

So this could happen:

House Manager: "Mr. Chief Justice, the House calls John Bolton to the witness stand."
Defense: "Objection."
Chief Justice Roberts: "Objection overruled. Senate rules say the House Manager can call witnesses."
Fifty-one Senators: "We don't like that rule. We're changing it."
Chief Justice Roberts: "Then objection sustained. Senate rules say the House Manager cannot call witnesses."
  #26  
Old 12-20-2019, 04:36 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim View Post
It's frankly blah blah blah blah blah know this, but the impeachment was completed earlier this week.
No, it hasn't.

Cite:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-for-democrats
  #27  
Old 12-20-2019, 07:16 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
That is certain an opinion.
  #28  
Old 12-20-2019, 11:10 PM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,456
Two things stood out to me in the Senate rules that the OP linked to.

(A), They appear to envision a rather limited role for the Chief Justice. Paragraph VII (at the bottom of p.224) says that he "may rule on all questions of evidence. . . ." Not "shall," but "may." There's a world of difference between the two. "Shall" is mandatory, but "may" is discretionary.

(B), It is clear that the Chief Justice does not have any sort of jurisdiction over the Senate. In the same paragraph, we see two separate individuals functioning: the "Presiding Officer on the trial" (i.e., the Chief Justice); and the "Presiding Officer of the Senate." This reading is reinforced by paragraph XI, wherein the Presiding Officer of the Senate is given the role of leader.
  #29  
Old 12-21-2019, 01:47 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That is certain an opinion.
Yes, from the constitutional scholar called as a witness by the Democrats themselves during the impeachment inquiry.
  #30  
Old 12-21-2019, 07:30 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That is certain an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Yes, from the constitutional scholar called as a witness by the Democrats themselves during the impeachment inquiry.
Why do you now accept opinions in Great Debates?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
I disagree that it is well-sourced. The fact that Liberal Groups A, B, and C filed lawsuits is not evidence of anything.

Besides, it's a literary and cultural COMMENTARY magazine. By definition, that's opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No, that's not how Great Debates works. If he is going to make claims, he needs to back them up, with facts, not opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
I'm only interested in debates based on facts, not what people think the facts should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
IMHO, I wish that in Great Debates, posters wouldn't (mis)represent opinions as facts. We've had posters, when politely asked for a cite, link to a clearly labeled opinion/editorial piece. Also, personal anecdotes are not cites.

We have other forums for opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
So no cites. In my opinion, Great Debates should be about facts, not random opinions.

Also, what's wrong with your caps lock button?
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
I didn't use the term instant.

And, rc quoted an opinion piece, not facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
If that's your position, please defend it with citations and facts, not opinions.
  #31  
Old 12-21-2019, 08:14 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree. The Chief Justice does not make the rules in an impeachment trial. His role is simply to enforce the rules the Senate has made. And the Senate is free to change those rules at any point by a majority vote - even after the Chief Justice has made a ruling.

So this could happen:

House Manager: "Mr. Chief Justice, the House calls John Bolton to the witness stand."
Defense: "Objection."
Chief Justice Roberts: "Objection overruled. Senate rules say the House Manager can call witnesses."
Fifty-one Senators: "We don't like that rule. We're changing it."
Chief Justice Roberts: "Then objection sustained. Senate rules say the House Manager cannot call witnesses."
The rules are supposed to be worked out and agreed upon before the trial begins.
  #32  
Old 12-21-2019, 12:18 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Why do you now accept opinions in Great Debates?
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
  #33  
Old 12-21-2019, 02:08 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The rules are supposed to be worked out and agreed upon before the trial begins.
I know they're supposed to be. But is there any binding rule that prohibits changes during the trial? Or is it just a voluntary agreement not to make any changes?
  #34  
Old 12-21-2019, 02:09 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The rules are supposed to be worked out and agreed upon before the trial begins.
It's funny you think Republicans still give a damn about "supposed to".
  #35  
Old 12-23-2019, 03:08 PM
DChord568 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,196
I'm sure someone will tell me why this is a stupid idea.

But why doesn't Nancy Pelosi say something along the lines of this:

"Senator McConnell has made it abundantly clear through his own words that he has no intention whatsoever of upholding the oath he will take prior to an impeachment trial in the Senate.

"That oath reads 'I, [name], solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment now pending, I will do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.'

"Unless and until Senator McConnell repudiates his earlier statements stating that he has no intention of being impartial in these proceedings and promises he will uphold his oath, the House will NOT forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate."

In other words, hold this asshole's feet to the fire and shine the spotlight on him. He needs to made to squirm a little for saying something so egregious.

I grant that even if he backtracked on the statement, his behavior probably wouldn't be any different. But someone ought to make the point that laws, and oaths, mean something.

I don't see the downside to the Democrats doing this. Obviously, the Repubs, as well as Trump, want to see this all disposed of as quickly as possible. Make 'em wait, and make it clear what is holding things up.
  #36  
Old 12-23-2019, 03:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
It's funny you think Republicans still give a damn about "supposed to".
What can I say? Gullibility Springs Eternal.
  #37  
Old 12-23-2019, 03:16 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by DChord568 View Post
I'm sure someone will tell me why this is a stupid idea.

But why doesn't Nancy Pelosi say something along the lines of this:

"Senator McConnell has made it abundantly clear through his own words that he has no intention whatsoever of upholding the oath he will take prior to an impeachment trial in the Senate.

"That oath reads 'I, [name], solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment now pending, I will do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.'

"Unless and until Senator McConnell repudiates his earlier statements stating that he has no intention of being impartial in these proceedings and promises he will uphold his oath, the House will NOT forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate."

In other words, hold this asshole's feet to the fire and shine the spotlight on him. He needs to made to squirm a little for saying something so egregious.

I grant that even if he backtracked on the statement, his behavior probably wouldn't be any different. But someone ought to make the point that laws, and oaths, mean something.

I don't see the downside to the Democrats doing this. Obviously, the Repubs, as well as Trump, want to see this all disposed of as quickly as possible. Make 'em wait, and make it clear what is holding things up.
The impeachment trial dies on the vine, Trump and the Republicans declare it a "win".
There is the obvious downside.
  #38  
Old 12-23-2019, 03:37 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,895
McConnell can do just about whatever he wants because there's nothing to stop him. Roberts might say something, but most likely he'd rather just let McConnell do it, and not get too involved himself. Pelosi's goal isn't to try to force Republicans in the Senate, through a trial, to somehow admit that Trump committed egregious acts. Her goal is to accentuate that they are effectively abetting Trump--and to shine a public light on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The impeachment trial dies on the vine, Trump and the Republicans declare it a "win".
There is the obvious downside.
The results of the trial--or even whether they have one or not--are not the real issue here; they're going to declare it a "win" no matter how it happens. The point is to call public attention to what the Republicans are doing. The strategy is to make this outweigh the inevitable claims of a "win," and spur anti-Republican turn out in the election. Of course no one knows how well this will work, but it's probably her best course of action.
  #39  
Old 12-23-2019, 03:50 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
McConnell can do just about whatever he wants because there's nothing to stop him. Roberts might say something, but most likely he'd rather just let McConnell do it, and not get too involved himself. Pelosi's goal isn't to try to force Republicans in the Senate, through a trial, to somehow admit that Trump committed egregious acts. Her goal is to accentuate that they are effectively abetting Trump--and to shine a public light on that.The results of the trial--or even whether they have one or not--are not the real issue here; they're going to declare it a "win" no matter how it happens. The point is to call public attention to what the Republicans are doing. The strategy is to make this outweigh the inevitable claims of a "win," and spur anti-Republican turn out in the election. Of course no one knows how well this will work, but it's probably her best course of action.
If the avalanche of crap that has been shoveled at the public by Trump and the Republicans to date hasn't attracted the public's attention, then what makes you think a failed impeachment attempt(and it IS a failure if the trial falls through because Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about honor and/or integrity) will do the job?
  #40  
Old 12-23-2019, 04:04 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
It's frankly not credible that you don't know this.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that impeachment is a political exercise.

Of course it's going to be partisan, one way or the other.
Exactly. Further, McConnell doesn't have to do anything wrt changing the 'rules'...they could go by exactly the same rules as was used in Clinton's senate trial and the result would be the same...Trump is going to get off. There is no 'fair' trial that would change this result.

McConnell would be stupid to not simply use the same rules as were used for Clinton, including limited numbers of witnesses cross examined privately. Assuming there isn't something we haven't heard yet wrt Trump, he's not going to be hammered by the Senate, and it will be a completely partisan across the board vote, with, perhaps, one or two people voting the other way for political reasons. Just like what happened in the House.

The REAL question is, will it be like all the other times of impeachment where the party of the president being impeached loses in the next general election. I think that this will hold true, and Trump will simply be voted out.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #41  
Old 12-23-2019, 05:21 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by DChord568 View Post
I'm sure someone will tell me why this is a stupid idea.

But why doesn't Nancy Pelosi say something along the lines of this:

"Senator McConnell has made it abundantly clear through his own words that he has no intention whatsoever of upholding the oath he will take prior to an impeachment trial in the Senate.

"That oath reads 'I, [name], solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment now pending, I will do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.'

"Unless and until Senator McConnell repudiates his earlier statements stating that he has no intention of being impartial in these proceedings and promises he will uphold his oath, the House will NOT forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate."

In other words, hold this asshole's feet to the fire and shine the spotlight on him. He needs to made to squirm a little for saying something so egregious.

I grant that even if he backtracked on the statement, his behavior probably wouldn't be any different. But someone ought to make the point that laws, and oaths, mean something.

I don't see the downside to the Democrats doing this. Obviously, the Repubs, as well as Trump, want to see this all disposed of as quickly as possible. Make 'em wait, and make it clear what is holding things up.
That only works when you are holding up something the other side wants. The Senate GOP does not want Trump removed and forbidding it from holding a trial only prevents any possibility of that from happening.

It would be like if you said that you will refuse to kick me in the balls until I submit to your demands. What kind of worthless ultimatum is that?

Last edited by UltraVires; 12-23-2019 at 05:21 PM.
  #42  
Old 12-23-2019, 07:13 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Why do you now accept opinions in Great Debates?
*smacks fingers* that's a spicy ownball. Just thought I'd share the appreciation.
  #43  
Old 12-23-2019, 07:51 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Scenario: The House delivers its Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in early January. The Senate immediately convenes a trial session. House prosecutors present a case - they have one hour under a rule just passed. Defense counsel presents their case in their hour. Senate majority leader calls for an immediate vote. Not guilty. Adjourned.
  #44  
Old 12-23-2019, 07:58 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Scenario: The House delivers its Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in early January. Senate majority leader immediately convenes a trial session. House prosecutors present a case - they have one hour under a new rule. Defense counsel presents their case in their hour. Senate majority leader calls for an immediate vote. Not guilty. Adjourned.

Another scenario: Over the holidays, overwhelming evidence emerges of TREASON by this POTUS. House quickly reconvenes and passes further Articles of Impeachment. Then the previous scenario plays out.

The Senate majority leader cannot STOP the trial but can easily render it irrelevant.
  #45  
Old 12-23-2019, 10:24 PM
DChord568 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The impeachment trial dies on the vine, Trump and the Republicans declare it a "win".
There is the obvious downside.
How is this outcome any different from the foreordained outcome if the impeachment trial goes forward? The Republican declaration you speak of will follow Trump being acquitted by Senators.

Quote:
That only works when you are holding up something the other side wants. The Senate GOP does not want Trump removed and forbidding it from holding a trial only prevents any possibility of that from happening.
Trump, at least, "wants" true exoneration — well, not true, but the kind of exoneration a Senate acquittal would give him — and has said so explicitly. Without at least the pretense of a "fair and impartial trial" (even though it wouldn't really be that anyway), he will not get that. And unless and until this is resolved, the impeachment label forever attached to him would hang even heavier around his neck, because it has not been resolved.

And the point of holding back until McConnell reverses his statement is that the spotlight will be shined clearly and unambiguously on the person responsible for this.
  #46  
Old 12-23-2019, 10:38 PM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Scenario: The House delivers its Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in early January. The Senate immediately convenes a trial session. House prosecutors present a case - they have one hour under a rule just passed. Defense counsel presents their case in their hour. Senate majority leader calls for an immediate vote. Not guilty. Adjourned.
OR,

McConnell deliberately drags out the trial as much as he possibly can in order to hurt the campaigns of all the Democratic senators running for president.
  #47  
Old 12-28-2019, 07:53 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
OR,

McConnell deliberately drags out the trial as much as he possibly can in order to hurt the campaigns of all the Democratic senators running for president.
Will that suit Team Tramp more than a fast exoneration? Will Moscow Mitch risk having horrendous evidence emerge before the preordained Not Guilty verdict?
  #48  
Old 12-29-2019, 09:21 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
OR,

McConnell deliberately drags out the trial as much as he possibly can in order to hurt the campaigns of all the Democratic senators running for president.
Dragging it out longer will likely only hurt Trump more, and as for the Democratic senators running for president, it's not so much in the GOP's interests to make one or several suffer, as it is to make the entire Democratic primaries as long-lasting and contentious as possible. The Republicans want the Democratic contender field to remain as cluttered as long as possible.
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 05:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017