Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:26 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573

Is Pelosi withholding Impeachment articles to derail Senators?


When the impeacent trial is going on Senators can't campaign. (Although as a side debate: how enforceable is that rule?) Do you think Pelosi is holding off on submitting the impeachment articles until the best time to say derail Sanders in the primaries, or Republican senators trying to get reelected to the Senate?
  #2  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
She's not holding onto them any more -- floor vote soon to send the articles to the Senate: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/polit...ing/index.html
  #3  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:42 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,725
Rumor has it Sanders will fly out at night and campaign and then fly back so he won't miss any senate sessions. That's pretty easy for NH but a longer flight to IA.
  #4  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:42 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
She's not holding onto them any more -- floor vote soon to send the articles to the Senate: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/polit...ing/index.html
Ok, so was this to derail Sanders and Warren? It is now closer to the primaries. Can Sanders and Warren ignore the rule against campaigning?
  #5  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Ok, so was this to derail Sanders and Warren? It is now closer to the primaries. Can Sanders and Warren ignore the rule against campaigning?
There's no such rule. They'll campaign, then fly in for votes, then fly out for more campaigning.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #6  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:02 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Ok, so was this to derail Sanders and Warren?
What's the evidence for this conspiracy theory?
  #7  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:09 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What's the evidence for this conspiracy theory?
It is just a theory. It is not necessarily a conspiracy, as it necessitates just one schemer: Pelosi. My reasoning: the Dems were saying the impeachment article hearings had to be rushed because Trump was an imminent threat to our democracy. And they had just the right amount of time to do it before primary season. Now just before the primaries Pelosi is ready to transmit, and that severely restricts the scheduling for the Dem senators trying to win the primaries. (Unless the Dem senators scoff at the rules, which I wonder if they can get away with.)
  #8  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:17 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
It is just a theory. It is not necessarily a conspiracy, as it necessitates just one schemer: Pelosi. My reasoning: the Dems were saying the impeachment article hearings had to be rushed because Trump was an imminent threat to our democracy. And they had just the right amount of time to do it before primary season. Now just before the primaries Pelosi is ready to transmit, and that severely restricts the scheduling for the Dem senators trying to win the primaries. (Unless the Dem senators scoff at the rules, which I wonder if they can get away with.)
Can you provide a link to a Democrat (ideally one on either committee) saying that the impeachment needed to be rushed? When I Google this all I find is Doug Collins saying that the impeachment was rushed.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-14-2020 at 11:17 AM.
  #9  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:27 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
It is just a theory. It is not necessarily a conspiracy, as it necessitates just one schemer: Pelosi. My reasoning: the Dems were saying the impeachment article hearings had to be rushed because Trump was an imminent threat to our democracy. And they had just the right amount of time to do it before primary season. Now just before the primaries Pelosi is ready to transmit, and that severely restricts the scheduling for the Dem senators trying to win the primaries.
You are totally missing the part where Mitch McConnell announced in December he's going to run a kangaroo court. That's a glaring omission in your timeline.
Quote:
(Unless the Dem senators scoff at the rules, which I wonder if they can get away with.)
I'm not sure why you are worried about this. Any Senator who doesn't attend is subject to arrest and being carried back into the Senate chamber. The more concerning violation of the rules, IMHO, is that Republican Senators are openly saying that they will work hand-in-glove with the President's defense team, in violation of their upcoming oath to be impartial.
  #10  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:28 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
It is just a theory. It is not necessarily a conspiracy, as it necessitates just one schemer: Pelosi. My reasoning: the Dems were saying the impeachment article hearings had to be rushed because Trump was an imminent threat to our democracy. And they had just the right amount of time to do it before primary season. Now just before the primaries Pelosi is ready to transmit, and that severely restricts the scheduling for the Dem senators trying to win the primaries. (Unless the Dem senators scoff at the rules, which I wonder if they can get away with.)
There are no such "rules" -- if you believe otherwise, can you cite these supposed rules?
  #11  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:34 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Can you provide a link to a Democrat (ideally one on either committee) saying that the impeachment needed to be rushed? When I Google this all I find is Doug Collins saying that the impeachment was rushed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...lming-n1090221
says Schiff said
Quote:
We view this as urgent, we have another election where the president is threatening more foreign interference. But at the same time, there are still other witnesses, other documents that we’d like to obtain. But we are not willing to go the months and months and months of rope-a-dope in the courts, which the administration would love to do.
  #12  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:39 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Schiff was talking about "months and months and months" of delays. (see your cite.) The delay has actually been maybe two weeks, depending on how you count it.

Dude, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
  #13  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:39 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Thanks. I'm not sure I would interpret that as saying it has be rushed, but I appreciate seeing where you're coming from.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-14-2020 at 11:43 AM.
  #14  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:41 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There are no such "rules" -- if you believe otherwise, can you cite these supposed rules?
Seriously?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-candidates-dc

Quote:
An impeachment trial would consume every senator’s schedule. Under the Senate’s current rules, all senators must be in session Monday through Saturday, starting at around noon each day. The trial may last several weeks — Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial lasted five — thus taking several candidates off the campaign trail the month before the primaries start.

That’s a major problem for the six senators running to be the Democratic nominee for president — Cory Booker, Michael Bennet, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.
It is now even closer to the primaries than when this article was written.
  #15  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:49 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
What makes you think that Dem Senators are going to break the rules on attendance? Seems like totally baseless speculation to me. I mean, I could just as easily say that Ted Cruz is going to attack the House impeachment managers with a hatchet.... oh noes, how can we stop that?!?!?
  #16  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:58 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What makes you think that Dem Senators are going to break the rules on attendance? Seems like totally baseless speculation to me. I mean, I could just as easily say that Ted Cruz is going to attack the House impeachment managers with a hatchet.... oh noes, how can we stop that?!?!?
Well I called that a side debate. My main point is a December trial in the Senate would have been the perfect time. Instead Pelosi waited until the primaries are about to start. That sidelines any Dem Senator trying to win the Dem primary. If I were a Sanders or Warren supporter I would be upset.
  #17  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:14 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Well I called that a side debate. My main point is a December trial in the Senate would have been the perfect time. Instead Pelosi waited until the primaries are about to start. That sidelines any Dem Senator trying to win the Dem primary. If I were a Sanders or Warren supporter I would be upset.
Firstly, December is a terrible time to have a trial that should last weeks because of the holiday break.

Secondly, I refer you back to Ravenman's point about McConnell and company openly stating that they aren't going to be impartial, and Pelosi asking for assurances that Senators were at least going to pretend to adhere to the oath they will take. I don't find that unreasonable at all.

Thirdly, it's unlikely that Pelosi would want to undermine Sanders like that. She needs his (and Warren's) support and goodwill in Congress. If you're thinking this is all a plot to get Biden confirmed as the nominee, it's the DNC who is responsible for any skulduggery in that respect. Pelosi has other priorities, this trial being the main one. She's not going to jeopardize it just to help Uncle Joe.

Finally, and more speculatively, Pelosi might be trying to time the trial so that Trump is at his most unhinged when delivering his SOTU. I have no idea if this is something she wants or is able to do but I wouldn't put it past her. Since she knows the Republicans will be going for the kangaroo court approach, trying to get Trump to embarrass and/or incriminate himself in a high-profile speech may be the best win she can get.
  #18  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:15 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,533
If Pelosi had sent over the Articles of Impeachment right after the House vote, McConnel would have rushed through a trial by New Year's Day. Then we wouldn't have had the tantaliozing fight over whether John Bolton would or would not testify, and we wouldn't have some segment of the voting public saying, "Well, I would like to hear what this guy has to say."

In this case, it's the prosecution attempting to create doubt, while the defense wants to rush everything through before anyone can raise any questions.
  #19  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Well I called that a side debate. My main point is a December trial in the Senate would have been the perfect time. Instead Pelosi waited until the primaries are about to start. That sidelines any Dem Senator trying to win the Dem primary. If I were a Sanders or Warren supporter I would be upset.
I like both Sanders and Warren and I'm not upset at all. Fighting to hold Trump accountable, as the impeachment articles are, is about the best possible type of campaigning that any Democratic candidate could do. "Sorry, I'm busy trying to hold the most corrupt, immoral, incompetent, and dangerous President of the last 50 years accountable" is just about the perfect response to any question about why they're not campaigning.
  #20  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:58 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,725
Remember 2008, when McCain suspended his campaign to devote his time to dealing with the financial crisis? And when Obama kept on campaigning while also working on the financial crisis? That was right around when McCain's polling numbers started declining significantly (though it's hard to know how much was due to that, since that was also right around when Palin was named as his running mate).
  #21  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:15 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,557
I don't think Pelosi is doing it to disadvantage Warren or Sanders (or Klobuchar, not that anything would make any difference for her anyway).

Trump's not going to be removed from office. Pelosi was/is stalling on sending over the articles to do her unfortunate best to try to get the Senate trial run the way the House impeachment was run. She doesn't have much power to do so, and eventually "shit or get off the pot" becomes the dominant theme.

The notion "we gotta get him out NOW because he's gonna start WWIII" kind of fell flat. So it's not so much "the first primary is in a month - let's fuck over Bernie". That's Bernie Bro conspiracy theory stuff. More like "if it's so important what the hell are you waiting for".

Pelosi will send over the articles, we will have the trial for a month or so, everyone will yell and pound on the table and work themselves into a lather. Then Trump will be acquitted almost entirely along party lines, Pelosi will go back to the House and try to impeach him for something else, and Sanders and Warren can fly off to make speeches about their deep commitment to the people of whatever state their campaign aides told them they were in today and figure out how to lose to Joe Biden.

Regards,
Shodan
  #22  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:27 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I like both Sanders and Warren and I'm not upset at all. Fighting to hold Trump accountable, as the impeachment articles are, is about the best possible type of campaigning that any Democratic candidate could do. "Sorry, I'm busy trying to hold the most corrupt, immoral, incompetent, and dangerous President of the last 50 years accountable" is just about the perfect response to any question about why they're not campaigning.
That's not how it works. Physically going around the country having campaign events is one of the main strategies for winning an election. It doesn't affect me; I will do my own research and would be fine if a candidate declared "I'm doing this important work blah blah blah, and so I can't visit your state", but evidently it does affect enough voters to swing an election. (Don't you recall how the Ruskies hacked a bunch of polls to show Hillary way in the lead, so she didn't bother to do enough campaign events in battleground states, and so she lost in 2016? Joking, LMAO.)
  #23  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
That's not how it works. Physically going around the country having campaign events is one of the main strategies for winning an election. It doesn't affect me; I will do my own research and would be fine if a candidate declared "I'm doing this important work blah blah blah, and so I can't visit your state", but evidently it does affect enough voters to swing an election. (Don't you recall how the Ruskies hacked a bunch of polls to show Hillary way in the lead, so she didn't bother to do enough campaign events in battleground states, and so she lost in 2016? Joking, LMAO.)
If we were talking months and months and months, maybe. But there will be weekends and other days for campaigning, and these candidates have the money and energy to travel. They'll be fine for the (presumable) few weeks of the Senate trial. And they'll be on TV a lot with "free media" as they ask questions of witnesses and otherwise speak about the impeachment.
  #24  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:53 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't think Pelosi is doing it to disadvantage Warren or Sanders (or Klobuchar, not that anything would make any difference for her anyway).

Trump's not going to be removed from office. Pelosi was/is stalling on sending over the articles to do her unfortunate best to try to get the Senate trial run the way the House impeachment was run. She doesn't have much power to do so, and eventually "shit or get off the pot" becomes the dominant theme.

The notion "we gotta get him out NOW because he's gonna start WWIII" kind of fell flat. So it's not so much "the first primary is in a month - let's fuck over Bernie". That's Bernie Bro conspiracy theory stuff. More like "if it's so important what the hell are you waiting for".

Pelosi will send over the articles, we will have the trial for a month or so, everyone will yell and pound on the table and work themselves into a lather. Then Trump will be acquitted almost entirely along party lines, Pelosi will go back to the House and try to impeach him for something else, and Sanders and Warren can fly off to make speeches about their deep commitment to the people of whatever state their campaign aides told them they were in today and figure out how to lose to Joe Biden.

Regards,
Shodan
McConnell went from "coordinating closely with WH" and vote to immediately dismiss, to 4 GOP senators announcing they are likely to vote to hear from witnesses and not having sufficient numbers to hold a dismissal vote. So I don't think Pelosi's strategy was entirely in vain.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #25  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:57 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
McConnell went from "coordinating closely with WH" and vote to immediately dismiss, to 4 GOP senators announcing they are likely to vote to hear from witnesses and not having sufficient numbers to hold a dismissal vote. So I don't think Pelosi's strategy was entirely in vain.
I think that would have happened in December.
  #26  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:45 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
I'm reminded of the phrase, "Gratuitous claims may be equally gratuitously denied."
  #27  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:49 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Schiff was talking about "months and months and months" of delays. (see your cite.) The delay has actually been maybe two weeks, depending on how you count it.
One week. The House voted to impeach on December 19th, then adjourned until January 7, one week ago today.

I think it's great that a one week delay (counting in "in-session" days) generated calendar weeks of stress on the Senate and President. Well done, Nancy.
  #28  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:14 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
One week. The House voted to impeach on December 19th, then adjourned until January 7, one week ago today.

I think it's great that a one week delay (counting in "in-session" days) generated calendar weeks of stress on the Senate and President. Well done, Nancy.
Pelosi could have walked the articles over on Dec 19, and various parties could have held off adjournment if necessary.
  #29  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:36 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Pelosi could have walked the articles over on Dec 19, and various parties could have held off adjournment if necessary.
Let me get this straight: you think that Democrats may not show up to the Senate trial because of campaign events, AND you think that Senators would have worked through Christmas and New Years to hold an impeachment trial?

Is this some kind of joke?
  #30  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:42 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Pelosi could have walked the articles over on Dec 19, and various parties could have held off adjournment if necessary.
I remind you that McConnell had every intention of holding an immediate vote to dismiss. By waiting, Pelosi's strategy paid off. The fact that we are where we are with respect to the upcoming trial in the Senate serves to undermine your speculation to the contrary.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #31  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:43 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,449
Quote:
Let me get this straight: you think that Democrats may not show up to the Senate trial because of campaign events, AND you think that Senators would have worked through Christmas and New Years to hold an impeachment trial?

Is this some kind of joke?
Not a bit of it! Simply receive the articles on Dec. 19, convene at 11am on the 20th, pass the Resolution of Absolute Innocence and Total Exoneration, and break for lunch.

Last edited by elucidator; 01-14-2020 at 04:43 PM.
  #32  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:46 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Let me get this straight: you think that Democrats may not show up to the Senate trial because of campaign events, AND you think that Senators would have worked through Christmas and New Years to hold an impeachment trial?

Is this some kind of joke?
My local Walmart was staffed on Xmas and New Years. The impeachment is purportedly to remove an imminent threat to our Democracy, and the House and Senate are staffed by elected officials getting very rich from their positions.
  #33  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:51 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I remind you that McConnell had every intention of holding an immediate vote to dismiss. By waiting, Pelosi's strategy paid off. The fact that we are where we are with respect to the upcoming trial in the Senate serves to undermine your speculation to the contrary.
Where did McConnell and the Republican Senators supposed to have decided to vote differently on dismissal talk about their change of mind?
  #34  
Old 01-15-2020, 04:51 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Pelosi was/is stalling on sending over the articles to do her unfortunate best to try to get the Senate trial run the way the House impeachment was run.
You mean "based on evidence and sworn testimony and following the rules of the chamber and previous precedent for such proceedings rather than simply holding a partisan show trial where all evidence is ignored and outcomes are predetermined"? Yes, I agree that that is how Pelosi is trying to get the Senate trial to run. And it is indeed unfortunate that the Senate Republicans prefer the "partisan show trial" option.

I realize that Republicans in Congress have been accusing the Democrats of doing what they themselves are doing, but then right-wingers in America have a long history of projecting their sins onto others.

Last edited by Gyrate; 01-15-2020 at 04:55 AM.
  #35  
Old 01-15-2020, 08:24 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,557
The notion that the House impeachment was in any sense non-partisan is richly amusing.

Regards,
Shodan
  #36  
Old 01-15-2020, 08:25 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The notion that the House impeachment was in any sense non-partisan is richly amusing.

Regards,
Shodan
It was definitely partisan. The Republicans didn't vote to impeach an obviously corrupt, criminal president.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-15-2020 at 08:25 AM.
  #37  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:34 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
It was definitely partisan. The Republicans didn't vote to impeach an obviously corrupt, criminal president.
Couldn't have said it better. I suspect we will see something similar in the Senate.
  #38  
Old 01-15-2020, 11:13 AM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Ok, so was this to derail Sanders and Warren? It is now closer to the primaries. Can Sanders and Warren ignore the rule against campaigning?
Sanders and Warren are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; then Rep Sanders was a founder. Nancy Pelosi was one of the caucus' early members working side by side with Sanders to advance progressive causes in the House.

That changed when she was elected Speaker. To be effective in that job you sort of have to represent the totality of your own party in order to get their support. Between speaker and minority leader she has been in that leadership role a long time. We might forget what her politics were before she had to carry the weight of leadership. Make no mistake though, she was progressive before it was cool. She was progressive when AOC was still shitting in her diaper.

Why would she try to derail the candidates that are probably closest to her personal politics?
  #39  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:11 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Where did McConnell and the Republican Senators supposed to have decided to vote differently on dismissal talk about their change of mind?
I'm sorry, what are you asking?...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #40  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:48 PM
CoastalMaineiac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midcoast Maine, USA
Posts: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You are totally missing the part where Mitch McConnell announced in December he's going to run a kangaroo court. That's a glaring omission in your timeline.
I'm not sure why you are worried about this. Any Senator who doesn't attend is subject to arrest and being carried back into the Senate chamber. The more concerning violation of the rules, IMHO, is that Republican Senators are openly saying that they will work hand-in-glove with the President's defense team, in violation of their upcoming oath to be impartial.
How much say does McConnell get in how the trial is run? The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. Doesn't that mean he basically runs it just as a judge would run a courtroom?
  #41  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:54 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoastalMaineiac View Post
How much say does McConnell get in how the trial is run? The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. Doesn't that mean he basically runs it just as a judge would run a courtroom?
The way it has been characterized is that the justice functions more like a game umpire. He enforces the established rules until the senators vote to change the rules and then he enforces the new rules. So he does not have much authority the way a judge would in his own courtroom.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #42  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:48 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Yeah, for the most part, Roberts is just going to be recognizing who speaks next. All procedural questions are ultimately decided by a majority vote.
  #43  
Old 01-15-2020, 04:10 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoastalMaineiac View Post
How much say does McConnell get in how the trial is run?
He has as much say as a voting majority of Senators allow him, ie total.

Quote:
The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. Doesn't that mean he basically runs it just as a judge would run a courtroom?
What's the phrase? "Lump on a log"? The less Roberts says and does, the better for him. Don't expect him to deny many GOP motions, objections, and votes - unless he's secretly a law-abiding non-partisan. The game is already rigged. What could change that?
  #44  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:48 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoastalMaineiac View Post
Doesn't that mean he basically runs it just as a judge would run a courtroom?
No. The judge of the trial is the Senate. The Chief Justice has the option to make some preliminary decisions, subject to overrule by the Senate, but in most cases AFAIK he's allowed to just defer directly to the Senate and call a vote without expressing an opinion either way. William Rehnquist was practically invisible in 1999 and I wouldn't expect John Roberts to treat the job any differently.

Nevertheless, the media is going to call the senators "jurors" incessantly. One of William Rehnquist's few interventions in 1999 was to tell the House managers to knock it off when they kept calling the Senate a "jury."

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-16-2020 at 01:53 AM.
  #45  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:55 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Ok, so was this to derail Sanders and Warren? It is now closer to the primaries. Can Sanders and Warren ignore the rule against campaigning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There's no such rule. They'll campaign, then fly in for votes, then fly out for more campaigning.
Swing and a miss! Jim is 0-for-1!

"rule against campaigning"! Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 01-16-2020 at 01:56 AM.
  #46  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:07 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 386
Of course she did, do you think that's the ONE thing she didn't think about?
  #47  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:55 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Swing and a miss! Jim is 0-for-1!

"rule against campaigning"! Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!
I provided a link to a Buzzfeed article above which talks about the VERY restrictive Senate rules for Senators during an impeachment trual. Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters should be VERY upset that their candidates have to be physically present 6 days a week most of the day. I think it restricts them from holding campaign events 6 days a week. While Biden can hit a different state every day with a campaign event leading up to Iowa. They rigged it against Bernie in 2016, and they are doing it again. Enjoy the protest votes / stay homers on Election Day 2020 from upset Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters. Heck, I think they should run independent third party now.
  #48  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I provided a link to a Buzzfeed article above which talks about the VERY restrictive Senate rules for Senators during an impeachment trual. Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters should be VERY upset that their candidates have to be physically present 6 days a week most of the day. I think it restricts them from holding campaign events 6 days a week. While Biden can hit a different state every day with a campaign event leading up to Iowa. They rigged it against Bernie in 2016, and they are doing it again. Enjoy the protest votes / stay homers on Election Day 2020 from upset Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters. Heck, I think they should run independent third party now.
Fortunately, most Sanders/Warren/Klobuchar supporters are in favor of impeachment and happy to have their candidates fighting to hold the President accountable, and laugh off this sort of feeble attempt at trying to convince these candidates to help Trump by running 3rd party.

But I'm sure Trump is pleased that you're so eager to do his work for him.
  #49  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:09 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,343
Of course, there are a lot of Senators running their own re-election campaigns this year who will not only have to set time aside for the trial but who will be in the spotlight for everything they do and say during it. These include: Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, Ben Sasse, and Jim Inhofe; in fact, 23 seats currently held by Republicans are up for grabs as opposed to 12 held by Democrats. Who do you think is more likely to be damaged by a hiatus in campaigning?

So why assume this has anything to do with Sanders, Warren and Klobucher unless you are committed to the whole "let's you and him fight" narrative?
  #50  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:25 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I provided a link to a Buzzfeed article above which talks about the VERY restrictive Senate rules for Senators during an impeachment trual. Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters should be VERY upset that their candidates have to be physically present 6 days a week most of the day. I think it restricts them from holding campaign events 6 days a week. While Biden can hit a different state every day with a campaign event leading up to Iowa. They rigged it against Bernie in 2016, and they are doing it again. Enjoy the protest votes / stay homers on Election Day 2020 from upset Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters. Heck, I think they should run independent third party now.
This is fucking bonkers.
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 04:27 PM.

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