So. On Tuesday, forty-five Republican senators stated through their votes on Rand Paul’s resolution that this year’s impending impeachment trial is an unconstitutional proceeding. And yet, when the time comes for them to be empaneled as jurors, they’ll be expected to swear an oath to the effect that they will be impartial.
Doesn’t the fact that they have already made up their minds render them disqualified to sit on the jury? The trial should proceed with a jury of fifty-five senators. Two-thirds voting to convict ought to be a piece of cake.
Yeah, unfortunately the Constitution doesn’t work that way. Although it is a foregone conclusion that a vote for conviction will fail, it still requires a 2/3rds majority of all senators present. Now, if you could convince these 45 senators to absent themselves during the trial, you could get a conviction with 37 ‘Yea’ votes (since the Senate would still be at quorum) but that seems unlikely. Although I expect to see a handful of abstentions, I’m morally certain McConnell will ensure that all Republican Senators are accounted for even if he has to prop up mannequins and do an unconvincing ventriloquism act.
Note that impeachment and conviction, while ostensibly being about “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed by the officeholder in question, are not criminal proceedings and have no force in law other than to remove the subject from his office and perhaps place restriction on future ability to hold office. The jurors of the Senate voting on the issue are not held to any particular judicial standard, or indeed, prohibited from unduly influencing one another on the standing and issue of the vote in the ways that would be considered jury tampering in a normal criminal or civil proceeding. In other words, regardless of the intent to punish, prohibit, or protect, impeachment and conviction are really just a political endeavor that has almost always fallen along party or ideological lines, particularly when it involves a major political figure. Expecting Republicans to stand up and do their Constitutional duty in regard to convicting or sanctioning Trump for inciting insurrection is like expecting an alligator to ‘play fair’ with puppies.
I’m not sure you can make the assumptions from before. If they do bring in witnesses, i.e. those involved in the riots, they may flat out say Trunp invited them, which would make things a lot harder. They could have the various people he threatened come in, or people from his cabinet who threatened to quit.
They can only stand against convicting Trump as long as they can keep up the narrative that this is a witch hunt.
The fact they want no witnesses is a bad tell. And I’m even seeing Trumpers they want a big investigation–though they’re reasoning is that it would tie up Congress and keep Biden from enacting his “evil” agenda.
Ordinary court cases turn on two things: the facts, and the law.
Impeachment trials turn on 3 things: the facts, the law, and the politics.
If you (=Mitch) can prevent any witnesses or other evidence, that neatly takes “facts” off the agenda.
Then all that’s left to work with is the law (the few vague and murky constitutional catchphrases) and the crystal-clear politics. Which means politics utterly rules the day, and does so apparently legitimately.
It worked great on the first impeachment a couple years ago, and it can certainly work this time.