Could you please quote particular passages that you believe supports your claim? Because my reading of your first cite is that it comes down on the opposite side, and your second, AFAICT, has only a couple of paragraphs on the subject, which seem to be more the author’s opinion than an argument supported with cites of its own. And while that might’ve been worth something if it had been a generally respected author writing in the Harvard Law Review, some nobody’s article in the Hofstra Law Review and a couple of dollars will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald’s.
At any rate, until I know what specific language at each link you are saying supports your claim, I cannot provide a specific rebuttal because you haven’t told me what it is that I might be rebutting.
IOW, you have a couple of links, but you don’t yet have a functioning cite. Until you fix that, your claim is JYHO.
“Partisan” is a meaningless criticism coming from a Republican. They’ve been engaged in open partisan warfare since 1995. Their biggest weapon has been the pretense that bipartisanship is viable, and it’s time for Democrats to deprive them of that weapon.
It’s time for Democrats to fight back. I’d like them to fight as hard and dirty as Mitch McConnell, but hell, any fight at all would be an improvement.
But when Obama took office and republicans decided they would oppose anything he did all pretense of trying to run a country went out the window in favor of hyper-partisan politics. Hell, a few days ago McConnell vowed to oppose Democratic proposals after 2020 elections. He doesn’t even know what they are yet and he is on the record opposing them.
That has to be a new low. He’s not even pretending to want to legislate and come to accommodation.
Yeah, going with Procrustus on this one. asahi is nowhere close to the most unpopular person on the SDMB. Hell, I’d wager I am more unpopular but it is not something I strive for (I’m just a natural ).
So far as I know, asahi’s posts have rebutted the assertion that a trial in the Senate would harm Trump (and that therefore, the House should vote articles of impeachment as soon as possible and send them over to the Senate).
I don’t think asahi has asserted that McConnell wouldn’t allow a vote.
An article by conservative law professor Jonathan Turley quotes Benjamin Franklin on the benefits of an acquittal vote to an accused President:
Asahi will step in to correct the record if I’ve mischaracterized anything; but certainly many believe that McConnell will be all too happy to permit a vote. Just not any sort of witness testimony or other trial components that could have the potential to embarrass Trump.
I really can’t see him not allowing a vote. If he can’t secure his caucus for a life and death vote like that, then it’s time to let go of protecting Trump. He’d be nervous about the precedent also - it’s too big a crack in the Constitution to be able to block an impeachment this way.
Actually, I definitely think that this is a possibility. McConnell may not allow a vote - it would be cleaner than dragging it out for weeks on end. But he may allow a “trial” if he thinks that it would work to his advantage. It really depends on how badly Trump is damaged in the House. If Trump is damaged pretty badly in the House but McConnell is still relatively confident that he can keep the Senate, then there will be no trial. He’ll sweep it under the rug and move on. If he believes that Trump is so radioactive that he might lose the Senate, then I could see him allowing a trial, but right now, I just don’t see it. As long as McConnell is confident of keeping the Senate, he will protect Trump, either with a sham “trial” or no trial at all.
But why is it wowsers? He ignored Sen. Merrick Garland. And while people blame Harry Reid for the nuclear option for SCOTUS justices, Mitch McConnell’s obstructionism is what led to that moment. And now Sen. McConnell benefited from the nuclear option. Here’s what you need to understand about Senator Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr: probably not one senator in the hundreds of senators who have served in the institution over 2-plus centuries have had as much of an impact in changing it as he has. Mitch McConnell is the most influential Senator in American history - I absolutely stand by that.
McConnell has exactly one choice - allow a trial, or don’t allow a trial.
Declining to try House impeachment articles… it’s within his purview to do that, but it would be a nuclear option the likes of which we’ve never witnessed. Every time he breaks norms like this, there’s an increasing risk of revolt. 2020 is coming, Republicans know this election is make-or-break for them, and running a relatively unscathed Pence starts looking better and better. So it’s not like McConnell is going to just say “fuck it, no trial”. There are stakes and he is aware of them.
Apart from that, I don’t know how to answer the repeated insistence that a Senate impeachment trial would be a sham circus run by McConnell. It’s a trial where the prosecutors will be House Democrats and the presiding officer will be John Roberts. No doubt the cards are stacked in Trump’s favor, and McConnell will be pulling all the shenanigans he can, but it’s just a different kind of ballgame from (for example) the Kavanaugh hearings.
).