You nailed that, I don’t think anyone would fight you on that.
The Hoftra Law Review author, though burdened by the weight of your scorn, described the impeachment process in enough detail to disprove the assertions by HMSI that:
…which are the assertions I was rebutting. The level of respect you are willing to accord Hofstra isn’t really the point. The point is that this article—like any article you or HMSI might choose to cite—contains no support for HMSI’s assertion.
I provided the citation to show that what HMSI claimed simply isn’t there. HMSI’s claim is unsupported by evidence. The article does not contain support for HMSI’s claim.
*Every *citation from that article (or any other) has the same quality of being empty of support for the claim made by HMSI. Therefore I linked the article. What I was pointing out was the absence of what HMSE was claiming–an absence that extended to the entire article. The point was that what HMSI claimed, isn’t there.
Similarly with the 1986 Senate rules document: included to show the absence of what HMSI claimed. The entire document displays this absence. Quoting the entire document to show that what HMSI claimed isn’t there, would not make sense.
Can you see that when demonstrating the absence of something, we don’t quote the entire article in which the something is absent? We could quote particular passages in which the something is absent, sure. But how would that be helpful?
Putting aside the ‘I didn’t quote the passages that don’t contain what I said wasn’t there, because it’s not logical to quote passages for the purpose of proving they don’t contain what I say they don’t contain’ question, it’s worth taking a closer look at HMSI’s claim:
This thread started out with three basic positions:
***The House should vote to impeach as soon as possible and trial in the Senate should start as soon as possible (for various reasons of varying degrees of respectability and veracity, including the canard ‘the only other alternative is to do nothing’);
***The House should not take impeachment off the table, but should concentrate on first informing the public about wrongdoing by Trump and his administration, including coordination with Russia, being compromised by Russia and other foreign nations, emolument-clause violations, security clearance procedure violations, and so on;
***‘I can see good arguments on both sides and haven’t yet made up my mind.’
With Aspenglow’s post #223, the issue seemed to crystallize for many in favor of the second position. The idea that Pelosi was protecting the House’s chance to hold hearings—which would become harder to defend after a vote to impeach—seemed to convince several posters.
But it was after post 223 that HMSI began to put forward a counter-argument: that voting to impeach and letting the process move to the Senate would work just as well for those wanting to make sure Trump isn’t re-elected, because “when the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell” (post #279, linked above) and that for McConnell, “Once the trial starts, it’s really not his ballgame anymore” (post #281, linked above). (my bolding)
HMSI was pushing the idea that it was no big deal if the House hearings-period ended and action moved to the Senate, because McConnell really wouldn’t be the decision-maker. It would be Roberts in charge.
It is possible that HMSI simply doesn’t understand what “preside” means.
All my posts to HMSI since then, and the links I provided, are for the purpose of showing that HMSI’s claim (that McConnell would no longer be directing the activity of the Senate—that Chief Justice Roberts would take over that function) was false and wrong.
The links show ***no historical or statutory reason to believe that a Chief Justice becomes the person who directs the activity of the Senate ***once an impeachment trial begins (or, alternatively, once the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate by the House).
And, yes: HMSI was clever enough to avoid spelling out that his claim meant that the Chief Justice would become the director of trial-related activity in the Senate; no doubt HMSI knew that such an assertion, baldly stated, would be greeted with laughter.
But HMSI’s assurances that Trump would suffer if the impeachment process moved from the House to the Senate, because poor Mitch McConnell wouldn’t be in charge of the “ballgame,” were clear—and wrong.
Here are the links referred to in RTFirefly’s post and my reply:
Here’s another article (from the Duke Law Journal, which we must hope will meet with approval) offering detailed accounts of previous Senate trials—and showing no instances of a Chief Justice becoming the director of Senate trial-related activity, but instead the traditional definition of “presiding.” It’s by conservative law professor Jonathan Turley (who, by the way, opposes impeaching Trump, though not on the grounds offered by those on the left):
“Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment as a Madisonian Device,” https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=dlj
The entire article is cited for its absence of accounts of Chief Justices making decisions on what hearings will occur, etc. Here’s a quote asserting the contrary; it’s from page 42:
In sum:
***When I offer a link to a document that does not contain something I’m saying ISN’T THERE, I won’t quote the portion of the document that does not contain that something, because that portion is the entire document.
***A claim that letting the impeachment process move to the Senate will work out really well for those who oppose Trump, because McConnell won’t be directing Senate activity anymore, is, as of now, wholly unsupported by evidence.
Except for the part about being naked partisan political judo.
Blocking nominees isn’t unprecedented, but according to numerous Constitutional scholars, refusing a vote and claiming that the upcoming presidential vote shall serve as a referendum on a nominee is indeed without precedent.
Moreover, this country is polarized. There are as many people who see impeachment as nothing more than an attempt to reverse the election results of 2016 and therefore oppose it. There wouldn’t be a heavy political cost to pay if McConnell simply said “We’re not doing this.” We live in different times, CK. This isn’t Watergate.
Now if there’s a recession, if there’s a financial crisis or some other crisis that makes Americans think the country’s going to hell in a hand basket, then that changes the calculus. But all of the armchair political scientists, armchair lawyers, real political scientists, real lawyers, and pundits need to understand what I have been saying all along: the country will only allow congress to reverse the election results if they are fucking pissed off about the state of their country. That’s what all of this comes down to. I don’t know how many times i can say this before it begins to sink in.
More to the point, I don’t know how many more times i can say it before it sinks in that it is far, far more important to defeat Trump in an actual election than to impeach him, somehow remove him from office, and leave those who voted for him feeling cheated. Of course if the polls show an approval rating of 15% then it’s doubtful that people will feel cheated, which proves my point: you only impeach when everyone knows damn well that Trump has no support and that he’s so toxic that one would endanger his political career to defend him.
I’ll try this again, folk: impeachment isn’t a legal process…it’s a political one.
Well yeah, Roberts would preside over the trial itself, not over all “Senate trial-related activity,” just what happened on the floor of the Senate when it was performing the function of the impeachment trial itself.
[QUOTE]
OK, so you agree with me - Roberts wouldn’t have authority over what went on offstage. But he would have authority over what happened in the room while he was presiding.
Good, glad to hear it.
Dude, this guy has voted for repealing health insurance for millions of people knowing that it would enrage millions of people. He didn’t give a fuck.
He voted for tax cuts for billionaires knowing that a majority of Americans didn’t like it. He didn’t give a fuck.
He violated a 200-year tradition of holding hearings on a judicial nominee. He didn’t just filibuster the guy, he didn’t block him coming out of committee, he said we’re not going to consider his nomination.
What the fuck makes anyone think we’re living in “normal” times? How many times do we need to be kicked in the face before we finally wake the fuck up and get it: Mitch McConnell is an oligarch’s oligarch and he abso-positively does not give a fuck what you or pundits think or how they will characterize it.
Can I absolutely guarantee with certainty that Mitch McConnell wouldn’t allow a vote? Maybe not, but I can guarantee you that, as of this moment, he wouldn’t allow anything approaching a legitimate trial to take place in the senate should impeachment fall into his lap. Now if the economy collapses and he’s running for his political life? Well maybe that changes things, but right now? There ain’t gonna be no impeachment trial - at least not a real one. And the sooner we all wake up and sniff reality, the better.
I’m sorry but that is a meaningless precedent. The fact that other nominations were blocked with different or non stated reasons matters very little.
All this seems not-unreasonable. McConnell will protect Trump so long as protecting Trump protects McConnell.
In all this back-and-forth, you haven’t provided any evidence that a Senate impeachment trial would NOT be a sham circus run by McConnell. Do you really believe that “presides” means “decides what will happen day to day in the trial–what witnesses will be called, how long they will be allowed to speak, how many days will be allotted,” etc.?
Because that’s not what “presides” means. McConnell won’t be able to control which managers the House sends over, but he’ll be able to control almost everything else. Roberts will rule on disputed points of law. He will gavel in the proceedings. He will gavel out the proceedings. But the decision-making will be all McConnell’s.
If you have evidence to the contrary–besides some misunderstanding of the meaning of “preside” in Article I Section 3–please present it.
Well, not to people paying attention.
But to the American public at large? Would they see any difference?
I’m gonna just stop you right here and remind everyone that you started out arguing that impeachment was pointless because impeachment is just a vote that would get discarded in the Senate. Thankfully, after I pointed out that House impeachment can, do, and have in the past involved thorough, public, months-long investigations by selected committees, you seem to have quietly abandoned this avenue of argument. As well you should have.
Having retreated from your bald misunderstanding of House impeachment procedures, now you want to bang the table over the obvious futility of any proceedings in the Senate. Here your arguments have a bit more purchase. Clearly we have never seen a Senator more willing to shred norms of governance, nor a partisan caucus more willing to cower in fear of party authority.
Certainly he can decline to even hear the articles of impeachment. And I don’t mean to suggest he is powerless once an impeachment trial starts. I only want to point out that the moment he allows the trial, he cedes his total authority over the process. Chief Justice John Roberts presides over the proceedings. House Democrats will take the role of prosecutors. They will present their side. No doubt McConnell can command procedural tricks that we peons can only imagine, but this will happen in full public view in a process with visibility and stakes that are an order of magnitude greater than quietly shuffling another anti-choice judge onto the federal judiciary.
To stress again: the Senate likely won’t convict Trump, and I don’t suggest they will. I only mean to highlight that, contra Sherrerd’s original position, neither the House nor the Senate proceedings are going to be empty votes that can be shrugged off. House proceedings will definitely harm Trump. What they uncover there can be used for future criminal proceedings. Senate proceedings… may harm Trump, and there’s a big chance they will harm a number of Republicans, who may calculate that they need to defect.
We don’t know what will happen, but we need to find out.
It sounds as though you’re saying Roberts would decide which witnesses would appear, etc. …??? That was the argument by the ship person, and I have yet to see any evidence supporting it.
(All the evidence I supplied was showing there was nothing like that in accounts of other impeachments or in the statutes, of course; also, my bolding up there.)
So you’re claiming victory by suggesting that I cannot prove a negative. Okay then. I thought this was a better debate than that, but I guess not.
…apparently the answer is yes.
Reviewing judges is solely the purview of the senate.
Ignoring another chamber when they send an impeachment is something else.
If McConnell ignored that it is pretty much the final straw that the government is completely broken. We are no longer under a rule of law. One man is athwart the whole government.
Jee-zus fucking christ!
What are you all not understanding about life in 2019?
Do you think that Constitutional norms, political norms, legal norms matter?
Keep living in denial! Look, I know you wanted to believe that the law, that Mueller, that the Constitution, that norms, that decency would save us…but it hasn’t.
Maybe the answer is to stop calling the sentinels chicken littles and to start understanding that people are stealing your democracy from you just like the middle school bully who’s taking your lunch money from you. Stop saying “Ah, I’m not really hungry anyway.” Grow a pair. And fucking fight back.
I know you all hate, hate, hate me for telling you reality, but hating me won’t make reality go away. It is in your face. Trump’s authoritarian testicles are in your face.
Keep whistling in the dark, mein freund.
I don’t care. I was called chicken little on this site from the beginning, and here I am, still here, years later. I know that those of you who believe I was an alarmist then assumed that the constitution would do its work, that the people would see who Trump really was. Well guess what, most people don’t want Trump impeached. Is anyone seriously saying that after hearing a presidential candidate on live tape brag about grabbing women by the vagina that we could somehow have a John Dean moment with this fucker? Seriously, folks, it’s time to stop stroking yourselves and wake up.
You guys are drunk. Drunker than I am.
Pack it in my dude. Come back tomorrow.
Impeachment proceedings would be a grave mistake.
I’m trying - listening to Hank Williams Jr even.
Congress needs to keep digging.
[quote=“RTFirefly, post:345, topic:832795”]
Well yeah, Roberts would preside over the trial itself, not over all “Senate trial-related activity,” just what happened on the floor of the Senate when it was performing the function of the impeachment trial itself.
Here’s what I foresee, should the House bring articles of impeachment immediately:
The impeachment trial is called to order.
The House impeachment manager presents his opening arguments.
The defense attorney says “Everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you.”
The prosecution spends three days laying out a case.
The defense attorney says “Everything that guy just said is bullshit. The defense rests.”
The prosecutor makes closing arguments.
The defense attorney says “Everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you.”
McConnell calls for a vote.
Result is 51-49 to acquit.