Agreed. He’d drive over his dog to do it.
Says the guy who’s been repeatedly asking questions in this thread, knowing the answer, while coyly avoiding stating outright what he’s getting at.
What happens if the Articles of Impeachment aren’t acted upon before the current session of Congress ends? In that case, regular legislation has to be reintroduced to be considered, but what about impeachment?
What difference does it make if he is not conducting the trial?
What does it matter if a juror at a trial you have a personal stake in declares that she/he has already decided how to vote before the trial even begins?
How are you not seeing the moral/ethical problem here?
You mean the same issues the Radical Republicans had during the impeachment of Johnson?
You mean the same issues that both Pubs and Dems had during the impeachment and Clinton?
You mean the same issues the Dem and Pubs had when passing the Articles of Impeachment?
The issue is that people on this board are spreading the incorrect information that McConnell qua Senate Majority Leader will somehow control the trial. That was what I was responding to, otherwise why didn’t the OP open up the thread to discuss how all 100 Senators will act?
Then blame the House Managers for waiting too long.
Rule III
The only issue I brought up was a juror declaring that he has already decided how he was going to vote prior to the actual trial, and I haven’t said jack shit about McConnell controlling said trial.
Do any of your unlinked examples have anything at all to do with what I just said?
Only if words like “impartial” and “justice” are stripped of all meaning.
Out of the 100 Senators I suspect the number of Senators that **haven’t ** already decided about how they are going to vote is in the single-digits. So why does this thread single out McConnell? Why was the OP not about ALL 100 Senators?
Probably because he’s the majority leader and nobody dares to cross him. He sets the tone and example for the majority, and he’s declared that he is not impartial and will tank the trial.
Because HE is the one that openly declared that he would break the oath and state how he would vote before the trial even began! How many fucking times does this have to be pointed out to you?
It’s too late for Pelosi and her gang of… respectable, fellow politicians to make a smart move. She proceeded with impeachment hearings due to political concerns and it’s going to backfire.
That Rule says nothing at all about the time the House has. It only talks about the Senate immediately proceeding.
Why aren’t you talking about Rule I?
Since Pelosi has been saying she’s not transmitting the articles until the Senate informs her of the managers, it would appear that the Senate is already in violation of the Rules. Isn’t that something that should be commented on first?
McConnell declared even before the full House vote that he was going to coordinate the Senate vote with the Whitehouse. He declared in essence that he was going to let the President decide how the Senate would proceed. This was before the House impeachment vote. Why then should there be a swearing in conducted by the Chief Justice. What is the point?
This doesn’t make sense. The Senate doesn’t appoint managers, that’s the House’s responsibility, and the House hasn’t yet done that. The Senate isn’t in violation of anything, yet.
Yes, I misread that and confused it with Pelosi’s statement that she wants more detail about how the Senate will conduct the trial before sending the articles over. Mea culpa.
Rare on the SDMB, particularly where politics are concerned.
I salute you!
Yes, well said.
When Nancy sends the articles of impeachment to the senate, Mitch is going to wipe his ass with them and throw them in the trash on top of a shit stained copy of the Constitution that he has never read.
I don’t see any reason for Nancy to be in any rush to help Mitch complete this desecration. He can stand there with his hand out and soiled bottom until Nancy is good and god damned ready to proceed.