I think it would have an effect. I accept that some right wing religious leaders might be this cynical about an oath. But the reason religious voters vote the way they do is because they sincerely believe.
Why give him what he wants because he’s threatening to do something? Follow through and make him actually do it.
The D Senators should insist that all Senators stand up and recite this oath in the Chamber, with believer’s hand on a Bible. If Moscow Mitch refuses, the D Senators should take the oath unilaterally.
I think it’s “legal” to change the rule, but it would be horrid publicity for the R’s to do so.
But what difference does “legality” make anyway? Moscow Mitch, Traitorous Trump and their thugs can do whatever they want. It was “illegal” for Trump’s thugs to refuse the House’s subpoena, yet they did so. Who’s going to arrest violators? Trump’s FBI?
Justice delayed is justice denied. Schiff explained that it would take two years for the subpoena-refusal crime to wind its way through the courts. Even if it were illegal for Mitch to change a rule, what’s stopping him? (If you claim that any R Senator has respect for the rule of law, I’ll need a cite.)
Pelosi should send the articles of impeachment over to the senate when she wants to. What Mitch wants to do and when he wants to do it shouldn’t really factor into her decision.
OK, so based on some articles I’ve read, it does appear that Pelosi and the Democrats have a bit of leverage. And that’s based on the fact that Trump himself appears to be eager to have a trial, he being of the belief that he will be vindicated in this manner. (Of course, this is the same stable genius who overruled his advisors in releasing the Zelensky call transcript because he thought that was going to vindicate him too, but that’s neither here nor there in this context.) So it’s possible that this could drive a wedge between Trump and McConnell on the issue. And if there are some Republican senators who are sympathetic to the Democratic demands, that could complicate things further. (Trump himself also wants to call witnesses, though I imagine not the same ones as Schumer wants to call.)
One other twist is the position being advocated by some legal scholars (including, of particular note, Noah Feldman, one of the Democratic expert witnesses in the House proceedings) that sending the Articles to the Senate is the act of impeachment itself, and until that happens Trump has not been impeached, but has only had his impeachment authorized. If that viewpoint takes hold, then I imagine some Democrats will be dissatisfied with the withholding strategy. (Conversely, I’ve seen someone else arguing that sending Articles to the Senate is just an internal Senate rule, that the Senate could dispense with entirely, so who knows.)
Which ones of those involved the people in charge of the proceedings deciding to skip straight past evidence and witnesses and directly to a decision?
Pelosi’s holding up on sending the articles of impeachment is a bad look, supporting GOPers’ argument that impeachment is all about partisan gamesmanship, and that she’s deliberately delaying matters to prolong the agony into an election year.*
Jockeying for favorable conditions under which to proceed with trial should be the job of Senate Democrats.
*it’s a bit difficult to sell this at the same time you’re complaining about a “rush to judgment”, but what the heck.
The Senators are “not simply jurors”; why did you mischaracterize the statement?
Also:
I think that’s a conservative illusion. Conservatives are looking back to when they attempted to impeach Clinton and ended up looking bad when people rallied behind Clinton. Republicans learned the wrong lesson from this.
They think this means that if you impeach a President, the voting public will see it as a partisan attack and support the party that was attacked. So Republicans are expecting to reap a windfall from Trump’s impeachment; they think that it’s a temporary annoyance but people will end up supporting Trump and the Republicans who backed him.
I think the Republicans misread the situation in 1998 and are therefore misreading the situation in 2019. The reason people supported Clinton wasn’t because he was impeached; it’s because it was widely seen as an impeachment that wasn’t based on sufficient grounds. The general public supported Clinton and the Democrats who voted not to convict him because they felt that Clinton had not committed any crime that justified being removed from office.
The Republicans should not assume that precedent applies to Trump. Maybe it will but I think there’s a good chance that the general public will decide that Trump did commit serious crimes and he should be removed from office. The precedent will be Nixon not Clinton. And if the Republicans protect a man who the public sees as guilty, then the Republicans will pay a price for it next November.
TLDR version: The Republicans shouldn’t assume they won just because Trump stays in office. We won’t know who really won until the public gets a chance to vote on the outcome.
There is something to be said for the British and a vote of no confidence causing general elections.
I’ve always thought that was silly. A horrific event occurs, and the government holds new elections while the Nazis bombard England.
I think you’re missing the larger point. They’re not simply jurors, they are the Court itself.
People, including and especially the media, need to stop using words incorrectly, just because they fit their preferred narrative.
Oh, they’re the Court itself! Then it’s perfectly fine that they celebrate their bias! :rolleyes:
So in your world there is nothing wrong with the court openly collaborating/supporting the accused, and declaring a ruling before the trial begins?
Pelosi isn’t going to budge because she knows the battle right now is between McConnell, who wants as quick a trial as possible with no witnesses, and Trump, who wants a big show trial where all his enemies are made to testify and their corruption revealed. Mitch doesn’t want that, because if he did he’d be negotiating with Nancy right now. So Trump will continue to nag him, until finally he has no choice but to negotiate with Nancy and she’ll get exactly what she wants.
I agree main thing is the already apparent low potential for the whole impeachment thing to move the needle much on the 2020 election either way.
Then, although partisans on either side might think Pelosi or McConnell are being ‘owned’ by the other side, they’re basically evenly matched skilled politicians IMO. Whatever one does to gain political advantage, the other’s countermeasure is likely to largely cancel it out. As in the example you give, delaying ‘handing over the articles’ gives the Senate more cover to adjust their timing and look no more political than the House, again hardcore partisans aside, their minds are made up no matter what, pretty much.
The one wild card various posts have mentioned is if Trump himself gets into serious conflict with McConnell about how the trial is being handled. Trump is unpredictable, but that also includes sometimes, unpredictably, mainly following good political advice and mainly sticking to script (a few tweets criticizing McConnell don’t mean anything, the wild card is if Trump really gets a bee in his bonnet about getting involved in how the trial is run, but he won’t necessarily do that).
I disagree. Pelosi has shown time and again her ability to corral the herd of cats that are the Democrats. McConnell’s only skill is stubborn inaction, which is greatly helped by the Republican Borg collective.
And I’m guessing you’d vehemently deny you’re a strong partisan? Nothing wrong with that, but my statement already includes the idea strong partisans would disagree. On a right oriented forum lots of people will tell you Pelosi is an idiot. On this forum it’s going to tend to go the other way. And note my statement also already included ‘IMO’. Somebody on the internet doesn’t agree with my opinion, what shall I do?!? 
None of that disproves my analysis that Pelosi’s political skills are greater than McConnell’s. Any Republican Senate Majority Leader would be able to have the same successes McConnell has had, because of the lockstep nature of the party. Pelosi isn’t that fortunate, yet she was able to get nearly her entire party to vote for impeachment, when barely three months ago I’m sure many “experts” would say it would never happen.
This has some truth to it, but not (primarily) for the reasons you give. There are differences between Clinton’s crimes and Trump’s, but they are not significant enough to make a difference in the public perception. The real difference is in the respective characters and - more importantly - temperaments and mentalities of Clinton and Trump.
Clinton played his impeachment extremely well. His consistent point was that his crimes were minor and he had important work to do for the country and was being distracted by impeachment. This was a winning argument. Trump’s response has been to focus heavily on impeachment fighting, in the form of his typical childish name-calling. This does not make the Democrats look bad, and conversely serves as a constant reminder the public of Trump’s manifest shortcomings and persona which are why this whole drama is going on to begin with.
I believe the senior Republican officials and senators are aware of this, and would love nothing better than for Trump to knock off the constant tweeting and in general just shut up for a change. But I don’t think he is constitutionally capable of this. He is what he is.
This is completely incorrect.
When I say “barely three months ago” I mean before the release of the Ukraine call notes, back when a majority of House Democrats weren’t calling for impeachment.