Please explain how McConnell will prevent the Trial of Trump

[UltraVires]

@DChord568

I’m sure someone will tell me why this is a stupid idea.

But why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi say something along the lines of this:

"Senator McConnell has made it abundantly clear through his own words that he has no intention whatsoever of upholding the oath he will take prior to an impeachment trial in the Senate.

"That oath reads ‘I, [name], solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment now pending, I will do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’

“Unless and until Senator McConnell repudiates his earlier statements stating that he has no intention of being impartial in these proceedings and promises he will uphold his oath, the House will NOT forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.”

In other words, hold this asshole’s feet to the fire and shine the spotlight on him. He needs to made to squirm a little for saying something so egregious.

I grant that even if he backtracked on the statement, his behavior probably wouldn’t be any different. But someone ought to make the point that laws, and oaths, mean something.

I don’t see the downside to the Democrats doing this. Obviously, the Repubs, as well as Trump, want to see this all disposed of as quickly as possible. Make 'em wait, and make it clear what is holding things up.

That only works when you are holding up something the other side wants. The Senate GOP does not want Trump removed and forbidding it from holding a trial only prevents any possibility of that from happening.

It would be like if you said that you will refuse to kick me in the balls until I submit to your demands. What kind of worthless ultimatum is that?

[Kobal2]

@running_coach

Why do you now accept opinions in Great Debates?

smacks fingers that’s a spicy ownball. Just thought I’d share the appreciation.

[RioRico]

Scenario: The House delivers its Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in early January. The Senate immediately convenes a trial session. House prosecutors present a case - they have one hour under a rule just passed. Defense counsel presents their case in their hour. Senate majority leader calls for an immediate vote. Not guilty. Adjourned.

[RioRico]

Scenario: The House delivers its Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in early January. Senate majority leader immediately convenes a trial session. House prosecutors present a case - they have one hour under a new rule. Defense counsel presents their case in their hour. Senate majority leader calls for an immediate vote. Not guilty. Adjourned.

Another scenario: Over the holidays, overwhelming evidence emerges of TREASON by this POTUS. House quickly reconvenes and passes further Articles of Impeachment. Then the previous scenario plays out.

The Senate majority leader cannot STOP the trial but can easily render it irrelevant.

[DChord568]

@Czarcasm

The impeachment trial dies on the vine, Trump and the Republicans declare it a “win”.
There is the obvious downside.

How is this outcome any different from the foreordained outcome if the impeachment trial goes forward? The Republican declaration you speak of will follow Trump being acquitted by Senators.

That only works when you are holding up something the other side wants. The Senate GOP does not want Trump removed and forbidding it from holding a trial only prevents any possibility of that from happening.

Trump, at least, “wants” true exoneration — well, not true, but the kind of exoneration a Senate acquittal would give him — and has said so explicitly. Without at least the pretense of a “fair and impartial trial” (even though it wouldn’t really be that anyway), he will not get that. And unless and until this is resolved, the impeachment label forever attached to him would hang even heavier around his neck, because it has not been resolved.

And the point of holding back until McConnell reverses his statement is that the spotlight will be shined clearly and unambiguously on the person responsible for this.

[Flyer]

@RioRico

Scenario: The House delivers its Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in early January. The Senate immediately convenes a trial session. House prosecutors present a case - they have one hour under a rule just passed. Defense counsel presents their case in their hour. Senate majority leader calls for an immediate vote. Not guilty. Adjourned.

OR,

McConnell deliberately drags out the trial as much as he possibly can in order to hurt the campaigns of all the Democratic senators running for president.

[RioRico]

@Flyer

OR,

McConnell deliberately drags out the trial as much as he possibly can in order to hurt the campaigns of all the Democratic senators running for president.

Will that suit Team Tramp more than a fast exoneration? Will Moscow Mitch risk having horrendous evidence emerge before the preordained Not Guilty verdict?

[Velocity]

@Flyer

OR,

McConnell deliberately drags out the trial as much as he possibly can in order to hurt the campaigns of all the Democratic senators running for president.

Dragging it out longer will likely only hurt Trump more, and as for the Democratic senators running for president, it’s not so much in the GOP’s interests to make one or several suffer, as it is to make the entire Democratic primaries as long-lasting and contentious as possible. The Republicans want the Democratic contender field to remain as cluttered as long as possible.