# The House Judiciary Impeachment Case discussion thread. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 27, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697 "2019-07-27T00:58:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/101 "2019-08-10T08:18:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Aasahi you just don’t get it. There is NO VOTE for an impeachment trial. There is nothing for McConnell in his power as SML to block. The trial is automatic and directed by the VP or in the case of Trump by the CJOTUS. > > None of this make sense because McConnell has no power beyond that of an ordinary Senator once the House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. He can by rule neither allow or disallow anything. What do you not understand about this? 1. How long doe the trial have to be? Can it be long enuf to call a vote and that’s it? Show me where it can’t be. 2. How much evidence must be debated? Technically, you are correct, in reality totally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/102 "2019-08-10T11:46:21Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So explain this to me and be very precise. The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that. Oh and assume Murkowski is the maverick so any motion the Pubs make fails due to a tie 50-50 (the VP cannot vote during an impeachment trial since he is not a senator). > > C’mon tell us all how it’ll happen. We could just as easily assume that Doug Jones (running for re-election in Alabama) would be just as likely to nullify maverick Murkowski’s vote. Perhaps Joe Manchin, Senator of a state where Democrats are an endangered species, might also join him. Keep in mind that the Senate can change its rules, and it takes a bare majority to do that. In fact some senators might agree to change the rules specifically to duck their responsibility of having to deal with the impeachment spectacle itself. The constitution doesn’t instruct the senate how it proceeds with impeachment, only that it shall impeach. Whether McConnell would or wouldn’t block an impeachment depends on his calculus of the consequences. I could just as easily see him allowing a sham trial to proceed in which only Democrats explain why Trump should be removed from office. We’d be no closer to removing him than we are today, and it might actually strengthen Trump politically. As I’ve said before, though, it really all comes down to the economy and how Americans feel about their personal situation. It’s the economy, and the people who vote on that basis, who are the ultimate deciders on whether Trump stays in office. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/103 "2019-08-10T12:14:52Z")
Trump is not scared of impeachment trial. He knows he won’t be convicted. Then he can just shout “witch hunt” and pickup more support. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/104 "2019-08-10T16:35:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 1. How long doe the trial have to be? Can it be long enuf to call a vote and that’s it? Show me where it can’t be. > > 2. How much evidence must be debated? > > Technically, you are correct, in reality totally wrong. 1. Yes but with a 51-49 split and excluding the VP who cannot vote then every Pub would have to vote for it. And all of the Dem hystrionics around this leaves out the wildcard of Lisa Murkowski. She has shown repeatedly that she refuses to go against her ideals and is willing to vote with the Dems. If that happens then all of your hyperbole is gone. Also Susan Collins needs to be re-elected and there is a lot of blowback over her Kavenaugh vote. 2. The Senate changed the rule so that evidence can be collected by committeIIRC in the Louderback impeachment so it it really depends if you mean evidence given or evidence that makes it to the full Senate. And I would also point out that the Dems on this Board talk about how the Pubs break rules. I’m really at a loss to see how the Pubs specifically violate the letter of the rules. There was a huge debate about the Garland nomination. Well there is no rule that require the Senate to take it up within a certain time so what rule was violated? Can anyone point out ANY time where the Senate Rules explicitly say to do A and they did not? And as an an example, the House rules require upon the request of any Representative that the full text of a bill must be read on the floor by the clerk. That is a rule. What do you think happened as Pelosi was trying to ramrod ACA through the House and a Republican requested that a certain (long) amendment was moved? Give you a hint, the motion wasn’t read although it was required by the Rules. Do y’all have any examples of the Senate under McConnnell doing that or is it all irrational hyperbole not based on any facts. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/105 "2019-08-10T17:00:17Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 1. Yes but with a 51-49 split and excluding the VP who cannot vote then every Pub would have to vote for it. And all of the Dem hystrionics around this leaves out the wildcard of Lisa Murkowski. She has shown repeatedly that she refuses to go against her ideals and is willing to vote with the Dems. If that happens then all of your hyperbole is gone. Also Susan Collins needs to be re-elected and there is a lot of blowback over her Kavenaugh vote. > > … > > And I would also point out that the Dems on this Board talk about how the Pubs break rules. I’m really at a loss to see how the Pubs specifically violate the letter of the rules. There was a huge debate about the Garland nomination. Well there is no rule that require the Senate to take it up within a certain time so what rule was violated? Can anyone point out ANY time where the Senate Rules explicitly say to do A and they did not? … Except, dude, it’s 53-45, not 51-49. If it _was_ 51/49, then your point is valid. The senate has many traditions, that arent “rules”. The Constitution has been interpreted by some legal scholars that say yes, Mitch crossed the line there. Others say no. It’s debatable and has been debated. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/106 "2019-08-10T22:10:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except, dude, it’s 53-45, not 51-49. If it _was_ 51/49, then your point is valid. > > The senate has many traditions, that arent “rules”. The Constitution has been interpreted by some legal scholars that say yes, Mitch crossed the line there. Others say no. It’s debatable and has been debated. Your right, sorry looked up wrong numbers. And I’m still waiting for an actual example of Senators breaking the letter of the written rules. Have any or just hyperbole? ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/107 "2019-08-10T22:31:54Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Your right, sorry looked up wrong numbers. > > And I’m still waiting for an actual example of Senators breaking the letter of the written rules. Have any or just hyperbole? I’d like your comments on my hypothetical: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Saint Cad** > > So explain this to me and be very precise. The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that. Oh and assume Murkowski is the maverick so any motion the Pubs make fails due to a tie 50-50 (the VP cannot vote during an impeachment trial since he is not a senator). > > > > C’mon tell us all how it’ll happen. > > Originally posted by **ThelmaLou** > > > [@](#): > > > > Wikipedia: “The Secretary of the United States Senate” > > > > The secretary’s responsibilities include both legislative and administrative functions. By agreement of the two parties, the Majority Leader selects the Secretary of the Senate, and the election is merely ceremonial. The current secretary (for the 116th United States Congress) is Julie E. Adams. > > The Secretary was appointed by Mitch. When the bill comes over from the House, Mitch tells Julie to sit on it, notify no one, and do nothing. If she refuses, he fires and replaces her with someone who will follow his orders. Done. > > Do you think this is impossible? I say who’s going to stop him? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/108 "2019-08-10T23:00:41Z")
I’m a little unclear on the key detail of your hypothetical: **Saint Cad** says “The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that.” You say: “When the bill comes over from the House, Mitch tells Julie to sit on it, notify no one, and do nothing. If she refuses, he fires and replaces her with someone who will follow his orders. Done.” What’s the timetable you’re envisioning? You’re countenancing the idea that she’d refuse, because she’s willing to notify the Chief Justice; and that Mitch would respond by firing her, so her replacement won’t notify the Chief Justice; but what if her act of refusal _is_ her so notifying the Chief Justice? (Because, really: why do it sooner?) ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/109 "2019-08-11T00:28:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m a little unclear on the key detail of your hypothetical: > > **Saint Cad** says “The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that.” You say: “When the bill comes over from the House, Mitch tells Julie to sit on it, notify no one, and do nothing. If she refuses, he fires and replaces her with someone who will follow his orders. Done.” > > What’s the timetable you’re envisioning? You’re countenancing the idea that she’d refuse, because she’s willing to notify the Chief Justice; and that Mitch would respond by firing her, so her replacement won’t notify the Chief Justice; but what if her act of refusal _is_ her so notifying the Chief Justice? > > (Because, really: why do it sooner?) I’m not 100% clear on your question. Are you saying that whether or not Julie officially notifies the Chief Justice, he will know about the impeachment? I don’t know about the timetable. I’m addressing this part of **Saint Cad’s** statement: _“The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts…”_ **Saint Cad** is saying that Mitch can’t interfere with the impeachment proceeds being brought to the Senate because it happens automatically and he is not in the chain of events. But I’m saying that if it’s the job of the Senate Secretary to notify the Chief Justice, and if the Senate Secretary was APPOINTED BY MITCH, then what’s to stop him from telling her NOT to present the articles to the Chief Justice? And if she says, “But, sir, it’s my job,” Mitch says, “Correction: it WAS your job. You’re fired.” In case I still haven’t made my point: **Saint Cad** says that Mitch can’t interfere with the process of articles of impeachment being presented to the Senate, but I say he CAN step in and interfere with the articles being presented officially to the Supreme Court, according to rules and protocol. Mitch can do anything he goddamned well pleases, including ignoring rules and protocols, and \*\*no one can or will stop him. \*\* Don’t know if that addresses your question or not. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/110 "2019-08-11T00:59:11Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > I’m not 100% clear on your question. Are you saying that whether or not Julie officially notifies the Chief Justice, he will know about the impeachment? > > I don’t know about the timetable. I’m addressing this part of **Saint Cad’s** statement: _“The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts…”_ > > **Saint Cad** is saying that Mitch can’t interfere with the impeachment proceeds being brought to the Senate because it happens automatically and he is not in the chain of events. > > But I’m saying that if it’s the job of the Senate Secretary to notify the Chief Justice, and if the Senate Secretary was APPOINTED BY MITCH, then what’s to stop him from telling her NOT to present the articles to the Chief Justice? And if she says, “But, sir, it’s my job,” Mitch says, “Correction: it WAS your job. You’re fired.” What I’m saying is, I figure anyone who’d say “But, sir, it’s my job” to Mitch and get fired as a result — you know, right _before_ she notifies the Chief Justice — would be sensible enough to _not_ say that to Mitch before notifying the Chief Justice: instead notifying the Chief Justice (for the It’s My Job reason) and _thus_ bringing to Mitch’s attention that she’s just now _done_ her job. The idea being, she can then get fired one second _after_ noon — having done her job one second _before_ noon. Or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/111 "2019-08-11T02:10:26Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What I’m saying is, I figure anyone who’d say “But, sir, it’s my job” to Mitch and get fired as a result — you know, right _before_ she notifies the Chief Justice — would be sensible enough to _not_ say that to Mitch before notifying the Chief Justice: instead notifying the Chief Justice (for the It’s My Job reason) and _thus_ bringing to Mitch’s attention that she’s just now _done_ her job. > > The idea being, she can then get fired one second _after_ noon — having done her job one second _before_ noon. Or whatever. Ooooo…that’s interesting. Certainly possible. My point still stands: Mitch can try to interfere in the process even if he has no official standing or authority. The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc. That’s why we have the expression here: IOWRDI, it’s okay when Republicans do it. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/112 "2019-08-11T02:19:56Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > Trump is not scared of impeachment trial. He knows he won’t be convicted. Then he can just shout “witch hunt” and pickup more support. He knows _now_ he won’t be convicted. If the economy plunges, it’s a whole 'nother story as they used to say down where I grew up. It’s all in the timing. Right now Trump and the GOP feels emboldened. But if the economy leads the headlines in a bad way, it’s over. And McConnell won’t try to save him. It’s Trump’s party, but not Trump’s alone. That’s one reason why Democrats need to go after McConnell aggressively this election. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/113 "2019-08-11T02:22:48Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Ooooo…that’s interesting. Certainly possible. > > My point still stands: Mitch can try to interfere in the process even if he has no official standing or authority. The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc. That’s why we have the expression here: IOWRDI, it’s okay when Republicans do it. I don’t see Republicans being able to stop impeachment once it starts; what I could envision is McConnell preemptively inserting rule changes in advance of an impeachment if it looks like it’s gathering steam. Again, though, a lot of this depends on how McConnell perceives Trump’s value. If the economy tanks or if there’s some big event that hurts Trump in states he won in 2020, and especially if it looks like Trump is threatening the senate’s grip on power in 2021, then McConnell might let impeachment happen, come what may from it. My point last night - and I admit I made it clumsily - wasn’t that Trump wouldn’t be impeached or that the senate could just shut it all down whenever they want, and even if they could, they could perceive it more advantageous just to let impeachment play itself out. I was just saying that we’ve moved beyond the era in which we can assume that mechanisms like impeachment will function as we expect them to. Republicans are no longer bound by the same rules and norms that were in place even 5 years ago, so there’s no reason to expect that they wouldn’t use their senate majority in whatever manner they could to undermine the constitutional process of impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/114 "2019-08-11T05:51:43Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Ooooo…that’s interesting. Certainly possible. > > My point still stands: Mitch can try to interfere in the process even if he has no official standing or authority. The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc. That’s why we have the expression here: IOWRDI, it’s okay when Republicans do it. Again we see an assertion without proof. You Dems keep doing this. Show me one example that the Pub Senators have violated a rule as written. DrDeth certainly hasn’t done that although he still makes the claim as well. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/115 "2019-08-11T06:04:27Z")
I did make an error. All the Secretary has to do is notify the Managers that the Senate is ready to receive them when they arrive to present their case. If there were any attempt to prevent this the presiding officer (in this case CJ Roberts) would use their power under Rule V to enforce the rules. It is actually the VP that notifies the Chief Justice that they are needed to preside, not the secretary (Rule IV). So basically McConnell would have to intimidate Pence into not setting the time for the trial. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/116 "2019-08-11T12:12:47Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Again we see an assertion without proof. You Dems keep doing this. Show me one example that the Pub Senators have violated a rule as written. DrDeth certainly hasn’t done that although he still makes the claim as well. It wasn’t an “an assertion without proof.” It was a HYPOTHESIS. And I asked if it was impossible for Mitch to do this. Don’t refer to me personally as “You Dems” when I’m trying to respond directly to you, _“C’mon tell us all how it’ll happen.”_ I took your question seriously, but I observe you do not care to dialogue. So be it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/117 "2019-08-11T16:00:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Again we see an assertion without proof. You Dems keep doing this. Show me one example that the Pub Senators have violated a rule as written. DrDeth certainly hasn’t done that although he still makes the claim as well. I made no such claim. However, the GOP have pushed rules to the limits and run roughshod over senate \*traditions. \* Mitch doesn’t have to violate a rule to make sure there is nothing like a fair trial in the senate. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/118 "2019-08-11T18:46:46Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > It wasn’t an “an assertion without proof.” It was a HYPOTHESIS. And I asked if it was impossible for Mitch to do this. Don’t refer to me personally as “You Dems” when I’m trying to respond directly to you, _“C’mon tell us all how it’ll happen.”_ I took your question seriously, but I observe you do not care to dialogue. So be it. I was referring specifically to this line you wrote > [@](#): > > The Republicans have chosen to disregard past protocols, rules, conventions, etc. That assertion is quite common on this board and this thread. And I am not the one you should be accusing of not dialoging. I have pointed out rules and scenarios and it is others in this thread that dismiss everything being discussed to assert that McConnell and the Pubs can and will do anything they want regardless of rules. They are the ones that don’t want to debate the reality of the hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/119 "2019-08-11T19:04:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I made no such claim. > However, the GOP have pushed rules to the limits and run roughshod over senate \*traditions. \* > Mitch doesn’t have to violate a rule to make sure there is nothing like a fair trial in the senate. So just to clarify, according to you there is no evidence that the Republicans in the Senate have broken any rule _as written_? Do you then believe that the Senate will allow the Managers to exhibit the articles of impeachment under Rule 2? Do you believe it was appropriate for Robert Byrd to make the motion to dismiss in Clinton’s trial when it was clear he would not be convicted? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697/120 "2019-08-11T20:02:16Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So just to clarify, according to you there is no evidence that the Republicans in the Senate have broken any rule _as written_? Do you then believe that the Senate will allow the Managers to exhibit the articles of impeachment under Rule 2? > > Do you believe it was appropriate for Robert Byrd to make the motion to dismiss in Clinton’s trial when it was clear he would not be convicted? How long do they have to exhibit? Past history [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-house-judiciary-impeachment-case-discussion-thread/837697.md?page=7)