Sure, but that can be "All in favor? All Opposed?’ “Not Guilty!”
Show me where Moscow Mitch has to allow a lengthy trial.
I’m trying to find it here but having difficulty. I’ve tried all the sections I thought might apply but no luck so far. Could you point me in the right direction?
Try here.
I will point out to BobLibDem that it is the Presiding Officer that controls the trial not the majority leader and in the case of the President it is CJOTUS that presides.
See Rule 3
III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same. So no, Mitch McConnell cannot stop the impeachment trial from progressing.
As for ThelmaLou’s concern. If you read up on the history of impeachment trials, the Senators have shown that as a whole they take their role within the trial very seriously. Yes some may play politics with voting guilty of for acquittal in higher officer impeachments like in the impeachment of Chase, Johnson, Belknap and Clinton but overall the Senate sitting on trial is very fair. I will point out that if ANY Senate trial outcome were based on politics it would be the Democrats that acquitted Clinton. His perjury charges were similar to Walter Nixon and many Democrat Senators that voted to convict Nixon turned around and voted to acquit Clinton. As for your other question, read Rule V, the presiding officer does have real power.
DrDeth, as I pointed out, the majority leader does not run the trial.
As a followup to ThelmaLou, if there were any trial that was decided on political leanings it would be the trial of President Clinton. If you look at the perjury charges against Judge Walter Nixon and Bill Clinton they were very similar yet many of the Democrat Senators that voted to convict Nixon turned around and voted to acquit Clinton.
Thanks for the research. 
Regardless of the printed rules, I believe (and I hope I’m wrong) that if Mitch wanted to block a bill of impeachment from being presented for a vote in the Senate, he could do it with one hand tied behind his back (or in a sling). This isn’t the simple partisanship that was operating in the Clinton days. You can’t look to the past for any indication of how things will be from here on. This is blockage. Constipation. Full stop. “Fuck Obama! We won’t even hold hearings for his Supreme Court nominee!” The old ways are out. The old rules, conventions, protocols, customs, etc. are out.
However, I hope and pray that you turn out to be right, and I turn out to be wrong.
As much as I explain this to anti-Trumpers, MITCH MCCONNELLL CANNOT BLOCK AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. “Cannot” as in cannot, at all, period, end-of-story, full stop.
First of all, the Senate would stop him. They take their role of an impeachment trier very seriously. Plus they know that if rules are meaningless then the Senate would be anarchy. If a majority leader could act with impunity then the whole “nuclear option” wouldn’t be so nuclear.
Secondly, the Senate Majority Leader has NO POWER in an impeachment trial. None, zero, zip. Now Mitch McConnell as senator from Kentucky has power as an individual senator to make motions, vote, etc. But so do the other 99 Senators.
Thirdly, if your argument is that Mitch McConnell might make threats, conjole, whip, or otherwise use his power to convince senators in making the impeachment go away then yes there is the possibility he could by moving to have the charges dismissed (Robert Byrd did this in the Clinton impeachment) and having them vote for the motion. But this could be done by any senator.
Ultimately, your belief that McConnell can just make impeachment rules go in the cornfield and Republicans will go along with it just cannot happen under the current structure for three reasons:
One - he does not control the scheduling of the impeachment trial. This is the base of the SML’s power.
Two - He does not preside during the trial. Now technically he does not preside ever except at the will of the VP, but in this case he specifically has no power.
Three (and the hardest for anti-Trumpists to understand) - there would never be enough Pubs to go with McConnell on this. Let’s look at it this way. Let’s say you are in an organization. It could be a labor union, professional organization, PTA, HOA, etc. You are elected as a representative and the President of your organization is on trial to be removed from office and there are a couple of stipulations
- Reps are elected (Duh I already said that) to the Board by the members of the organization
- There are 33 representatives total. If you had to break it down, 17 are in the President’s camp and 16 are the loyal opposition. No real neutral reps.
- The people in your organization in general have a deep-seated belief that no matter what, the rules should be followed so that whatever the outcome at least it has the appearance of being fair. What exactly “the rules” are the people in the organization don’t really know - oh but they think they know. Most of the time they’re wrong.
- Representatives will be running for re-election relatively soon. In fact in the next election 11 reps are running of which 7 are in the President’s camp.
- The trial is streamed live. People in your organization get together to talk and analyze every little thing. Of course, almost everyone either loves or hates the President.
- The trial is run by someone at the national level meaning no one on the Board is in charge for the duration of the trial.
So a rep that we will call Lil Bitch who is the President’s biggest supporter and VP of the Board, he comes up to the other 16 of the President’s camp and says, “We can’t prevent the charges from being read but as soon as they are we are going to short-circuit the system and I will move to dismiss all charges. Thing is, all of you are going to have to vote for it or it will fail. If you vote against it and when the President wins I will make your life on this Board a living hell”
Now convince me ALL 16 people will dismiss their duty to conduct a fair trial and are facing re-election eventually from a body that supports a full trial - convince me that ALL 16 go along with the plan.
Technically true, but everyone understands that Mitch, out of the chamber, still runs the Senate, still has power. I don’t know how many times I have to say it: the rule of law, the United States Code, the Constitution of the United States…none of that shit is going to stop Republicans from being Republicans. They are not going to be bound by rules and procedures - they just won’t. So feel free to completely ignore whatever your civics teacher told you about the constitutional procedures for impeachment because you don’t live in that country anymore. You just don’t.
That’s absolutely right because we didn’t have
2 Pubs voting against de Vos for Sec of Ed
3 Pubs vote against ACA repeal.
They are lockstep all the time every time on all big issues Trump supports :rolleyes:
Do you think Murkowski (R - AK) will go with McConnell. Perhaps Collins (R - ME) won’t either. That right there means the motion fails.
I can’t say whether they would vote to hold a Senate impeachment trial or not, but one of three would be true:
-
If the entire country turns against Trump, then they’ll hold a senate trial, and they’ll probably force Trump to resign before there’s even an official trial. McConnell or Graham will walk over to 1600 PA Ave and tell Trump that there are enough votes to convict a la Goldwater to Nixon.
-
Short of that, if McConnell allows a trial in the senate, it’s only because he’s already gamed it out and decided that it’ll be quick, easy, and result in a non-conviction.
-
If number two isn’t likely, there will not be a senate trial, and you can bet your ass that no senator that wants to be re-elected will cross him - period. Guaranteed. Take it to the bank.
Note: in response to your #2 and 3, that was in 2017, before the GOP was the party of Trump and McConnell. We live in different times now. The GOP is the party of oligarchy. As I said, we don’t live in 2016 America anymore.
Saint Cad, you are right about the facts. And I hope you turn out to be right about events, but this:
Surprisingly, these times aren’t as interesting as one might imagine.
The GOP has already shown that when it comes to laws they do not like or agree with they will just ignore them. For example, how Trump’s tax returns SHALL be furnished upon request. They just said no, we’re not going to do that and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. And since that has held true I can certainly see them doing it again.
You have to be living in fantasy land to believe that the Repubs are going to adhere to legal and constitutional norms. I’ll tell you all right now: it’s ordinary people who have to save American democracy. I know 9/10 of you reading my posts believe I’vr been hyperbolic and chicken little, but the I don’t care. You all are a lot more scared now than you were a year ago when I was posting the same thing.
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?
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.
What law requires Trump to show his taxes upon request?
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?
Nothing requires Trump to show his taxes upon request, except in the general sense that it’s his responsibility to take care that laws be faithfully executed by his subordinates. The law in question is binding on the Secretary of the Treasury, who is obligated to furnish “any return” to the relevant committee of the House or Senate:
The Founders could have called Washington “Your Majesty” but settled on “Mr. President”, because a President outranks a king. It goes king, emperor, president. And Andy Jackson laid down the fact that the President doesn’t have to obey the court, because he’s the head of the executive, he executes the law. So if he doesn’t like a law, he executes it! Checkmate, socialists!
Yeah, stupid. But try not to believe that if Darth Shit-for-brains tweets this tonight, tomorrow ten million people will swear it makes perfect sense.
Yes, I think that you can’t find 16 honest GOP senators. Diogenes would leave baffled. The 'trial" would go as follows (under Mitchs direction) : All in favor of guilty vote Aye, Opposed Nya, the nays have it, done. No debate would be held, no evidence looked at , other than a sheaf of docs from the House which the GOP would ignore and shitcan.
Tell me, when Mitch decided the senate wouldnt hold a hearing or vote on Garland, how many of that imaginary 16 said “Whoa, we take our role of advice and consent very seriously. We have to hold a hearing, then vote no.” Exactly none.
The Fox would announce the President was not guilty, and trump would tweet that, and trump would walk to re-election, since the trial was held, and trump was ruled Not guilty.