-
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.
-
How much evidence must be debated?
Technically, you are correct, in reality totally wrong.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
I’d like your comments on my hypothetical:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
I was referring specifically to this line you wrote
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.
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