Exhibit in this case means present the articles of impeachment. If you mean present evidence it can be to a committee or to the full Senate. The time may vary depending on the forum.
And it is not past history. When Andrew Johnson was on trial after he was acquitted of disparaging Congress (felt to be the easiest charge for conviction) and violating the Tenure of Office Act the Senate stopped the trial knowing they could not get a conviction on the other nine charges. The motion to dismiss made by Robert Byrd was after it was clear they could not convict. The vote failed but we do not know what the vote was since it was held in private although we know that many Dems were in favor of it. They still voted against it because the Senate takes its responsibility of holding a full trial very seriously. Note that this is NOT the same as not holding confirmation hearings because that happened several times before Garland. So it is important to bring up because all history indicates that despite the politics of the situation this Senate will hold the full trial despite a senator’s attempt to shorten it.
Did you read the rules I linked to at all? That’s not how it works. The ONLY way to prevent a full trial would be for 51 Senators to vote to dismiss charges. Otherwise CJ Roberts would conduct a full trial complete with Managers presenting evidence, a defense team for the President, ect.
This scenario, envisioning a Mike Pence intent on Doing What’s Right in defiance of Mitch McConnell’s wishes, appears to be completely independent from the reality of the characters of the actual persons involved.
Again we see an apparent disconnect with reality. Something that the Senate did 151 years ago is offered as evidence of what the Senate will do today, on the theory that “the Senate” involved is, in some unexplained way, made up of the exact same decision-makers during both time periods.
Mitch McConnell is not going to permit a “full trial” under any circumstances. He is not going to let Americans hear one minute of any presentation critical of Donald Trump. And he is not going to turn over the running of his Senate to John Roberts.
The posts quoted are unfactual. John Roberts would “preside” over a Senate trial if one happened. That is the beginning and end of his power to decide what happens in that Senate. Whether a trial happens or does not happen is not, in any sense known to humankind, up to John Roberts.
McConnell isn’t the one running the impeachment trial; the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is. If the Senate plays by the letter of the law with the rules they have in place now, then yeah, Saint Cad is right. But what’s keeping the Senate from changing a few of the rules preemptively?
Agreed, but it’s possible the Republicans believe an impeachment to nowhere works in their favor. One might ask, why would the House push for a Senate trial if they know it could backfire politically. The answer is two-fold: a) they might badly misread the public’s reaction; b) The might push so hard that the inertia of the impeachment proceedings forces them to push vote for a trial even with many Democrats knowing it would backfired.
If, OTOH, Trump plummets in popularity, then who knows: maybe Pence sees himself as savior of the Republican party and lets impeachment happen, or maybe he sees a coming backlash and retires from politics, and still lets impeachment happen.
I agree with Saint Cad in the sense that McConnell needs to have some legitimate way to tinker with the system. He can’t just declare the Chief Justice’s role null; he at least has to invoke the powers of the senate. The optics look terrible otherwise.
The optics looked terrible when McConnell refused to let a legitimate candidate for the Supreme Court have hearings. (my emphasis)
For the rest: yes, McConnell and/or Pence may have correct or incorrect views on whether the current mood of the nation makes a vote on impeachment good or bad for the Republican party (not to mention for McConnell and Pence as individuals). And as time moves on, all those calculations are likely to change to one degree or another.
But there’s one thing on which (I believe) we can all make book: McConnell is not going to permit the American public to hear testimony or manager-presentations that would lead to any votes being lost for Republicans. Whether or not he decides to deep-six Trump, he’s not going to want the party to suffer embarrassment.
But it did not violate any rules. That’s my point. It is a large step to go from what the Pubs have done to actually violating written rules. And the last time leadership broke rules to advance a political agenda it was Pelosi during the debates on ACA.
I think we need an expert on the rules to chime in on this. I wonder what Merrick Garland is up to these days?
Perhaps there are no specific instances of Republicans breaking the rules and perhaps there are. Regardless, the Republicans know and understand that if they do decide to break the rules there are no consequences. Pundits and politicians will bitch, Trump will declare it a hoax and/or fake news, the Republicans will back him in absolute lockstep and nothing will happen. Who is going to impeach the Senate when the Senate refuses to impeach Trump?
That can only happen if McConnell allows a trial (assuming he has the power to prevent it). And then if it were to appear to the American public that the Republicans were running a sham trial to prevent conviction they would likely reject the verdict. Finally, even if a fair trial were held the Republicans will look like fools if they fail to provide a valid defense to Trump’s actions and just shout “Steele Dossier!”
Yes Trump will probably avoid conviction in the Senate. Doesn’t mean the Republicans will avoid the consequences.
He does not allow or not allow the trial. All that has to happen is Pence notifies CJ Roberts that there will be a trial and cited numerous times in this thread.
It’s possible that Mike Pence never notifies Chief Justice Roberts of anything. How likely that is, how they would manage the backlash…I don’t know. But we can’t say it’s not a possibility. The Republicans, particularly in the Senate, have shown on more than one occasion a willingness to violate political norms, and while some of the breaches have not technically been rules violations according to the letter of the law, they are nevertheless close enough in terms of breaking implicit rules that they in effect could be counted as relevant precedent in terms of foreshadowing how the Senate could simply block impeachment.
In short, the Republicans in the Senate don’t play by rules anymore. They might ultimately decide it’s in their best interests to play by the rules if they make a political calculation that it’s wise to do so, but they could just as easily decide the opposite.
Republicans have been shouting “Steele Dossier” for more than two years, and while they did lose the House, it’s not as if they’ve suffered any serious, party-weakening consequences. In fact, millions of Americans cheer their foolishness. What makes you think a sham Senate trial will lead those Americans to “reject the verdict?” (And what would rejecting the verdict even mean? Riots in the streets?)
Those Americans will not “reject the verdict” because they will take any excuse as proof of Trump’s innocence. For others “reject the verdict” just means they won’t consider Trump not guilty just because the Senate voted that way, especially if it appears it did so by ignoring the evidence. They will see it as the Senate helping Trump “get away with it” and his, and the Senate’s, popularity will go down, not up.
And if you think a majority of the American public will support Trump just because the Senate refuses to convict, just think about how popular OJ is.