The prosecution is welcome to present its case. If they don’t show up on schedule, then its on them.
Do you have an opinion other than snark?
No she doesn’t. Cite?
If the GOP tries to run a trial without a prosecution present, that is not a trial. How dumb do you think the electorate is that they won’t see through that? What are they going to do, just bang the gavel and adjourn? I don’t think that will play well when the large majority of the country wants to see witnesses and a fair trial.
She has absolute authority to choose which House Managers she selects for the impeachment trial. But if the Senate says, “It’s January 7 so send 'em over” and she refuses because she wants to use the “we didn’t deliver the articles” argument, she acts at her own peril.
If the prosecution is not present, it would be because of the House’s own intransigence.
This seems to be McConnell’s playbook, yes:
- State unapologetically that he has no interest in fairness or democratic norms.
- Blame others for #1.
- When others try to do anything in response to #1, claim it shows their lack of interest in fairness or democratic norms.
Given McConnell’s explicit strategy of having the lead juror strategize with the defendant, there’s absolutely zero reasonable ground for any Republican to criticize any Democrat for intransigence.
Peril? There can be no impeachment without delivery of the Articles to the Senate. The Chief Justice won’t even be in the building.
Under present rules. Which can be changed in the next hour.
A thought occurred to me: what if Chief Justice Roberts tells every Senator that has already decreed that they cannot/will not be impartial, that they are not allowed to vote? Can he do that as the presiding judge? (I know it will never happen, just wondering if it could…)
If McConnell had the 51 votes needed to change the rules, he’d have already done it. Behind the scenes, I don’t think he has his caucus lined up nearly as well as he would like us to believe.
AIUI, the reason the vote to acquit isn’t going to happen the instant the articles are delivered to the Senate is because McConnell doesn’t have the 51 votes to make it happen. If that’s true, there’s no reason to believe he’ll have the 51 votes to change the rules, either.
If McConnell tries to change the rules, he’ll be filibustered so hard he won’t know what hit him.
I was just watching a debate on this topic on MSNBC. Andrew Weissmann (top Mueller attorney) was just saying how, once the trial goes to the Senate, Roberts can play a very big role. How big is really up to him, Roberts. It’s good to remember that Roberts does appear mindful of his SCOTUS legacy and for that reason may not act so much as a McConnell tool – especially since McConnell literally fronted him off by saying he would not be an impartial juror.
Weissmann also pointed out that yes, trial rules can be changed with a bare majority, but if Republicans opt to do that, it will come at a cost. This is the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS we’re talking about. Do Republican Senators really want to drag him through an obviously partisan exercise? Do they believe this will assist them in obtaining the SCOTUS rulings they want so much as their cases arrive at the Supreme Court?
As to your specific question, it’s a really sticky situation for Roberts to preside over a trial that has been declared from the outset by the jurors to be rigged in favor of the defendant. I don’t know what Roberts can do sua sponte – or even if he could, whether he would. At the least, I think he is on Pelosi’s side to obtain some sort of agreement that the trial will be “fair” – even if only by way of lip service.
Not from The Onion, but from the satirical Borowitz Report from 2017.
I sincerely hope McConnell wouldn’t go so far as to change the rules. But I’ve given up that the present administration will “play fair.” McConnell has demonstrated his willingness to get his will at any cost numerous times. In the end, we are relying on the R senators to self-police, and I don’t trust that will happen.
I always thought Congress would keep a rogue president in line. They have shown a willingness to go along with whatever he wants to an extreme level. Now we are thinking they will not just bend over to do whatever they want in their own venue? Doubtful.
A filibuster is easily defeated, should the Senate desire to do so. As I’ve been saying over and over, there are no real rules here. None. The rules, effectively, are whatever McConnell can convince his caucus to do. And it would seem they have most, if not all, under tight control.
Polls are suggesting that about seventy percent of the public want an actual trial, with sworn witnesses and all that crunchy goodness. And roughly fifty percent want Il Douche tried and removed. Which leads to the perplexing thought that maybe twenty percent of the public believes that a fair and open trial would actually exonerate him.
Add the evangelical magazine Christianity Today to the growing list of publications calling for Trump’s impeachment and ouster.
You speak so authoritatively. So you can provide a citation, yes?
Because this Harvard Law Professor disagrees with you.
You do have Dershowitz on your side though. lol
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Paywalled. Can you summarize or quote a relevant bit?
I’m really interested in the reaction to this. Trump maintains his cult not only by attacking any apostates, but also by encouraging the remaining cultists to attack apostates. I think (hope!) there’s a significant number of Trumpists who kindasorta want to get out, but are worried about the social/career consequences of leaving.
If the attacks on Christianity Today are able to hamstring the magazine, then Trump wins. But if that doesn’t work, then my thinking/hoping gets put to the test.
During an impeachment trial, the ruling of the chair can be overridden with 51 votes.
As far as the other stuff, I’m not speaking with any authority, nor can anyone else. It is dealing with a procedural matter that the founding fathers never spoke about nor would they have contemplated a House impeaching a president, but not wanting an immediate trial, and the converse of an accused president demanding that a trial which could remove him from office.
But the Senate does have the sole power to try impeachments. Nobody can demand certain procedures or that it be “fair” in their mind. Plus, the Dems have stated that the evidence of Trump’s guilt is so clear and obvious. If so, why do they need more witnesses and evidence?