You might try the ‘selling your birthright for a mess of pottage’ parable on them and then point out that, given Donny Two-scoops’ proclivities on delivering promises, they won’t even get the pottage.
When they believe that screwing over Democrats means they win, anything you say to them that isn’t “Trump is right” will be seen as “The Democrats are upset”. There is no magic phrase that gets around this, no point of logic, no convincing argument.
Right - the ones with the “Better Russian than Democrat” tee-shirts? Darned aging boogie rockers.
Which was the depressing closure I was referring to.
Never had the morbid curiosty to gander over to, say, Breitbart? I myself stuck my neck into 8-chan once. :eek:
Then again if you’re just joshin, never mind.
What about filibusters? Doesn’t Justice Roberts get to recognize who speaks? He could recognize Democrats if the Republicans make a mockery of the process, then the Democrats could filibuster until they get some concessions.
Or, the Democratic caucus could sue the Republicans for not holding a trial and hope SCOTUS hears the case. In the (judge) Nixon case it was hinted that they might do so if the Senate refused to hold a trial at all.
~Max
McConnell backs changing Senate rules over Pelosi impeachment delay
Nancy’s got Mitch foaming and frothing at the mouth and that’s got to be a Good Thing.
Well, except for Old Yeller.
Too soon, 'luci.
Not accurate. It was a 6-0-3 decision in which six justices held that a Senate impeachment process was a non justiciable political question no matter what. Two justices stated that they would have ruled it to be reviewable but under the facts would not have given Nixon relief. Souter in a separate opinion would have held that it is generally a non justiciable question but would have left open review for extreme cases such as when the Senate ruled based upon a coin flip or simply convicted without a trial.
So really, you only have one justice stating the exception you illustrated, and the exception was for a conviction without trial, not simply a dismissal.
Further, I’m not sure what you mean “refusal to hold a trial at all.” If you mean that they will not allow witnesses, then Clinton’s impeachment trial was also invalid because no live witnesses were called. IOW, nothing says that a Senate impeachment trial has to look like Law and Order.
Good points, it’s been a while since I read the case.
~Max
It’s ok if you’re not paying attention - it’s referring to McConnell and Graham blatantly stating that they are not going to even consider the evidence; they will vote “not guilty”, 100%, no questions asked, no fucks given. In your incredibly extensive experience, have you EVER had a prosecutor allow a jurist that openly stated “The defendant is not guilty, no matter what” during selection?
Brilliant lawyer-speak, parsed JUST RIGHT to cover-up that the impeachment managers WERE allowed to depose several witnesses during the trial and present those videotaped depositions to the Senate.
I’m perfectly fine with that. Can we start with Bolton?
But can they impose these changes retroactively?
Also: what’s to stop the House from simply voting again?
The Senate can make whatever rules they want on this. Yes, they can change the rules retroactively. The only obligation they have is to try this. Beyond that, they make all the rules.
There is nothing to stop the House from voting again. And again. And again. They could pass any number of impeachment articles every day if they wanted and force the Senate to try them all. The House has no obligation to impeach, but they have no limitation on how often they impeach. The only true restriction is that it must be for treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.
It would seem appropriate for the House to table the impeachment because the Senate has publicly stated that it would not judge the President.
The House could take whatever vote is appropriate and Pelosi could announce that “the matter is tabled and the President stands Impeached”. It’s the Lucy and the football strategy.
“It would seem appropriate…”
Wow, you feel really passionate about this issue, dontcha? :dubious:
What would this accomplish? Much better to let the impeachment dangle and twist in the wind while Mitch dances and squirms around it, feeling his impotence to make Nancy even break a sweat.
Duplicate - sorry
Once the impeachment is handed over to Mitch, it places the closing actions and words under his control. We already know that script.
The President has been impeached. The issue can be closed by the House and the trial left to historians.
That left wing rag Wall St Journal says Trump killed the guy to help out with votes on impeachment
Pelosi said she is sending the articles next week.
Disappointing.
What a fine set of options for McConnell! Last we heard, he was aiming for an impeachment trial of about thirty minutes. Convene, dismiss the impeachment, break for lunch. Impeachy keen, if it were all that popular. Latest trends seem to say “Nah!”. In their naive faith, Americans tend to believe that if someone really isn’t guilty, then they can present witnesses and documents to prove it.
'Course, if McConnell wants to present his own evidence, and refuse to allow any rebuttal…No, that really looks bad, doesn’t it? Better just to go with the flat out dismissal.
Hobson’s Choice, isn’t it? If that’s what McConnell has on offer, its a beaut! Republican Senators will have a tough time winning with the MAGAhats, but have no hope at all without them.
McConnell’s option pins them to the wall, they have to go totally for Trump, or totally against. There is no third option, except for the pathetic whine of “Well, yeah, he’s* technically* guilty, but its not like its really a crime, Sure, he lied to the American people, but it wasn’t about a blowjob, or anything important!”.
They dithered for a couple of days, hoping that the huge groundswell of patriotic support for the Tough Guy President would surge like a tidal wave… Nope. They sounded the horn, beat the war drum and waved the flag, and look what didn’t happen.
My guess, today, is that McConnell is going to through with the “duck and cover” option, dismiss the whole thing and pretend its normal.