This is insane.
McConnell needs to get his act together.
Another “non-story” story. He’s bound by procedure. My understanding is that they can straight up vote down an impeachment trial with a 50% majority procedural vote to not accept the trial referral.
Thanks Mitch. You idiot.
I don’t remember a Trial for slick willies impeachment, in fact the Entire Senate REFUSED to look at any of the evidence.
They remove Trump, all bets are off.
If the House impeaches the Senate has to take it up as required by the Constitution.
But, consider that in the Clinton impeachment the Senate never really conducted a trial. Staff took depositions that were given to the Senators. Basically, all that happened on the floor were attorney arguments and the vote.
Plus, McConnell is laying down a marker to the Dems. Be very careful what you ask for because I will control the proceedings in the Senate, not Schitt and Nadless. It will not play out well for the Democrats.
he may be trying to out-scare Nancy Pelousy
but i bet she will go ahead and send impeachemnt to him anyway
at THAT time, he can just take it up whenever he wishes...
that is, he can leave it on the bottom of his inbox until, say, 2024
He has no choice, he’s been blackmailed.
The idea that the Senate could decline to hold an impeachment trial is likely on sound Constitutional footing.
But politically it is ludicrous.
99 of 100 Senators would vote yes to have a trial if the House impeached, and the lone hold-out would likely abstain.
Mitch McConnell wife is taking Chinese bribes for him.
As he should. Why would we not want the President’s lawyers to call witnesses, subpoena docs, etc. to expose the democrats and destroy this?
Once it passes out of the house, the Senate sets the rules.
If they don't proceed with the trial, the Democrats will milk it for all it's worth suggesting it proves Trumps guilt.
On the other hand if they proceed, the process will demonstrate to the American people and the world at large that the impeachment was nothing but an empty. baseless, partisan hatchet job.
Folks, simmer down. We WANT McConnell to have a trial. Without a trial, President Trump can’t have the near absolute subpoena and discovery rights he will have. That trial will leave the Democratic Party in ruins. President Trump will be acquitted and the democrats will take a generation to rebuild.
And then there’s RBG’s replacement!!
but not required by the constitution
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case
98% of them are lowlife traitors. We should not even be having this discussion regarding impeachment.
McConnell has ties to China via his wife, and I’m sure the Turtle doesn’t like Trump’s trade war with China.
McConnell is corrupt and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him knife Trump in the back.
-PJ
Here's what I'd like to see happen.Even though the Constitution calls this a "trial," we saw in the Clinton impeachment trial that the Senator still think of themselves as Senators first, jurors second. This means that that the Constitutional power of each chamber to make its own rules applies to the trial in the Senate, too.
This means that the "trial" does not have to operate like any civil or criminal trial. It's actually a loose term as applied here, more like a body that decides one's political fate. The Senators will debate the rules of the trial before it begins. I expect the Democrats to try to limit the subpoena power of the President, that is, his ability to call witnesses in his defense. The Democrats may also try to limit the scope of the defense to only what was in the article of impeachment, and not allow the President to call into doubt the veracity of other Congressional Democrats. They may even try to limit the number of days that the President has to offer his defense and who may be allowed onto the Senate floor in his defense (e.g., no Giuliani).
The wild card here is the part of the Constitution that says that the Chief Justice "presides" over the trial. Does this mean that he is simply a figurehead who rubber-stamps anything that the Senators demand, or will he actually run the proceedings and exercise his authority to "preside" as HE sees fit (separation of powers)? Rehnquist seemed a bit weak, to me, in this aspect during the Clinton trial. I'd like to see a more assertive "presiding" by a Chief Justice to ensure that the Legislative and Executive branches both get fair treatment, even thought this is the Senate's playground.
So, I'd like to see the President's team try a trial tactic of motioning the Chief Justice for a summary judgment, saying that the outcome is obvious. I'd like to see the President's team declare that the articles of impeachment are flawed, that they are based on unproven hearsay by biased witnesses, that the procedures that produced them in the House were illegitimate, that there were no "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by the President, and that the nation would be severely harmed by proceeding with this when an election is less than a year away. Essentially, let the people decide.
The House Democrats would naturally object, and Roberts would hear their objections. Then Roberts should decide for the President and summarily end the trial. No Senator will be on record voting for or against, so they are all protected with their constituents. The House will say they did their part. The Chief Justice will be somewhat rehabilitated with conservatives. The People will be spared a national embarrassment.
And the President is free to begin his reelection campaign.
Drop dead Mitch, and let someone with a set of balls, and a backbone take over.