Replies

I believe there is a "cram down" method by which the 51 senators can change the rule in which case when the rule is changed, the Senate can proceed to vote. But vote on what?

Hawley's proposal would be to dismiss the impeachment on procedural grounds but that is certainly not the best way to proceed. McConnell as Senate leader ought to take up the impeachment as though the articles had been delivered (after all there is no constitutional requirement that there be articles of impeachment much less delivered) and entertain a motion to dismiss on the MERITS. Hawley would have the matter rendered inoperative but probably subject to revival by the House at the whim of the Democrats.

In other words, a better motion would be to dismiss assuming that all the factual allegations in the drafted articles of impeachment were true and the Senate concludes by 51 votes that the matter must be dismissed because they don't add up to an impeachable offense.

The president's main defense has always been that there was no quid pro quo and the conversation demonstrates that. The Democrats response has always been that collateral evidence proves a quid pro quo.This would tend to foreclose further investigations by the House of Representatives which, since they control the timing, will be used to affect the upcoming election. Thus, the never-ending search by the House to amplify the grounds for impeachment after the "transcript" of the conversation was released would be rendered irrelevant, at least in logic because, even assuming a quid pro quo there is no impeachable offense.

I'm confused. I think I need a good stiff drink to understand this. I'll then read it SLOWLY once more.

I know from the past that you are brilliant, but unfortunately, I am not.

;-)

>> Hawley's proposal would be to dismiss the impeachment on procedural grounds but that is certainly not the best way to proceed. McConnell as Senate leader ought to take up the impeachment as though the articles had been delivered (after all there is no constitutional requirement that there be articles of impeachment much less delivered) and entertain a motion to dismiss on the MERITS. Hawley would have the matter rendered inoperative but probably subject to revival by the House at the whim of the Democrats. In other words, a better motion would be to dismiss assuming that all the factual allegations in the drafted articles of impeachment were true and the Senate concludes by 51 votes that the matter must be dismissed because they don't add up to an impeachable offense. <<

Hell has frozen over, Nathanbedford and I agree on something.

If the Senate went with Hawley's motion right now, the RATS would just play victim and run on "the Senate Republicans are soooo corrupt they HID Trump's crimes and REFUSED to even consider ANY evidence PROVING how evil the Orange Man is... blah blah blah."

The RATs know their "charges" are a joke and they have no evidence whatsoever to "present", so their ideal scenario is hold off a Senate trial as long as possible (ideally the trial is STILL "pending" on Election Day for the RATs and they can say stuff like "an impeached President awaiting trial for his crimes has NO BUSINESS appointing judges under such a cloud of suspicion, blah blah blah...)

So basically, what McConnell and the Senate GOP have to do is refuse to play that game, and cite the constitutional precedent for a fair and SPEEDY trial that follows the House impeaching someone. Announce a date for the trial to start, give the House a deadline to appoint House Managers to prosecute the case and prepare their material to present to the Senate. Tell Pelosi that both sides will be allowed equal time to present their stuff for consideration. Give her an ultimatum that the trial WILL proceed on THAT day whether the House Managers show up or not, so if the evidence is so overwhelming that Trump is a danger to the Republic, its in their best interests to fully participate in the prosecution during the trial.

If Pelosi OR the Senate RATS object to the date and trial rules, the GOP can prevail by a simple majority vote.

Once the "trial" commences, it will be obvious to EVERYONE watching on C-SPAN that the RATS have ZERO evidence to present, and are tilting at windmills. Since they are clearly wasting the Senate's time on hearsay and wild speculation, a Motion should be made at that time to dismiss the charges on the MERITS, and to "Terminate the matter with extreme prejudice" so the House cannot re-impeach Trump for the same "crimes", as the Senate has already demonstrated that no such "crime" exists. Again, this can be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

If the GOP regains control of the House in Nov. 2020, a motion should be put forward and passed (again, by simple majority vote) to formally Censure all those who abused the power of the impeachment process "recklessly and frivolously, without due consideration or any evidence of serious wrongdoing"). That would send a strong message to future Congresses, both Republican and Democrat, not to pursue an "impeachment" just because the President is a member of the other party.