Posted on 01/20/2020 6:16:50 PM PST by bitt
Here is how things are expected go down Tuesday in the Senate for President Trump’s impeachment trial.
By rule, the trial session begins at 1 p.m. ET. Expect to see Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger reprising his role from last week, bringing order to the Senate. Stenger may appear at other points along the way, too.
The first order of business for the Senate will be to swear-in Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. Inhofe wasn’t present last week when all other senators were sworn in. He was attending to a family emergency.
Then, there will be some short, administrative activity for documents, et al.
Viewers are likely to see two women on the dais, whispering to Chief Justice John Roberts, giving advice and passing messages. They are Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and Assistant Parliamentarian Leigh Hildebrand.
Once the Senate gets through the basics, it’s time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to offer his resolution dictating the parameters of the trial. McConnell’s proposal is formally known as a “motion” in Senate parlance. And, by rule, the Senate then has two hours per side to debate the McConnell plan. The Senate will have to eat up all of that two hours, unless there is unanimous consent – meaning all 100 senators agree -- to cut things short.
The seven House managers and members of Trump’s defense team – not any senators – would debate the proposal.
Timing: So, barring anything strange, this probably gets us close to 3:30 p.m. ET.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
p
Pretrial motions. Clinton trial plan rules get passed at end of day by a party-line vote.
Trial begins Wednesday.
Then Nadler shouts "Toga! Toga!" and the party gets under way.
Due to severe limitations on news coverage, that part is off screen and mics are off.
WATCHING the movie “White House Down” now. Perhaps that is what the mad cow has in mind. First off the President, then the Vice President, and get Barry to seal the coverup......doesn’the work in the movie..
Votes aren’t there for a dismissal. So thanks to the insistence of a few GOP holdouts, we’ll have a trial no one actually wants.
Go figure.
I’m guessing Democrats will drop their demand for witnesses if Trump’s side can call theirs in.
It’s my understanding that McConnell has a “Kill Switch” to handle any such shenannigans. If what I saw here on FR was honto. (A little Japanese lingo, there).
Some Freeper decried it as childish, but that’s what you get when dealing with children...
Lamar Alexander Senator from Tennessee who is retiring after this term is included in the list of four republican senators the democrats think they can get to vote with them on procedures for the trial. If Lamar turns on the republicans, Trump and the people of Tennessee.... he needs to find another state to retire in... like California.. I don’t think he will be welcome across Tennessee unless he hides out in Memphis. Everyone needs to let him hear how they feel and what he should do to support Trump and patriots.
I would call as witnesses the children, siblings, cousins, uncles, etc. of every Democratic congressperson. Ask for all their financial documents, disclosures, legal records, etc.
Subpoena the Clintons, George Soros, Al Gore, Wolf Blitzer, Rachel Maddow, etc.
Ask them about all their donors, meetings, appearances, charitable contributions, etc.
Gather a dossier on all the funny money that floats around big government, media, foundations, etc.
I tuned it out.
The Oracle(s) at Delphi? The Sibyline Oracles? The Harpies? The Kardashian sisters?
“Congress” is the House AND the Senate, and “Acts of Congress” require approval by both bodies. Therefore there should be no basis for a charge of “Contempt of Congress” if the facts presented only apply to House subpoenas. Should be “Contempt of the House” which is more nothing than the nothing the House has voted to present.
If this Senate impeachment trial was anything like a regular criminal process the first step would be arraignment on the charges. At arraignment the defendant may plead guilty, not guilty or no contest. Some such plea is almost always entered, usually "not guilty" in order to get the process underway.
However, every now and then a criminal pleading is so defective on its face that the defendant shouldn't be required to even enter a plea. In such cases the defendant may enter what's called a demurrer. From my experience that's usually because the DA filed the charges past the statute of limitations period for that charge. It almost never happens, but every now and then it does. If there is a fatal defect on the face of the document then the defendant can "demur" to the charges which means in effect "The DA obviously can't charge me with this just by looking at the document itself" and the judge then has to decide whether to allow defendant to enter the demurrer.
So, applying the analogy to the present Senate impeachment trial, if I were representing POTUS (and assuming the usual rules of criminal procedure apply), then I'd enter a demurrer to the charges as the accusatory pleading sent by the House does not actually reference a crime. Nowhere in the Articles of Impeachment is the US Code cited. That's a fatal defect, IMHO, because it is simply axiomatic in our law that there is no crime unless there is a statute forbidding the alleged action. "All is permitted that is not forbidden by law." No law forbidding the action, no crime. Due process requires a cite to a statute because a criminal defendant has to know precisely which law he violated, and he must have notice that the action is criminal. Anything short of that violates the defendant's Constitutional right to due process of law. That means in this case that the House had to have indicated clearly which statute Potus violated, on what date, with which state of mind, etc. But the House didn't cite to any criminal statute in the US Code at all, and so the Articles of Impeachment are clearly invalid on their face.
If this were a normal criminal proceeding, I'd enter a demurrer and then ask Judge Roberts who is presiding over the Senate trial for a ruling on the issue. If he allows the demurrer, then it goes back to the House, which is free to address the problem. If it's denied, then the trial goes forward.
I don't know the rules of the Senate on this, but whatever they are they have to comply with due process of law as required by the Constitution. Charging somebody with what amounts to legal Jell-O by not clearly citing to a criminal statue isn't anything like due process of law. Nobody, not even the President, is above the law, the Democrats like to say. And that's true. But, by the same token, nobody, not even the President, is beneath the law. It was on the House to charge the President with a crime. They whiffed pretty badly. Trump's team should demur. They should point out that even if the charges are thrown back on the House, the House is not without a remedy as they can simply fix them and then re-file.
Nobody should have to face such a prosecutorial grab bag. There's no notice. No opportunity to even understand what the charges are so a defense can be presented.
The House did shoddy work and POTUS should not have to deal with it.
End of rant.
Let’s see. I am setting my schedule for tomorrow, hour by hour. Hour One through Hour Twenty-Three: Keep busy with other things while remembering to pray at the top of every hour for President Trump and every other sane person who remains in government office or position, exposure and correction for all the rest, and for sanity to find a way to reach half of the people of this nation or at least keep them away from the voting booths.
Yes, but you're talking about the Constitution and the law. We're talking about Democrats - entirely different.
The pythoness was always high, the sibylines seem a little too much like transgenders in Michelangelo's treatments, so, the Harpies, because I wouldn't touch the Kardashian sisters with someone else's johnson. Wait, what was the question?
I'm surprised that nothing about Schiff has come out yet but California is so corrupt maybe it'll all get bottled up until someone with some guts digs around in the Buck case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.