Would an impeachment trial in the Senate be presided over by Mitch McConnell or the Chief Justice?

[kentuck]

If presided over by the Chief Justice, could Mitch McConnell shut it down?

I have heard different scenarios, such as, Mitch McConnell could shut it down and not even have a trial?

Is that possible?

Because if there is one more serious charge made against Donald Trump, I do not think Nancy Pelosi can hold back the forces. I think the majority would impeach. But they are waiting on one more piece of evidence to buttress the Mueller investigation and what is already known. One witness is all they need. Or it could be in the Flynn tape that has been hidden by the Justice Dept?

Donald Trump's possible impeachment is hanging by a thread, in my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

1. The Chief Justice would preside

But he'd have to follow the rules and procedures set by McConnell and the Senate majority.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Not sure that is true

McConnell can determine *if* the senate hold a trial, but once a trial begins, Roberts is in charge, and the senators act merely as jurors. Roberts can determine what is admissible, and the rules of order, etc.

[StarfishSaver]

16. McConnell will set all of the rules for the trial - the Chief Justice will be constrained to act

within the rules set by McConnell and the Senate majority.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Link?

I suppose the Clinton trial is the only precedent?

[StarfishSaver]

20. Impeachment trials are governed by rules adopted by the Senate

There are many precedents since there have been several impeachment trials in recent history - only one of them involved the president. The current Rules of Procedure and Practice When Sitting on Impeachment Trials were adopted in 1986 and are still in effect as part of the Senate Rules. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

However, several resolutions were adopted in 1998 and 1999 to govern specific aspects of the Clinton impeachment trial - some as simple as authorizing extra chairs and photography.

See, e.g., S.Res.30 (A resolution relative to the procedures concerning the Articles of Impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton); S.Res.16 (A resolution to provide for the issuance of a summons and for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States); S.Res.17 — 106th Congress (A resolution to authorize the installation of appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate chamber for the impeachment trial);S.Res.36 (A resolution authorizing the taking of photographs in the Chamber of the United States Senate). https://www.congress.gov

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. Article VII seems to give the Chief Justice complete authority, with the ability to be overruled

Roberts could conduct the trial as he pleased, with the proviso that any particular ruling could be challenged by a single senator, and then subject to an immediate up or down vote by the whole senate.

So once the trial begins, Roberts runs the show, but the GOP can obstruct with repeated votes to challenge his rulings- I still think that works in the Dems favor, and against Trump.

GOP senator: "I object to the discussion of the President's personal finances during this trial, and move that a floor vote be taken on the Chief Justice's ruling of admissibility".

GOP senator: "I object to the inclusion of the Meuller report as evidence in these proceedings, and move that a floor vote be taken on the Chief Justices ruling of admissibility".

GOP senator: "I object to the discussion of the President's personal relationships with women other than his wife, and move that a floor vote be taken on the Chief Justice's ruling of admissibility"

Win/Win, IMO.

[StarfishSaver]

22. It may seem that way, but that's not the case

As you describe, he must operate within the rules and procedures set by the Senate and any Senator can object to any of his ruling and a simple majority can overrule him on anything. That's not "complete authority."

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Perhaps not, but each objection puts every Senator on record

For/against obstruction.

[toddwv]

26. Judge William Rehnquist presided over Clinton's impeachment.

[Lochloosa]

2. The turtle said he would just call a vote and be done with it.

No trail.

MOST DANGEROUS PERSON IN AMERICA.

[RKP5637]

3. Yep, Turdtle is the most dangerous because he is smart whereas tRump is pretty stupid. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

4. Interesting

The Constitution gives the Senate the exclusive power to hold a trial, but it doesn't require a trial, does it?

Hmm.

[Lochloosa]

5. Nope

And why would they?

[StarfishSaver]

17. The Senate rules require a trial. But those can be changed

[Lochloosa]

19. Like we haven't gone down that road.

[marylandblue]

7. Correct. And it doesn't specify rules for the trial.

It doesn't have to follow any rules of evidence or fairness like a court trial does.

Even if there were a trial, McConnell and Trump's lawyers would make it a complete circus.

[StarfishSaver]

9. The Senate has the power to set whatever rules it wants

And we can only imagine what that would look like.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Current Senate rules require a trial be conducted if articles of impeachment are approved

But Mitch could hold a vote to change the rules, at his and the GOP senators' peril.

[marylandblue]

13. Not only could he, but he will change the rules.

And 40-45% of Americans will applaud him for doing so, while that same 40-45% will punish him if he allows any harm to Trump. It's much more perilous for him to hold a fair trial than not. His options are to piss of the base and lose 2020 for sure or piss off the people who already hate him and hope the base turns out big.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Yes - the Senate rules require a trial, but the Constitution doesn't. So, as you say

the Senate can change the rules. Or more likely, they can simply change the rules and procedures for the trial to strictly limit how the managers can present their case.

I wish I had as much faith as you in what constitutes "peril" for GOP senators.

[kentuck]

14. It would seem that the Senate might want to clarify some of the charges....?

....after the House would expose all the crimes and misdemeanors?

It would seem like the Senate would simply be accepting the "guilty" verdict of the House if they simply refused to answer the charges?

That seems like a huge gamble to take, in my opinion.

[Buckeyeblue]

6. I would think even if he called a vote there would have to be debate

Senate Democrats could use that time to make the case for impeachment. And I'm sure all the networks would cover it.

[StarfishSaver]

12. There wouldn't have to be a debate

The Senate can set the rules so that the vote is taken immediately upon the presentation of the Articles without any debate.

[Buckeyeblue]

23. It would be interesting to see if he could get 50 votes for that

I know Susan Collins would be deeply concerned. But some of the others who are up for reelection might have second thoughts about that.

[StarfishSaver]

24. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. Chief Justice would preside- Mitch's only power would be to vote to change Senate rules

Current Senate rules state if House approves articles of impeachment, the Senate must hold a trial, over which Mitch has no power- he could not force a quick up or down vote with no arguments.

What Mitch could do is hold a vote to change the Senate rules to allow the Senate to decline to hold a trial- a cowardly move that IMO would work in the Dems favor. Imagine, after in depth hearings into Trump's corruption and criminality, the house votes to impeach (or is on the brink of voting), and Mitch suddenly holds a vote to change the Senate rules- the GOP would be on the hook for denying Justice, or in Trump's view, denying him "total exoneration". The impeachment would just hang there in the air, unresolved, through the election, with each GOP senator's vote to not even hold a trial on display for all to see...

[watoos]

28. Thank you for a rational explanation

Mitch changing rules that would put his thumb on the scale for Trump will backfire spectacularly against Trump, Mitch, and Republicans.

[librechik]

27. McConnell will never allow a vote on it. But 45 is "impeached" for all time, with or W/O the Senate

and not something that will help get you re-elected.

[watoos]

29. If Mitch doesn't allow a vote

If that is legal, Republicans will lose the Senate.

[redstateblues]

30. Maybe it does help get him elected. You can't say that definitively. That's a huge risk.

And a possible exoneration parade. Impeachment? Be careful what you wish for

[librechik]

31. yes, but we have to do the right thing, and not care about political risk

the situation is vastly different than Clinton, or even Nixon. It's new and unprecedented, and the outcome will be different. We must try to neutralize Trump tHe Insult Comic President. before he nukes everybody, or maybe just the Constitution.