General Questions About The U.S. Senate Trial of Trump

[ancianita]

Re the larger process, a lot of Senate trial details are up to Congress, but Congress is not letting the public know how the Senate will conduct that trial.

There's no public information on the procedure for
-- how the Chief Justice uses his role, and whether he decides how the trial is to be conducted
-- will the case be presented as The U.S. House of Representatives v. President Donald Trump?
-- will he allow the presentation the House's case, which can include evidence for the articles and argument for removal?
-- will he only allow the Articles and a vote?
-- will the vote for each Senator be public record?
-- will Justice Roberts sign and send the final decision in writing to the president?


If impeachment is political, is this trial NOT political?
-- How can Chief Justice Roberts advise on the votes?
Is the trial the constitutional equivalent of a real federal court room?
-- If so, can the House appeal the final Senate decision to the Supreme Court?
Does the Senate trial temporarily turn the Senate into the Third Branch?

Will Chief Justice Roberts actually address any of these questions to the American public?

[Claritie Pixie]

1. Yes lots of questions, and very little out there to answer them.

Theoretically, without shenanigans, Roberts serves as the judge, Senate is the jury.

House are the prosecutors and present all the evidence they've amassed.

The orange rat's attorneys are the defense and present their case.

Senate doesn't actually do anything but listen as a jury would, then deliberate and vote.

This is not a criminal trial so those rules don't apply, there's no avenue for appeal.

[ancianita]

3. Then Painter was wrong to call the senators "judges" in his latest tweet?

[Claritie Pixie]

4. Apparently so. Here -

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

[ancianita]

8. Thanks. I just posted a variation of this below, editing for readability.

[Claritie Pixie]

11. After reading some other replies, I was not correct in calling the Senate the jury.

In the Clinton impeachment trial, they were the court.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Actually the senate is not "the jury". When Chief Justice Rehnquist presided over Clinton's

impeachment he actually sustained an objection over calling the senators jurors

Yet senators and legal analysts praised Rehnquist for an even-handed approach. His first ruling drew notice for going against Republican House managers who were presenting the case for a Clinton conviction.
In that instance, Rehnquist upheld an objection of Democratic Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin to the House managers' referring to senators as "jurors." Declared Rehnquist, "The Senate is not simply a jury. It is a court in this case."

From: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/29/politics/william-rehnquist-impeachment-trial-senate/index.html

[Claritie Pixie]

9. Ok - thank you for this.

[PoliticAverse]

2. See...

The senate webpage on impeachment:
https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

The actual senate rules on impeachment:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

Congressional Research Service:
The Role of the Senate in Judicial Impeachment Proceedings: Procedure, Practice, and Data
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41172.pdf

The Chief Justice's role during Clinton's impeachment:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/29/politics/william-rehnquist-impeachment-trial-senate/index.html

[ancianita]

5. Thank you! The Senate Web page answers some questions, but none about who the managers are,

and how they're selected and what is their qualifying experience.

Good information:

A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate.
The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official.
In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.
In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future.
There is no appeal.
Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office.

Imo, past trials are not a guarantee of what future trials would be like.

Each impeachment and removal process has looked different to me.

[PoliticAverse]

10. To answer the managers question, see the House impeachment page...

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.

[ancianita]

17. Interesting info. Thank you. So members of the Judiciary will prosecute in the Senate trial.

[MineralMan]

7. All you have to do is review the Clinton impeachment.

That is how it works. That is the only 20th century model we have of a presidential impeachment, and it will be the framework of an impeachment of Trump, as well.

I remember it well. Not everyone does, though, but there are many accounts of it online. If you are looking for answers, look there.

[ancianita]

13. "All I..." or "All anyone..."? Media should be aware, however, that most of the public weren't ,

around then, and that it could give the public a review.

My kids were age 11 and unborn, now in their late 40's and early 30's and, of course, don't remember it at all. I was age 30 then, and I don't remember it at all, either.

Who wants to remember the tawdry ugliness of all that semen stained dress evidence as major proof of a president's qualifications to lead and defend national security.

And then there's THIS alien being. With all the normalizing that his jackals in Congress can promote.

You say the info is easily findable. I've see news clips and videos of those days, but no info on the trial process.

If so, perhaps people can collate that info here. Imo, it's a little too random to expect people to take more time on do this on their own when DU can summarize with links, even.


The trial of the century deserves some public awareness, information and knowledge building.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one needing it.

[MineralMan]

15. Oh, it's easy. You can start on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

From that article, you can click on as many links as you can handle, if you want more detailed information.

If you want a timeline of the Clinton impeachment, you can go here:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm

Google can find something on any aspect of that historical event, if someone is interested enough to search for it. That is what I mean by "All anyone has to do..." It's simple, if time-consuming.

Actually, most people were around for it. It wasn't that long ago. Some people remember the Nixon hearings, even though he was never actually impeached. It's a rare, rare event for a President to be in danger of impeachment. So, the historical details have been covered extensively, and are available for anyone to peruse.

You want a simple summary that includes all the details? Sorry, but that doesn't exist. It's not really possible to create such a thing for such a complex historical event. There are lots of simple summaries, but they lack the details you requested. The Wikipedia article has a pretty good summary in it, and the links will carry you to more info.

[beachbumbob]

12. follows typical trial process and we historical process

- Chief Justice is the judge and will follow the standard rules of a trail
- their are floor "managers" assigned as prosecution and they usually are from the House Impeachment Inquiry committee and top [rpsecutor will likely be adam Schiff
- the defense can be in form of another set typically the opposing party along with presidential lawyers
- the evidence and testimony is entered into record
- the only the Judge does is maintain the order and process
- the vote is a public vote
- the decision required 2/3 in favor of "guilty" anything else is not guity

we have historic process from Clinto impeachment, federal udge impeachments so nothing secret or unknown

99.9% sure McConnel will not let any trial happen as he has the power to do so

[ancianita]

14. Isn't that a political power, and didn't he go on public record saying he'd HAVE to take it to the

Senate?

So how could he not let a trial happen?

[tritsofme]

18. The Senate could vote on a motion to dismiss prior to the House managers presenting their case.

And dispose of the articles that way.

[ancianita]

19. Motion to dismiss what, managers? No evidence, just Articles? Proceed to a political vote? WTF

"Dispose" is their political word. To me it will be to dispose of justice for The People.

If people see that, they'll think there's no real government but a corrupt, rigged one, no matter what the facts of the case.

I wonder if the managers could present their case to the public, even if it's not allowed in the Senate. A public airing of the official House case seems so necessary to the interests of the country, if not the Republicans.

It makes me wonder if voters will see this "not guilty" as the victory of projecting conspiracy over lawful fact finding. That their side can use story to outwit law.

Or if the "not guilty" vote will piss enough voters off to vote these guys out.

Or if the vote will embolden vote rigging from within or abroad.

If Trump wins, we'll eventually learn how he killed the biggest democracy through both legal process, conspiracy PR lies, and vote rigging.

If he wins, there may never be a democratic presidential vote again.

[tritsofme]

20. Yes, they could vote to dismiss the impeachment charges prior to the actual trial.

House Democrats can certainly stage whatever sort of event they choose, but I suspect they will conduct their public impeachment hearings knowing the likelihood of a full Senate trial like we saw in 1999 is pretty small this time.

[beachbumbob]

21. So YOU BELIEVE what Moscow Mitch says?

I already said he has several ways:

- simply not call it to the floor, nothing in Constitution mandates a timetable for a trial
- vote on a mtion to "delay" trial and only 51% is needed to pass
- simply pull the Merrick Garland move and announce the trial will be with the american people in Nov 2020



McConnell will never allow a trial to happen unless trump's approval number is sub 30% and thats not likely

[ancianita]

23. I don't believe anything. I'm here to just to find out what's likely. Thanks for your input.

I expected that McConnell wouldn't allow a trial. I just thought he was admitting to being legally compelled to let it happen.

Trial or no trial, the House will present its case and 2020 will happen.

Either way, the goal of getting the case conveyed to the country is the important thing.

[ancianita]

16. More on procedure. Because these questions, never having been asked, deserve an airing somewhere.

More thanks to PoliticAverse.

In 1993, in the case Nixon v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the Senate’s right to determine its own procedures, including the use of a trial committee.

McConnell cannot stop a trial, though some think so. He says he can't.

But can McConnell single handedly influence such minimal Senate procedures as to have none but a vote?
Will it be lawful for a Senate leader to pre-empt any other Senate decision making on procedures.
This rule doesn't seem to preclude any political latitude the Senate leader chooses.

Anyway, I expect media muddlement through ongoing "expert" speculations.

Whatever he does or doesn't do with the House decision, that the public won't know or understand why will not be their fault.

[beachbumbob]

22. where in the constituition does it mandate a timetable for a trial? I like to know as I don't see it

with specific language of a trial to be held withing "x" days of receiving articles of impeachment, McConnel has full control of the Senate's business

[ancianita]

24. I haven't mentioned a timetable. Don't know how you think that.