McConnell says he is ready to proceed with Trump impeachment trial with no agreement on witnesses

[BKDem]

Source: Washington Post

BREAKING: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues during a closed-door lunch that he has the votes to begin President Trump’s impeachment trial with just opening arguments and questions from senators, and with no deal on witnesses.
The vote to start the trial would be held after the House sends over the articles of impeachment.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2020/01/07/e0f49d52-313b-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html

---

Mitch can proceed to go fuck himself.

[TruckFump]

1. Second that "GO FUCK HIMSELF!" EOM

[Submariner]

2. Adam Schiff should subpoena Bolton for additional House investigation

and then forward that testimony to Moscow Mitch later.

[CrispyQ]

7. This.

Bolton picking the Chamber he favors, to testify to, stinks.

[mn9driver]

3. This was always the way it would be.

Once the articles of impeachment are delivered, the GOP will have opening statements to start the “trial” and then vote to proceed directly to closing statements and a verdict vote. There will be no witnesses, no evidence, no testimony of any kind.

They believe they can get away with it. They may be right.

[C_U_L8R]

16. It will stain everything they do from this point forward.

And it's a wonderful point of attack for Democrats.

[FBaggins]

28. Which was the point

We knew all along that the Senate would not convict him (absent something much larger)... so the best result we can hope for is that they pay a political price for it.

[global1]

4. Let's Reward Trump For Starting A War With Iran With An.....

impeachment acquittal in the Senate.

Nothing but positive reinforcement for our criminal president.

[cstanleytech]

5. Pelosi needs to drag this out as the Republican Senators only goal is not

to hold a fair and impartial trial but rather their goal is to protect Trump at any cost

[LiberalLovinLug]

6. Does Justice Roberts have ANY say at all in this matter?

Is he truly just a figure head? Not sure where his true loyalties lie even, but for the sake of argument, IF he actually has some integrity, and does want to put country ahead of party and and law ahead of politics, does he have any authority whatsoever in this matter?
Can he make a statement that he is not satisfied with the structure of the trial as Mitch wants to run it? That he cannot preside over such a sham?

[COLGATE4]

8. No

[LiberalLovinLug]

9. Why is he even there then?

Kind of embarrassing for him you'd think, as someone who is the #1 judge in the country, and purportedly respects the Constitution and the rule of fair law.

[COLGATE4]

10. Because the Constitution says that he must preside

When Clinton was impeached the Chief Justice's main action was having a flashy new robe with gold stripes made up for the occasion.

[BKDem]

17. Rehnquist was a pretentious asshole.

[COLGATE4]

20. For sure.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Senate majority trumps all

Nick Ackerman last week advised Democrats to ask Roberts for a bench warrant to drag the witnesses before the Senate. Not sure if that would play, or if it requires 51 votes. So he's saying, I think, that the Senate trial should bear some resemblance to a jury trial in a court room. But good luck with that.

I expect Roberts to be passive, ruling on this or that point of law.

[onenote]

36. Akerman should've taken a moment to refresh his memory of the Senate rules.

Roberts has no authority to issue a "bench warrant" -- that concept doesn't exist in the Senate rules governing impeachment. More importantly, he only has the power to do that which is authorized by the Senate or the Senate's rules. The rules also expressly state that the "Senate" not the Presiding Officer, shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses:

The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.

The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, man- dates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice.

Finally, the rules state that any ruling made by the Presiding Officer can be challenged by a single Senator, and subjected to being overruled by majority vote. And the Senate, as it has in the past, will adopt a resolution that will govern the order in which the trial is held, including whether and if so when witnesses can be called.

So Akerman's suggestion is pure fantasy.

[DeminPennswoods]

15. AFAIK, Roberts will decide if a witness can be called

That is, if Schumer requests a witness, Roberts will first rule on that request. Then a senator or impeachment manager or the defense can ask for a vote to overrule Roberts' decision.

What makes this interesting is how much deference the Rs will give to Roberts' rulings. If he rules, for example, that Mulvaney must testify, it's an indication of which way the Supreme Court will rule on the various cases working their up through the lower courts regarding the WH counsel's claims of total executive branch immunity.

It'll also be interesting to see what impact, if any, having an in person look at the Senate and how obsequeious the Rs are to Trump will have on any future Supreme Court rulings for which Roberts may be the deciding vote.

[Roy Rolling]

12. Always Changing the Rules

Whenever Republicans are on the losing side they don't compromise or accede to better plans--they change the rules.

That's the lesson of "running government like a business". American business has learned to thrive on lobbying to change laws to pad the bottom line, rather than compete fairly.

Losers, all. That's why we are lagging behind the world, our business model depends on government charity not competitiveness.

[mitch96]

30. +1,,,,,, Like if you can't win fair, gerrymander! Can the senate proceed with the trial without

the articles of impeachment from the house?? Seems like that's a rule they would like to change...
m

[pnwmom]

13. But it's all up to Nancy, not Mitch, when the House sends over the articles of impeachment.

And she's not going to do that because of Mitch's huffin' and puffin'.

[bluestarone]

14. True and i know she will HOLD them until

SHE'S ready! not when Moscow Mitch is ready!!

[Miguelito Loveless]

18. It's actually up to a few GOP senators

who have to decide whether this will be a sham or not.

Pelosi can withhold the articles, and McConnell can just say he's proceeding without them. It then comes down to a senate vote and 51 senators decide. If 51 senators decide to ignore Pelosi and move to acquit, that is what is going to happen.

We are long past any actual objective process.

[pnwmom]

19. Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law professor at Harvard, says they would need 67 votes,

not 51.

And even the link posted by the OP says: "The vote to start the trial would be held after the House sends over the articles of impeachment.

Link to tweet

Laurence Tribe
✔
@tribelaw
Doesn’t look like Graham knows how to count to 67, the number of Senators required to change the Senate’s rules.https://www.

[Miguelito Loveless]

23. Ah, thank you...

I stand corrected.

And cheered up some.

[AncientGeezer]

32. Tribe is incorrect.....and Sen.Reid, as Senate leader shows he's wrong

Ldr Reid changed Senate rules with a simple majority vote....for lower Judicial nominees. Then Turtle went one bigger..for SCOTUS with a simple majority.

The Constitution ONLY demands 2/3rds for conviction....not rules, not witnesses. not lunch hour....Only conviction. The Senate majority sets Trial rules..with 2/3rds needed for conviction

[pnwmom]

34. Tribe explained that precedent-breaking impeachment rule changes require 67 votes.

This has already come up in a previous Supreme Court decision.

If Judge Roberts rules that this is precedent breaking -- which of course it is -- then it will need 67 votes.

[AncientGeezer]

35. No the SCOTUS didn't address it..that's the problem with following Tribe

He makes crap up to back his claims.....he doesn't show the SCOTUS decision.
As I said above Ldr Reid changed Senate rules with a simple majority....Tribe is wrong.
And Roberts isn't going to say squat. He presides...he doesn't dictate...that's a non-issue.

The Constitution is clear....The House sets their rules for impeachment....by simple majority and can pass Articles of Impeachment by simple majority......the Senate sets their rules for the Trial by a simple majority....the ONLY time 2/3rds kicks in.... is for conviction. Period...that's it.....

[pnwmom]

39. And I'm supposed to believe you instead of the Constitutional law professor because?

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2020, 11:13 PM - Edit history (2)

Here's something that supports Tribe's view:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/20/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-rules-how-to-column/2697018001/

Should the chief justice decide a certain practice is sufficiently “precedential,” it would require a two-thirds majority, 67 votes, rather than 51, to change.

The role of precedent came up during the Clinton trial when Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, wanted to open the doors during deliberations. While the rules are actually ambiguous as to whether the doors must be open or closed, Rehnquist ruled that Senate precedent required the doors be closed, triggering a higher voting threshold to open them.

[onenote]

37. It would require McConnell to invoke the "nuclear" option

He would have to raise a point of order that the Standing Senate rule that requires a 2/3 vote to change those rules does not apply to the rule that predicates the initiation of Senate impeachment proceedings on receipt of the articles from the House. The Parliamentarian (not Roberts, since this would have to occur before the initiation of an impeachment trial) would rule against McConnell because the rules don't contain any such exception. Then McConnell would move to overrule the parliamentarian and a simple majority could reject that interpretation.

It wouldn't actually "change" the Standing Rules -- they would still read exactly as they do now, just as they weren't changed after the nuclear option was invoked to change the filibuster rules as applied to judicial or executive branch nominations.

McConnell hasn't floated the idea of going nuclear to change the rules....yet. I doubt he will ever do so.

[AncientGeezer]

40. "McConnell hasn't floated the idea..." SCOTUS nominees ring a bell?

Where in the Constitution does a Senate rule require 2/3rd to change?
You know it doesn't. Hell it only takes 51 to stop witnesses and documents.
Harry Reid shot that deal in the ass when he nuked it....and Turtle does it bigger....nothing EXCEPT conviction.. will take 2/3'rds of Senate votes....IF Speaker Pelosi ever sends the articles to the Senate.

[onenote]

41. I don't think you understood my post.

My post made the point that the path that McConnell would have to take if he wanted to change the Standing Senate Rule regarding the initiation of an impeachment trial was the same path that he (and Reid) took to change the standing rule regarding confirmation for judicial and executive branch nominations.

[AncientGeezer]

42. I understood it....I also know he's willing to nuke the rules..and has.

There was an article in the Hill yesterday(Jordain Carney) with regards to the Hawley resolution on just this issue.

I, to be honest, went nuts when Sen. Reid pulled that(nuke option) trigger because I knew it would explode under a Republican Sen.Leader.
I never thought it would be about impeachment, but I also never thought the Dumpster would be POTUS either.

[onenote]

43. Since it now appears Pelosi is ready to send the articles up, its a moot point.

[AncientGeezer]

44. Agreed....

I never understood the delay though. McConnell was never going to budge.
Not a goddamned thing has been gained....except talking points.

[onenote]

45. I always had my doubts about the endgame

I couldn't see how this would end without it seeming like a capitulation. I suppose, looking at it in the best light, it allowed us to play up the fact that the Repubs were stonewalling on witnesses. But it doesn't seem like that has gotten much traction with the public at large.

[AncientGeezer]

46. The oppo to that was always going to be the Rep.Schiff-Nadler restrictions on R witnesess.

The argument was.. the urgency of the inquiry and drafting of the articles to stop the behavior..only to be held back...for what?.

Like you said...it's moot.....if in fact the articles are transmitted in the near future.

[machI]

21. What is the opposite of railroading a criminal?

What ever it is, Moscow Mitch is doing just that.

I know there is a term for a predetermined not guilty verdict from a trial; I just can't think of it right now.

[BKDem]

22. Show trial?

[amcgrath]

24. People talk about Trump becoming

A dictator, but McConnell has beaten him to it.

He has 400 bipartisan bills sitting on his desk that he has simply refused to look at them, now he refuses to hold proper impeachment hearings

Prior to this presidency, he led the refusal to appoint any potential Supreme Court Justice nominee put forward by Obama.

He has declared himself greater than the president and greater than congress. He has made a mockery of the concept of co-equal branches of government.

- and that is before the colossal amount of dodgy deeds with funding involving himself and his wife.

He needs to be held to account. And the door slammed on these loopholes that allow him to essentially suspend the entire system of a people's government

[truthisfreedom]

25. Amidst the wag the dog re-election campaign noise

Not too many voters are going to be focused on the details of the repuke manipulation of the impeachment trial. Nancy needs to be very smart about redirecting public attention.

[dchill]

26. Let's face it. It's not Trump who is on trial, here.

It's the Constitution. And it's in deep trouble. The jury is rigged.

[Kablooie]

27. So he'll have a trial with no articles of impeachment and no prosecutors?

[onenote]

38. No. He hasn't said that.

He has said that he has the vote (51) to adopt the resolution setting the schedule for the trial, which will provide that it will start with opening statements by the two sides, followed by a set amount of time for questions, followed by motions, including motions to dismiss and/or motions to call witnesses.
And he has indicated that the vote on that resolution won't take place until the articles are delivered, although I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to move forward with that resolution on a contingent basis (i.e., it will provide that it will take effect if and when the articles are delivered).

[duforsure]

29. Wonder how much money putin and the prince and other help

That's being funneled into his and for other republicans campaigns to protect their puppet trump? And start this war , and is this for them for election help in return?

[Yavin4]

31. Fine. The House should delay and collect more evidence.

Add more articles of impeachment. Hold it over the president's head throughout 2020 and possibly beyond.

[paleotn]

33. Sorry, turtle boy. It isn't your call.

Oh, and there’s more articles coming down the pipe.