What if the House impeaches Trump and Moscow Mitch refuses to have a trial?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

And goes straight to a vote?


Still worth it. History will judge Trump's enablers harshly.

[doc03]

1. Well at least the House did their job. The Republicans

will have to live with the fact they supported a lawless traitor.

[Orrex]

4. This

It's all but certain that fuckstick Moscow Mitch will refuse to hold hearings, but if the Democrats don't impeach, then history will (quite understandably) record their de facto endorsement of the full width and breadth of the Trump administration's actions.

[mindfulNJ]

6. Then we need need to

Sharpen the pitchforks and rosin up the torches and get our asses to Washington for the biggest March this country has ever seen.

[alittlelark]

18. I'm on board.....

[Voltaire2]

2. The House impeachment investigation

would be very difficult to obstruct, unlike current House investigations. That alone is why it is essential to pursue impeachment.

As to the forkwads in the Senate: what they do us almost irrelevant, but they will at least be on the record.

[Hotler]

19. The investigations are the meat of the matter, displayed for all to see. nt

[Thomas Hurt]

3. MM won't hold a trial...he is a moral coward...and probably complicit.

[lindysalsagal]

49. His new aluminum factory in kentucky is all the proof we need of his crimes.

Gift of the russians.

[cbdo2007]

5. Should the police stop investigating murders just because they are worried

That the person may not be convicted??

[lindysalsagal]

50. Exactly. The house has no choice, strategy, or not.

[former9thward]

7. The Senate does not have to have a trial.

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2019, 09:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Or even take the issue up. The Constitution does not require the Senate to try a House impeachment. It simply says the Senate has the sole authority to try an impeachment. It does not say they have to do it.

In the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson the Senate only voted on 3 of the 11 counts and ignored the rest.

[customerserviceguy]

35. Sounds like precedent to me

and Moscow Mitch will undoubtedly lean on it.

[onenote]

54. WRONG. The Senate did hold a trial in the Andrew Johnson impeachment

In fact, testimony was heard from 25 prosecution witnesses and 16 defense witnesses. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but you should edit or delete your post.

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

[former9thward]

58. You are right, I read a bad summary.

It is true, however, the Senate is not required to have a trial or hearing on any impeachment. If they do have a hearing they use whatever rules they want to run it.

[onenote]

59. This is what the current Senate rules require. Lots of "shalls" and specific times/procedures.

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on
their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the
Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready
to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they
are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the
Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ‘‘All
persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting
to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ——— ———’’; after which the articles shall be
exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper
order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday
excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles
and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise
ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be
needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer
the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as
they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and
duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall
preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer
of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a
request to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the oath by the Presiding Officer of the Senate
and shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial of the person impeached
therein.

…..

VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the
Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of
trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer
on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and
redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless
some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to
the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to
a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing
Rules of the Senate.

VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided,
a writ of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and file his answer
to said articles of impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate thereon; …..If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on
the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the
trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not
guilty.

IX. At 12:30 o’clock afternoon of the day appointed for the return of the summons against the person impeached,
the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary of the Senate shall administer
an oath to the returning officer in the form following, viz: ‘‘I, ——— ———, do solemnly swear that the return
made by me upon the process issued on the —— day of ———, by the Senate of the United States, against ———
———, is truly made, and that I have performed such serv180ice as therein described: So help me God.’’ Which oath shall
be entered at large on the records.

X. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him. If
he appears, or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself, or by agent
or attorney, naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he appears. If he does not appear, either personally
or by agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded.

…..

While these rules could be changed by a vote of the Senate, the likelihood of that occurring approaches zero.

[StarfishSaver]

8. He'll hold a trial

It will just be held under Mitch's rules...

Quick trial and then a quick acquittal.

[FBaggins]

13. Exactly

The trial phase would probably focus on right wing counter-claims.

[TomSlick]

21. You raise an interesting question.

Article 1, Section 3 provides that in cases of impeachment of the President, "the Chief Justice shall preside." That's it, no explanation of what that means.

Depending on whether the Chief Justice wants to assert himself, he could set the rules. The result will be the same - the Senate is bound to acquit. However, I hold out some faint hope the Chief Justice will require an opportunity for the House managers to make their case. At that point, if the Senate votes to acquit, that's on them.

[StarfishSaver]

23. The Chief Justice won't set the rules - he'll just preside and apply the rules set by the Senate

[TomSlick]

26. Probably.

However, the Chief Justice might have some concern for his authority and position. (Ego is an amazing incentiviser.)

As I said, I hold out a faint hope. At this point, it's all I've got.

[StarfishSaver]

28. True, but his role is very limited.

And the Senate can appeal and overrule any of his rulings, so if he gets too far outside of his lane, they can quash him.

[melm00se]

57. A few things

1) Here are the current rules governing the Senate as it relates to impeachment proceedings.

2) In 1993, the Supreme Court affirmed (unanimously) a lower court ruling (Nixon v. United States[link:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-740|) that impeachment proceeding are non-justicable events as they are political actions.

3) Could McConnell refuse to hold a trial? In theory and practice, yes. Could this be overridden? Not by the Courts.

4) What could be done if he did refuse to hold a trial? The House could vote to impeach him and when sent to the Senate for trial McConnell would not be able to interfere with the process in his role as Senate Majority leader as he would be subject of the Senate trial.

5) Do I think he would pull any shenanigans if Trump was impeached? Probably not as doing so would probably cost him his seat in the Senate (either via his own impeachment or at the ballot box). Senate seats are extremely valuable (both financially and in political power) and no Senator would want to seriously jeopardize that.

[Guilded Lilly]

9. The House will have done what they are supposed to do. Uphold the Constitution and...

Rule of Law.
It’s what we deserve as a Democracy.
Republicans are going to spew no matter what.
Give them as much hell as possible for being traitors.

Fight back.
Fight back
FIGHT BACK.

[randr]

10. He doesn't even need to call it to the floor

[TomSlick]

22. I question whether that would be smart.

If Moscow Mitch simply sits on an impeachment, it would be ammunition in every close Senate race.

An acquittal by the Senate might be of some benefit in 2020 - I doubt it, but it might. A denial of so much as a Senate proceeding would be really bad optics.

[randr]

43. I think Trump wants to run as a victim

Repub Senators would be his saviors.

[uponit7771]

44. 70% of people have a negative view of Red Don, victim is only for the 30%

[gratuitous]

11. Then make him do it

Because otherwise, he'll just sit there like a toad and say, "Well-l-l-l, we woulda had a trial if the House had impeached. Of course we would. We wouldn't shirk our constitutional duty to try an impeachment. But the House never even had hearings or brought articles of impeachment up for a vote. Because nobody did anything wrong."

[ecstatic]

12. Exactly. If the House doesn't Impeach, everything will be blamed on

Democrats and Pelosi. The Senate doesn't have to do anything until the House votes to Impeach.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

14. what if we build a better world for nothing?

Just borrowing a DUer's sig for the above.

What if the House impeaches and doesn't even send it to Moscow Mitch? How much spluttering and blustering will he do?

[coti]

15. Couldn't give less of a shit what Putin's little Mitch does after Trump is impeached

We know he has no regard for the truth or loyalty to our democracy, I'll probably stop paying attention at that point.

[IndyOp]

16. Mitch appears to be giving a bit just by being called names...

Start the impeachment and the pressure on him will grow.

[Volaris]

45. Yep and besides, who knows what an all out investigation will uncover...

If the links between the Russian mob n election financing are lit up, it might be bad enough that the ONLY way for a lot of the gop Senate to save their own ass is to put the blame squarely on trump and claim they didn't know nothin about nothin...especially if it looks like hes gonna lose the election anyway...why go down with the ship, if you're not the captian and there's a way off that boat???

[diva77]

17. At the very least, all the usual rethug suspects who get recycled from one rethug administration to

the next will have a scarlet letter to wear.

[honest.abe]

20. It doesnt matter what the corrupt complicit Republicans do or dont do.

The Dems need to do what is right and uphold the rule of law. Impeach the criminal.

[TomSlick]

24. I've come around to your position.

With the Ukraine debacle, the Dems need to do their duty and worry about the consequences later.

Actions as President pressuring Ukraine to meddle in the next election is a fundamentally different thing than assisting Russia in meddling in the last election as a candidate. If the House does not act, it condones Trump's illegal activity as President.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. I don't see a fundamental difference

other than Trump has basically been caught "red-handed" in this instance of trying to collude with Ukraine. I have little doubt that he colluded with Russia as a candidate but that was covered up and obscured to the point that it was impossible for Mueller to prove. This is proving extremely difficult to bury.

[TomSlick]

37. The fundamental difference is one of timing.

Trump's actions as a candidate are probably impeachable offenses, while his actions as president are clearly impeachable. This is now a better case.

I'm agreeing with you. Maybe others now also agree.

[kentuck]

25. What if the House doesn't even send it over to the Senate?

What then?

[customerserviceguy]

36. Trump declares victory. n/t

[Volaris]

46. Then the investigations keep on rolling, and the evidence keeps coming,

Right through campaign season. And with a rathole this deep, there are always more tunnels to uncover.

[Arazi]

53. That's what Tribe recs. Just impeach him and let the festering crimes hang out there during 2020

Dems run on it, Rs have to defend #Traitor

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/06/06/laurence-h-tribe-impeach/

[onenote]

56. One of Tribe's sillier ideas.

Under Tribe's plan the House wouldn't "impeach" Trump, they'd pass a sense of the House resolution saying Trump had committed impeachable offenses. Whoop-de-doo. The media/public reaction would be that the House doesn't have the courage of its convictions. There would be nothing to stop the Senate from passing its own resolution characterizing the House resolution as an extra-constitutional partisan "stunt"

If a majority of the House supports the adoption of articles of impeachment, they need to go ahead and adopt them. Playing games with the process isn't a good idea and it isn't going to happen.

[Autumn]

27. They will go down in history as covering up Trumps treason and assorted other crimes. nt

[Mike Nelson]

29. He may not even allow a vote...

... he can just not bring it up at all.

[StarfishSaver]

30. I think he'll want a vote

He wants Trump to be affirmatively acquitted

[Mike Nelson]

47. ...or...

... he may dump Trump for Pence. None of these people have any real loyalty... and I can see Mitch campaigning heavily for President Pence.

[sarisataka]

31. Let's get a horse

Before we worry about where the cart should go

[SMC22307]

32. Then we hang it around the necks of MoscowMitch and...

every other GOPer who protected Fat Nixon.

[drray23]

34. Previously I had fears that impeaching in the house

And failing to convict in the Senate would hurt the Democrats. I dont think it's the case anymore. What Trump just did is so flagrant and touches upon one of the main pillar of democracy which is free and fair elections it will actually make the GOP lose Senate seats if they dont holr a vote or if they do and vote against conviction.

[TomSlick]

38. We're at the same place.

[Cosmocat]

39. I would fully expect the POS to not even bring it up

Will say you can't hold impeachment in an election year.

Seriously.

[MyMission]

40. I've been wondering

Which repug senators are former military?

I'd like to send them all letters that basically say "You served, were willing to put your life on the line for the sake of this country. We need you to do that again. Be brave. Stand up and do your duty. Stand up against the corruption that has taken hold in the white house. If you lose your reelection campaign (if you're even running for reelection) you will have done so in defense of your country. Your vote will matter. You were willing to sacrifice yourself once. Are you still willing to? Be a true patriot. History will remember you kindly for a heroic deed, rather than castigating you as one of a group of enablers. Remember John McCain? Would he have stood up for the USA rather than standing for the rampant corruption/impeachable offenses of the white house? You know the answer. He would have sacrificed his life and his career to save us. He is so respected and well loved and remembered by the American people of both parties. That honor awaits you too. I pray you have the strength and courage to do the right thing."

I just rattled that off; it's my first draft, but I've been thinking of writing it for a week now.

I googled to find out who the former military senators are. Kept finding lists of those who served in ww2 and are no longer in the Senate! Pew research led me to a military times article that wouldn't fully load on my phone. Wikipedia page was current as of 2014! Was thinking of writing them now, before impeachment proceedings, but I think if proceedings are started, I would hope that getting a letter like that, or a slew of them, might make some of them think, and maybe act honorably.

[TidalWave46]

41. I don't think it will be much longer before a serious group of Republicans turn on him.

Not because they will see the light. Because they are a bunch of self serving assholes.

[struggle4progress]

42. Then we'll have some real fun taking the facts directly to the public

and inventing soundbites

[CabalPowered]

48. It doesn't matter what form of inaction the Senate chooses

Ukraine/Biden will not be the last, or even the worst, Trump crime that will be exposed. After impeachment, every single crime that is brought to light is another chain around the neck of Senate Republicans. And each one is heavier than the previous. I'm confident that the House will do its job. And every moment afterwards will add another layer of stink to Moscow Mitch and his enablers.

[Turbineguy]

51. Impeach.

Put the turd in the republican's pocket.

[LisaM]

52. Trump will claim victory, that's what.

It's risky to impeach him. He won't be convicted, and it will rule up his base.

Bill Clinton was wrongfully impeached by a holier-than-thou Congress, and it didn't hurt his re-election at all.

[onenote]

55. I wish people would stop with this nonsense. There are specific Senate rules governing impeachment.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf

They require certain actions (and set the timetable for commencing those actions). Could the Senate change those rules by a simple majority vote? Maybe, but there is virtually no chance they would do so.

If the House votes impeachment, there will be proceedings held in the Senate and some sort of vote, even if it was on a motion to dismiss.