Here's How Mitch McConnell Could Sabotage an Impeachment Trial

[fleur-de-lisa]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/heres-how-mitch-mcconnell-could-sabotage-an-impeachment-trial/

David Corn, Mother Jones

The Senate rules can be easily abused.

snip . . .

The rules also allow the Republicans to keep much of the proceedings out of the public eye. Either the chief justice or a majority of the Senate can order that a committee of senators be established to “receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may determine.” That can be done behind closed doors—though such a committee must subsequently provide the full Senate “a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings and testimony.” The rules note that nothing prevents the Senate from “having the entire trial in open Senate.” But clearly a majority of Republicans could vote to conduct the trial in secrecy. (Most of the Clinton impeachment trial was public, but deliberations over the calling of witnesses and depositions taken of key witnesses were conducted privately. A bipartisan majority of senators voted to use excerpts from the videoed depositions instead of live witness testimony.)

The rules also note that the deliberations of the senators—the debate over whether Trump should be convicted or not—could also be kept from the public. The Senate has the right to “direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decisions.”

At the GOP luncheon, McConnell told his Republican colleagues that a motion to dismiss the charges in a Trump impeachment trial—an idea floated by some Trump defenders as a way to short-circuit and quickly end the proceedings—would be determined by Chief Justice John Roberts. But the rules provide McConnell and his Republican majority latitude in other ways.

An impeachment trial is not straightforward business. The rules are not as well-established as those that cover federal trials. Important procedural questions can be presented to the chief justice. But the Senate rules essentially give the Senate the ability to reject key rulings of the presiding judge. McConnell is renowned for his wily mastering of Senate rules—and for his willingness to bust norms for political gain. (See Merrick Garland.) Though he has recognized the duty of the Senate to address—and not ignore—articles of impeachment, he may well have a trick or two in mind about how to conduct the trial—especially if he is bent on disposing of this controversy in a fast manner during holiday season. McConnell’s entire political career offers cause to suspect that his loyalty will be to a partisan outcome, not a fair process. And the rules of the Senate do not guarantee an impeachment trial will be free of McConnell shenanigans.

[AJT]

1. Well, if McConnell hadn't thought of this before...

he knows now.

[FM123]

2. Mitch is a snake and always up to no good.

However, the R senators who are not up for reelection next year (20 in 2022 plus 10 more in 2024) and do not have to fear maga retaliation could just reject McConnell & his tyranny. They could simply not show up for the vote. The Constitution doesn’t indicate that removal from office requires 2/3 of the Senate, it just requires 2/3 of senators present for the proceedings.

So in theory, a vote to convict the president would count as legal with as few as 34 members, not 67, assuming the absolute minimum of 51 participated.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/12/1891991/-How-the-GOP-Can-Convict-Trump-without-Voting-Him-Out

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. Republicons would then

squawk all over TV that it was "illegitimate" so they didn't participate, and then squeal that the conviction was "partisan"