So Roberts would preside over a senate trial without articles of impeachment ?!

[uponit7771]

So Roberts would preside over a senate trial without articles of impeachment from the house ?!

If so then Roberts is a complete hack, if not then Moscow Mitch is talking more crap and Pelosi can hold on to the articles raising awareness of Red Don's crimes while president.


Looks like polling for impeachment and removal is back in the low 50s and in the mid 50s for impeachment.

[Shrek]

1. Constitutionally he doesn't have a choice

It says that the Chief Justice "shall preside" when the President is tried.

If the Senate holds a trial then he has to preside over it.

[uponit7771]

2. ... after articles of impeachment have been delivered not before. What is he presiding over? What

... charges?

Ones that Moscow Mitch make up?

Then articles of impeachment are delivered and none of the charges Moscow Mitch made up are on it?

The senate doesn't just run a conviction and removal trial without something from the house, I don't read that in the constitution.

[Shrek]

3. The Senate could change its rules

Delivery of the articles isn't required by the Constitution.

The Senate could potentially revise its rules to begin a trial using the impeachment vote in the House (which is a matter of public record).

[uponit7771]

4. Then Roberts doesn't have to preside over it if the senate goes without articles ...

... that part is in the Constitution.

Senate rules don't override the Constitution

[Shrek]

5. No

There is no mention anywhere at all about articles of impeachment. If you believe otherwise then please cite the provision.

They're mentioned in the Senate rules, which can be changed by the Senate itself. It it convenes a trial then Roberts is obligated to preside.

[uponit7771]

7. So the senate can bring up a trial against the president without any move in the house?

... and the CJ has to preside over it?

thx in advance

[tritsofme]

11. You are misrepresenting what that poster said.

The House has made a move, they impeached, it is public record.

The pageantry around the transmittal of the articles is entirely a creation of the Senate’s rules, not the Constitution.

The Senate could pass rules that say a trial starts immediately after a vote in the House, and the chief justice would preside, it would be a different process, not a constitutionally defective one.

[Shrek]

12. +1

Thanks, that's exactly my point.

[uponit7771]

17. So after the vote for impeachment the process is in control of the senate as defined or undefined

... by the constitution?

I agree, Moscow Mitch could give a shit about rules

[tritsofme]

22. The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment

And the Senate sole power to try all impeachments, if an impeachment exists, the Senate can try it.

However current rules, that could be changed, stipulate the Senate process does not kick off until the articles are transmitted.

[onenote]

9. McConnell doesn't have the votes needed to change the Senate's general rules governing impeachment

He would need 2/3 of the Senate to do that and he doesn't have that. What heis saying is that he has the votes to adopt a procedural resolution (for which only a majority is required) that sets the order of the trial, with decisions on witnesses being deferred until after opening presentations and motions to dismiss.

[NewJeffCT]

13. Moscow Mitch changed the senate rules

so, anything that needs to be changed only requires a majority vote. That's how they got rid of the filibuster for Gorusch and Kavanaugh

[onenote]

14. That is a common misperception

The change in the filibuster rule for SCOTUS nominees, like the earlier changes in the filibuster rule for other judicial nominations and for executive branch nominations, was accomplished via the "nuclear option" and did not apply generally to the requirement for 60 votes to achieve cloture or 67 votes to change the Senate's standing rules.

Obviously it can't be ruled out that the Republicans would try to invoke the nuclear procedure to overcome the 2/3 vote requirement for changes to its standing rules, but I haven't seen anything from McConnell suggesting that he is considering that approach. To invoke the nuclear approach, McConnell would raise a point of order arguing that the proper interpretation of the standing rule about amending the standing rule on impeachment requires only a majority vote. The Parliamentarian would disagree with that plainly incorrect reading, and then McConnell would move to overrule the Parliamentarian, which would only require a majority vote. This process, oddly enough, doesn't actually change the wording of the rules. For example, nothing in the standing rules carves out an exception to the cloture rule for judicial or executive nominations. Rather, that rule, in essence, has been "interpreted" by the vote of a majority of the Senate, not to apply to judicial or executive nominations.

McConnell's invocation of the nuclear option no more changed the Senate's rules than Reid's invocation of it for non SCOTUS judicial nominations.

[Shrek]

16. Yes, this is an important point

Changing the rules requires a lot of procedural shenanigans.

But if they're determined to have a trial without receiving the articles from the House, there's a way for them to make it happen.

[NewJeffCT]

19. So, Mitch has 14 Democrats

voting with him to proceed without witnesses? I find that hard to believe.

And, why the big push to get Collins, Murkowski, Romney, etc to vote on the rules withe Democrats to guarantee witnesses if they needed 67?

[onenote]

20. NO.It only takes a majority vote to adopt the procedural "resolution"

setting the time and order of a particular impeachment trial -- that is a different animal than adopting a change to the more general Standing Rules of the Senate governing all impeachment trials.

To repeat: Standing rules provide for the Senate to respond to notification, and presentation, by the House of the Articles. Changing that rule requires 2/3 vote.

But those rules don't address the specifics of the particular impeachment. The specifics -- what day the trial will commence, how much time each side has to present its case and time for questions etc. and when motions, including motions to dismiss and motions to subpoena witnesses, are in order. See the Resolution adopted in the Clinton impeachment as an example: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/sres16/BILLS-106sres16ats.pdf

[11 Bravo]

21. I don't believe that's true with regard to impeachment.

[uponit7771]

18. Got it, the process of hand off of control of the process is not defined in the constitution...

... their just senate rules which don't mean shit to Moscow Mitch.

Looks like it'll be near impossible for him to change them though.

DAMN !!

This is over national security and we can't get 4 kGOP senators to stand up to Red Don ?!?!

WTF ?!

[onenote]

6. Who is saying there will be a trial without the articles having been presented?

McConnell has said that he "has the votes, once the impeachment trial has begun, to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar to the 100 to nothing vote in the Clinton trial which sets up, as you may recall, what could best be described maybe as a Phase One."

In other words, McConnell is not claiming he can/will start the trial without the articles having been presented. As his comment suggests, there are two sets of rules in question. One is the existing Senate rules governing all impeachments -- those rules provide for everything to start when the House notifies the Senate of the adoption of articles of impeachment. Changing those rules would require a 2/3 vote.

The other set of rules are found in a resolution that the Senate would adopt specific to the Trump impeachment trial, just as a separate resolution was adopted regarding the Clinton trial. It sets out specific procedures, amount of time allowed for various parts of the process, etc. etc. It only requires a majority vote. In the Clinton impeachment, that resolution provided that the trial would commence with the two sides making presentations and taking questions. Only after that, motions to dismiss and motions to subpoena witnesses would be in order. That's basically the procedure for which McConnell is saying he has the necessary votes.

A copy of the Clinton impeachment procedural resolution can be found here:https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/sres16/BILLS-106sres16ats.pdf

[brooklynite]

8. I think you're mistaken...

McConnell has not said he'll hold the Impeachment Trial without Pelosi sending over articles. He said he has support for the RULES of the Impeachment Trial (e.g. no witnesses) once the Articles are received.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. I can't imagine Roberts actually doing that

He's a Republican hack, of course, but he is much higher on the Republican Evolution Scale than a lot of the current GOPers

[superpatriotman]

15. All you can eat all you can drink

Like a Spring Break party!

[Skidmore]

23. A load of bricks need to be dropped on the Senate

especially after this incompetent debacle with Iran.

[Yavin4]

24. You simply cannot have bi-partisanship with a party that will ALWAYS change rules and go against

precedent to get what it wants. McConnell and the Republicans are ruthless in their use of power to achieve whatever goal they desire.