General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSince we've been having this discussion: WaPo Senate can ignore impeachment
Came across this tonight and since we've been having this discussion here on DU:
There exist Senate rules of procedure that dictate how impeachment trials should be run. As Michael Dorf, Robert S. Stevens professor of law at Cornell Law School, put it in an email to The Post, the rules include a a lot of shall language language that gives McConnell and the Republican majority a lot of flexibility in how they conduct a trial.
Or whether they conduct a trial at all.
Snip.......................
As a practical matter, he continued over email, the Majority Leader will have substantial discretion on the process, if any, he fashions in response to the articles.
If any. In other words, impeachment trials are themselves one of those what the norms dictate activities of the Senate. McConnell could simply decide against holding a trial at all. Nothing goes on television. No more evidence comes to light. From a majority leader who simply declined to hold a vote on a presidential Supreme Court nominee, its far from inconceivable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/27/if-house-impeaches-trump-mitch-mcconnells-senate-can-simply-ignore-it/
I hate Moscow Mitch...I hate Moscow Mitch...I hate Moscow Mitch..........
I wish he would just slither way......
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which is why we need to do the damage during the impeachment hearings themselves.
Cosmocat
(14,543 posts)Pretty obvious.
NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)Merrick Garland. Much harder to ignore. Frankly, there was not a huge amount of outrage even here about Garland - he was too much of a moderate to center/left kind of judge to fire up the activist base.
I think Mitch even said he would have no choice. I'm sure he'd try to fix the trial to hurt Democrats/Biden, but I think it would practically be demanded by the public.
BigmanPigman
(51,432 posts)most DUers thought that it wouldn't be the end of the world for Dems since it would give them more to run on in 2020.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212510722
LeftInTX
(24,560 posts)Some were saying he had to bring it to a vote. Others were saying he didn't. I stumbled on the WaPo article clarifying and posted it.
I agree, not bringing it to a vote will probably backfire on him. He just makes me so mad. He's so despicable!!!
BigmanPigman
(51,432 posts)The amount that I hate him is limitless.
Cha
(295,929 posts)that it was just the opposite. They had to have a trial. I guess it was wrong.
Response to LeftInTX (Original post)
NCLefty This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fritz Walter
(4,281 posts)Channel that hatred into campaign funding for Marine Amy McGrath.
KelleyKramer
(8,853 posts)It doesn't matter what Mitch does, they are screwed either way
3Hotdogs
(12,210 posts)I like Amy, but should we wait until the primary is over?
onenote
(42,383 posts)He acknowledges the rules contain a lot of "shall" language, but then concludes, without explanation, that McConnell could just ignore it.
McConnell's hands are tied more than Dorf admits and far more than they were in the Garland situation (where there were no rules at all). Sure, McConnell could seek change in the rules, but I seriously doubt that he could get 51 votes for a change in the rules that simply deep-six Senate consideration of the impeachment articles.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)it would make Trump look guilty and that McConnell didn't have the votes to acquit
LeftInTX
(24,560 posts)gab13by13
(20,883 posts)to not hold the trial and set some guidelines, but once the impeachment trial begins it is presided over by Chief Justice Roberts. I don't think Roberts wants a black mark on his record like William Barr is going to get.
Vinca
(50,172 posts)the closest thing to a trial there will be. Moscow Mitch is going to send this to his graveyard. He was allowed to get away with Merrick Garland and now is empowered to do anything.
Azathoth
(4,603 posts)Refusing to hold a trial means the Senate is nullifying the House's authority to impeach.
It would be like a prosecutor announcing he won't prosecute any indictment a grand jury returns.
former9thward
(31,806 posts)The Constitution does not say the Senate has to hold a trial. It says the Senate is the body where a trial is held if there is going to be a trial.
Your example is flawed. First of all a grand jury does not indict out of thin air. They indict because a prosecutor presents them a case that there is probable cause a defendant committed a crime. No, a prosecutor does not have to prosecute a case whether it comes from a grand jury or an arrest from a cop. The law gives prosecutors discretion whether to move forward on a case or not.
Azathoth
(4,603 posts)The Constitution specifies that the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments. It does not say "should it choose to do so", just as it does not say the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed if he chooses to do so. Refusing to try an impeachment is the functional equivalent of nullifying the House's constitutional role in the impeachment process.
As to your remark about grand juries, it reveals a lack of understanding of their role and authority. No, grand juries do not work for the prosecutor, although most prosecutors offices would like to pretend otherwise. A grand jury does not need permission or direction from a prosecutor to return an indictment. Prosecutorial discretion usually refers to the decision not to seek an indictment in the first place. It's a much different matter to throw a true bill in the trash after it has been returned, and it's unheard-of to essentially announce that you will ignore any indictment returned by a grand jury. Once a person is indicted, they are formally charged with a crime.
former9thward
(31,806 posts)You just don't understand 1) the Constitution, 2) Grand juries and 3) the justice system. Good luck if you are ever involved with any of them.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Indeed, the clear language says the Senate must receive the Articles from the House and they must start their work at 1PM each day (except Sunday) until the conclusion of the trial. The Chief Justice presides. Now Moscow Mitch could choose not to call any witnesses and immediately call for a vote. No other Senate business may be conducted once the House presents the Articles.
jcgoldie
(11,584 posts)How does the word "shall" allow flexibility?
lame54
(35,141 posts)If the congress votes it through
LeftInTX
(24,560 posts)https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/mcconnell-says-senate-would-have-to-take-up-trump-impeachment.html
I don't know what is meant by, "How long you are on it"???