Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LeftInTX

(24,560 posts)
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 04:36 AM Sep 2019

Since 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, it’s 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......
27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Since we've been having this discussion: WaPo Senate can ignore impeachment (Original Post) LeftInTX Sep 2019 OP
They absolutely can and will Merrick Garland it Recursion Sep 2019 #1
This LeftInTX Sep 2019 #4
Been saying that for the last two years Cosmocat Sep 2019 #7
Impeachment will be much bigger news than NewJeffCT Sep 2019 #20
When I posted this a few days ago BigmanPigman Sep 2019 #2
I remember that thread... LeftInTX Sep 2019 #5
He is pure evil. BigmanPigman Sep 2019 #8
That's too bad.. I read yesterday Cha Sep 2019 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author NCLefty Sep 2019 #6
I hope you are financially supporting MoscowMitch's opponent Fritz Walter Sep 2019 #9
Go ahead, once the House impeach's they are doomed KelleyKramer Sep 2019 #10
Aren't there two Dem candidates who want to go against Mitch? 3Hotdogs Sep 2019 #11
Dorf's analysis is internally inconsistent onenote Sep 2019 #12
Yes but we should still impeach here's why sharedvalues Sep 2019 #13
good points on that NewJeffCT Sep 2019 #21
Absolutely.... LeftInTX Sep 2019 #25
Moscow Mitch may have the discression gab13by13 Sep 2019 #14
I imagine this is why Nancy is having an extended impeachment inquiry. It's most likely Vinca Sep 2019 #15
That's a constitutional crisis Azathoth Sep 2019 #16
No and No. former9thward Sep 2019 #17
Wrong and wrong Azathoth Sep 2019 #22
I am a defense attorney and in my younger years worked as a prosecutor for Phoenix, AZ. former9thward Sep 2019 #24
Don't Understand How "Shall" Language Grants A Lot Of Flexibility DallasNE Sep 2019 #18
I don't get that either jcgoldie Sep 2019 #19
McConnell is now on record saying that a trial will happen... lame54 Sep 2019 #23
Yes, article was updated with a quote from CNBC LeftInTX Sep 2019 #26
The implication is that a majority of senators could vote to dismiss before the trial ends. tritsofme Sep 2019 #27

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
1. They absolutely can and will Merrick Garland it
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 04:46 AM
Sep 2019

Which is why we need to do the damage during the impeachment hearings themselves.

NewJeffCT

(56,827 posts)
20. Impeachment will be much bigger news than
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 12:04 PM
Sep 2019

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)
2. When I posted this a few days ago
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 04:48 AM
Sep 2019

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)
5. I remember that thread...
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 04:56 AM
Sep 2019

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!!!

Cha

(295,929 posts)
3. That's too bad.. I read yesterday
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 04:49 AM
Sep 2019

that it was just the opposite. They had to have a trial. I guess it was wrong.

Response to LeftInTX (Original post)

Fritz Walter

(4,281 posts)
9. I hope you are financially supporting MoscowMitch's opponent
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 06:49 AM
Sep 2019

Channel that hatred into campaign funding for Marine Amy McGrath.

KelleyKramer

(8,853 posts)
10. Go ahead, once the House impeach's they are doomed
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 06:50 AM
Sep 2019

It doesn't matter what Mitch does, they are screwed either way

3Hotdogs

(12,210 posts)
11. Aren't there two Dem candidates who want to go against Mitch?
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 07:34 AM
Sep 2019

I like Amy, but should we wait until the primary is over?

onenote

(42,383 posts)
12. Dorf's analysis is internally inconsistent
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 07:36 AM
Sep 2019

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.

NewJeffCT

(56,827 posts)
21. good points on that
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 12:08 PM
Sep 2019

it would make Trump look guilty and that McConnell didn't have the votes to acquit

gab13by13

(20,883 posts)
14. Moscow Mitch may have the discression
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 07:40 AM
Sep 2019

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)
15. I imagine this is why Nancy is having an extended impeachment inquiry. It's most likely
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 07:42 AM
Sep 2019

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)
16. That's a constitutional crisis
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 08:23 AM
Sep 2019

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)
17. No and No.
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 08:54 AM
Sep 2019

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)
22. Wrong and wrong
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 12:43 PM
Sep 2019

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)
24. I am a defense attorney and in my younger years worked as a prosecutor for Phoenix, AZ.
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 03:41 PM
Sep 2019

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)
18. Don't Understand How "Shall" Language Grants A Lot Of Flexibility
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 11:54 AM
Sep 2019

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.

LeftInTX

(24,560 posts)
26. Yes, article was updated with a quote from CNBC
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 04:10 PM
Sep 2019
“I would have no choice but to take it up,” the Kentucky Republican told CNBC. “How long you are on it is a different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up based on a Senate rule on impeachment.”


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"???
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Since we've been having t...