Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Segnosaur]

How can we be confident the Senate won't pass new rules?

Probably because there's little or no benefit to doing so, and it could backfire.

Senate republicans are going to vote to acquit regardless of what evidence is presented. Trying to change the rules won't turn fence-sitters into pro-trump senators because they're all pretty much pro-trump anyways. And changing the rules might end up making them look like they're scheming with Trump.

The best option for them: Keep the rules as they stand (making them falsely look noble), let the trial play out, vote in favor of Trump like they were going to anyways, and leave it to the talking heads at Fox to push conspiracy theories and create diversions.

 

[acbytesla]

They can, by majority vote. So new rules may apply. Until a vote for any new rule is taken, these rules apply. As far as I can tell.

The funny thing about an Impeachment trial is what role exactly does the SC Chief Justice has? It's clear that the founders' intention was that that his role was as an arbiter of fairness in the process. But it isn't really spelled out. The Senate can have all the rules it wants, but the Constitution says nothing about what happens if there is a conflict between the Chief Justice and the Senate.

The Constitution says the Chief Justice presides over an Impeachment trial of the President.

The word "presides" means "rules". And there is no appeal to the full Supreme Court. In the only two previous Presidential impeachment trials, the Chief Justices tried almost to disappear into the background. But just as everything is different with Trump and the distinct possibility that the GOP might attempt to hijack the trial, there is no telling that Roberts would or wouldn't go along with Trump's plan and just be a potted plant.

 

[Paul2]

The funny thing about an Impeachment trial is what role exactly does the SC Chief Justice has? It's clear that the founders' intention was that that his role was as an arbiter of fairness in the process. But it isn't really spelled out. The Senate can have all the rules it wants, but the Constitution says nothing about what happens if there is a conflict between the Chief Justice and the Senate.

The Constitution says the Chief Justice presides over an Impeachment trial of the President.

The word "presides" means "rules". And there is no appeal to the full Supreme Court. In the only two previous Presidential impeachment trials, the Chief Justices tried almost to disappear into the background. But just as everything is different with Trump and the distinct possibility that the GOP might attempt to hijack the trial, there is no telling that Roberts would or wouldn't go along with Trump's plan and just be a potted plant.

I would guess that the Chief Justice ensures that the Constitution and the rules of the Senate are applied.

 

[acbytesla]

I would guess that the Chief Justice ensures that the Constitution and the rules of the Senate are applied.

Sure. Now tell me what that means. Maybe we should ask the judge?

Kind of goes around in circles.

 

[dudalb]

Gingrich is one of the architects of the modern, take-no-prisoners, anti-science, ****-you GOP. He should have no place in any discussion.

It is indicative that until the rise of Trump, Gingrich was pretty much a washed up has been in the GOP.

 

[dudalb]

I would guess that the Chief Justice ensures that the Constitution and the rules of the Senate are applied.

Rules of the Senate. It's will pretty much be a cut and dried procedurial matter without many controverserial decisions to be made.

 

[varwoche]

I would guess that the Chief Justice ensures that the Constitution and the rules of the Senate are applied.

I wonder if it's safe to assume the CJ rules on any legal challenges that arise during the proceeding. Accordingly there's no such think as an issue being taken to SCOTUS?

 

[Paul2]

Sure. Now tell me what that means. Maybe we should ask the judge?

Kind of goes around in circles.

Well, for instance: in the rules of the Senate, it means that the Chief Justice might enlist the Sargent at Arms to enforce the rule that nobody is talking except those authorized to do so. That's one small part of a plain reading of the rules.

 

[Paul2]

I wonder if it's safe to assume the CJ rules on any legal challenges that arise during the proceeding. Accordingly there's no such think as an issue being taken to SCOTUS?

I'd have to review the rules of the Senate again to see if there might be a legal issue that could arise, as opposed to mere procedural ones (if they can be distinguished in every case).

 

[acbytesla]

I'd have to review the rules of the Senate again to see if there might be a legal issue that could arise, as opposed to mere procedural ones (if they can be distinguished in every case).

Imagine a scenario where Democrats are objecting to irrelevant witnesses. According to Senate rules they could be run over by the Majority. What happens if Roberts agree with the Democrats? Does he say "yes" to the Republican majority or step in and say "no". The Constitution is clear that the Justice "presides" over the Senate trial.

 

[Stacyhs]

Two former GOP senators are on CNN in support of the impeachment. They are urging the current GOP Congress members to stop putting party over country and to just look at the evidence which they believe is overwhelming. Too bad we don't have GOP Congress members like this today instead of the cowards we do have.

 

[acbytesla]

It should be noted to all the Trump apologists out there that the lies about Ukraine keep coming.

Remember the absurd argument that the since aid was released after Trump was caught so no harm no foul argument? It turns out that not even that is true. Apparently they released the aid in installments and $35 million to this day has not been released.

 

[alfaniner]

Someone mentioned that Trump is going to be unable to keep himself from appearing at the Senate hearing. It's the kind of public spectacle he loves. I'm not sure if he gets to make a statement but I'm sure we all know what he would say. The really interesting parts are going to be when he gets questioned by those who really want to get some information and not run a misdirection.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Imagine a scenario where Democrats are objecting to irrelevant witnesses. According to Senate rules they could be run over by the Majority. What happens if Roberts agree with the Democrats? Does he say "yes" to the Republican majority or step in and say "no". The Constitution is clear that the Justice "presides" over the Senate trial.

This isn't how it works under the current rules. You have a Prosecutor (from the House) and a Defense (Trump's appointed Lawyers) and the Senate has to sit down and shut up. While they can ask for certain things, that has to go through the Chief Justice, who would operate as a Judge on those matters. The only ones talking during the trial should be the Prosecutor, the Defense, the Witnesses and rarely the Chief Justice as needed, just as occurs in an actual court room.

Where the Senate can talk is once the "Deliberation" debates begin after the trial phase.

So most likely it would be Trump's Lawyers who want to introduce certain witnesses, not the Republicans, and the House Prosecutor would be the one objecting to it.

Now there is a provision where a Senator can object to a ruling of the Chief Justice, and a vote is then taken, but it is to be done without any debate, it's just a Aye/Nay vote, so it is possible for the Republicans to over-rule an exclusion of a witness, but it does have risks in doing that.

What we won't see is what has been happening in the committees where a bunch of Republicans have been using their question time to spin conspiracies. Trump's lawyers might try, but there is more room to call them out with irrelevant questions.

Senator can ask questions, but only in writing to the Chief Justice who can then decide whether or not to proceed with and ask the question, and either counsel can object to that question being asked.

 

[acbytesla]

This isn't how it works under the current rules. You have a Prosecutor (from the House) and a Defense (Trump's appointed Lawyers) and the Senate has to sit down and shut up. While they can ask for certain things, that has to go through the Chief Justice, who would operate as a Judge on those matters. The only ones talking during the trial should be the Prosecutor, the Defense, the Witnesses and rarely the Chief Justice as needed, just as occurs in an actual court room.

Where the Senate can talk is once the "Deliberation" debates begin after the trial phase.

So most likely it would be Trump's Lawyers who want to introduce certain witnesses, not the Republicans, and the House Prosecutor would be the one objecting to it.

Now there is a provision where a Senator can object to a ruling of the Chief Justice, and a vote is then taken, but it is to be done without any debate, it's just a Aye/Nay vote, so it is possible for the Republicans to over-rule an exclusion of a witness, but it does have risks in doing that.

What we won't see is what has been happening in the committees where a bunch of Republicans have been using their question time to spin conspiracies. Trump's lawyers might try, but there is more room to call them out with irrelevant questions.

Senator can ask questions, but only in writing to the Chief Justice who can then decide whether or not to proceed with and ask the question, and either counsel can object to that question being asked.

You're right. I read through the rules a while back and I sometime in the interim got it mixed up. Just reread them after your post.

Thanks.

 

[alfaniner]

I'm not sure about the Senate trial part. I see where the Defense can call witnesses -- can the House Democratic Prosecution do so also? I mean without being overruled somehow by the Senate Republican majority?

 

[quadraginta]

It occurs to me that draining a swamp makes its overall area smaller but causes the swampiness to become more concentrated. Perhaps Trump can truthfully be deemed to be draining the swamp after all, as the murkiness and slime coalesces around his person in the epicenter.

Way back when, when Trump was campaigning on the "drain the swamp" thing, I offered the opinion that Trump would probably drain the swamp from the top, by means of pumping enough new sewage of his own into the government that the swamp would start spilling over.

I think subsequent events have borne this out.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not sure about the Senate trial part. I see where the Defense can call witnesses -- can the House Democratic Prosecution do so also? I mean without being overruled somehow by the Senate Republican majority?

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.

XVI. All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary’s table.

This clears a lot of it up.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm not sure about the Senate trial part. I see where the Defense can call witnesses -- can the House Democratic Prosecution do so also? I mean without being overruled somehow by the Senate Republican majority?

Both sides can call witnesses. The area a possible conflict could occur is if the witness is objected to as irrelevant by the opposing council. Then the Chief Justice would have to rule, and a Senator could call for a vote to over-rule that decision.

The question then becomes, how much of a circus do the Republicans think they can turn it into without a public backlash.

 

[a_unique_person]

Both sides can call witnesses. The area a possible conflict could occur is if the witness is objected to as irrelevant by the opposing council. Then the Chief Justice would have to rule, and a Senator could call for a vote to over-rule that decision.



The question then becomes, how much of a circus do the Republicans think they can turn it into without a public backlash.

Given the way McConnel had run the senate so far you can guarantee he will do anything he wants. People have just mentioned several ways he can screw with the process. Expect plenty of unfair tactics.