Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[theprestige]

What is to stop the House reissuing the articles?

According to Taylor's theory of Radical Choice, nothing.

But it probably won't be a good look for the House to keep re-issuing the articles without ever bringing them to trial.

It'll be super awkward for Pelosi et al. if they go to re-issue the articles and discover that they don't have the votes to play that game, and that they should have gone to trial when they had the chance.

 

[acbytesla]

According to Taylor's theory of Radical Choice, nothing.

But it probably won't be a good look for the House to keep re-issuing the articles without ever bringing them to trial.

It'll be super awkward for Pelosi et al. if they go to re-issue the articles and discover that they don't have the votes to play that game, and that they should have gone to trial when they had the chance.

I don't disagree. But this is all moot. It is my understanding that the articles will be sent next week.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

McConnell & 12 other republicans have signed on to a resolution that would change Senate rules so that Articles of impeachment are automatically dismissed if they are not sent to the Senate within 25 days of being voted on in the House

I would bet McConnell has a plan that this is part of. When Pelosi does get the Articles to the Senate, you can bet McConnell will use this as a technical excuse to dismiss the Impeachment.

Here's our rules, ergo following our rules: case dismissed.​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sounds unconstitutional to me. ....

Just as unconstitutional as not allowing a confirmation hearing on Merrick.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just as unconstitutional as not allowing a confirmation hearing on Merrick.

That was perfectly constitutional.

ETA: But, refusing to hold a conviction vote at all might pass muster. I suppose we'll see.

I would think the really key element would be if there was some possibility that the senators want to convict, but the rules prevented a vote, I think that would be unconstitutional.

 

[acbytesla]

That was perfectly constitutional.

That's debatable. I don't think it was.

ETA: But, refusing to hold a conviction vote at all might pass muster. I suppose we'll see.
I would think the really key element would be if there was some possibility that the senators want to convict, but the rules prevented a vote, I think that would be unconstitutional.

There is some precedence for this. It may be arguable whether they apply.

Charges were dismissed against Judge George English. Impeachment articles had been sent but Judge English resigned and the House requested not to continue. Interestingly though in the case against Secretary of War Belknap who had resigned before Impeachment Articles were drawn up and the case was tried in the Senate and was voted on.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

What is to stop the House reissuing the articles?

Nothing that I can think of, hopefully with additional Articles of Impeachment.

 

[theprestige]

That was perfectly constitutional.

ETA: But, refusing to hold a conviction vote at all might pass muster. I suppose we'll see.

I would think the really key element would be if there was some possibility that the senators want to convict, but the rules prevented a vote, I think that would be unconstitutional.

I'd think that if there were enough votes to convict, there'd be enough votes to change the rules to allow for a conviction.

Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader. If the majority wants to convict, I don't think there's much he can do to stop it.

 

[Cain]

Even with testimony and evidence, the Senate is unlikely to convict. At this point, I'm ready to just let McConnell have his sham trial. Democrats can hit them with "the fix was in" throughout the 2020 campaign. Some of what is unknown will come to light and dominate the news cycle. How will Republicans explain why they voted "not guilty"? Because there wasn't enough evidence? They voted against having a real trial! The whole point of witnesses is to confirm what is already abundantly clear. If people do not understand the Ukraine situation by now, then Bolton's testimony is unlikely to make a difference.

Pelosi and Democrats have done enough to withhold Articles of Impeachment and insist on a fair trial.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That was perfectly constitutional.

Only if you count using the sleazy tactic of pretending, if the exception to the obvious isn't written, it's allowed.

Like the authors of the Constitution had to think of all the ways someone might get around the actual words. That's crap.

But, refusing to hold a conviction vote at all might pass muster. I suppose we'll see....

Who's going to enforce an action against anything McConnell does? Especially after the GOP has stacked the courts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd think that if there were enough votes to convict, there'd be enough votes to change the rules to allow for a conviction.

Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader. If the majority wants to convict, I don't think there's much he can do to stop it.

There is another principle besides the vote and conviction, there is the principle the public has a right to see the evidence. McConnell knows full well covering up the evidence is the goal.

What remains to be seen is, do the Democrats have a plan for how to make the evidence more public than it has been so far, getting past McConnell's burying of the truth.

 

[acbytesla]

Only if you count using the sleazy tactic of pretending, if the exception to the obvious isn't written, it's allowed.

Like the authors of the Constitution had to think of all the ways someone might get around the actual words. That's crap.

I've been thinking about the Merrick Garland nomination lately. Mostly because I've been watching the game playing of McConnell and Trump etc. I'm convinced that Obama should have threatened to have Garland seated on the court immediately if the Senate refused to do its job.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd think that if there were enough votes to convict, there'd be enough votes to change the rules to allow for a conviction.

Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader. If the majority wants to convict, I don't think there's much he can do to stop it.

Not necessarily. Things have gotten ridiculous in DC with the parliamentary maneuvering. I haven't looked into it from good sources, but I think these days legislation can be bottled up by a small minority. My understanding is that in many cases a majority of the majority party can prevent a bill coming to the floor for a vote. In practice, that means 26 senators can prevent a bill from being voted on, if they are the right 26. I don't know if that's actually the case, but I would think that if 26 Senators were to declare the trial over without ever voting on guilt, I think it would be found unconstitutional.

But...I don't know that.

I also don't know under what circumstances the Senate rules allow for votes on rules changes.

 

[Meadmaker]

Only if you count using the sleazy tactic of pretending, if the exception to the obvious isn't written, it's allowed.

Like the authors of the Constitution had to think of all the ways someone might get around the actual words. That's crap.


Who's going to enforce an action against anything McConnell does? Especially after the GOP has stacked the courts.

It would have to be the Supreme Court. Could they be predicted to vote a certain way based on party affiliation? We shall see. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch haven't proved to be lap dogs so far, but certainly they vote with the president more often than against.

 

[acbytesla]

It would have to be the Supreme Court. Could they be predicted to vote a certain way based on party affiliation? We shall see. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch haven't proved to be lap dogs so far, but certainly they vote with the president more often than against.

As much as I don't like it. Constitutionally speaking there is little to go on and I seriously doubt the court as a body would lift a finger. And from a precedence perspective as well as what the Constitution says about impeachment, the court has said they have no role whatsoever in the proceeding. And Gorsuch or Kavanaugh or any of the more liberal justices are unlikely to want to even hear such an argument.

It's why I find Trump's claim of Executive Privilege as it pertains to the possibility of Bolton testifying risible.

 

[Random]

I've been thinking about the Merrick Garland nomination lately. Mostly because I've been watching the game playing of McConnell and Trump etc. I'm convinced that Obama should have threatened to have Garland seated on the court immediately if the Senate refused to do its job.

They never voted against him after all....

 

[acbytesla]

They never voted against him after all....

Exactly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would have to be the Supreme Court. Could they be predicted to vote a certain way based on party affiliation? We shall see. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch haven't proved to be lap dogs so far, but certainly they vote with the president more often than against.

That's not what Sotomayor said.

...Justice Sonia Sotomayor, lamented the majority's decision to leap frog a federal appellate court in issuing the after hours order.

...."Granting a stay pending appeal should be an extraordinary act," Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote Wednesday night.

"Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal," she said.

The justice scolded her colleagues for failing to exercise restraint.

I'll need to find the main article if you need more than that.

 

[Norman Alexander]

There is another principle besides the vote and conviction, there is the principle the public has a right to see the evidence. McConnell knows full well covering up the evidence is the goal.

What remains to be seen is, do the Democrats have a plan for how to make the evidence more public than it has been so far, getting past McConnell's burying of the truth.

Can the evidence be made totally public by means outside the Senate trial? The very fact that McConnell is desperate to hide this is because most of the Trump Ukraine fudge-up has already been published in excruciating detail in the media globally, and now he doesn't want the rest of it to come out.

By making the facts public, perhaps by "leaking" them, they would become "common knowledge", a premise. So the GOP Senators can hardly pretend they don't know about it. It would be like trying to deny that the sun rises in the East or that water is wet, because it hasn't been formally presented as trial evidence. They will look EXTREMELY foolish in public trying to do so. Alternatively, accepting that the evidence DOES exist and they know it means McConnell's cover-up has failed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So the GOP Senators can hardly pretend they don't know about it. It would be like trying to deny that the sun rises in the East or that water is wet, because it hasn't been formally presented as trial evidence. They will look EXTREMELY foolish in public trying to do so.

So SOP, then?