The Senate can vote on the rules for the upcoming trial, and that vote is binding. If she withholds Articles until the Senate votes for rules that provide for a fair trial, that would bind them to follow those rules. It would probably need to include terms that make changing the rules require 60 votes instead of 51.
7 Likes
5 Likes
I think what happens here is the Senate passes a process bill the same way the House did before the hearings. Formally lay out the rules and all that.
So you if you wanted an actual, if not binding, “assurance” you could demand to see an acceptable one of those before moving forward.
But none of that is set in stone. And McConnell is an actual super villian. In all likelihood he’d just make sure a sensible process got voted down then immediately introduce a kangaroo court bill.
Dude is already promising to do exactly the opposite of what he promised just two months ago. And openly bragging about just how hard he’s gonna violate his oath of office and the letter of the constitution.
So maybe this is all about getting the scumbaggery on record. For the future, and for the election, and for all these court cases. This kind of shit has already undermined Trump’s claims in court that even taking shit to court is unnecessary and excessive. The more you can demonstrate that congressional checks have been obstructed, the better arguement there is for the courts to take action.
At the very least they can control the timing this way. The more present impeachment is in the election, and the more relevant Republicans actions are. The more opportunity to point at it during the campaign. That might be the pressure on McConnell.
Subpoenas and tax returns start clearing up in the middle of an election, immediately after a fake ass trial, if impeachment is a major issue. Could look pretty bad for them.
2 Likes
With McConnell I wouldn’t even trust that. Suppose they do that, then hold the trial under a different set of rules, what would the consequence be? Would the house sue the senate and sometime after the next election the supreme court would have to rule on whether the outcome of the trial stands or not? I’m just imagining the scenarios of Trump is still in office (Republicans say impeachment doesn’t count from one presidential term to the next) or Trump is out of office (Republicans and Democrats agree that it’s not worth dredging up the past).
Like I said, unless the consequence is a pound of McConnell’s flesh I don’t think it matters to McConnell.
5 Likes
It all depends how far he’s willing to destroy democracy. His own party getting nominations and bills through the Senate depend on both parties agreeing to the rules. If he completely ignores the rules that passed the Senate, he risks losing all authority in everything. If the rules don’t matter, then he, as Majority Leader, has no power. So it isn’t in his interest to sow chaos. He has to walk the line between getting what he wants and retaining enough of the fundamental structure of the government to remain in power, himself.
6 Likes
Even with a sensible set of rules I don’t think McConnell would follow them. But at least then you can point out that they’re breaking the rules. And the trial will be over seen by the Chief Justice so that gives you can angle to insist on his intervention. Not that I think he’ll do anything.
Apparently impeachment is considered not justiciable, the courts aren’t able to rule on anything internal related to it. Its processes, outcomes, or its validity. Otherwise Trump probably would have filed already.
But there’s nothing to prevent the House from adding additional articles during the trial, or even impeaching again if they have something to hang it on. It’d be stupid to just do it to do it. But if they can finally shake something out of all that obstruction they do have a pathway to strangle the administration. Keep this in the headlines. Make McConnell keep dealing with it.
1 Like
I think that’s unlikely, unless Clinton lets it be known clearly that she is available in the event of a brokered convention. In that case all bets are off.
It’s not easy to maintain that 45 can do so much damage in 2020 that he needs to be removed right now, and that we’re going to leave him twisting in the wind so as to destroy his reelection chances.
The “why not both” girl is not the right spokesman here.
2 Likes
I think it’s easy to maintain that Trump is such a threat that they need to be removed right now and that Mitch McConnell is just as much of a threat. I think they should probably be hammering a lot more on McConnell as being complicit in the whole thing. (ETA: I recall McConnell getting upset about being called “Moscow Mitch”)
10 Likes
Also, “Massacre Mitch” for stifling bipartisan gun control legislation.
8 Likes
And Mitch the Bitch, for being, you know.
8 Likes
1 Like
Didn’t Trump brand him Cocaine Mitch for some incomprehensible reason?
2 Likes
I dunno, not ringing a bell.
Yeah, that definitely happened when Trump said getting rid of McConnell would be one of Trump’s to-dos. The story behind it is totally comprehensible, but it’s bullshit.
3 Likes
Treason’s Greetings if you want to be secular about it.
12 Likes
While I think it’s cathartic and all, I worry that these parliamentary games may end up backfiring if drawn out for too long.
Support for impeachment (while still historically high when compared to other impeachments) seems to be dropping, and Trump’s popularity is actually ticking up higher than ever. If she overplays this it could end up doing more harm than good.
8 Likes
Gabbard shows real leadership by refusing to make a decision.
3 Likes
Gabbard made a decision alright - the decision that brazenly lying to support willful lawlessness is exactly as wrong as being really upset that other people are brazenly lying to support willful lawlessness.
9 Likes
Egypt is not happy about Trump’s annexation of their territory.
13 Likes
