I think technically the trial has to start, and charges have to be heard.

Then, a republican senator could make a motion to dismiss the charges, and if a majority vote for dismissal, the trial is over.

I see nothing that suggests a single Senator can impact the process in any manner. Is it possible a majority vote could change the rules at the time impeachment articles come to the Senate? I'm sure that is possible. But, this specific assertion that a SINGLE Senator can derail the entire process? I see NO evidence of this.

Senator Robert Byrd made a motion to dismiss the charges; it didn't pass.

I've never trusted the repubs to do the right thing. I do want all that trump has done to be on the historical record though.

I think there's a very real chance they do something like this.

and I've gone through it and seen nothing to suggest anything of the kind. Please go through yourself and show us where to find that (It is only 9 pages, so I'd hope others will go through it as well):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

"During Clinton’s impeachment trial, Byrd moved to dismiss the charges after Republicans had laid out their evidence.
The motion failed on a party-line vote in a Republican-controlled chamber, but it’s possible it would succeed if offered by a Republican in the present-day Senate, where the GOP holds a 53-47 majority.
During the trial itself, the Senate is not beholden to the same rules of procedure as the courts.
Senate rules governing impeachment give much of the power to decide evidentiary and procedural questions to the presiding officer — in the case of a presidential impeachment trial, to Chief Justice John Roberts.
Without a motion to dismiss the charges, once the managers finish laying out their case, the Senate would break for the day, according to the revised version of the rules. At 1 p.m. the following day, senators would meet to consider the individual articles of impeachment."


https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/463112-how-the-senate-could-proceed-with-impeachment

have on tRump, the gop will be slitting their own throats trying to defend the bastard. Siding with him will end their political careers, such as they are. McCarthy proved he is not too bright during his "60 Minutes" appearance last Sunday. Nunes is so caught up in lawsuits trying to prove he is a real human, he will be too busy to even vote. Graham might stand alone, defending "Big Orange Daddy" McConnell, who knows or cares what he thinks or does? Traitors all of them.

They've just been waiting for, like, the right moment I guess.

then because republicans had the majority

"During Clinton’s impeachment trial, Byrd moved to dismiss the charges after Republicans had laid out their evidence.
The motion failed on a party-line vote in a Republican-controlled chamber, but it’s possible it would succeed if offered by a Republican in the present-day Senate, where the GOP holds a 53-47 majority.
During the trial itself, the Senate is not beholden to the same rules of procedure as the courts.
Senate rules governing impeachment give much of the power to decide evidentiary and procedural questions to the presiding officer — in the case of a presidential impeachment trial, to Chief Justice John Roberts.
Without a motion to dismiss the charges, once the managers finish laying out their case, the Senate would break for the day, according to the revised version of the rules. At 1 p.m. the following day, senators would meet to consider the individual articles of impeachment."


https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/463112-how-the-senate-could-proceed-with-impeachment

by the gop over a bj. Here is openly, blatant treason by tRump, Barr and Pompeo, and the gop all gather around protecting them. Amazing, and so obvious.

being propagated through social media, and 90% of the right wing talk radio, and much of the MSM going out of their way to present that both "siderisms"

People should be outraged by what is happening, but unless we have enough republicans in Senate who put country before a political party it isn't going to happen.

The only hope I see is getting out the vote in 2020 to remove these assholes

Similar to most Senate procedures.

Quite a bit different from a single Senator being able to block going forward.

At any rate, they do so at their own peril. By the time this gets to the Senate, I think the public will be highly informed and energized.

Here is the entire text of the OP

From what I understand if impeachment reaches the Senate, all it takes is one republican to call for
dismissal of the charges against trump, and there won't be a trial if it is voted down

To me, that clearly meant that one Senator could call for dismissal, but the entire Senate would have to vote on it.

I think we need to be cautious about this, that is all. There is a lot of hysteria and a bit of perspective is needed.

Misplaced inference at that.

beginning with constructive and civil discourse.

In the first twelve words you explicitly say you're not going to do something......then, in the remaining six words you do that exact thing.

I'm used to that from one member, but not from you. Sorry to see as I've always found you to be more interested in a useful discussion.

One that I thought was a bit humorous.

The OP made an assertion sans any documentation. I provided what evidence there is out there on the current status of Senate procedures that surely opened the debate. Rather than debate what other influences there might be or exceptions, one poster chose a different course to try to deflect with ridicule of a word choice.

I freely admit to the occasional typo, spelling mishap and word choice error-though I can assure you I do not do so with formal documents where I am exceedingly cautious about self-editing. So, if that is of issue, I'd suggest you and the other poster avoid 99.9% of DU posts, since informal discussion and quick posting is the rule. But realize, it goes both directions and your errant misspelling, poor word choice, or typo will be the next ridiculed.

I promise not to take offense.

OP didn't imply one Senator could end it, unless you didn't read the sentence to its conclusion. It's saying that one Senator can call for dismissal, and it can then immediately be voted on, with no further consideration.

...it can be quickly dismissed as easily as anything else. Except it seems McConnell does have to bring it to the floor, whereas with other things, he can stop it from getting even THAT far. But that's as far as the difference goes... after that, it's apparently like anything else that comes before the Senate.

(And I think you meant implied, not inferred. )

The Senate makes its own rules and can change them at any time. The only unchangeable rules related to impeachment are found in the Constitution.

I still think such speculation is unfounded. Unless far more damning material comes out, Republicans will want the trial so that the final narrative is their own.

a SINGLE Senator can effect dismissal as was the implication--as though would be the case when a single Senator can defeat a "unanimous consent" motion.

The OP doesn't say "a single Senator can effect dismissal". It said that a majority vote triggered by a single Senator could do so.

I'd say that's correct... but not going to happen.

stop with the hysteria and condescension. Especially when you provided nothing. I provided the actual rules in place now. You provided nothing.

for impeachment as completely false: setting the stage for what is being discussed in this thread. If that were actually true, then they SHOULD refuse to go forward with trial, right?

At this point, we should assume this strategy is a real possibility.

I'm pretty sure the House will impeach. There might even be a handful of republicans that vote the right way.

After that, there are several things that could technically happen.

1. The Senate holds a fair trial, and all members honestly base their votes on the evidence, and trump is found 'not guilty'. The chances of that are almost zero, since the evidence that we know about so far convicts him

2. The Senate holds a fair trial, and enough republicans cast an honest vote along with the Democrats, and Trump is removed. The chances of that are maybe 1%. There just aren't that many honest republicans.

3. The Senate holds the full trial, hears the evidence (that they don't keep out), but the republicans gaslight, obfuscate, and essentially turn it into something so confusing that a lot of the public doesn't really understand it. I wouldn't put it past them to start some kind of 'emergency' to limit the amount of press the trial gets Then they vote to acquit, and claim a fair trial was held.

4. They realize that the evidence is so strong, that there is no way they could defend their votes to acquit......in that case, I think they go with dismissing the charges as being 'frivolous', and a 'witch hunt', based solely on politics.

once the hearing starts, Moscow Mitch isn't in charge. The hearing is presided over by Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts is no friend of Democrats but he doesn't want his legacy to go down in flames.

Trump insulted him after the Obamacare ruling. I think Roberts will be fair and will provide no favors to Trump.

most of the public will disapprove.

If the House does a good job of building their case, the entire country is going to know what evidence they have. At that point, the Senate dismisses at their own peril. It becomes an election issue .

I think if the House can present a good enough case, the Senate might convict. But if this drags into next year, they probably won't convict.

If the trial can be wrapped up before year end, that would mean by April/May the country would be over it and focus on the November election could start.

getting out the vote in 2020 to remove these "traitors".

The strongest message that could be sent is if we win the House, Senate, and WH.

There would be no ambiguity

But impeachment is still the principled thing to do. And then we have to get out the vote--regardless of what happens with the impeachment.

- not schedule the trial
- seek a simple majority vote to delay the trial
- he can do a Merrick Garland and say Nov 2020 election can be the "impeachment" trial


What happens on the Senate floor must go thru the majority leaders desk and he can simply not do anything as the constitution does not proscribe a time frame for a trial to be held

Impeachment will damage him politically, but his base is not budging. Like, at all.

It’s a different world than Watergate. Given how easy it is to affirm biases.

Once he is out, now that’s another story. He gets to look forward to many lawsuits.

What if she decides to keep the investigation going for a bit longer?