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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,092 posts)
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 05:41 PM Oct 2019

David Corn: Here's How Mitch McConnell Could Sabotage an Impeachment Trial



https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/heres-how-mitch-mcconnell-could-sabotage-an-impeachment-trial/

Here’s How Mitch McConnell Could Sabotage an Impeachment Trial
The Senate rules can be easily abused.
David Corn
Washington, DC, Bureau ChiefBio | Follow

snip//

These rules do include provisions that could be abused by a party that controls the Senate to jigger the proceedings. During a trial, they say, the Senate can “make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice.” This reads like a blank check for mischief. A Senate majority possibly could vote to limit testimony or witnesses. Perhaps it could impose a time limit on the proceedings that would prevent a full airing of the case against Trump.

But isn’t the chief justice in charge? (Put aside the question of his possible bias for a moment.) The rules say he is, but on some matters he can be trumped by the party in control. They state that the chief justice “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.” (Emphasis added.) So if there is a debate over the introduction of a certain piece of evidence—say, Trump’s legal team raises an objection—the chief justice decides. Unless the Senate Republicans vote to overturn his ruling. The final say will go to the GOP.

The rules also allow the Republicans to keep much of the proceedings out of the public eye. Either the chief justice or a majority of the Senate can order that a committee of senators be established to “receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may determine.” That can be done behind closed doors—though such a committee must subsequently provide the full Senate “a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings and testimony.” The rules note that nothing prevents the Senate from “having the entire trial in open Senate.” But clearly a majority of Republicans could vote to conduct the trial in secrecy. (Most of the Clinton impeachment trial was public, but deliberations over the calling of witnesses and depositions taken of key witnesses were conducted privately. A bipartisan majority of senators voted to use excerpts from the videoed depositions instead of live witness testimony.)

The rules also note that the deliberations of the senators—the debate over whether Trump should be convicted or not—could also be kept from the public. The Senate has the right to “direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decisions.”

At the GOP luncheon, McConnell told his Republican colleagues that a motion to dismiss the charges in a Trump impeachment trial—an idea floated by some Trump defenders as a way to short-circuit and quickly end the proceedings—would be determined by Chief Justice John Roberts. But the rules provide McConnell and his Republican majority latitude in other ways.

An impeachment trial is not straightforward business. The rules are not as well-established as those that cover federal trials. Important procedural questions can be presented to the chief justice. But the Senate rules essentially give the Senate the ability to reject key rulings of the presiding judge. McConnell is renowned for his wily mastering of Senate rules—and for his willingness to bust norms for political gain. (See Merrick Garland.) Though he has recognized the duty of the Senate to address—and not ignore—articles of impeachment, he may well have a trick or two in mind about how to conduct the trial—especially if he is bent on disposing of this controversy in a fast manner during holiday season. McConnell’s entire political career offers cause to suspect that his loyalty will be to a partisan outcome, not a fair process. And the rules of the Senate do not guarantee an impeachment trial will be free of McConnell shenanigans.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
David Corn: Here's How Mitch McConnell Could Sabotage an Impeachment Trial (Original Post) babylonsister Oct 2019 OP
Like i need this much bad news on a Friday night? Okay i get it dem4decades Oct 2019 #1
Moscow Mitch will be receiving instructions from uh, well, er Moscow. Sneederbunk Oct 2019 #2
Not a surprise. It's how McConnell works. SharonAnn Oct 2019 #3
Then it would seem that filing separate articles of impeachment would be to our advantage. Let the in2herbs Oct 2019 #4
Maybe not ddr007 Oct 2019 #5
Yes the rebuke controlled senate could easily screw up everything burrowowl Oct 2019 #6

dem4decades

(11,304 posts)
1. Like i need this much bad news on a Friday night? Okay i get it
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 05:52 PM
Oct 2019

Impeachment is Mueller Report 2.0.

Always Republicans fucking the country.

SharonAnn

(13,778 posts)
3. Not a surprise. It's how McConnell works.
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 06:31 PM
Oct 2019

"McConnell is renowned for his wily mastering of Senate rules—and for his willingness to bust norms for political gain. (See Merrick Garland.)"

in2herbs

(2,947 posts)
4. Then it would seem that filing separate articles of impeachment would be to our advantage. Let the
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 06:36 PM
Oct 2019

R in the Senate rule on the first trial, file another article of impeachment and let the Senate rule on the second trial, and on and on till you file hundreds of impeachable actions against trump. It could go on past the election, maybe even to the date of the January 2020 swearing in. I'm good with that.

ddr007

(25 posts)
5. Maybe not
Fri Oct 18, 2019, 06:52 PM
Oct 2019

The Constitution says that the Chief Justice presides over the trial. He is not a senator and may not consider himself bound to Senate rules that have a lesser authority than the Constitution. And the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Roberts isn't likely to rule that he can't his own rules if he wants to. Remember, the Chief Justice only presides over the impeachment trial of the President. The Senate rules should (would?) be for trials involving other defendants.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»David Corn: Here's How M...