Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sparko]

I think - and I'll try to find it - that the Chief Justice is there more in the role of judge, in that he doesn't actually take an active part in the trial, but regulates the flow and resolves disputes.

Yeah, he doesn't get to make the verdict. The constitution says he "presides" over the trial. Kind of like Noddler did in the house, I suppose. But that means he could probably decide to allow the liberals to call witnesses too. He is probably a lot more impartial than Noddler was.

[rogue06]

It isn't often that I find myself agreeing with McConnell, but he hit the nail squarely on the head here. The Democrats realize that Schiff and Nadler blew it bad and want a do-over this time in the Senate.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, he doesn't get to make the verdict. The constitution says he "presides" over the trial. Kind of like Noddler did in the house, I suppose. But that means he could probably decide to allow the liberals to call witnesses too. He is probably a lot more impartial than Noddler was.

I'm still reading it, but here's a pretty good (so far) explanation of the role of the Chief Justice in impeachment.

It says he acts more like a criminal trial judge. That's more like referee than active participant.

[rogue06]

I think - and I'll try to find it - that the Chief Justice is there more in the role of judge, in that he doesn't actually take an active part in the trial, but regulates the flow and resolves disputes.

That's my understanding. He is there essentially as an arbitrator.

[Cow Poke]

It isn't often that I find myself agreeing with McConnell, but he hit the nail squarely on the head here. The Democrats realize that Schiff and Nadler blew it bad and want a do-over this time in the Senate.

Which is exactly what Schumer was tying to do in his 'speech' before the press yesterday. He's acting like he should be in charge.

[Cow Poke]

Also I believe the Constitution says the Senate trial will be led by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS. John Roberts. So it is possible that he could decide to call witnesses. Any decisions he makes in the trial can be overturned by 51% of the Senators though. And the final vote has to be 2/3rds in order to convict.

That's my understanding, since the Senate exclusively "owns" the conviction/removal phase of impeachment, the Senate has the power to overrule Roberts' rulings by simple majority.

[firstfloor]

It's up to the house to interview the witnesses and do the investigation. They are the "prosecution" - if they cannot prove their case, the Senate (judge and jury) must acquit. They haven't proven anything. The Articles of impeachment contain no actual evidence, just accusations. Very weakly worded.

Trump has not been impeached yet. If he is, the trial takes place in the Senate. McConnell decides how that trial process works. He is likely to skip straight to exoneration because he does not want the public to hear the case. There has been no prosecution at this point, only obstructed fact finding.

[Cow Poke]

Trump has not been impeached yet.

Is there any doubt he will be?

If he is, the trial takes place in the Senate.

Yes, we're quite aware of that, though it's more the "punishment phase" of the trial.

McConnell decides how that trial process works. He is likely to skip straight to exoneration because he does not want the public to hear the case. There has been no prosecution at this point, only obstructed fact finding.

I'd agree that the bungled mess the House has made can't actually be called "prosecution" -- more like a bunch of hearsay, speculation, theories, opinions... but they did, indeed, put forward their case, such as it is. They could have waited for the courts to force appearances, but they chose not to, and, essentially came to that point where "the prosecution rests". Now it moves to a vote in the full House, after which it is essentially given to the jury (the Senate) for deliberation and punishment phase.

[Sparko]

Is there any doubt he will be?



Yes, we're quite aware of that, though it's more the "punishment phase" of the trial.



I'd agree that the bungled mess the House has made can't actually be called "prosecution" -- more like a bunch of hearsay, speculation, theories, opinions... but they did, indeed, put forward their case, such as it is. They could have waited for the courts to force appearances, but they chose not to, and, essentially came to that point where "the prosecution rests". Now it moves to a vote in the full House, after which it is essentially given to the jury (the Senate) for deliberation and punishment phase.

Doncha love it when foreigners tell us how our system works?

[Cow Poke]

Doncha love it when foreigners tell us how our system works?

Impeachment of a President is its own animal, and given that each chamber of Congress "owns" a part, I guess it could be pretty confusing to them.

And, since the Constitution doesn't spell out a whole lot, we go by precedent, or --- each chamber makes up their own rules. In the case of the House, they changed the rules the day they got the alleged whistle blower complaint. It will be interesting to see how the Senate handles this.

[rogue06]

Doncha love it when foreigners tell us how our system works?

Have you noticed that when it comes to things like Brexit the American posters here tend to ask those who live in Britain for their take but when it comes to what is happening in America the foreign posters tend to tell American posters what is "really" going on.

[Sparko]

Rule number 1 - vote against the other party no matter what.
Rule number 2 - see rule number 1

[Mountain Man]

[McConnell] is likely to skip straight to exoneration because he does not want the public to hear the case.

But the public has already heard the case. What do you think the Democrats have been doing the last several months? It's not McConnell's fault that the impeachment inquiry was corruptly and incompetently handled.

[rogue06]

Trump has not been impeached yet. If he is, the trial takes place in the Senate. McConnell decides how that trial process works. He is likely to skip straight to exoneration because he does not want the public to hear the case. There has been no prosecution at this point, only obstructed fact finding.

What do you think that the Hose Democrats have been doing the past month or so? I mean aside from making complete and utter fools of themselves?

[Mountain Man]