The Hill reports McConnell Proposes Compressed Schedule for Impeachment Trial.
House impeachment managers will have 24 hours over two days to make their opening arguments when they begin to present their case against President Trump to the Senate Wednesday, according to a resolution circulated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
President Trump’s team similarly will have two days to present their arguments and then senators will have a chance to ask questions and consider subpoenas of witnesses.
The resolution, as expected, does not require additional witnesses to be subpoenaed and does not allow House prosecutors to admit evidence into the Senate trial record until after the opening arguments are heard.
“McConnell’s resolution stipulates that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night simply because he doesn’t want tThe resolution includes language favored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other GOP moderates requiring a debate and vote on subpoenaing new witnesses and documents.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who worked with McConnell and Collins to modify the resolution, said it “guarantees a vote on whether we need additional evidence at the appropriate time.”he American people to hear them,” Schumer said.
Done Deal
With Collins on board, this is a done deal.
Protests and howls will ensue.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
March for Truth?
Does either side want the “Truth”?
Hells bells, no one wants the “truth”. Both sides only want “their truth”.
Regardless of what you you think the “truth” might be, Trump is going to be acquitted.
Personal Opinion
My personal opinion, which does not matter one iota, is that Impeachment was at best a stretch to begin with.
I have commented before that I do not believe Trump committed crimes worthy of being removed from office.
There’s a fine line between questionable political moves and removal from office. And some might debate the word “questionable”.
Regardless, it was 99% clear from the beginning that Trump would never be removed from office.
Democrat Perspective
The irony in this charade game is that it is not even clear if removing Trump from office would help the Democrats.
Consider the fact that If Trump were removed from office, Republicans would put up a different candidate, most likely not not necessarily, vice president Mike Pence.
Instead of having a lightning rod, namely Trump, to campaign against, it would be someone else.
Curiously, a quick acquittal accompanied with protests is actually in the Democrat’s best interests.
The Democrats will howl for months about how “unjust” this all is.
Some independants will believe it. At this point, that is all that matters.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
This week the USA “celebrated” civil rights activist Martin Luther King’s b-day (celebrating = taking a day off from work).
King’s murder remains “unsolved” — somebody named “they” did it. What is not in doubt, because the paperwork was eventually released after lots of fighting:
And the FBI was never held accountable for their crimes against Dr King.
Here we are, decades later, and the FBI once again has admitted to illegal surveillance against someone “they” don’t like. And in a lawless society such as ours, the AG of the United States (a Trump appointee) had nothing but excuses for the long list of FBI’s long list crimes against Trump and his associates.
We sit around wondering why Canada has almost twice as many guns per capita as the USA, but far fewer killings… One obvious reason is the example the FBI is setting. We tell our children not to murder people, but we make excuses when the FBI does it. Children can smell the hypocrisy miles away.
Imagine if the taxpayer money used to frame Trump, and the Meuller farce, and the Horowitz farce — had instead been used to address homelessness in Pelosi’s district (or any of dozens of cities in the USA)?
Washington DC is truly corrupt to its core, its a lot worse than a swamp. Hilary and Biden are getting millions in bribes, kickbacks and “foundation donations”, so we know why they support corruption. Is Sanders on the take also? Or does Sanders know the bureaucracy will never allow a socialist to bankrupt their party?
Washington DC is going to lose public support. The FBI’s reputation as a “law enforcement” (try not to laugh!!) agency is already in tatters. The ridiculous charges against Trump were always nonsense, and were discredited by Mueller and Horowitz long ago — not to mention Obama didn’t act because there was nothing there in the first place.
Trump isn’t the one on trial, and as soon as the Senate realizes this, they will quickly and quietly shut this farce down. The bureaucracy does not want their dirty laundry aired
Bring on the truth. Let’s see if we can even recognize it anymore.
After 3 years of Trump, I have my doubts.
A little detailed background (from a decidedly pro-T source):
Reduced to my wine-dulled logic, it goes like this:
It appears to me that additional evidence supports the initial charge even more. It doesn’t answer the question if the actions warrant removal, though, and that’s the big question that the Trump team is going to argue and the Senate will need to decide on.
The ‘additional evidence’ supports nothing, because there is nothing to support. Trump has not ‘obstructed congress’: he has asserted executive privilege as every president since Washington has done. If the house did not agree with that then they should have gone to Court as they did re Nixon. They didn’t do so because they would have lost on a large chuck of it.
And actually the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma and the corrupt Biden’s was relaunched in March long before the so called impeachable telephone call. I want to know what favours Jo Biden did for Burisma that warranted paying his coke-head son two million dollars. After this is done I hope there will be a number of Special Councils appointed to prosecute the Biden’s, Clinton and those involved in the Russiagate farce.
I was talking about additional evidence in support of abuse of power (Article 1), but you appear to be arguing about obstruction of Congress (Article 2).
Schumer: On something as important as impeachment—Sen. McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace.”
The impeachment itself is a national disgrace, The transcript of the Zelensky phone call showed Trump did nothing wrong. The democrats never had a case.
Imagine Trump quits. Would there be charges or prosecution in a regular court?
If not, then there are no high crimes or misdemeanours involved.
Seems a simple test.
If fhe charges relate exclusively to the execution of the office, and are thus not crimes in the sense that the constitution means, then it’s abuse of the process.
Anyone who puts a “u” in “misdemeanors” isn’t qualified to opine.
My guess (FWIW):
Trump’s defense will go:
4)Firing ambassador, etc., they were OK with the oil company buying Biden. They had to go for the good of America.
At this point, it blows up for Pelosi and Schumer. At least if the media hasn’t suppressed it.
Just my conjecture, although if the Repubs thought in this way you’d think it would have leaked by now.
Obstruction of Congress: whatever that is. As I understand it, all the obstruction was doing with the appropriate legal baggage attached. For Congress to override this equates to a violation of the Judiciary branch in an impeachment process. Not spelled out in the Constitution, but since all three branches of government are “equal” this equates to “obstruction” of the Judiciary, who can knock it down as they please.
The sheeple are engaged. Mission accomplished. Politics. Yawn.
Bottom Line –
Will only make DJT stronger.
There will be no acquittal, the corrupt senate can only vote to not remove. trump has taken his place in history with the other criminals, and no number of trumplings stamping their little feet and crying out to daddy Putin can change that.
Trump will be acquitted. There never was a legitimate case, therefore Trump is not a criminal. Your stomping won’t change that.
He’s making a semantic point, not the point you think he’s making.
But the semantic point is wrong. The word is acquittal, the result is remaining in office.
I have no idea what will happen. There are enough republicans who don’t like Trump that if they could vote anonymously, they would vote him out. Not because of anything he’s done. Because he cut to the front of the line. The most obvious is Romney who clearly can’t handle the fact he lost and Trump won. The problem is they would likely not be re-elected if they voted against Trump. But, if say 30 republicans voted against Trump, they would have cover and their constituency wouldn’t be up in arms against them.
A secret ballot isn’t out of the question. I think the Senate sets its own rules, and it would only take 51 votes to establish a secret ballot.
Btw Mish, impeachment has already happen. This is about removal now. Trump was impeached in December.
when did I say or insinuate otherwise?
Look at the title. It isnt an impeachment trial. The impeachment trial happen in the House. As it was with Clinton this is about removal from office. Trump is an impeached president already
Trump is impeached.
The Senate trial is an impeachment trial.
The verdict will result in conviction or acquittal.
History will report: “Trump was impeached and convicted” or “Trump was impeached and acquitted.”
Of course, we know which one it will be.
I predict it gets dragged out until March. More evidence coming.
Evidence is up to the Senate to allow. This might be over in a week or less.
Only 51 votes are needed for witnesses and to waive executive privilege. If that is done there is nothing the White House or Supreme Court can do about executive privilege. Again I fully predict this will get dragged out until March.
Might be, but it appears as though there are a significant number of Repubs that are going to insist on following the Clinton trial model. They’ll likely get a limited number of witnesses on both sides, which will drag it out a little longer.
Democrats are playing 4D chess.
I prefer a long drawn out trial where we explore Clinton’s, the Biden’s, and Pelosi horse in the game. But we know that will not happen because the red and the blue team are one and the same.
“Does either side want the “Truth”?”
The Truth would include what really happened in Ukraine in 2014. Obviously bad for Obama, Hillary, Victoria Nuland and some other Dems. But there should be little doubt that what happened was a bi-partisan effort and bad for some Republicans too, especially RINOs.
And it would be bad for the State Dept and CIA, as well.
Of course. Which is why there can’t be a trial with endless witnesses, which the Dems know very well. So the R’s will put a stop to the whole thing, and the Dems will try to crucify them for it.
Remains to be seen what the American people think: did they put on a convincing enough show to persuade that Trump is a Mob Boss like Schiff keeps saying? Or will most people methink the Dems have been protesting too much and it’s time for a little less non-stop whining?
We can’t handle the truth.
Why do you think the Republicans will run someone other than Trump in November if impeached? There’s nothing in the Constitution that bars an impeached person from running for office. See Alcee Hastings.
The Articles Schiff read specifically bar him from any office of honor or authority in the United States, including of course the Presidency.
Impeachment and conviction are two different things. Impeachment is done. Conviction or acquittal is next. It’s important for clarity to use the correct terms or one makes no sense.
This is not about removing Trump. This whole thing is a huge, emotion-laden Talking Point for the coming election.
On one front they can try to flip the Senate by going after them for enabling an obviously criminal President who has been impeached. Thus they have violated their oath of office and honor and should be removed by the voters so we can get an honest Senate to work in the peoples’ interest. They just need to flip four. Doable.
On another front they can try to mobilise their base to vote an impeached President out who is only in because of corrupt partisan Senators shielding him. Probably won’t work, but might motivate base to vote for their House and Senate candidates (i.e. different angle on previous front)
That’s why they rushed through a weak case. They WANT to lose it, because then they can paint the R’s as total monsters for obstructing justice, not allowing witnesses, protecting a Liar and Crook and all the rest of it – with each wave of talking points getting 24/7 MSM coverage. All of which has nothing to do with winning or losing the impeachment, and everything to do with the upcoming election.
I disagree with your not unreasonable contention that it’s a 50-50 situation. Why? Because they have a truly lousy set of candidates. And why’s that? Because they have operated in a lousy fashion the past three years choosing invective over adult governance and pursuing a very spiteful, petty ‘resistance’ agenda. It has tainted them all, really, and they are going to have to suffer the consequences which will mainly boil down to lack of enthusiasm. Their approach has been way too negative for way too long. People don’t get inspired by it – at least not normal people.
Electorally:
a) those who are loyal Democrats won’t switch, but quite a few won’t show up to vote, aka a motivation deficit.
b) quite a few independents who find Trump isn’t as bad as all the screaming and whining indicates and some of whom also feel he has been treated unfairly (definitely true by any sort of traditional yardsticks) are actually going to pull the lever for T this time and
c) he has made huge popularity inroads with the black and Latino communities, in part because of extensive inner city programs with black leaders, and in part because of the criminal justice reforms which are super-popular. Remains to be seen if that translates into votes, but most likely he’ll be getting well over 15% if not 30%. These communities are very attuned to when people are getting shafted and which people understand and fight for them and which don’t. Trump is doing very well in this arena, though the MSM aren’t covering it.
So either they do indeed turf him out somehow, or he’s going to win big. That’s why I doubt it will be close.
In any case, it’s a mistake to look at this trial as anything other than a huge, elaborate Election Talking Point operation. So don’t think Court of Law trial, think campaign Political Theater.
Lousy set of candidates? I’d call it no candidates. Nobody watches the Dems anymore because it started out stupid and went down hill from there.
I agree, best thing for democrats is to not get the chance to call witnesses and a quick acquittal. The witness info will probably come out before the election anyways, and everyone already knows what went on.
They did this just like they do in the Mid East… The objective of the wars is to create wars for war’s sake.