(12-20-2019, 01:41 AM)GethN7 Wrote: I'd say it does.
This impeachment is being presented with even LESS going for it than Andrew Johnson's, where at least they could point to an actual law being broken (the Tenure of Office Act).
Which is why he had this response:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-to-pelosi-you-can-keep-your-impeachment-articles/ar-BBYay39?li=BBnb7Kz
Pelosi threatened to withhold the articles of impeachment unless the Senate negotiates a deal in the Democrats favor, and Mitch, knowing they are asking for the unreasonable, told her no.
He further told her that if they have enough in the House they are willing to forward an impeachment proceeding to the Senate, it's not the Senate's job to make their case stronger, they will go with what the House presents and that's it.
Otherwise, the Senate is under no obligation (and they legally aren't) to make the impeachment proceeding any easier than the Constitution requires, and all it requires is the Senate to vote on what the House presents.
The House will be adjourning soon, so this simmers until January 7 of next year most likely, and if the Democrats have more on the table then, then so be it. Otherwise, the Senate said they will go with what the House presents and go with that.
Given that's how we did it with the last three presidents who ever got hit with impeachment, I'm in concurrence with Mitch on this.
Actually, the text of the impeachment articles is already available to the Senate, and everyone else. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democr...chment.pdf
What Pelosi is doing is not forwarding them to the Senate for the trial process to start until Mitch agrees to actually have a trial rather than a whitewash where he says, "Eh, I don't see anything wrong" and dismisses the whole thing. I.E. they actually call for additional witnesses that Trump forbade to testify to the House. If the Senate requests them and Trump still refuses to allow them to testify and prove his innocence to the first article (the whole Ukraine bit), assuming of course that their testimony actually would do so, then that is a defacto admission of guilt to the second article (obstruction of Congress).
[/quote]
And this dilemma was already addressed under George Washington when we had the first question over who has the right to do what.
The House wanted to review a treaty the Senate was looking at, and Washington pointed out they had no authority under the Constitution to look at it and even he could not circumvent that even if he wanted to.
The Senate, and the Senate alone decides how to try the President. The Constitution allows each part of Congress to set their own internal rules for their respective chamber, so the ball is entirely in the Senate's court on this, any concessions made to the House on internal matters specific to the Senate is because they want to humor the House, they are not required to do so.
And even if that weren't true, Pelosi looks to me to be asking the Senate a chance to argue a case that should be a slam dunk AGAIN in the Senate that they supposedly have enough the House is filing impeachment charges over. If Trump is dead to rights to the point the House is confident enough this is gonna be impeachment class level of worthy to file, then why sit on it.
And I'll answer that question: It's political grandstanding.
Let's say the Senate gets the whole thing killed off before they even discuss the matter for whatever reason. The Democrats can then try to claim they did the right thing but the Senate circumvented justice and they can use that as a political ploy to drum up partisan support in 2020.
Alternatively, the Senate decides to play along and these charges are defeated, and the Democrats will have committed mass political suicide. Again, we established impeachment had major political consequences regardless of outcome when we tried it with Andrew Johnson. We also established with Clinton that impeachment is not a sure thing death sentence for someone's legal freedom or even reputation. And we also established with Nixon the importance of having a case so ironclad even Nixon's closest shills had to admit defeat, and Nixon himself resigned because the writing was on the wall.
If Trump is guilty as sin, the House should take it's chances with the system we have. The Senate is the jury, but the Chief Justice has to preside over the judicial aspects, and if it survives constitutional challenges from the judiciary, the Senate will have to give this the dignity of hearing out on the merits. I for one have faith in the words of the Athenian reformer Solon when he said he was giving Athens the best government they would receive, not necessarily the one they wanted.
If the American government is the best we can receive at this present time, we should either trust it to work as it was intended or admit the whole American republic is a failure. Or worse, admit the government we want is the one we prefer does our political bidding all the time.
[/quote]
The problem, Geth, is that McConnel is on the record as having every intent to ignore his oath of office as a juror in the impeachment process and to vote against impeachment regardless of the evidence. That, on its own, should be grounds for the ethics commission to lean in with a nice and subtle 'we hope you are kidding because otherwise we are going to levy punishments on you until you die. Hopefully not literally'.
And I don't mean McConnel actually doing that. I mean McConnel saying that he wants to should be enough for that sort of reaction. And I wouldn't be surprised if Republican Senators have already made the exact same decision but not been as open about it.