Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mitch McConnell: Just Do it!
If you ever want to drive me insane, you don’t need to use the Chinese water torture on me. You just need to force me to watch the ineptness of the House and Senate and the histrionics and hand-wringing regarding impeachment. But I’m begging Mitch McConnell to put us all out of our misery. The Editorial Staff of the Wall Street Journal (sorry—it’s probably behind a paywall) describes the process to set us all free. Mr. McConnell is ignoring the hysterics of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. He seems to be doing that with a twinkle in his eye. In fact, he may already be contemplating these steps recommended by the WSJ. So what is he up against? I’m describing the basic process here.
- Nancy Pelosi insists that the articles of impeachment must be formally transmitted to the Senate. Not true:
There’s nothing in the Constitution that says impeachment requires a formal transmittal of the articles to the Senate, whether by sedan chair or overnight Fed Ex, or that the House must appoint impeachment managers. The parchment merely says the House has sole power over impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try an impeachment. The act of impeachment is the vote.
- Nancy Pelosi demands that the Senate state the rules it will follow. They not only do not have to state them, but they certainly don’t have to negotiate the rules with the House. Ms. Pelosi—those rules are none of your business.
- The Senate has rules in place that say a trial doesn’t begin until the House appoints managers to deliver the articles. Simple options: (1) Give Pelosi a deadline for appointing managers, or (2) start without managers (and the Presidents’ lawyers will make the case). As said earlier, the articles have already been “delivered.”
- Mitch McConnell can have witnesses or not. It’s not up to Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi. So get over it.
At this point, the House Democrats will be all hot and bothered if Mitch McConnell takes action. I believe the country knows what a sham the impeachment process has been, and what it continues to be, and citizens will reject the Democrat temper tantrums.
The WSJ closed with this statement:
For Senate Republicans, their constitutional duty here is also the best politics. Don’t join Nancy Pelosi in defining impeachment down. Honor the Constitution by holding a trial.
Just do it, Mitch.
Published in Politics
I agree here.
Or just vote to aquit and be done with it.
I liked the idea that, based on the Pelosi standard, McConnell could just delay trying the proceedings until, say, the week before the Iowa primary.
Democrats’ latest gambit is clever: justify the delay of submittal by claiming they aren’t done investigating and voting. It doesn’t need to be a good reason. It’s just a reason, which provides political cover and keeps the flames fanned.
I wonder what say, if any, Justice Roberts has in when a Senate trial is valid and so requires his presence.
Tsk, tsk, @samuelblock. I’m sure she’d love that! And I wouldn’t doubt that McConnell has had a great time thinking about all the ways he could make her nuts. But then, he is a Southern gentleman, isn’t he?
She can do all the investigating she wants to do. But the House has voted on the articles. It’s done. Let’s all move along. I don’t think she has standing to try to change the articles on her whim. Have you seen anything, @aaronmiller, that suggests she can?
Just so. There is speculation that the lawfare group is behind the delay. With legislative matters “pending” the courts may side with the House in their document and testimonial demands. But if the Senate dismisses then the courts would consider it moot (even if a justiciable matter rather than a non-justiciable “political question”). Best reason to dismiss.
But @rodin, they can’t re-open the impeachment proceedings, can they? I know they’ve made threats of starting another impeachment, but that would be different.
Because an impeachment trial is not exactly like a criminal or civil trial and not bound to their rules, the House might theoretically be free to accumulate charges by separate votes or launch one impeachment after another. It depends on the rules House and Senate leaders establish before proceeding.
It’s more game than legal procedure, albeit with the potential legal consequence of removing the impeached.
The delay also creates mystery, which keeps it in the news. If the articles were sent to the Senate, they would have been tabled and undiscussed for 2 weeks.
What makes you think that McConnell or the senate Republicans want to let Trump off? Here is there chance to rid themselves of him and let it be the Democrat’s fault.
At this point, all eyes are on Sen. McConnell. Well, not today, mind you. It’s Christmas.
He had better hold firm. Not just with the Democrats in the House, but with the Democrats in the Senate. If he truly believes the Impeachment is a sham, he should treat it as such.
I would accept two things from him at this point:
1 – A declaration that no impeachment has happened if the articles aren’t formally delivered to the Senate, followed by completely ignoring the issue “I’m sorry: what impeachment?”
2 – A vote held immediately following the Christmas and a declaration “It’s done, now on to America’s business.”
I suspect I’m going to get something different.
You’re right. I’m less concerned with this break since it was already on the calendar. But then? It’s time to move forward. Don’t you think so, @dong?
They’ve done some foolish things, but I don’t want to think about what would happen if they did get rid of them. Besides, there are no crimes–remember? And I don’t think Republicans do witch hunts very well.
I’m more the, “you broke it, you buy it” thinking, @spin. I’d prefer his being explicit: you declared the articles, you have three days from their return from break to send house managers, and if she doesn’t, hold whatever–trial, declaration. I think following the Constitutional minimum required for the Senate (with one rule change if necessary) honors the Constitution.
Maybe. But it would also give those Republicans the outstanding chance of destroying themselves as a party and as individual candidates. However, if committing political suicide is what McConnell really wants for himself and his party, he’s welcome to it.
This is the nub of the matter. The calendars on the House and Senate websites tell us all we need to know here. Nothing will happen until January.
We should all remember that when Democrats say they want a fair trial that is Democrats saying a fair trial for the accusers, not the accused . They could have had a fair trial in the house but made it a mockery of justice. Chuck U wants to replicate the judge Cavanaugh hearings .
Impeachment will always have the gravity that the charges bring. I have no fear that a future president’s impeachment will be treated seriously if he deserves it.
The senate should treat this in the most contemptible manner possible.
Assuming Trump really is impeached. I’m impressed by @spin‘s arguments in this thread that they have not yet impeached Trump.
He’s been impeached. He just hasn’t had a trial about those charges.
So I thought. I even gave an argument for it. A much better argument than Feldman’s argument that he’s not been impeached.
But Spin gave three solid arguments to the contrary. Any one of them by itself does a good job undermining my argument.
Either way, one crucial point is that the Pelosi notion that they have impeached Trump and still have the ability to prevent the Senate from taking over the process is false. False, false, false.
I quoted the WSJ in the OP:
There’s nothing in the Constitution that says impeachment requires a formal transmittal of the articles to the Senate, whether by sedan chair or overnight Fed Ex, or that the House must appoint impeachment managers. The parchment merely says the House has sole power over impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try an impeachment. The act of impeachment is the vote.
Just sayin’ ;-)
So I also thought. Spin has two arguments to the contrary.
One of the houses can take the question to the Supreme Court, but that would be especially silly. McConnell should ignore it until they send it to him, mostly to avoid the house dragging the question to court.
Well, for my part, I have no insight of what is the best strategery. But I enjoy the covfefe.
The thing to remember here is that Pelosi, Schiff, and the rest rode the impeachment railroading expecting their laurels and triumphs at the end. And their barefaced, bare knuckled political hydrophobia has seen the Victim Party hoist Trump to the position of Victim-in-Chief. He is enjoying the best poll numbers he’s seen since Charlottesville. If the Senate plays the same game, the result may be a most excellent electoral house cleaning. Even AOC’s California district has turned against her, proving that there can be such a thing as too loonie for the left coast.
We are at a watershed moment fraught with danger. If the Republicans can be as transparently partisan, slanderous, and self-serving as the House leadership, say goodnight Gracie.
And a merry covfefe to one and all.
Good points! Although AOC is NY.
Shows how much I know. Off to the Christmas service.
If it’s not legit, you must acquit!
I’m going with not impeached. Webster defined impeachement as charges brought before a tribunal. Now, you can argue that the House is that tribunal. I think that argument is wrong. The House merely decides what the charges are and whether they want to bring them. Then they have to bring them. It is reasonable to think that Webster understood the word impeach the same way the Framers did.
So…if they do not officially bring their charges before the Senate, I say he hasn’t been impeached. I might be wrong, but this is all just make it up as you go along, anyway…so there! ;-)