Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[hal2kilo]

Right but voting 'not guilty' isn't the same as jury nullification. I'm pretty sure that the Senate voting jury nullification on impeachment hearings would cause a rift in reality or something, like dividing by zero.

Still not getting it.

 

[interchange]

The Senate gets to decide the rules of the trial. They are allowed to decide who the jury is, it can be the entire Senate, but it does not have to be. In the past it has always been either the entire Senate, or a specific committee, but it is entirely possible that the GOP will decide to hand pick their jurors. It is never been done, but it would take a SCOTUS decision to say it was not Constitutional, and that would probably take more than a year to work it's way through the courts. It is entirely possible the GOP will do some such thing just to delay the entire thing until after the election.
I fully expect some chicanery from Moscow Mitch.

Where are you getting this info? It's possible to interpret the Constitution that way. In the past, several votes have not included much of the Senate, but the Constitution states a supermajority of those present. I am not sure the Senate could keep those who want to show up and vote from doing so.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How do you think jury nullification works in the courts? It's not like they have a ballot that says "guilty, innocent, nullify". It's just as hal2kilo says, voting innocent when you know the party is guilty because you don't like the law or the process is jury nullification.

Sorry, I was under the impression that if a jury was voting to nullify the proceeding, they actually say 'we're nullifying this, because we don't agree with the law as stated/how this is presented', not 'we know dude's guilty but we're voting innocent, just letting you know'.

I know functionally what jury nullification is.

Is it the latter?

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Sorry, I was under the impression that if a jury was voting to nullify the proceeding, they actually say 'we're nullifying this, because we don't agree with the law as stated/how this is presented', not 'we know dude's guilty but we're voting innocent, just letting you know'.

I know functionally what jury nullification is.

Is it the latter?

The latter.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[trenchfoot]

The one guy that's going to be so thoroughly conflicted if and when Trump gets dragged out of office is Trump. He will be so relieved of not having to be answerable to the folks of whom he supposedly represented yet so terrified of what awaits him over at SDNY Courts.

 

[fskimospy]

The Senate gets to decide the rules of the trial. They are allowed to decide who the jury is, it can be the entire Senate, but it does not have to be. In the past it has always been either the entire Senate, or a specific committee, but it is entirely possible that the GOP will decide to hand pick their jurors. It is never been done, but it would take a SCOTUS decision to say it was not Constitutional, and that would probably take more than a year to work it's way through the courts. It is entirely possible the GOP will do some such thing just to delay the entire thing until after the election.
I fully expect some chicanery from Moscow Mitch.

From my quick non-lawyerly look at it the clause says someone will not be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3rds of Senators present so it doesn't sound like they can pick a jury to do it for them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The latter.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then I got edumacated. I assumed nullification was established enough as a 'thing' to essentially be 'option 3: break in case of emergencies' rather than just a weird mutation of 'not guilty'.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Where are you getting this info? It's possible to interpret the Constitution that way. In the past, several votes have not included much of the Senate, but the Constitution states a supermajority of those present. I am not sure the Senate could keep those who want to show up and vote from doing so.

The same way they can keep a bunch of senators from showing up at any other committee vote. The vote is not by the senate as a whole, but buy a committee, and only committee members votes are counted. There is no reason that they could not create a new committee to act as jurors and only allow the hand picked Senators on that committee to vote.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

From my quick non-lawyerly look at it the clause says someone will not be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3rds of Senators present so it doesn't sound like they can pick a jury to do it for them.

But does '2/3rds of senators present' mean 'of the three senators we picked to be on this voting committee' or does it mean 'of all current senators employed by the US government'?

 

[woolfe9998]

Can you even nullify as the Senate though? And wouldn't that normally require *everyone* to vote for jury nullification (rather than a hung jury), can you really consider it jury nullification on a 2/3rds vote? I feel like the 'nullify' votes would just be abstained... a full nullification would be if literally everyone abstained.

What he means is that in effect it will be like jury nullification. They're not going to say that's what they're doing. They're going to say he's innocent or he did something wrong but it isn't impeachable. But since they quite obviously know he's guilty, it essentially will amount to jury nullification.

 

[dainthomas]

He will be so relieved of not having to be answerable to the folks of whom he supposedly represented yet so terrified of what awaits him over at SDNY Courts.

I can't remember a president who's as obviously hated their job (at any point) as this guy has for his entire time in office.

 

[fskimospy]

But does '2/3rds of senators present' mean 'of the three senators we picked to be on this voting committee' or does it mean 'of all current senators employed by the US government'?

A quorum is required by the Constitution for the Senate to do business and convicting the president certainly sounds like Senate business.

EDIT for accuracy: The constitution defines a quorum as a majority of members, so they would need at least 51 members as it stands right now.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

A quorum is required by the Constitution for the Senate to do business and convicting the president certainly sounds like Senate business.

EDIT for accuracy: The constitution defines a quorum as a majority of members, so they would need at least 51 members as it stands right now.

Huh, so all but 4 Republicans (or whatever would give the Democrats the 2/3rds... i guess all but 20 or so?) could simply sit out and hand the Democrats the vote.

 

[SMOGZINN]

A quorum is required by the Constitution for the Senate to do business and convicting the president certainly sounds like Senate business.

EDIT for accuracy: The constitution defines a quorum as a majority of members, so they would need at least 51 members as it stands right now.

I would agree with you, but if McConnell disagrees there is little that anyone can do to say otherwise, and we all know that he will make most any argument if it fits his current agenda, and once he decides it does not appear that there is any way to override his decision.

In Nixon v. United States (1993),the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary could not review such proceedings, as matters related to impeachment trials are political questions and could not be resolved in the courts.

 

[fskimospy]

I would agree with you, but if McConnell disagrees there is little that anyone can do to say otherwise, and we all know that he will make most any argument if it fits his current agenda, and once he decides it does not appear that there is any way to override his decision.

In Nixon v. United States (1993),the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary could not review such proceedings, as matters related to impeachment trials are political questions and could not be resolved in the courts.

SCOTUS can absolutely decide if the rules stipulated in the Constitution for conducting Senate business were followed or not, which applies to all proceedings, not just impeachment.

After all if SCOTUS can't do that then Congress can have a single member from each chamber decree new laws at their leisure. If the president vetoes them then those same two members declare it overridden.

 

[SMOGZINN]

SCOTUS can absolutely decide if the rules stipulated in the Constitution for conducting Senate business were followed or not, which applies to all proceedings, not just impeachment.

After all if SCOTUS can't do that then Congress can have a single member from each chamber decree new laws at their leisure. If the president vetoes them then those same two members declare it overridden.

Only if the Senate Majority Leader will allow such a discussion to go to the floor.
Our system was never designed to deal with the entire party in majority just deciding to ignore the Constitution.

 

[nakedfrog]

Huh, so all but 4 Republicans (or whatever would give the Democrats the 2/3rds... i guess all but 20 or so?) could simply sit out and hand the Democrats the vote.

Hm...
"We're staying home so as not to lend legitimacy to this farce"
...
"Ooooh nooooo, we had no idea they'd vote to convict! Bad democrats! Naughty democrats! If only there was something we could have done!"
I could see them selling that.

 

[woolfe9998]

Here's a clue of what to expect in the Senate:

Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like, CNN has learned.

www.cnn.com

Evidently, McConnell wants to give the dems a little time to present their case, then vote to dismiss, without calling any witnesses.

But Trump wants the opposite: to call Hunter Biden, Schiff and the whistle-blower and turn it into a circus.

So it's either going to be quick or a total circus.

I think it will hurt Trump more if he gets his way and it's the latter.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Here's a clue of what to expect in the Senate:

Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like, CNN has learned.

www.cnn.com

Evidently, McConnell wants to give the dems a little time to present their case, then vote to dismiss, without calling any witnesses.

But Trump wants the opposite: to call Hunter Biden, Schiff and the whistle-blower and turn it into a circus.

So it's either going to be quick or a total circus.

I think it will hurt Trump more if he gets his way and it's the latter.

The fact that Trump wants Mitch to turn it into a circus specifically to hurt the Democrats in the next election cycle should give everyone a big fat clue as to what his motivations were regarding the Bidens.

 

[nakedfrog]

Here's a clue of what to expect in the Senate:

Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like, CNN has learned.

www.cnn.com

Evidently, McConnell wants to give the dems a little time to present their case, then vote to dismiss, without calling any witnesses.

But Trump wants the opposite: to call Hunter Biden, Schiff and the whistle-blower and turn it into a circus.

So it's either going to be quick or a total circus.

I think it will hurt Trump more if he gets his way and it's the latter.

Of course Trump wants a circus, that's how the reality show formula works.

 

[zinfamous]

The fact that Trump wants Mitch to turn it into a circus specifically to hurt the Democrats in the next election cycle should give everyone a big fat clue as to what his motivations were regarding the Bidens.

Nah, it's just how conservatives think naturally; therefore everyone thinks this way and it's really NBD, except that for some reasons Democrats are complaining about Republicans doing what Republicans only assume Democrats are doing--their belief system being so vile and intractable.

I don't think Republicans have the capacity to think beyond the notion that anyone else of a different culture or political stripe would ever operate in a way that is different from the base instincts of a typical criminal republican.

 

[Jhhnn]

They must have been scared over the moderates defecting over it. Now GOP can argue that not even the Democrats buy it for either Ukraine or Trump-Russia. If it's not added sometime before it goes to the Senate, they show their cowardliness again. It's Obama during 2016 all over again.

Also...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204151929263263745

Just here to tear down the Democrats, huh? Pelosi had the votes to send it to the Senate long ago. What to call it is the difference between potayto & potahto. The trade vote just gives Trump one less thing to whine about.

 

[interchange]

Just here to tear down the Democrats, huh? Pelosi had the votes to send it to the Senate long ago. What to call it is the difference between potayto & potahto. The trade vote just gives Trump one less thing to whine about.

It's hard to keep track. Either they dragged their feet on impeachment after having grounds for years or they are moving too quickly and need to go through the court to litigate Trump's obstruction. Either we haven't been able to hear the full case because witnesses were disallowed by Democrats or witnesses who defied subpoenas are ok because it's too expensive to get representation. Either the whole thing is a sham because they are tying up Congress from doing their job or they aren't taking it seriously because they bothered to get some business done at the same time.

 

[dank69]

It's hard to keep track. Either they dragged their feet on impeachment after having grounds for years or they are moving too quickly and need to go through the court to litigate Trump's obstruction. Either we haven't been able to hear the full case because witnesses were disallowed by Democrats or witnesses who defied subpoenas are ok because it's too expensive to get representation. Either the whole thing is a sham because they are tying up Congress from doing their job or they aren't taking it seriously because they bothered to get some business done at the same time.

More everything!

 

[Maxima1]

Just here to tear down the Democrats, huh? Pelosi had the votes to send it to the Senate long ago. What to call it is the difference between potayto & potahto. The trade vote just gives Trump one less thing to whine about.

That's clearly bullshit. What happened was some of the Democrats were shitting their pants over adding bribery. It's explicitly listed in the Constitution as a reason for impeachment.

Let him whine. Giving him the fake trade deal scheme that will most likely benefit him in PA, MI, and WI is political malpractice.