The contours of the trial will be set by rules dating to the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, in 1868. Those rules leave answers to such questions as whether witnesses will appear, and when the trial may be adjourned, to the chief justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr., who — as set forward in the Constitution — presides over the proceedings.
[...]
To be sure, senators can pass a special resolution setting rules for Trump’s trial, as they did for President Bill Clinton’s; such a resolution is the subject of last week’s skirmishing. But doing so would require more comity than is evident, as it needs a supermajority of 60 votes and there are just 53 Republican senators. Absent a special resolution, on the questions now causing debate, senators must defer to Roberts — or overrule him, if they dare.
I'm stuck behind the paywall just in case the article already addresses this. Strange, because according to Wikipedia, he doesn't need to do anything: So even if Mitch can't make the trial biased,...
I'm stuck behind the paywall just in case the article already addresses this.
To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the [Senators] present" for at least one article is required. If there is no single charge commanding a "guilty" vote of two-thirds supermajority of the senators present, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
So even if Mitch can't make the trial biased, he doesn't need to because if the 2/3rds majority isn't reached (which would take every Democrat, both the independents and 20 Republicans, then nothing will happen to trump, so what is the article getting at? A secret trial is possible to request?
Democrats aren't holding their breadth for removal of office either. What they want is a long, drawn out trial where the proper procedures are held, and thus weeks of evidence and hearings, with...
Democrats aren't holding their breadth for removal of office either. What they want is a long, drawn out trial where the proper procedures are held, and thus weeks of evidence and hearings, with the inevitable partisan vote being the cherry on top. And hopefully some more stupid angry tweets in the middle of it too.
What Republican leadership want is to quickly go "ok, who cares, witch hunt, vote now" and get the whole episode over with.
From the article:
[...]
I'm stuck behind the paywall just in case the article already addresses this.
Strange, because according to Wikipedia, he doesn't need to do anything:
So even if Mitch can't make the trial biased, he doesn't need to because if the 2/3rds majority isn't reached (which would take every Democrat, both the independents and 20 Republicans, then nothing will happen to trump, so what is the article getting at? A secret trial is possible to request?
Democrats aren't holding their breadth for removal of office either. What they want is a long, drawn out trial where the proper procedures are held, and thus weeks of evidence and hearings, with the inevitable partisan vote being the cherry on top. And hopefully some more stupid angry tweets in the middle of it too.
What Republican leadership want is to quickly go "ok, who cares, witch hunt, vote now" and get the whole episode over with.
The article is just about getting a fair trial in the Senate. There's no attempt to argue that it will change the results.
Oh okay. As I said, I'm behind the paywall.