McConnell backs measure to change Senate rules, dismiss impeachment without articles

[demmiblue]

Source: The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is backing a resolution to change the Senate’s rules to allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on Thursday that McConnell has signed on as a co-sponsor to the resolution, which he introduced earlier this week.

Spokesmen for McConnell didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about his support.

Changing the rules would either require a two-thirds vote or for Republicans to deploy the "nuclear" option.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477587-mcconnell-backs-measure-to-change-senate-rules-dismiss-impeachment-without

[Bayard]

1. Is that legal?

I realize they can make their own Senate rules, but not if it goes against the Constitution, I would think.

[Tiggeroshii]

4. I'm sure it is.

And this is fine. They can just keep adding articles. Then when they are ready to send to the senate, pass all of them together again. When they dismiss one, add another, etc.

[bluestarone]

2. THIS tells me tRUMP is so fucking GUILTY they have to do it!

Will they take the OATH before Changing the rules? (each senator individually?)

[OhNo-Really]

12. Just for the SOTU speech sound bite

Didn’t you all imagine t saying to m

“Just get it done, f the rules”

When their meeting for today was announced?

I did. Loud & clearly in my imagination

[MontanaMama]

49. Oh crap.

We have a SOTU coming up don’t we? I don’t think I can take listening to him.

[OhNo-Really]

63. I won't. Why would anyone listen?

[MontanaMama]

65. Only to hear his inevitable

come apart. I wonder if his daycare handlers can keep him from snorting adderall the whole day leading up to the speech? Regardless...I don’t have it in me to listen.

[Texin]

27. It tells me that the rethugs are ALL FUCKING GUILTY.

[bluestarone]

28. I Will NOT disagree with that. In fact

I FULLY AGREE!

[KPN]

29. Yup. The elephant in the room that the media

seems to be blind to. Instead they focus on the “game”. Who’s outmaneuvering who? Who’s winning. What are the advantages and risks in the game plan/maneuver? Nobody in the media talks about the obvious. What the fuck is wrong with them?

[ArizonaLib]

66. They need the ratings that a close or competitive presidential election brings

The criminality acts are so apparent and so many in number, the race would be over before it starts. It would decimate ratings from now until November. That amounts to bus loads of money for the media.

[barbtries]

53. they already took an oath

that they're already breaking on a daily basis.

[alwaysinasnit]

3. Repugs are going to have to employ the nuclear option because I don't believe they have

2/3 votes. There is no bottom to the question "how low can the Repugs go"?

[KPN]

33. Good. Then when we get the WH and the Senate we can beat the shit

out of and reverse everything tRump’s done plus some — not just by executive fiat/executive orders, but by legitimately promulgated laws. We can hammer them so hard that they cry uncle and start screaming for reinstituting the filibuster. And we can accommodate them on that; return to “normalcy” then and only then.

[alwaysinasnit]

39. I sure hope you're right but I am (likely being paranoid) pessimistic about the upcoming elections,

in the sense that the Repugs have gotten better at cheating.

[Progressive Jones]

64. The cheating as well as strong holds in a few districts.

That hold is getting weaker, and the GOP is scared right now.
I don't think we'll see a dramatic shift in the power (huge number of seats flipped), but I believe that the Dems will
control the House and Senate at the very least, and likely the White House.

I also believe that the Dems will do good at the Statehouse level this time around. This is very important.

[Pepsidog]

42. Yup

[MBS]

5. Outrageous.

Time for the judicial branch to weigh in, perhaps? Not that I have high hopes for SCOTUS, either, these days, but, surely, surely, the Senate Republicans can't just get away with this? This crowd seems determined to destroy our country.

[MarcA]

6. Hawley is as evil and dangerous as moscow mitch. n/t

[duforsure]

7. He could be in legal jeopardy

If he's involved in crimes going on with putin and trump and others from one or more other countries. Co-conspirator? Obstructing justice? I think he may be heading to prison for his actions.He's got to know that too, and scared.

[onetexan]

20. By "he" you're referring to Mcconnell?

Mcconnell is guilty as sin, no doubt.

[cstanleytech]

8. Question is can they do it? By that I mean can they be forced to hold the trial all over again

if the House formally submits them after the Republicans hold their fake trial that they are trying to use to protect Trump.

[getagrip_already]

13. I would guess no... once they vote to dismiss....

It's done. As long as they are voting on the current articles that is.

Of course, new articles, and a new vote would be required.

But the problem is fatigue. The gop has the country so numb to outrageous behavior they think they can do anything and get away with it.

They might be right in a way. At least until election day.

[Kablooie]

9. What is this nuclear option they talk about?

Setting off nuclear options seems to be popular with everyone nowadays.

[OhNo-Really]

14. 51 votes. Majority not 2/3rds I think

[getagrip_already]

16. eliminating the fillibuster was always referred to as a nuclear option....

It takes 60 votes to end a fillibuster under current rules. Some bills can't be fillibustered, but most can.

That's just a senate rule though. They can change rules at their will. But it was considered so extreme that the other party would cause all business to grind to a halt. Scorched earth parliamentary tactics and no holds barred payback when power shifts.

So neither party has wanted to do it. Though the gop has eroded it with judicial nominations.

[onenote]

37. It's a procedure to circumvent the rules.

It works like this: The Majority Leader raises a "point of order" asserting that a particular Senate Rule doesn't apply to a particular situation. For example, the Senate Rule requiring 60 votes for cloture in the case of a judicial nomination. The Parliamentarian rules against the point of order because, well, the rules don't contain any such exception. The Majority Leader then makes a motion to overrule the Parliamentarian and that motion is passed by a simple majority.

The effect is to change the Senate rules (i) without actually amending the text of the rules and (ii) by a simple majority.

Reid used this to get around cloture for judicial nominations other than SCOTUS. McConnell used it to get around cloture for SCOTUS and executive branch nominations.

The idea is that McConnell could raise a point of order that the rule requiring 2/3 vote to change the rules doesn't apply to changing the rules governing impeachment. When the Parliamentarian rules that it does apply, McConnell moves to overrule, gets 51 votes and, presto chango, it only takes 51 votes to change the Senate Rule so that the Senate can act on a House impeachment resolution without having to wait for it to be formally presented. (A variation on this would simply have McConnnelll raise as a point of order that the Senate rules do not bar the Senate from acting on an impeachment resolution before it is delivered and, then overrule the Parliamentarian when he disagrees with that interpretation.)

[geretogo]

10. In 30's Germany Hitler and the Nazi's wiped their ass's with their Constitution and Moscow Mitch and

the Dictator with the GOP are a carbon copy of the Nazi terrorists .

[Moostache]

44. Then I hope they get their Nuremberg Trials as well... (n/t)

[Firestorm49]

11. It's going to be a sham trial anyway. We all know that.

We should have thrown the book at him. At least every other repulsive thing that he’s done would have been on record.

[madamesilverspurs]

15. Convenient.

[samnsara]

17. wonder what roberts says about that

[COLGATE4]

36. Nothing

Roberts' only rule in impeachment is to preside over the trial in the Senate. Nothing else. He's a figurehead, just like Rehnquist was in Clinton's impeachment trial. He (Rehnquist) said the only thing of substance he did was to have a new robe made for the occasion.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

18. Pelosi could announce that she'll send the Articles to the Senate on February 5

the day after the SOTU. That gets rid of the GOP argument that they're going to hold the sham trial because the Speaker won't send the Articles over, but gives the Dems the pleasure of watching an impeached president give the SOTU. If Moscow Mitch gets his way, Fat Donnie will use the entire SOTU claiming total exoneration.

[Moostache]

45. C'mon....2 Scoops will do more than just claim exoneration...

He will struggle like mad to read, he will try to sound serious and it will come across as somnolent, he will sniff, sniff, sniff and sweat like a marathon runner. He will slur, preen and be his usual obnoxious self regardless.

Basically, like yesterday's disaster all over again and with the usual shitbaggery to boot...

[jmbar2]

61. Voila - a new drinking game

Gotta take a gulp for every sniff from Sniffles the Clown.

[Moostache]

62. That is guaranteed alcohol poisoning!!! (n/t)

[Baitball Blogger]

19. Just imagine what they'll do when they own the courts.

[keithbvadu2]

22. "when they own the courts."

Judges loyal to the administration

Roland Freisler - Hitler’s Screaming Nazi Judge

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/roland-freisler-hitlers-screaming-nazi-judge.html

However, because of the sound reproduction issues due to Freisler's screaming unbalancing the microphones, his vulgar abuses and his degrading former esteemed high ranking officers, the films were hardly shown
-------------------------------

Roland Freisler and Nazi Sham Trials

A louder Lindsey Graham saying they helped the enemy by speaking out against Dear Leader and his administration.

[UCmeNdc]

21. Isn't this against the constitution?

[FiveGoodMen]

34. What influence does the Constitution still have on our government?

[OMGWTF]

51. THIS!!!

[Shrek]

71. No

Once the articles are passed by the House, the Senate controls the process. There's no Constitutionally prescribed way for doing it.

[TeamPooka]

23. Backlash

[bluestarone]

24. My question is

How can you hold a trial on NOTHING? (no articles no reason?)

[Shrek]

69. It's not nothing

Unless you want to claim that Trump isn't impeached yet. But he is, because the House voted the articles and it's a matter of public record.

That being the case, the Senate can assert its sole power to try the impeachment.

[Mr.Bill]

25. They don't have 51 votes for this.

That's why McConnell sponsored the resolution, but didn't initiate it. He'll never let it go to a vote.

[Mme. Defarge]

43. Yes, I think this may be the case.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. It would be the end of US Constitution, Rule of Law that began with Magna Carta

Civilized peoples have fought dictatorship, kingship, authoritarianism, whatever name you choose to label it, for more than 800 years. We barely have public discourse on contentious matters anymore, now we can't even consider them or have a vote on them. It's all the same, elites over the people, exploitation, control, absolute power. It's as predictable a form of human organization as beehives for bees, or ant colonies for ants.

[bhcodem]

30. Just send one of the two articles

Read a suggestion today that the House just send over the article about obstruction that really doesn't need witnesses and keep the one about his misuse of power in the Ukraine situation back for later. Viable idea?

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. Pelosi has set the perfect trap

If McConnell actually follows through, and can get 51 votes (2/3 not required, the Hill is wrong), and the GOP actually dismisses the articles before Pelosi transmits them, they will lose the majority in 2020.

If they do indeed dismiss, and then Pelosi sends the articles over, what’s Moscow Mitch gonna do then?

[maxsolomon]

48. Why will they lose the majority?

Because voters will be angry 11 months from now?

[Orrex]

32. McConnell should die of a massive coronary in the next 20 minutes

I certainly don't wish anyone to act violently against him, but if his evil little heart were to explode, I would dance with joy for days.

And then I will plan my road trip to wherever they entomb his vile corpse so that I can shit on it.

[FiveGoodMen]

35. Hearts don't explode on cue

Our whole problem is that we can't or won't take action.

We just keep hoping we'll get lucky somehow.

[Orrex]

56. I can't endorse violence against him, however tempting. Nevertheless...

When an entrenched, cancerous power eliminates all legal, non-violent means of holding them accountable, the people will find other means of holding them accountable.

[AllyCat]

38. Unconstitutional

These people have really never read the Constitution. Ever.

[forthemiddle]

67. How is changing Senate rules Unconstitutional?

This would just change the rule that the Senate doesn’t have to wait for the Articles of Impeachment to be formally presented.
There will still be a trial, regardless of how one sided that trial may be.
I honestly don’t think McConnell is stupid enough not to go through the motions. He will just hold a press conference every day reiterating his claim that they are following the same rules as they did with Clinton.

[AncientGeezer]

72. What part of the Constitution does it violate?

[many a good man]

40. Leverage

Nancy should disinvite Trump from giving the SOTU address in her House if McConnell doesn't allow testimony and documents

[Still In Wisconsin]

41. They have NO bottom.

Moscow McTurtle again demonstrates, when you think they can't get their noses any further up Trump's ass, they do.

[TeamPooka]

46. Those campaign ads just write themselves in a situation like this

[Botany]

47. Changing the rules in order to protect a felon.

Go for it guys. But please remember that you can't be for Trump and for America because they are mutually exclusive.

[berni_mccoy]

50. It's an empty threat. He doesn't have the votes for it.

[Rollerman]

52. I thought Senate rules could only be changed at the beginning of the each Session. n/t

[Shrek]

70. See post 37 in this thread

It's not a change to the standing rules, but rather a procedural gimmick to assert that the standing rules aren't applicable to these specific circumstances.

[Brainfodder]

54. ...needs 2/3 to change, I think we can relax?

Just Moscow Mitch presenting possibilities for their whatevers to chew on?

Although... for a nuclear option, I want to hear their pathetic reasoning/lame excuses, because it's not looking good for them at all.

[regnaD kciN]

55. It only takes 50+Pence...

...to invoke the nuclear option, then 50+Pence to dismiss the charges.

Trump is desperate to get it over in time for the SOTU, so he can take a victory lap and declare "TOTAL EXONERATION" on national television as Republicans jump to their feet for a standing ovation and Democrats are forced to look on silently.

If I were Democrats, I'd boycott the event.

[StevieM]

58. At least we would get something out of that.

We would get an end to the Senate filibuster.

The Democrats would probably never be willing to do the right thing and get rid of it on their own.

[Brainfodder]

60. Yeah I thought time pressure for SOTU was in this madness!

Just digging a deeper hole slowly, but surely.

Moscow Mitch gonna go down kicking and screaming like a turtle?

[stillcool]

57. No consequences...

they can do whatever they want, and they do.

[Sparky 1]

59. If it weren't for bad news, we'd have no news at all.

[Maxheader]

68. Wonder what stumpy has done to mitch the bitch..

To get such undieing support?...Ivy league colleges for all mitches kids..?

I mean, mitch used to be somewhat combative over certain issues that
the yellow haired traitor has championed...Now, all cheetoz has to do
is tickle mckonel behind the ear a little and his mouth opens and teeth
fold back....