Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has locked down sufficient backing in his 53-member caucus to pass a blueprint for the trial that leaves the question of seeking witnesses and documents until after opening arguments are made, according to multiple senators.
That could set the stage for a quicky trial with no witnesses and an acquittal after opening arguments.
As Zerohedge puts it:
There have been no discussions between McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who can go pound sand as talks seem unlikely.
The next step will to change Senate rules to allow a trial to begin without a "formal" transmittal of the articles--something that Lindsey Graham flatly stated on Sunday that the GOP will seek to do. IMO, Pelosi's idea of dictating terms to the Senate by holding them hostage was always bound to fail, being an affront to the Senate's sense of their own dignity and importance.
In a no-witness trial, I wonder if the Senate could demand production of transcripts of witness interviews Schiff is still withholding. That would not be a production of new witnesses, only a disclosure of work product that lead to the articles of impeachment. It would let the GOP turn the "what do you have to hide" argument Schumer has been trying back onto the Dems.
ReplyDeleteMy assumption is that the answer is: No. Just as the House can't dictate how the Senate decides to run the trial.
DeleteWouldn't the POTUS "defense team" have the right to subpoena potentially exculpatory evidence -- including testimonial transcripts -- in possession of the House committee that took the testimony?
DeleteIF the subpoena were approved by the Senate, it would set up an amusing legal battle between Schiff/Pelosi and the Senate. The House would in essence go to court to argue that the POTUS has no right to potentially exculpatory evidence collected by the bozos who Impeached him!
I'm not enough of a constitutional expert--not at all, in fact--to answer that definitively. I've never heard of one house subpoenaing the other. Congressional subpoena power is more limited than a grand jury--at least that's my understanding. Maybe I need to read up on that.
DeleteAs a practical matter, I think what would happen is that the Senate would simply subpoena the witnesses themselves.
The model here is unique. It is not a grand/petit jury kind of situation because Senators try impeachment as the judges, not as a jury. It’s not even like an administrative proceeding where a political agency acts as adjudicator. With the way the House has acted it most resembles a civil case, where one side seeks not justice (like every prosecutor is sworn to do) but its own private interest.
DeleteNormally one would expect the House to develop a record with testimony establishing a claim, together with anything that might rebut or mitigate the case. But here there were no charges being investigated — just a situation. The P
I like that!
DeleteThis is off topic but reports are that CNN settled with Nick Sandmann. It's good news, if true.
ReplyDeleteI saw that. Very good news. No details, but since they settled before anyone else I'm betting it was for a pretty healthy amount of money.
DeleteWelcome to our dealership Mr. Sandman. So, beemers for you AND your classmates?
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Delete