Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

Pelosi definitely has proven to be the Speaker of the Senate as well as the Speaker of the House. Like always, when the Democrats are the majority, the Democrats lead. When the Republicans have the majority, the Democrats lead.

Even so, the idea that Pelosi must, or even can, present managers is absurd. McConnell should have - should still since the House hasn't done their fancy, ceremonious, delivery - simply hold the trial. The impeachment is a fact and is attested to by the Congressional Record. Nothing in the Constitution says that the House must deliver the articles or that the Senate must receive them. The deed is done. McConnell should have acted on it. And, while at it, change the Senate rules and don't let the House have any part - as stated in the Constitution - in the trial. Managers, my rear-end.

 

Here are the actual Senate rules for impeachment trials. Read 'em and weep.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

And remember:

 

Actually, they can. We all have the right to a speedy trial, according to the Sixth Amendment.

 

That only applies to criminal cases. Try again.

 

Hope springs eternal.

White House expects GOP defections on calling witnesses in Senate impeachment trial
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeac...an-gop-defections-new-witnesses-senate-trial/

 

High crimes don't count?

 

No, it means that the House is full of angry lying Democrats only willing to inpeach because they have the media lying to the American people for them.

That said i want witnesses, all of the witnesses. Mandatory whistleblower testimony. I don't think there even was one..

 

What did the phrase "high crimes" mean in 1789? Hint: not what you seem to think it means 231 years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

Here's a little hint from the owners manual as to why impeachment is not a criminal - or even a legal - matter, and therefore the BOR doesn't apply:

Article One Section III Clause vii

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

I like your way of putting it. But I think this only happens now because the Republicans don't have a real leader. Usually it would be the President. But Trump is the leader of his base only. Not of his Party, not of the country, and certainly not of the world. As any other Republican President would have been expected to be. Nobody even expects this from Trump.

Not sure about this last part. Pelosi has exerted all the influence she can exert. But she has to leave it to the Senate to botch the process, if they so choose to do. Not botch it herself because that could get Republicans off the hook.

We'll see what she does. But she has shown so far that she owns Republicans. Let's see for how long she can keep this up. I don't always trust her judgement, but this time she appears to have them cornered, and they're not sure what to do now. She spoiled their plans to just have the articles summarily dismissed as soon as they received them, so there would not be any sort of public debate about them. At a minimum, she milked almost a month of extra debate out of them.

Well done, Madam Speaker!

 

So you don't agree with Moscow Mitch. Good!

Yeah... they can call whomever you want. The whistleblower could even be brought anonymously by using some sort of "screen" and voice modifying software... or something to protect his identity, as the law and basic human decency requires. In fact, I'd enjoy very much seeing Republicans going to all the trouble and then, when they have him/her in front of them, not knowing what to ask.

If would be quite a spectacle. But I'd be fine with that so long as the witnesses who are relevant also appear.

 

John Bolton’s testimony looks increasingly likely, but it’s not a done deal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/14/will-john-bolton-actually-testify/

"We learned Monday that the Senate isn’t going to have the votes to immediately dismiss the impeachment articles, as Trump has suggested. And now Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has reportedly come out in favor of holding votes on new witnesses or documents, meaning those votes should happen.

That means we can now turn to other matters like Bolton.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) this week became the first to directly indicate he supports Trump’s former national security adviser testifying and would likely vote in favor of it. And despite declining to insist on Bolton’s testimony as part of the trial’s initial rules, two others appear amenable to voting for witnesses like Bolton during the trial."

Susan Collins working with a "small group" of GOP senators to allow witnesses in impeachment trial
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-susan-collins-gop-senators-small-group-witnesses/

Collins has made overtures to act like a responsible member of the Senate before only to roll over for Trumpery. We'll see.

 

What??

Then the terms "high crimes and misdemeanors" is erroneous. What they are calling impeachment is nothing more than a consensus of unlike minded individuals who disagree.

You've got to be misunderstanding. Getting rid of a sitting president for those reasons is detrimental to the nation. There is by no means any reason to believe the founding fathers would have meant that.

 

nope, the whistle blower if there is one has the responsibility to face the one or she is accusing.
Trump has the absolute right to face his accuser.

at this point the republicans should just push through an acquittal after how house democrats have behaved republicans owe them nothing whatsoever, nothing more for complete justice is needed.

 

Impeachment is a personnel action. If you get fired for committing a criminal act on the job, you're still going to be on the hook with the criminal justice system after you're fired. But criminality is far from the only reason for firing someone, ain't it? I'm really finding it difficult to understand why you're having a hard time grasping this.

 

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. For example, Chief Justice John Marshall when writing about the phrase "levying war" said, "It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/mi...-republican-caucus-for-the-motion-to-dismiss/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Tuesday admitted that there is “little to no sentiment in the Republican caucus” supporting a motion to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

At a press conference, McConnell told reporters that the Senate impeachment trial will likely begin next Tuesday.

“There is little to no sentiment in the Republican caucus for the motion to dismiss,” McConnell said.

 

He was elected by the people and for the people. He cannot be fired. He can be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanors of a high nature. These are crimes against the nation and it's people. If you want to know what they meant, go back to the original papers. Don't bother with what they said in the twentieth century.

 

that's fine i have no problem with a trial, doesn't change the fact that the democrats are frauds and this case is BS, at least as they have presented it.

 

Honestly wondering if the obtuseness is real or just trolling...

 

No, it doesn't mean there's sufficient evidence for a trial. It just means that a hyper-partisan Democrat House majority had enough votes to impeach.

This is why the Senate should simply dismiss the the impeachment with their own majority vote. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

How lame can excuse be??

Pelosi only stalled because she and other Democrats knew that trump will continue to hang himself

the reason for trump being impeached is trump himself

any defense of him is lame

 

No. The whistleblower simply did their job. They reported something they found "odd" which is in their job description. So he's protected by law.

He is also protected by basic human decency. And I don't expect a Trump supporter to understand that, but to make a government bureaucrat a target of the gun nuts on the right is immoral.

The whistleblower is not his accuser.

 

basic human decency? House democrats don't have an ounce of it..

 

If they proved him guilty there place of entry was the House. The House impeaches and then brings their impeachment case to the Senate, the Senate is not supposed to make it for them. The trial is only about whether the Articles of Impeachment warrant removal. What is the evidence the Democrats left out and why did they still say their case is overwhelming and conclusive and indisputable if you are saying it isn't.

 

Yes, Google is your friend. Using it, you can get the Constitutional rules for impeachment:

Those are the only required rules for impeachment and trial. Any other rules can be changed by either house, regarding their respective role in the process. McConnell should have started the trial immediately after Pelosi refused to do the thing she was required to do.