Senate "Motion to Dismiss"

S

Snarkhund

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-impeachment-trump-pelosi

I though the Senate was obligated to conduct an impeachment trial if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Wrong.

The Senate, upon perceiving a total lack of evidence of impeachable offenses, can vote for a Motion to Dismiss and not conduct any Senate trial whatsoever.

Apparently you cannot just send a nothing-burger up to the Senate and expect action. It might just be shit canned immediately, the very definition of Dead on Arrival.

Clever Founders. They seem to have anticipated a rogue House of Representatives and put protections in place.
 
Snarkhund said:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-impeachment-trump-pelosi

I though the Senate was obligated to conduct an impeachment trial if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Wrong.

The Senate, upon perceiving a total lack of evidence of impeachable offenses, can vote for a Motion to Dismiss and not conduct any Senate trial whatsoever.

Apparently you cannot just send a nothing-burger up to the Senate and expect action. It might just be shit canned immediately, the very definition of Dead on Arrival.

Clever Founders. They seem to have anticipated a rogue House of Representatives and put protections in place.
More...

I'm sure the idea of "motion to dismiss" was around when the clever founders were alive.

Keep coping, Donnie is getting his sham acquittal in the Senate
 
Whatever. Dismiss it or hang the guy - get on with the show so we can all start to focus on solving issues that need solving in this country.
 
Here4money said:
I'm sure the idea of "motion to dismiss" was around when the clever founders were alive.

Keep coping, Donnie is getting his sham acquittal in the Senate
More...


These two need a support group. www.meetup.com

2019-12-05_12-39-52.png
 
Last edited:
Oh wow, talk about grasping at straws. One minor little thing, on obstruction alone he has dug his own grave.

Beware Goppers, the Cali Dems made all the straws soggy recyclable paper.
 
Snarkhund said:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-impeachment-trump-pelosi

I though the Senate was obligated to conduct an impeachment trial if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Wrong.
More...

You have to get into the legal weeds a bit to understand why this discussion about whether the Senate must take up impeachment articles has seemingly waivered back and forth.

One of the keys to understanding it is to understand that there is a legal difference between the Senate getting rid of the impeachment by just doing nothing versus getting rid of it by passing a motion to dismiss.

At one point some conservatives were alleging that Mitch could just refuse to take up the impeachment referral from the House and let it die by just doing nothing. This led to all sorts of pushbacks- probably valid- that the Senate cannot do that and still be meeting its constitutional obligations. So, in that sense, the Senate is obligated to proceed with the articles of impeachment by starting the process, although that does not establish in and of itself how long or substantial a trial must be. Either through motions to dismiss or just calling immediately for a floor vote, the Senate could properly receive the articles from the House but blow them out of the water the hour they open the trial phase. Again, no requirement for a full lengthy trial. You know there are political risks and costs to doing certain things but just sayin it is not a constitutional requirement.

So in one sense- yes- the Senate is obligated to take up the case by officially receiving and processing it and disposing of it. But in another sense it is not obligated to have a trial if there are sufficient votes to dispose of it right up front or at any time in the trial. Similarly, in a criminal trial a judge may order a dismissal upfront just on the basis of the arguments in the briefs, or he may order a hearing on just the dismissal, or he may let the trial proceed to get more information before he rules on the motion to dismiss. Different possibilities. Might be a little different in an impeachment because the senators have the power to just call for a vote whenever they have heard enough, rather than a dismissal. And "enough" might be five minutes in or five weeks.

Anyway, I think that is why this question of the senate must or must not have a trial gets convoluted. Depends on whether they are discussing whether the senate must take up the impeachments versus whether they have the right to dismissal once they do take them up. Yes, they probably must take it up, And yes, they have the right to maneuver to end it any time they have the votes.
 
The guy is not going to be removed from office through impeachment. Just like how his tax records will never see the light of day until after he is out of office.

Deal with it. It is up to the voters to vote him out a year from now.
 
The Senate should have a trial. It is potentially a high risk, high reward move, but regardless of the ultimate outcome, the Republicans should maintain some credibility. With a trial, there is potential to expose corruption on the part of key Democrats. Perhaps the ultimate outcome will be which side wins a battle of wits. The truth is out there, but if Republicans are too stupid to figure it out or are complicit themselves, let nature take its course.

Edit: Besides, a little subpoena power could be fun.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top