,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Now that McConnell is firmly on the record saying the Senate rules require that an impeachment be taken up, it's worth reviewing what that means---because it doesn't mean there's a guarantee of a final guilty/notguilty vote in the Senate. 1/
First, my long thread from yesterday on whether a House impeachment compels the Senate to take it up.
As noted in that thread, the SENATE is free to change its rules, under the super-majority process contemplated in the rules. So regardless of what McConnell says, the rules could always be changed.
Second, the rules could be reinterpreted and a new precedent set, by a majority. Lots of options here. As @nielslesniewski pointed out, one easy way to dispose of impeachment prior to a trial would be to set a precedent that the motion to table was in order against the articles.
As I discussed, either of those (rules change by supermajority or new precedent by majority) would require Senate action and, if demanded, at least one vote. Tabling the articles of impeachment would indeed be "taking them up." But wouldn't be a trial as normally thought of.
A further possibility is that a trial would begin, but would immediately be subject to a motion to dismiss. Byrd moved such a motion in 1999 (it failed). That would short-circuit an impeachment trial short of a final adjudication on the merits, but would satisfy "taking it up."
Yet another possibility would be a Senate resolution clarifying the terms of the trial. Two resolutions did this in 1999 (S. 16 an S.30). Such resolutions could provide for very limited length trial.
All of these things are possible. My personal view, however, is that a trial would be more dignified and in line with past practice than most liberal onlookers expect. There are incentives for the GOP to both conform to custom (hold a regular trial) and use it to their advantage.
Again, see my thread from yesterday for more on this.
