Serious question. If McConnell blocks requested witnesses, can what the Senate is abt to do be called a trial? Does it meet the Constitutional standard for one?
When lawyers argue in front of SCOTUS, w/no witnesses, it is called "arguments." Not a trial.
When lawyers argue in front of SCOTUS, w/no witnesses, it is called "arguments." Not a trial.
Is there an example in our legal system of something called a trial happening w/o witnesses? Isn't the whole point of a trial to hear from witnesses?
My question - can the House challenge the Constitutionality of McConnell's plan as something which fails to qualify as a trial?
My question - can the House challenge the Constitutionality of McConnell's plan as something which fails to qualify as a trial?
Constitution requires a "trial" not "arguments" or debate. Trials have witnesses. Thus, McConnell has no choice other than to allow witnesses or he isn't meeting the Constitutional requirement to have a trial.
The Senate has conducted 15 Impeachment trials in its history. All have had witnesses.
