President Trump is an urgent danger to our national security, but the House has gone home for Christmas with the articles of impeachment against him sitting in a drawer somewhere. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can make his demands, but there’s no trial until those articles are brought to the Senate floor. How long the House plans to hold onto them is anyone’s guess.
Bradley A. Blakeman, an adjunct professor of public policy and international affairs at Georgetown University and a Fox News contributor, says in The Hill there’s no need for a trial, and not just because he considers the House articles of impeachment “defective” for not meeting the constitutional threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
"There's no requirement — nor need — for an actual trial in the Senate" via @TheHillOpinion https://t.co/vGtHiMe1Rw pic.twitter.com/v6AQx885tU
— The Hill (@thehill) December 23, 2019
Blakeman actually lays out five scenarios, including a “nuclear option”:
And then there is a “nuclear option.” The Senate majority could make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020. That would allow the American people to decide the president’s fate at the ballot box. The Constitution is silent as to when a trial should occur, timewise. A simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary to pass such a motion.
No matter how the Senate deals with its “trial” obligations, the outcome does not change. The president either will be cleared by the impeachment articles being dismissed without the necessity of a trial or acquitted after a trial.
Blakeman also thinks there’s a way the Senate can have its cake and eat it too:
I believe the Senate can have its cake and eat it too. The Senate can dismiss the articles of impeachment on a procedural motion. Then, when the dust settles, the Senate Judiciary Committee through its chairman, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) could hold hearings to show what a “witch-hunt” the House process was. He can, in effect, conduct his own trial to “acquit” the president through Senate hearings. This would allow hearings to be conducted at the exact time that Democrats are seeking their party’s nomination for president — one of whom could be called to testify.
Recommended
Now that’s a scenario we’d like to see.
Why bother. Dems will just bring another. Kill this in Senate now. If not warranted don’t do anything but a dismissal https://t.co/ePZDY6BsXm
— Debra Collard (@DebraCollard1) December 23, 2019
<cool. confirm more judges>https://t.co/O58wTqm8Tn
— DrainTheSwamp ⏲ (@DrainedTheSwamp) December 23, 2019
Related:
A sham? Sen. Chuck Schumer afraid it will appear ‘a sham trial’ if Senate doesn’t call witnesses https://t.co/O2MvMb50IY
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 23, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member