Legal analyst explains why House impeachment manager must end Senate trial before GOP acquits Trump:

[bdamomma]

https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/legal-analyst-explains-why-house-impeachment-manager-must-end-senate-trial-before-gop-acquits-trump-move-for-a-mistrial/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3638

snip of article

NBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner on Sunday addressed the possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts could declare a mistrial before Republicans in the Senate acquit President Donald Trump on impeachment charges on Wednesday.

Kirshner argued that House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff could call for a mistrial even though such a move is not contemplated in Senate rules.


“I wish Schiff WOULD make a motion for a mistrial based on, among other things, the revelation of [Pat] Cipollone’s grossly unethical conduct/conflicts of interest,” Kirshner wrote on Twitter, referring to allegations that the president’s attorney witnessed presidential high crimes.




What's your feedback on this "mistrial"

[crickets]

1. Psst. Linky error.

[bdamomma]

2. oops sorry about

that, I guess my mind is overloaded.

[crickets]

3. NP, it's been a long day...

Re the article, I do wish there were some way to call Cipollone on the carpet for his blatant dishonesty and lack of ethics. It's obvious that if witnesses were called, which they should have been, he would have qualified as a material witness. Somebody should see him censured or disbarred over this eventually, but it really ought to be made part of the official record.

And this is before he (and the rest of the WH team) started spewing intentional lies to mislead the public.

As for stopping the trial or calling for a mistrial, well... it's not gonna happen.

[onenote]

4. He can wish all he wants. Not going to happen.

Schumer is getting advice from folks with a greater sense of impeachment history and better political instincts than Kirshner has. Roberts would simply do one of two things (most likely the former): rule that he doesn't have the authority to declare a "mistrial" or simply refer the motion to the full Senate, which is the arbiter of all things relating to an impeachment trial.

Think about it for a minute: if the Democratic House impeached, a Supreme Court Justice (Kavanaugh?) and it went to the Senate for trial, do you really want Mike Pence (or any Republican Senator designated as the President Pro Tem) with the power to declare that the Democrats prosecuting the case have committed some sort of offense warranting a mistrial? Because if Roberts has the power that Kirshner says he has, then so does Pence or the President Pro Tem in any non-Presidential impeachment.