Stupid Question: Is the reason the Senate wouldn't begin an Impeachment until the 19th

[Nexus2]

due to actual logical or procedural reason or just Mitch being Mitch?

[relayerbob]

1. They are in recess. To get back into session requires 100% Senator agreement

They won't get that, and he knows it.

And it's an excellent question

[Eyeball_Kid]

3. So let's see the vote, Mitch. That's why it's all bullshit.

The nation is hanging over the abyss and Mitch is concerned about... RECESS???

Is this crazy?

Mitch should call for a vote, and remind people what the issue is and what it isn't. Then let the GOPers go on the record.

Mitch can also cancel the recess!

Mitch is a coward.

[Silent3]

7. Is that absolutely true?

I'd think their must be rules for emergency situations (and this is definitely that) which could be invoked if McConnell were serious about this and not fucking around.

[mitch96]

2. Mc Turtle is "busy"....... nt

[StarfishSaver]

4. It's a valid procedural reason Republicans could get around if they wanted to

[pat_k]

5. Trial unlikely to start until after Jan 23. Vote will be to remove benefits and. . .

prevent him from running again.

Warnock and Ossoff should be sworn by Jan 23. (Certification deadline is 1/22.) I doubt the Senate trial will get going until they are sworn and Dem majority leader is selected and new rules for running things are in place.

Since he will already be out of office, it's my understanding that the following would be the consequences of Senate conviction:

Loss of benefits under the Former Presidents Act (pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection)

Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (i.e., couldn't run again)

[former9thward]

8. This is no automatic penalty for conviction.

The Senate decides what, if any, penalty there is.

[pat_k]

10. Got it. Thanks!

[former9thward]

6. All Senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted unanimously to adjourn to the 19th.

Per Senate rules to reconvene there would have to be a unanimous vote before the 19th.

[relayerbob]

9. Yes, thank you

Sad as it seems, the rule of law means we must follow rules.

In any case, it's unlikely the House will have the Articles of Impeachment over to them before Jan 18.

[Kablooie]

11. At least it would mean the trial would take place under Schumer's supervision.

It would still take 17 Republicans to vote to convict and there would probably be a legal complaint from Trump that he couldn't be impeached after he left office which would have to be decided by SCOTUS.

[pat_k]

12. I don't think trial after his term is a problem.

I think the Senate has the power to decide whether to hold a trial on the articles, and how to conduct it. Within the bounds of the constitution, the Senate sets up the rules under which it runs itself.

Removal from office isn't the only consequence, so a trial held after he is gone is not "moot." It is my understanding that, if they choose to, they could:

Take away his benefits under the Former Presidents Act (pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection)

Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (i.e., couldn't run again)

(As another poster pointed out to me, these punishments are at the discretion of the Senate. I was under the misapprehension that they were automatic with conviction.)

Warnock and Ossoff should be sworn by 1/23 (deadline for certification is 1/22). It will take them a bit to get themselves set up with new leader and any changes to the rules of the Senate, so I don't expect to see a trial earlier than the last week of Jan.