General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

78. Tribe answers that too

Thu Dec 19, 2019, 10:55 AM

Dec 2019

It isn't a criminal trial. But let's play that game.

The district attorney goes to the grand jury to get an indictment. Once they get that indictment, they can take it to the court.

Except that in that model, the House is both grand jury and prosecutor. But the Senate is both judge and jury.

The court can't just say, "Well, we're starting the trial on Joe Blow now."

They absolutely can. The prosecution doesn't set trial dates... both the prosecution and defendant ask the judge for what they want and the judge decides. If the prosecution says "we can't be ready by then"... the judge absolutely can say "tough luck". And if they don't show up when the court tells them to... the court can dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.

They have to wait for the prosecutor to file the case.

No they don't. If there's an indictment, the accused can go to court and claim the right to a speedy trial. If the prosecution needs more time, they have to convince the judge that it's warranted.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Laurence Tribe : the Senate can't require the House, to "immediately" whatever is [View all] syringis Dec 2019 OP

That's a non-unique argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #1

If they don't have any Articles, they can't hold a trial shawn703 Dec 2019 #2

Sez who? FBaggins Dec 2019 #3

Sez logic. If you don't have something you can't use it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #8

The articles are public FBaggins Dec 2019 #12

Without a management team delivering the Articles, the senate has ... UpInArms Dec 2019 #28

Sez who? FBaggins Dec 2019 #34

Exactly DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 2019 #60

One error there FBaggins Dec 2019 #64

You may be correct DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 2019 #82

I read this on another post here on DU. RE: the rules.......... napi21 Dec 2019 #208

Not much wrong in there... but also nothing that rebuts the argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #209

So your thinking is that... Eyeball_Kid Dec 2019 #72

"They would sully their own integrity" Moscow Mitch cares about money and power not integrity & ... uponit7771 Dec 2019 #211

No jury has a right to try until they have been given the charge by the prosecutors (HOUSE). Logic. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #89

Untrue FBaggins Dec 2019 #93

Fine. No COURT has a right to try until they have been given the charge by the prosecutors (HOUSE). Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #96

Already answered FBaggins Dec 2019 #101

Then the Senate could say impeachment didn't happen. dumbcat Dec 2019 #190

... until the House actually tenders it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #204

The Senate can't say that... but the House might FBaggins Dec 2019 #210

You're missing the point. syringis Dec 2019 #23

Absolutely! FBaggins Dec 2019 #57

If the impeachment process is still ongoing, wnylib Dec 2019 #77

Each impeachment is it's own thing FBaggins Dec 2019 #88

Of course we don't want to overshadow our wnylib Dec 2019 #100

That's very interesting. That the House can't add Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2019 #141

Sorry.. they CAN add a new Article FBaggins Dec 2019 #144

Well guess Mueller findings ship has sailed. Too many Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2019 #148

But delaying the inevitable doesn't change anything Recursion Dec 2019 #99

Also, by the way, sez Laurance Tribe Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #54

Your "appeal to authority" fallacy is accepted FBaggins Dec 2019 #59

It's not an appeal to authority. It's data for a claim. And it's solid data. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #69

Which takes us full circle FBaggins Dec 2019 #74

That's a whole different argument. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #85

Not really FBaggins Dec 2019 #98

I don't think they need a justification. Have never heard they do. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #108

"The Senate does not try impeachments" ??? FBaggins Dec 2019 #112

Right. My miswording. The House impeaches. The Senate tries the impeachment to remove (or not). Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #115

Sigh FBaggins Dec 2019 #117

There are clear Senate rules that state they have to wait Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #120

That was actually a correction of Tribe FBaggins Dec 2019 #145

Tribe also said that the travel ban was unconstitutional. SlimJimmy Dec 2019 #215

You mean the one courts rejected as unconsitutional? Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #216

Also, I don't know why you are flexing so hard on McConnel/RW talking points. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #121

I'm not. I haven't seen any RW argument on the matter at all. FBaggins Dec 2019 #146

What do you think the "trial" would look like with no managers and no Chief Justice? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #125

Sorry... it's an unsupportable fantasy that Roberts would take Pelosi's side FBaggins Dec 2019 #147

That's not "taking Pelosi's side." StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #156

It would be in Tribe's imagined scenario FBaggins Dec 2019 #161

Then answer me this: Karma13612 Dec 2019 #182

Whoever the Senate decides FBaggins Dec 2019 #186

They don't have the authority to end the H's investigation and decide the two articles pnwmom Dec 2019 #196

Nobody has said anything about controlling the House's ability to investigate FBaggins Dec 2019 #197

The Senate doesn't control the initiation of the impeachment. The House does. pnwmom Dec 2019 #200

"The Senate can't grab impeachment articles from the Internet and consider it all good." AncientGeezer Dec 2019 #217

Not a fallacious Appeal to Authority. Tribe makes cogent arguments which you have not refuted. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #91

It's not a fallacy when the person IS an authority and the poster is anything but. pnwmom Dec 2019 #126

That isn't how the "appeal to authority" fallacy works FBaggins Dec 2019 #131

I believe the House is involved in the Senate trial.. at least the Managers are. honest.abe Dec 2019 #163

That's the current model, yes FBaggins Dec 2019 #167

You got it!! LiberalFighter Dec 2019 #178

Cuthbert Allgood Upthevibe Dec 2019 #71

Senate rules require the trial to start after the House notifies them managers have been appointed StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #66

Two problems with that FBaggins Dec 2019 #76

The Senate rules don't require the House to do anything, much less do it "immediately" StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #86

Much closer FBaggins Dec 2019 #150

I'm not arguing that Tribe is wrong. I'm saying you are StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #164

Then you should re-read what you're replying to FBaggins Dec 2019 #169

Tribe says Senate rules "immediately" DON'T (DO NOT) apply to the House. Read that. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #94

Um... that was the point of the very first reply on the thread FBaggins Dec 2019 #149

Per the Constitution, they can't hold the trial without the House Managers, and there aren't any. nt pnwmom Dec 2019 #124

Per the constitution? FBaggins Dec 2019 #154

The House has the sole power of impeachment. pnwmom Dec 2019 #158

Note - They already did that FBaggins Dec 2019 #159

The impeachment case won't be turned over till the House managers are appointed. Without the case pnwmom Dec 2019 #162

There is no such rule FBaggins Dec 2019 #166

The Senate won't have the impeachment case that the House voted on unless the House sends it. pnwmom Dec 2019 #170

That's really an imaginary argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #173

They have the Articles. They were posted online and read on national TV Azathoth Dec 2019 #20

As I said elsewhere above, I'm going to go with Tribe over you. No offense. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #58

They don't "have" the articles StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #67

They have not officially been given the Articles. They are not officially given until separate House Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #97

What can the Senate do to force the House to turn over the case. Can there be a standoff. ancianita Dec 2019 #6

Tribe's correct that they can't do anything to force the House FBaggins Dec 2019 #9

The Senate has nothing to try. They have no genuine Articles of Impeachment until bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #11

Again... there is no such rule FBaggins Dec 2019 #14

I don't see it, or how it would play, or why any Supreme Court Justice would support it bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #18

And there you see the weakness of the argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #25

Sorry to barge in here but I think the problem with your scenario is Chief Justice Roberts. honest.abe Dec 2019 #81

Not a chance FBaggins Dec 2019 #90

Im not talking about a SCOTUS ruling.. just the interpretation of the standard procedures. honest.abe Dec 2019 #92

Notification to the Chief Justice does not come from House impeachment managers FBaggins Dec 2019 #103

Right, but clearly Roberts will know McConnell is playing games... honest.abe Dec 2019 #104

Um... let's not miss the obvious here FBaggins Dec 2019 #106

Pelosi's "game" is just fighting for a legitimate trial.. honest.abe Dec 2019 #107

You and I might see it that way FBaggins Dec 2019 #111

Roberts is a serious principled justice and would not want his legacy tainted.. honest.abe Dec 2019 #113

Good luck with that FBaggins Dec 2019 #116

He would simply be requesting that the Senate follow standard impeachment procedures.. honest.abe Dec 2019 #118

I think that it's fair to say that nobody realistically believed that the Senate would convict Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2019 #136

You shout it from the rooftops and hope that voters are paying attention FBaggins Dec 2019 #142

The Chief Justice is NOT going to "preside" over a "trial" with no House managers in a process that StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #127

You are misinterpreting the phrase "sole power" Fiendish Thingy Dec 2019 #160

Not at all FBaggins Dec 2019 #165

As this will be only the third impeachment trial in US history, there is little precedent Fiendish Thingy Dec 2019 #177

Your certainty is refuted by McConnell's own words: Fiendish Thingy Dec 2019 #181

I don't think you read that correctly FBaggins Dec 2019 #185

Thank you StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #172

Yes, there IS such a rule. Look it up. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #102

I think you missed the point FBaggins Dec 2019 #105

So it's to be assumed that those rules will be public. In writing. ancianita Dec 2019 #19

Of course FBaggins Dec 2019 #29

Got it. ancianita Dec 2019 #31

The Senate has no trial and hence no power Karma13612 Dec 2019 #184

That keeps getting repeated... but it never get's supported FBaggins Dec 2019 #188

The Senate has the power to try all Impeachments Karma13612 Dec 2019 #205

Yes, but... syringis Dec 2019 #13

And those core principles come from the Constitution FBaggins Dec 2019 #15

Not even! syringis Dec 2019 #43

In the universe? FBaggins Dec 2019 #45

You missed another point. syringis Dec 2019 #49

Sorry... I didn't see it as a language issue and didn't mean to imply that FBaggins Dec 2019 #53

How is the Senate going to impeach without the House? Farmer-Rick Dec 2019 #48

The Senate doesn't impeach... but I get the point FBaggins Dec 2019 #51

It's a trial. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #55

Tribe answers that too FBaggins Dec 2019 #78

I used the criminal trial analogy for the use of prosecutor/court. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #87

That goes back to my earlier point FBaggins Dec 2019 #109

I suspect that H2O Man Dec 2019 #139

Yeah. I wasn't trying to go too far into the analogy Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #140

Thanks. H2O Man Dec 2019 #168

Prosecutors CAN get sealed indictments FBaggins Dec 2019 #151

I understand and H2O Man Dec 2019 #171

So you know more than Prof. Tribe? I seriously doubt that. triron Dec 2019 #155

Speaker Pelosi is fully aware what can and can't be done. LiberalFighter Dec 2019 #176

I'm sure that she is FBaggins Dec 2019 #180

Moscow Mitch could shit in the floor and walk off and leave it, too. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #207

Frodo, I think you don't get how the rules favor the House in this case. Nitram Dec 2019 #214

Sorry, Mitch. 3Hotdogs Dec 2019 #4

Cute FBaggins Dec 2019 #5

Can additional charges be added? Scarsdale Dec 2019 #27

The House can vote new articles whenever they like. nt FBaggins Dec 2019 #30

Rep Nadler specifically entered "...including five days to make additions and corrections" FailureToCommunicate Dec 2019 #37

I doubt that they care FBaggins Dec 2019 #40

She will pass the Articles to the Senate when they are prepared to receive them. kentuck Dec 2019 #7

She could highlight the ludicrousness of McConnell's claim of lack of thoroughness by holding it JudyM Dec 2019 #174

Senate cannot create their own Articles of Impeachment bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #10

So you're saying that he hasn't been impeached? FBaggins Dec 2019 #17

I'm saying the process must be completed before it is official bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #21

Where is "the process"? FBaggins Dec 2019 #33

There are processes that must be followed to refer legislation passed by the House to the Senate StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #70

That's true FBaggins Dec 2019 #73

The House isn't preventing the Senate from trying the impeachment. It's totally up to the Senate StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #75

I"m missing the rock and hard place FBaggins Dec 2019 #84

She's forcing the Senate to lay out the process they plan to use before they're ready StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #110

She's insisting on it... she isn't forcing it. FBaggins Dec 2019 #114

They can't try the impeachment unless the House turns it over to them, and the House pnwmom Dec 2019 #179

What do you mean by "not finished with it" FBaggins Dec 2019 #183

He has been impeached on those two articles, but there's no Constitutional limit on the number pnwmom Dec 2019 #187

Nobody is arguing that the House can't keep investigating and/or impeach again FBaggins Dec 2019 #191

In addition, the Senate has rules and processes for accepting the articles from the House StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #68

Seems entirely logical FBaggins Dec 2019 #119

Of course the Senate can make its own rules StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #123

They would have all kinds of options FBaggins Dec 2019 #128

Sure, they can dismiss them. And Trump will never be able to say he was exonerated by the Senate, pnwmom Dec 2019 #189

We could try to spin it that way... and no doubt some would... FBaggins Dec 2019 #192

No, dismissal is NOT bigger. It only takes 51 votes to get a dismissal, but 67 to get a conviction. pnwmom Dec 2019 #194

You're applying the wrong comparison. FBaggins Dec 2019 #195

Let's pretend that Pelosi had already sent the articles. pnwmom Dec 2019 #198

Let's consider the reverse scenario FBaggins Dec 2019 #199

I have no idea. n/t pnwmom Dec 2019 #201

Good enough for me FBaggins Dec 2019 #202

Because of the nature of the charges and situation at the time TheRealNorth Dec 2019 #203

I am so glad Laurence Tribe is assisting the Team essentially... FarPoint Dec 2019 #16

+1 if ever there was a time for all hands on deck, this is it. Now we just need strong PR quips to JudyM Dec 2019 #175

Absolutely.... FarPoint Dec 2019 #193

If the House stalls in naming its Impeachment Managers Mr. Ected Dec 2019 #22

Yes, there can be a trial Azathoth Dec 2019 #26

I distinctly heard Nadler give everyone at least 5 days to UpInArms Dec 2019 #32

Which is not an issue FBaggins Dec 2019 #35

Without a clear and approved record, it cannot be transmitted UpInArms Dec 2019 #38

Repetition doesn't add clarity FBaggins Dec 2019 #41

Frodo? UpInArms Dec 2019 #44

The Bill is already done from a Constitutional standpoint Azathoth Dec 2019 #42

No, it's not StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #130

That's fine, but it has no effect on whether the House can block a Senate trial Azathoth Dec 2019 #39

Here's a link for you UpInArms Dec 2019 #46

Notice where the link comes from? FBaggins Dec 2019 #50

Hi Frodo! UpInArms Dec 2019 #52

Um... Hi? FBaggins Dec 2019 #63

My argument is that your repeated use of "sez" Drahthaardogs Dec 2019 #80

That's ironic FBaggins Dec 2019 #122

Well, it was lost on me Drahthaardogs Dec 2019 #132

The Senate would first have to change its rules. onenote Dec 2019 #61

True FBaggins Dec 2019 #65

What change was made to the House rules? onenote Dec 2019 #133

They didn't just copy/paste the existing rules from the Clinton impeachment FBaggins Dec 2019 #138

And the beauty of it is she's making Mitch producing a plan a "condition precedent" to appointing StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #129

And the further beauty of it is, she probably has planned this from the beginning Mr. Ected Dec 2019 #135

Yep. She didn't just think this up yesterday StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #137

I agree on the twitterverse comment... but you still haven't answered my primary question FBaggins Dec 2019 #152

Gosh, it's not like there are no Bills on Moscow Mitch's desk ... UpInArms Dec 2019 #24

Fu*k Mitch Roy Rolling Dec 2019 #36

The Senate rules don't require the House to "immediately" present the articles of impeachment onenote Dec 2019 #47

+1 UpInArms Dec 2019 #56

Bravo - onenote, well said. gab13by13 Dec 2019 #62

If the Senate could vote on this Mr.Bill Dec 2019 #79

Exactly. honest.abe Dec 2019 #83

+1, or would have just made up articles & then voted on Trumps acquittal based on whatever notion uponit7771 Dec 2019 #212

The passion here at DU that can be found reading thru NoMoreRepugs Dec 2019 #95

Absolutely a good point. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #134

IF I understand correctly .... LenaBaby61 Dec 2019 #143

Now that impeachment has Officially started, can the senate still change their rules? Kablooie Dec 2019 #153

Yes FBaggins Dec 2019 #157

+1, and Moscow Mitch will change rules quick fast and not give a damn what folk think about him or uponit7771 Dec 2019 #213

Fucking ridiculous. This is bullshit. warmfeet Dec 2019 #206