If you look at Senate rules for impeachment........
?? Theory ??
Then the military is in control! There is no way around the whole nation and world, seeing all of the evidence! Read the Senate rules! They can’t bypass the defense getting their day in court, the way the house did! There is no way, the Senate wanted this! Trump is in complete control of the narrative! I think the military is running Washington!
Ummm - that is not quite how it works. You are sort of right though. The house brings the charges against the President (that is the impeachment part, and is not a trial). So the house is like the prosecution.
The senate holds the trial of the impeachment charges. The President is the defendant, and his lawyers argue against the charges. The senators are the judge and jury in that sense.
There is no way to skip the trial, and it has nothing to do with the military being in control or not. A trial would maybe represent a chance for a lot of election fraud evidence to be presented as part of the President's defense.
Interesting note: Roberts has already said he won't preside over an impeachment trial - which makes things interesting since only the chief justice is allowed to preside over an impeachment trial. I have no idea how that will work out.
I remember a lot of "how do you introduce evidence legally", could this be the way?
There has to be a few Q posts that could help connect those dots, don't have the time to search.
Let's stop this. This impeachment is ONLY about the Jan. 6 "incitement". NOTHING ELSE. No election fraud. AT FUCKING ALL. No "introduce shit" in any way. Its a trial dealing with just ONE CHARGE.
Is anyone even following what's going on in real life?
I’m an attorney and practiced most of my 25 years in Federal court. Should be the Chief Justice who presides. Not sure if Roberts recused himself but if so great. Maybe we get Alito or Thomas. If so, they decide what is relevant evidence- not you or me. That’s REAL LIFE. ?
Well, I am not an attorney, but I can read. And comprehend. From SCOTUS site, just now:
The Senate’s standing rules for impeachment trials make no distinction between the powers of the chief justice presiding in an impeachment and those of any other officer in the same role. The job is referred to throughout as “Presiding Officer” and its authority is the same regardless of who holds it. The rules nominally give the presiding officer considerable power, including the power to issue “orders, mandates, writs, and precepts” (Rule V), to “direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying and impeachment” (Rule VII), and to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence” (Rule VII). But in every case, this apparent authority is subject to the critical limitation that the presiding officer may only act in accordance with the will of the Senate.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/the-role-of-the-chief-justice-in-an-impeachment-trial/
IF Roberts recuses himself, and we still have no official line on this, but IF. Then its Senate's prerogative to select who presides. Recusal opens up possibilities, including no one on SCOTUS. To anyone in Senate. So, not sure what you're saying.
I WISH its either Alito or Thomas, still not sure about the other 3. But reality is different.