Impeachment

Mitch McConnell Revises Impeachment Rules After Bipartisan Backlash

President Donald Trump is still heading for an almost certain acquittal.

|

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) on Tuesday revised key parts of the roadmap for President Donald Trump's impeachment trial after his initial proposal received a bipartisan backlash.

Both parties will now have 24 hours each over the course of three days to present evidence, as opposed to the two days that were originally allotted. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) called the first iteration a "national disgrace," as the compressed schedule would have forced much of the trial to take place in the middle of the night. 

McConnell also altered a rule that would have blocked House evidence unless the Senate voted to admit it. Now all relevant documents will be automatically entered into the record and barred only if the Senate votes to exclude them.

The majority leader fielded bouts of criticism after straying from his promise to adhere to the Clinton impeachment model, where the Senate had 24 hours to present evidence but no constraints on the number of days it took to do so. Schumer led the Democratic charge, but several Republicans also voiced concerns, including Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.).

"I think that adhering to the Clinton model would have been my preference," Hawley told NBC News. 

Collins' spokesperson, Annie Clark, echoed those sentiments. "She and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the House transcript [in] the record," Clark said in a statement. "Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement."

In December, the House impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his alleged role in attempting to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into publicly announcing investigations into Trump's political rivals. The changes to the trial blueprint notwithstanding, Democrats and Republicans continued to spar Tuesday over subpoenas for documents held by the White House and the need for additional witnesses. In any case, Trump's trial is heading for almost certain acquittal as Democrats would need at least 20 Republicans to convict the president of an impeachable offense.

Advertisement

NEXT: Is Houston's Affordability Just a Myth?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Robert Mueller definitively proved Drumpf is a Russian asset. And it’s likely #MoscowMitch is as well. Of course, Rachel Maddow had this all figured out years ago.

    #MaddowWasRight

    1. When you start out using a childish made up name for the President, no rational sane person is going to take you seriously.

      1. Thats a (tired) parody account.

        1. I agree. It’s past time for OBL to give it up. The parody was funny – for about the first two days.

          1. It seems to still be working…

            1. Not to me, but hey, the French figured Jerry Lewis was a comic genius.

          2. I think OBL is hilarious and still spot on. The fact that no one can honestly state which side he’s truly on is a tribute to genius.

    2. Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky in your world?

      1. What does blue look like?

  2. >>would have forced much of the trial to take place in the middle of the night.

    gasp! D.C. is Hollywood for the non-pretty.

    1. Sheesh, what’s wrong with the audience just recording the 2 AM proceedings to play back later?

  3. “”President Donald Trump is still heading for an almost certain acquittal.””

    Of course. The Senate majority is the same party of the President. Guilty doesn’t matter. Were you not paying attention to the Clinton impeachment?

    1. It’s “the Clinton model” in action!

    2. Keep in mind that he’d be impeached was almost certain from election day, for precisely the same reason. He was impeached for not being a Democrat.

  4. I agree with sticking to the Clinton model, but both parties are trying to alter that while trying to making it appear they are sticking to it. Therefore expect a lot more fighting over the rules, and beyond.

    1. The only problem I see with the Clinton rules is that “24 hours, but no limit on how many days they’re over” bit. The Democrats have already dragged this out unnecessarily by delaying transmittal of the impeachment, a strict timetable was appropriate to stop that behavior.

      1. Yeah, but not putting a limit on days is giving Dems the rope to hang themselves. The longer this trial goes on, the longer the Senate candidates delay their primaries during the most crucial point of their campaigns.

  5. I caught Schift on tv saying that Trump’s alleged actions were harmful to our nation’s security. Did he make a similar speech back when Obama unilaterally sent pallets of cash to Iran, enabling them to purchase more weapons from Russia?

    1. hey that was the Shah’s dough. lol

    2. So if what you are saying Obama did is true, does that then justify any possible misconduct by Trump?

      1. “So if what you are saying Obama did is true, does that then justify any possible misconduct by Trump?”

        What misconduct? Specifics, please.

        1. He was elected.

          1. IT WAS HER TURN!

            1. Trump got in the way of Hillary’s privilege.

          2. Yep, and he is guilty of being D. Trump.

        2. ANY POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT! ANYTHING HE MIGHT DO! HE’S A FASCIST RICH WHITE MAN AND A NAZI. WHO KNOWS WHAT HE’S CAPABLE OF?!? YOU’RE TRYING TO EXCUSE ALL OF IT!

  6. I’m betting Trump shows up to the trial in his pajamas and plays paper football with his legal counsel. Picture him making the goal posts with his thumbs on the desk.

  7. Watch this guy just keep moving the goal posts, pushing against and violating boundaries. If no one pushes back, then he is getting away with it. He and Trump are two peas in a pod. The question is just how many violations of norms, traditions, laws, and the Constitution itself will they be allowed to get away with? The ultimate question is how far is too far? At what point does the Constitution and the rights it guarantees are rendered irrelevant?
    GOP Trump boot lickers really need to dig out their mirror vision and ask themselves with all due honesty, do they or would they want Obama or any future Democratic president to get away with what they are comfortable with Trump is getting away with, or what they are trying to enable Trump to get away with?

    1. Ahahahahahahaah

    2. teh senate makes the rules they can literally do nothing and take a vote or do anything including having chimpansies perform for them. you can’t break laws when you make them up. the constitution only says they can and leaves the rest to them.

    3. “…The question is just how many violations of norms, traditions, laws, and the Constitution itself will they be allowed to get away with?…”

      That’s an impressive dose of arm-waving bullshit; got anything to back it up?

      1. Oh no Sevo, the laws! What will we do without them?!

        And the traditions too?! literally shaking

      2. Concern troll is concerned.

    4. lol. where to even start…

      “would they want Obama or any future Democratic president to get away with what they are comfortable with Trump is getting away with”

      Obama literally got away with murder and the result was a big fuck you by the name of Trump. Grow up Peter Pan

    5. The Democrats were screaming for weeks that the Clinton rules were unfair before there were any changes at all proposed by McConnell and the GOP.

      I have to say the accelerated schedule proposed was a little too much, but then again with Pelosi’s strange unwarranted delay in transmittal I can see McConnell wanting to restore some of the urgency that House was so concerned about in December.

    6. “”GOP Trump boot lickers really need to dig out their mirror vision and ask themselves with all due honesty, do they or would they want Obama or any future Democratic president to get away with what they are comfortable with Trump is getting away with, or what they are trying to enable Trump to get away with?””

      Trump is living off of this very thing. Everybody knew Clinton was guilty as hell but the Senate voted not to remove. Trump probably expects the same. Obama’s DOJ chief Holder was found in contempt of congress, and still didn’t hand over the documents. Nothing happened to Holder. Trump probably expects the same. People cheered when Obama said he as a pen and a phone in response to not getting what he wanted from Congress. Trump probably expects the same. Obama sent troops to Syria, engaged in Yemen, and Libya without Congressional approval. Trump probably expects the same.

      Perhaps the democrats should have been more firm with the Obama admin if the didn’t want a future president they didn’t like doing the same things.

  8. “The Clinton Model”? Because that’s spelled out as the required method of handling the issue in the Constitution, or what?

    1. “The Clinton Model” because McConnell thought he could buy time, start the process and then axe the idea of witnesses when things got going. The fact is President Trump will survive impeachment. But he will get not get off unscathed. Will all know he is guilty just like OJ.

      1. “If you acquit, I’ll pitch a fit!”

      2. Nonsense. OJ is still looking for the real killer.

        1. On a golf course.
          With a putter.
          Oops; wrong game.

      3. McConnel is not the one running scared of witnesses. The Democrats absolutely don’t want Hunter Biden on the stand.

        Also, guilty of what?

        1. Both sides should get to call witnesses. Won’t happen, unfortunately.

        2. No, McConnell is scared of witnesses, too. The Democrats don’t want Hunter Biden on the stand, but if he is on the stand, and Biden’s corruption is exposed, the truce between the donkeys and the elephants is over, the Democrats start exposing dirt on other Republicans, too. (Trump doesn’t count in this context, he’s only nominally a Republican.)

          Neither party is clean enough to risk that war. But the Republicans particularly don’t want it, because THEIR corruption will get headlines, unlike the Democrats, which will get the old memory hole.

  9. “President Donald Trump is still heading for an almost certain acquittal.”

    But he’s guilty of being Donald Trump and beating that hag in the election!

  10. B-o-r-i-n-g

  11. Another Clinton impeachment precedent was getting a hold of raw FBI files on his opponents and spreading it around. Henry Hyde anyone?

    1. And Livingston. And Dennis Hastert. Livingston has to resign because of blackmail files being dumped to prove to the other House managers that they don’t dare try to win, and who do they replace him with? A pedophile.

      That’s my real worry here: You really believe it was just Trump’s campaign that got spied on? You really believe the NSA doesn’t have dirt on everybody in Washington? That’s probably why no matter what abuses get exposed, they’re untouched. Nobody’s clean enough to take them down.

      Well, maybe Trump, if he survives this and gets a second term.

  12. Don’t worry your betters will have their way and end this resistance to impeachment of the clingers president. While he may not be removed he is unlikely to pass muster with electors. Accept the new order and embrace change for the better.

    1. So who’s going to be the new Democrat overlord?

      1. ‘Nother parody account but with a target. And material from that target.

      2. Does it matter?

        The second they so much as shart we’ll impeach them for bringing shame to the presidency.
        (New charge. Presidents playing golf in white slacks disgrace the county when they have a wet fart. Diplomatic relations instantly fall apart)

        1. They can now impeach for spite, and the next time there’s a D president do just that.
          “When asked why they were impeaching the POTUS, the Speaker of the House replied ‘Spite.’
          Care to elaborate?
          ‘No. Just spite.’
          This is unprecedented!
          ‘Nope. See 2019′”

  13. President Donald Trump is still heading for an almost certain acquittal.

    Don’t worry, Billy, your masters are already setting up Impeachment 2 with Lev Parnas.

  14. All a show meant to act like it’s legitimate. The Republicans have already betrayed their oath and will follow through, as planned.

    Party needs to be ground into dust.

    1. “”The Republicans have already betrayed their oath and will follow through, as planned.””

      The same way the Democrats in the Senate betrayed their oath in Clinton’s trial?

      If people who already made up their mind before presented with evidence should not be part of the process then there are many members of the house that should not have been allowed to vote.

      Leave to people with double standards to expect the republicans in the Senate to be held to a different standard than the dems in the House.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.