Reporters present at the impeachment trial in the Senate have noticed a whole host of lawmakers wandering in and out of the chamber during the lengthy days, which earlier this week stretched on until 2 a.m. ET.
Itâs all rigged.
McConnell and most of the GOP Senate have been taking the day off during this sham âtrialâ. In any other legal proceeding in America jurors who showed such flagrant disregard could and would be jailed for contempt.
But since McConnell has already announced he had no intention of conducting an actual trial, weâre left to observe this Potemkin Village and Kabuki Theater.
My slightly OT question, regarding rules and motions, is whether there is an opportunity for a motion to correct the record? Can Schumer insist that the defense lawyers correct falsehoods regarding their lack of participation in the House inquiry? Specifically, they falsely represented that they were not allowed the opportunity when in fact they declined the offer.
Said the Senator when asked why he voted to acquit Trump âI heard no evidenceâŚâ
Iâm calling my Senatorsâ offices to ask whether they are staying in the chamber and listening to ALL the proceedings, how much time they are spending outside the chamber. 202-224-3121.
From DK:
The Democrats should immediately ask questions of evidence requiring Roberts to ârule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence (Rule VII of the standing rules for impeachment) as mentioned in scotusblog. Do that every damn time enough Republicans leave the chamber to give the Democrats a temporary majority. Roberts then either has to rule against the Democratâs requests â and given yesterday they are likely to be VERY well worded â or rule for the Democrats to rebuke the Republican slackers.
So does this mean if Iâm ever back on a jury I can just get up anytime I want?
Just counted 21 empty seats on the GOP side of the Senate
Best time to get a two thirds majority to convict is when a two fifths of the GOP are MIA.
Your one-word answer ÂŽ: no.
But itâs ok if you are Republican.
I like the earlier suggestion that, when most GOP have left the room, Schumer should call for a vote. Too bad if these morons canât make it back in time.
And of course, propriety and dignity are worth Robertsâ scold, but breaking the rules that the GOP has agreed to gets crickets.
O/T butâŚ
RIP⌠Mr Lehrer
Iâm sorry for his family but at least he will no longer have to witness the current travesty that is his former profession
Makes me wonder how many senators are in any doubt about how theyâll vote, as in even the faintest whiff. Are there two? Is there one? Because nobody else needs more information at this point.
Unless that information is polling data.
Manu Raju was saying yesterday no one will be the 51st vote, meaning Mitt and Susan might be granted the right to vote for witnesses, but no one else will be allowed to. It is actually a very depressing interview, he thinks it is already written in stone.
If itâs more GOP Senators taking WalkAbouts, then itâs a testament to a couple of things:
(1) Propriety
(2) Arrogance
All in the GOP wheelhouse. The GOP is dismissive of rules these days. And Trumpism has made them more arrogant than normal.
I dare say that if a similar Impeachment was put on for a Democratic President. ALL Democratic Senators would either be at their seats or with a valid excuse and CERTAINLY not be putting on a spectacle of dozens of people dissing the process.
We make allowances for Jury Duty as ordinary citizens. These fuckers use their âpublic serviceâ position to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars in kickback and lobbyist money. And cannot perform their duty.
This is a call to vote every person with an R after his name out of office.
Sen. John Cornyn, always a dick.
âSen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told CNN that senators are struggling to understand why they have to sit there in the first placeâ
It is your damn job. Now shut up and sit down.
Obviously this is not original with me but I do agree with my betters that it seems like Moscow Mitch is overplaying this one. If you have a predetermined outcome, and all the information that matters is already public, why for Christâs sake canât you let the process seem at least a little bit fair and legitimate? Itâs not a formal trial, fine, but itâs trial-like, itâs trial-ish, and Americans donât understand the idea of a trial with no evidence. Hell, there was a Monty Python sketch once where the judge asks the prosecutor what evidence there is against the defendant, and the prosecutor, puzzled, says, âEvidence, mâlud?â And the judge says "Yes, and letâs not keep everybody waiting, everyoneâs seated and listening, the press is here,âŚ" and the prosecutor says âOh! Of course, the evidence!â Something like that. Theyâre at the point here where that long-ago joke is now reality. I get that itâs a straight-up in-your-face Boss Tweed level of arrogant corruption going on here, sure. But Boss Tweed died in jail, so there are sometimes thresholds to these things. Just my opinion.
ETA my memory of the Monty Python sketch was entirely accurate except for everything but the general idea. 
[âThen the ball gets passed to the Presidentâs counsel, who have three days to make their presentations. Senators then have a 16-hour window to ask questions.â]
âWho is Adam Schiff?â
âWhat was he talking about Tuesday night?â
âWednesday night?â
âNow?â
âWhoâs your Primary opponent?â
âWhoâs MY Primary opponent?â
âWhat does Parnas have on you?â
âWhat about BarrâŚcan he take care of it?â
âAre there mikes in this hallway?â
Hey, if the GOPs donât give a fuck about their Constitutional duty, why should they give half a fuck about Senate rules?
Im willing to bet when itâs the defenseâs turn to present their case, Democrats will stay and listenâŚthough Iâd definitely understand if they took a long walk to avoid listening to Cipollone and Sekulowâs inanities.