"all persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment..."

[Towlie]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/18/politics/impeachment-trial-rules-no-talking-no-phones/index.html

"all persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment."

Is this just an insincere threat of something that everyone knows will never happen, or is there a real possibility that Senators could go to jail? If they could go to jail then when would they go? If not during the trial then that would mean they could stay and continue what they're doing. But if during the trial, it doesn't seem like this could happen without destroying any semblance of integrity that the trial might have.

What do you think?

[guillaumeb]

1. All of this is to help hide what McConnell and the GOP are doing.

The sham trial will not be publicized.

[onenote]

10. Huh?

How do you get to that conclusion from the longstanding formality that Senators don’t speak during the presentation of the articles?

[lunatica]

2. It would be our official notice that we live in a Dictatorship

It would mean both the police and the military would be following orders, because no one is going to arrest themselves. At that point we can kiss Democracy adiós.

[Miguelito Loveless]

4. We have been a de facto ditatorship

for some time now. I would argue since the "Patriot" Act became "law".

[lunatica]

5. That's why I said it would be our official notice

I agree about the Patriot Act, but will up the ante with the Citizens United passage that makes Corporations people, and their money Free Speech.

[Miguelito Loveless]

20. Agreed

Citizens United pretty much gave the country to the 0.01%.

[tritsofme]

8. This is silly.

OP is quoting rules of the Senate, it’s not a sinister plot.

[lunatica]

9. And this makes it different in what way?

[tritsofme]

11. The Sargeant at Arms enforcing the Senate's rules does not mean we are in a "dictatorship"

That is nonsense.

[lunatica]

12. And what then when the Sargeant at Arms doesn't comply because Trump

ordered him not to? Or do you just insist on ignoring the obvious signs of corruption and dismissal of the rule of law? There out there, hard to miss.

[tritsofme]

14. I'm not even sure what you're talking about now?

The Senate’s Sargeant of Arms does not answer to Trump.

[lunatica]

15. The Senate doesn't either, in theory.

Yet there they are, doing just that.

[tritsofme]

17. Your first post is still nonsense. The Senate enforcing age-old rules

is just not evidence that we live in a dictatorship, in fact, it sounds ridiculous.

[DeminPennswoods]

16. Thank you

nt

[sprinkleeninow]

3. Doesn't that not necessarily mean only those who are not

republickers?

[Towlie]

6. Yes, but I'm asking if senators can be removed from the trial for talking.

If it applies to all persons then one would assume that it applies to senators, so will it be enforced, and if so, how?

[tritsofme]

7. Yes, but none will break the rules.

[onenote]

13. the restriction on speaking was while the House was exhibiting the articles.

Otherwise, the guidelines for the trial simply provide that Senators will have limited opportunity for speech during the trial and should refrain from speaking to neighboring Senators while the case is being presented.

For example, a Senator can seek to be recognized to make a point of order or raise an objection, such as was the case durig the Clinton trial when Senator Harkin raised an objection to members of the Senate being referred to as "jurors" by the House managers.

[sprinkleeninow]

18. Given past performances, we'll see how well

reptilies can stifle harumps, cackles, hissing, puffy blowfish noise, screamin' & yellin' coupled with red faces and desk pounding.

[Towlie]

19. Thank you all for your replies. The answer, apparently, is "nobody knows."