HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » 2 GOP senators say McConn...

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:04 PM

2 GOP senators say McConnell will move to acquit Trump, not merely dismiss charges

Source: CNN

By Ted Barrett and Manu Raju, CNN


(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to hold a final vote to acquit President Donald Trump should he be impeached, when a majority of senators believe his trial has run its course instead of holding a vote on dismissing the articles of impeachment, two Republican senators told CNN on Wednesday.

That's significant, because Republicans want to have a vote on acquittal -- to clear the President of the charges against him -- not simply rely on a 51-vote threshold procedural motion to dismiss the hotly disputed case.

The Constitution mandates 67 votes are required to convict the President and remove him from office, a barrier widely considered too high to be reached in this case.

. . .

One of the senators, speaking anonymously, said McConnell would not call a vote on a motion to proceed to the impeachment articles unless he knew he had the 51 votes needed to end the trial, which would then set up a final vote on the articles themselves. On that final vote, 67 votes would be needed to convict Trump remove him from office.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-acquittal/index.html

67 replies, 6097 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply 2 GOP senators say McConnell will move to acquit Trump, not merely dismiss charges (Original post)
swag Dec 11 OP
greatauntoftriplets Dec 11 #1
cstanleytech Dec 11 #9
world wide wally Dec 11 #2
FBaggins Dec 11 #3
mopinko Dec 12 #13
Wabbajack_ Dec 12 #18
FBaggins Dec 12 #26
ReformedGOPer Dec 15 #63
tblue37 Dec 15 #64
ReformedGOPer Dec 17 #66
FBaggins Dec 15 #65
onenote Dec 14 #48
FBaggins Dec 14 #57
cstanleytech Dec 11 #10
Polybius Dec 12 #24
Wuddles440 Dec 12 #38
GReedDiamond Dec 15 #61
zanana1 Dec 14 #56
democratisphere Dec 11 #4
babylonsister Dec 11 #7
Bernardo de La Paz Dec 12 #23
eShirl Dec 12 #19
Gymbo Dec 11 #5
underthematrix Dec 11 #6
cstanleytech Dec 12 #17
onenote Dec 14 #49
moose65 Dec 12 #30
underthematrix Dec 12 #36
FBaggins Dec 12 #37
underthematrix Dec 12 #40
FBaggins Dec 12 #43
onenote Dec 14 #50
2naSalit Dec 14 #55
Mz Pip Dec 11 #8
mpcamb Dec 12 #27
DeminPennswoods Dec 11 #11
eShirl Dec 12 #20
DeminPennswoods Dec 12 #25
onenote Dec 14 #60
gab13by13 Dec 12 #31
reggaehead Dec 12 #12
stopbush Dec 12 #34
reggaehead Dec 14 #45
stopbush Dec 14 #46
onenote Dec 14 #51
BigmanPigman Dec 12 #14
tosh Dec 12 #15
Thekaspervote Dec 12 #16
beachbumbob Dec 12 #21
duforsure Dec 12 #22
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Dec 12 #29
gab13by13 Dec 12 #32
LanternWaste Dec 12 #35
Iliyah Dec 12 #28
swag Dec 12 #33
Politicub Dec 12 #39
melm00se Dec 12 #41
geralmar Dec 12 #42
kansasobama Dec 13 #44
DeminPennswoods Dec 14 #47
greymattermom Dec 14 #52
onenote Dec 14 #54
beachbumbob Dec 14 #53
FBaggins Dec 14 #58
beachbumbob Dec 14 #59
Buckeyeblue Dec 15 #62
VarryOn Dec 17 #67

Response to swag (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:09 PM

1. They'll make a mockery of the U.S. justice system to protect that thing.

Kangaroo court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greatauntoftriplets (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:52 PM

9. Hardly surprising though as Putin's Bitch is probably under orders to protect Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:14 PM

2. Hoping Nancy doesn't send it to the Senate and she makes a public pronouncement

about what McConnell has said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:17 PM

3. She doesn't have a choice

The only way for the Senate not to get the articles... is for them not to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 12:29 AM

13. not correct. sending them to the senate is a separate process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 05:08 AM

18. I don't don't know who's saying that

But that doesn't sound right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 08:02 AM

26. Sorry... that's nonsense

ďThe Senate shall have the power to try all impeachmentsĒ

There is no process by which the House can create an impeachment that the Senate canít try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 06:23 PM

63. John Dean tweeted this on 12/8. (Sorry about the extra-I've forgotten how to imbed)

[link:http://<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sending out again: Letís impeach him now and NOT send it to the Senate rather keep investigating in the House, and add such supplemental articles as needed! Just let it hang over his head. If the worst happens and he is re-elected, send it to the Senate. But keep investigating!!</p>ó John Dean (@JohnWDean) <a href="
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReformedGOPer (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 06:39 PM

64. Here ya go:




Remove the "mobile." ( including the period) from the URL, and also delete everything back to the question mark, including the question mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 17, 2019, 09:45 AM

66. thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReformedGOPer (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 07:11 PM

65. He's just spitballing

I can't blame him. It's certainly never happened before so it isn't unreasonable to think of it as an open question... and I can certainly appreciate the political advantage of keeping the news-creation aspect of this thing where Democrats can control it. We can expect a moderate polling bump from the actual impeachment vote... but from the point that it hits the Senate, Republicans will control the narrative. The natural reaction is to think of ways to maximize the "before" period and minimize (or even eliminate) the "after" period.

The problem remains though... that annoying Constitution says that the Senate has the power to try all impeachments. Not "those impeachments that the House decides to send over". There either has to not be an impeachment (either a strategic delay or some other action), or the Senate gets their innings.

And, of course, he's ignoring the fact that there's an election next year. He's one of the people who are upset that the current articles are comparatively limited (and would probably like the stuff that he testified about to be included)... but he's ignoring the fact that there's a reason that leadership is in such a hurry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:14 AM

48. A majority of the House will not vote against sending the articles to the Senate.

It won't happen. And Pelosi cannot prevent that vote from occurring. A single Republican can introduce a resolution directing the appointment of impeachment managers and the delivery of the articles to the Senate. That resolution is deemed "privileged" and must be considered immediately. Even if the House voted to "table" (i..e kill) the resolution, that unprecedented vote would be heralded by the Republicans as proof that the House Democrats have been running a sham process and are denying Trump his "day in court." House members who have declared it necessary to act now to impeach are not going to turn around and publicly stall out the process.

And I guarantee that Pelosi, having declared it a constitutional imperative that impeachment be taken up now will have no part in any effort to freeze the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 09:37 AM

57. Agreed that it won't happen... but also that it can't

If members of the House purport to create a process by which a president is impeached, but the House doesnít send it to the Senate... they are outside of the constitutional framework.

If the House impeaches, the Senate gets to try it (unless they elect not to). Any process in between is procedural window dressing. If the House were dumb enough to try it, the Senate would probably schedule the trial anyway (for the most opportune time) and make hay out of the impeachment managersí failure to prosecute the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:55 PM

10. Thats why she should slow walk it to the Senate until early to mid October so as to limit

the Republican Senators ability to do damage control before the election for their vote in favor in favor of a corrupt President that makes Nixon look mild.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 07:16 AM

24. Waiting until October would make it look like a hit job with voters

Better to let it go on schedule, early 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 01:08 PM

38. Disagree!

The sooner that it goes to Moscow Mitch, the sooner that he gets the Orange Anus 'acquitted' and the "totally exonerated" campaign begins. The House needs to extend the investigative process into next year and expose as much corruption as possible. The independent voters need to be further educated and convinced. The Dems need to think like the opposition - if presented with such an opportunity, they would be investigating and litigating right up to election day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wuddles440 (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 02:08 AM

61. This! - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 09:08 AM

56. But, but...

I want my Christmas gift!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:18 PM

4. Yeah. But this will be hammered as a HUGH defeat for the Democrats.

Further THIS will empower drumpf to believe he is untouchable with absolute authoritarian power. THIS is also not going be perceived well by the rest of the Democratic countries of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democratisphere (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:41 PM

7. We're right, they're not. Fuck them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 06:48 AM

23. +1. . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democratisphere (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 05:25 AM

19. they'l hammer no matter what happens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:25 PM

5. Boy

Talk about looking completely stupid if new info comes out proving Trump guilty all along. That'll fix their attempt at perpetrating a fraud once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:27 PM

6. Article 1: Section 3 doesn't say two-thirds of the members. Here it is.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 01:17 AM

17. Probably why he wants to try and push it through now as if Trump wins another term and it drags on

until after the election Mitch knows Trump is likely to be convicted in a new Democratic controlled Senate which is willing to do what a Republican one led by Moscow Mitch is not willing to do which is hold a corrupt president accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:16 AM

49. We're not going to come close to having a 2/3 majority in the Senate after the elections

Trump is no more likely to be convicted after November 2020 than he is before November 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 08:46 AM

30. This drives me nuts

I've seen that reported as "fact" several times. The Constitution does NOT say "67 Votes." It says "2/3 of the members present." When the Constitution was written, there weren't 100 Senators, so they couldn't have put a specific number in there. They had to use a fraction or percentage! And, it does say "Members present," not "members."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moose65 (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 11:37 AM

36. Don't let it drive you nuts. Yes. We had fewer states back them. But if the founders

meant two thirds of the members then they wouldn't have included the modifier "present." I believe they included this modifier because they thought about a senator dying just before the vote or resigning just before the vote or unavailable for some other reason. By including "present" the entire member body may not be available.

It may also be the case here. Some members may not be available for whatever reason. One potential reason could be indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 12:52 PM

37. I'm not sure why it's really relevant to the conversation

Sure... it's technically true. But why is it even part of the conversation?

Almost every time I see it... it's from someone who seems to assume that even though we can't expect 20 republican senators to vote for removal... somehow it's possible to get 30 of them to not show up for the vote (so that 47 Democratic votes can be 2/3 of those present).

I think that's just nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 01:58 PM

40. I understand . However, there's no guarantee the Republicans will be in the majority in January 2020

Given the SDNY case, some senators may be indicted and in custody in January 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 03:38 PM

43. Barr is going to allow SDNY to prosecute R senators?

(nor would locking one up remove him or her from the Senate if the Senate didn't want to remove them) That's the kind of wishful thinking that I was talking about. You're actually talking about multiple senators no longer in congress a month from now?

Note that they don't need a majority to prevent a 2/3 vote. Are you imagining a scenario where 30 of them can't get to the impeachment trial?

Save some of what you're smoking for the rest of the group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:17 AM

50. What SDNY case is going to prosecute US Senators?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moose65 (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 09:05 AM

55. +1

Words matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:52 PM

8. I agree with a John Dean

Pelosi should not send this to the Senate. Thatís what Trump wants - A quick acquittal that he can crow about all the way through the election cycle.

Hang on to the articles and continue to investigate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mz Pip (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 08:09 AM

27. I agree, but also agree with Deep Throat. Follow the Money.

No where in written history has trump done anything that wasn't for money; mostly dirty money.
Stall the narrow Impeachment.
Get Pence first, chase trump like he's Al Capone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2019, 11:58 PM

11. I think this will likely backfire

The DSCC will be happy to remind voters that Collins, Gardner, McSally, etc enabled Trump to be above the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeminPennswoods (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 05:28 AM

20. if we get the senate but trump wins, there will still be plenty of impeachable offenses to charge

he can become the first president to be impeached twice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eShirl (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 07:44 AM

25. LOL! That's true

for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eShirl (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 10:31 AM

60. and probably the first to be acquitted twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeminPennswoods (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 08:53 AM

31. I agree,

McConnell is forcing those Senators to vote against impeachment. Let all of the traitors sink together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 12:24 AM

12. Seems to me

If the turtle wants to acquit he needs a 2/3 majority. Same as removal. The Constitution does not allow for anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reggaehead (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 10:21 AM

34. Not true. He needs a 2/3 majority to convict. Anything that falls short of that

results in acquittal.

Check out the Clinton votes in the Senate when he was impeached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 02:19 AM

45. Show me

They can call it acquital. But that is not what they are voting on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reggaehead (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 03:22 AM

46. Do your own research. Stop being lazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reggaehead (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:19 AM

51. The Senate rules say its an acquittal:

Rule XXIII: ..... On the final
question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and
nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately;
and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles
presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the
Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered;


Does that show you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 12:35 AM

14. I expect to be heavily intoxicated or medicated

once this gets into Mitch's hands. It will hot be pretty. I may have to not watch at all or else risk having a complete mental breakdown. I fully expect him to make mincemeat out of the facts when he writes the rules for the Senate. Look what he did to the SCOTUS. This will be a thousand times worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 12:44 AM

15. Same.

Iím already in training.

On top of that, iím Trying to determine where I should go if he ďwinsĒ again. I canít take 4 more years of this so Iíll have to get out of this place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 12:57 AM

16. Sadly we all knew this would be how it would end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 06:01 AM

21. McConnell and GOP can not have ANY trial in the Senate take place

been saying this since day one. Nothing mandates it must happen and simple majority vote can make that happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 06:40 AM

22. Which means ...

republicans are against the rule of law, Democracy, free and fair elections, and obedient to putin and trump and not to the American people. This will not just backfire on them , it will destroy their party for allowing corrupt people control of our country and government, and we're like russia is now, where only the most corrupt prosper , and do well , while they steal billions from the people and from businesses, like putins done in russia. trump and the republicans will get exposed and be looking at prison for all their crimes. His getting away from it by not impeaching him will only make it easier to hold them all accountable, and show their intent .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 08:38 AM

29. More than one third of voters agree with the Republicans.

As you said, Republicans are against the rule of law, democracy, free and fair elections, and obedient to Putin and Trump and not to the American people.

They will mindlessly follow Trump because he projects the image of being one of those strongmen he so admires.
I saw this with Dubya. People voted for him because of the absolute certainty he had, even though they might disagree with his policies.

Trump will crow that any verdict short of removal is proof he is the strongest leader in the history of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LastLiberal in PalmSprings (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 08:55 AM

32. Polls are used for propaganda,

I tend to ignore them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 10:48 AM

35. Language too is used for propaganda.

"I tend to ignore language..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 08:31 AM

28. It's not going to be that easy.

Plus shithole will continue to do criminal evil things which the sane American will never forget nor forgive.

Sham trial. 51 in our favor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 10:18 AM

33. McConnell's plan for sham trial reveals depths of Trump's corruption

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/12/mcconnells-plan-sham-trial-reveals-depths-trumps-corruption/?fbclid=IwAR0_6PdWGq7KhEHYdJQCo_sObsYlN-dPBp5KXiP-owf9--yoT2NoyVDb6n0

By
Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
Dec. 12, 2019 at 6:39 a.m. PST
If Mitch McConnell goes through with his reported plan to hold a sham impeachment trial that acquits President Trump without calling witnesses, it will provide the perfect coda for the corrupt and farcical way Trumpís defenders have handled this saga all throughout.
In so doing, the Senate majority leader and other assorted Trump propagandists will be unabashedly enshrining their position as follows: Weíve already decided in advance that the full facts will not persuade us to turn on Trump, no matter how damning they are, so why should we listen to them at all?
This is how Trumpís defenders actually view the situation ó and the awful implications of this should not be sugar-coated.
Yet the scheme may not prove as easy to get away with as they think. Handled properly, Democrats can use it to demonstrate that Republicans themselves know Trumpís substantive defenses are weak and his corruption is indefensible ó and vividly show how Republicans are functioning as Trumpís full-blown accomplices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 01:29 PM

39. We knew this would be a gamble. The house did its duty.

The house has no control once it hands the articles of impeachment to the senate.

I didn't know acquittal was an option. Of course the members senate GOP are going to bow down and do Trump's bidding. Trump being able to say he's innocent of the charges because of winning the trial in the senate was always a risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2019, 02:23 PM

41. Impeachment

Akhil Reed Amar says that the reason that the impeachment process is in Congress is to provide for a peaceful and politically accountable mechanism for removing a president before the end of his fixed term.

This political accountability is critical and cuts both ways. If a president is removed for unjust reasons, the People, at the next election cycle, can elect people who won't do that again. The opposite is also true: if a president is not removed for what the People consider unjust reasons, they, at the next election cycle, remove and replace them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)


Response to swag (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 04:06 PM

44. I am confused about the technicality

McConnell will move to acquit Trump if he's impeached, not merely dismiss charges. This is supposed to be a procedural move. Pardon my ignorance. What procedural move? If there are not 2/3rd votes to convict, he is acquitted, period. Am I missing something? I don't see any procedural move. Why even attempt to dismiss with 51 votes if you can acquit with just 34 votes against impeachment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kansasobama (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 06:45 AM

47. It would look pretty bad if more than 50

senators vote to impeach Trump. He's technically acquitted, but when a majority votes for a guilty verdict, in the public's eye, Trump will be guilty. I suspect McConnell knows there are at least 3 or 4 senators who might well vote to convict, meaning there'd be a majority vote for that outcome.

It's easier to ask the vulnerable Rs to vote to dismiss (that way they can say they didn't think what Trump did rose to the level of an impeachable offense) and McConnell must believe he has 51 votes for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:19 AM

52. How many votes does it take to acquit?

51? 67? Is that option in the Constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:21 AM

54. Anything less than 2/3 of those present and voting to convict is an acquittal

The Constitution requires 2/3 vote of members present to convict. The Senate rules make it absolutely clear that anything short of that results in an "acquittal."


Senate Rule XXIII: On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:20 AM

53. doesn't usurp the fact he was impeached, nothing does that.

I wonder if the filibuster can be used?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbumbob (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 09:46 AM

58. It seemed to for Clinton

No. Filibuster is not an option. Every rule or ruling during the trial can be changed by the majority (apart from the 2/3 standard)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 10:12 AM

59. McConnel and GOP are betting the farm that no trial or sham trial will bring out MORE GOP

voters than democratic voters in Nov 2020.

With McConnel GOP under water in Congress
With Trump underwater almost everwhere in the US

This is a bet I will wager all in on for democratic. Our anger as not subsided since Nov 2016. Nov 2018 showed that off

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:22 AM

62. So that would mean all Republicans vote to pass the motion?

The flip side is what if he doesn't have the votes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swag (Original post)

Tue Dec 17, 2019, 11:14 PM

67. The country deserves a trial!

Not a cursory onelike the one in the House. There are many witnesses who we need to hear from. Truth is more important that speed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread