Can someone verify – I have read conflicting items about whether banning Trump from ever holding office again requires the same 2/3 vote as conviction, or merely a majority. And if it’s the latter, and the vote is 50/50, does Harris get to break the tie and permanently lower the boom on his political career?
They have to vote to convict first, which requires a 2/3 majority.
After conviction, they vote on the action to take, which can include banning him from future office. This only requires a simple majority. 50 Yea, 49 Nay, 1 absent is enough. But this vote can only happen after conviction. It can’t happen unless there is a 2/3 majority.
Not to mention that there are precedents for impeaching after leaving office. Here’s one:
I’ve heard of a couple others on News Nation but can’t recall their names.
Harris isn’t President of the Senate for this Impeachment trial - Senator Leahy is -so she has no role nor vote.
Thanks for fighting my ignorance!
I’m grateful for this thread. I’m babysitting today so it’s bluey cartoons on the tv.
I’ll follow along here.
North Carolina Senator William Blount (1797) & federal judge West Humphreys (1861).
…for Republicans and the Republican Party. It’s no longer liberal vs. conservative, it’s civilization vs savagery. The entire situation is pretty much a liberal wet dream. It doesn’t matter that Republicans try to pretend that, somehow, Democrats are the real losers because 74 million people that voted for the losing candidate are such sore losers, devoid of any vestige of civility and sportsmanship, that they still think they won the big game they lost…by a lot, actually.
And their ploy to mug the winning team and steal the trophy after the game wouldn’t have changed anything even if it had worked.
Let them go on thinking that. Not only do I not care, it’s fun to watch.
I know Republicans are scared. They are scared because they forgot what’s behind the rules of the civilization that they renounced.
We don’t have treaties that require us to treat prisoners of war humanely because we are soft and weak. We sign on to those agreements because we don’t want the POW’s on our side to be tortured and abused when they are captured.
They are terrified that we are going to spend the next four years treating them the way they treated us. That’s why they were so desperate to hang onto power that they decided to become a terrorist organization.
They are actually lucky that we are, frankly, better people than they are.
Can, or will, the Dems call on Trump to testify?
They already asked and he already said no. Not testifying won’t look good, but let’s face it, it won’t ultimately make any difference to his Republican supporters.
…
A judicial branch jury is selected for its neutrality. Senators, on the other hand, were elected to their positions specifically for their biases. They will give a former president’s silence whatever weight they see fit, influenced by the same partiality that got them elected to the Senate in the first place.
Never mind, I found the answer.
From the article: "The lead House impeachment manager, Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, wrote to Trump asking him to testify under oath before or during the trial, challenging the former president to explain why he and his lawyers have disputed key factual allegations at the center of their charge that he incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol.
“You denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment. You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue,” Raskin wrote in a letter made public on Thursday.
He went on to say that if Trump refused to do so, an adverse inference would be made from his reluctance.
Hours after the letter was released, the Trump adviser Jason Miller said that the former president “will not testify” in what he described as an “unconstitutional proceeding”. Trump’s lawyers dismissed the request as a “public relations stunt”."
Well then, I hope he gets subpoenaed.
My wife just turned the radio on. Boy those religious invocations are offensive.
Good a place as any to post this. Preaching to the liberal choir, but worth a read.
Sound like Dopers sucking up to Cecil.
Very good article, and good points.
Sometimes I’m inclined to believe that Trump will be acquitted only for the same reason that any defendant that’s allowed to openly threaten the jurors is likely to be acquitted, but there really is more to it.
This video makes a terrifyingly good case.
Can someone explain like I’m 5 what’s in it for the Democrats in this impeachment trial?
- Will 17 Republicans turn against Trump? Perhaps on January 7th, but now? Doesn’t appear so.
- Will it show how important and serious we take this sort of behavior? No, the acquittal will be taken as vindication for Republicans to see how far they can push without real consequences.
- Is it important to get Republicans on the record? I thought so last year. And they are energetically trying to avoid it, so I guess there’s something to it? But we actually did this experiment 3 years ago. Dems lost House seats, they picked up a couple of at-risk Senate seats for the narrowest possible advantage (that will likely be temporary), and Biden’s margin was almost within stealing range.
I see a lot of downsides for Dems on this, and I’m not seeing the payoff other than the marginal points above. I’d love for someone to tell me what I’ve missed.
The upside is that this is the proper and correct response to illegal and anti-democratic action by a president, and if the Democrats don’t try to do this right, there really isn’t much point to doing anything right. If we don’t try and protect our democracy, it’s as good as gone.
I guess this is true but it’s not terribly encouraging.
Whoa, that is some video. I saw a lot of video I hadn’t seen before.