(My bolding).
Of course not, because it followed the laws of that country. And we need to follow the laws of our country. Which are not that impeachment and removal is a no confidence vote. It requires impeachment followed by a trial of the articles of impeachment in the Senate. If something is to be tried, it requires a standard of persuasion. I can’t actually think of anything more fundamental to a trial than that.
Is the Senate obligated to accept the House’s determination of what an impeachable offense is and simply determine whether something in fact happened?
IANAL but AFAIC the Senate is only constitutionally obliged to hold something called a “trial.” The rest is improvised. The Senate drafts its own procedural rules; each senator votes by their own standards. The House investigates (happening now) and likely drafts Articles of Impeachment, a list of charges - an indictment. Senate prosecutors present the charges. I don’t know if presiding Chief Justice Roberts, or the Senate majority, can dismiss any charges before prosecutors do more than present an opening argument.
Remember, this is a political process, not a criminal trial. Senators don’t vote GUILTY or NOT because of the truthfulness of allegations, a determination of facts, or any standard of evidence, but because their political calculations drive them.
I’ll admit, I can’t find anybody who even addresses which parts of the treason clause apply during impeachment proceedings.
I can’t find anybody who generally shares my opinion at all.
I would make for a bad con law student 
In the face of this lack of scholarly and legal support, my line of thought is now “why am I wrong?” Your reference from lawfareblog doesn’t really faze me at all, but neither do I disagree with most of the experts listed there. I don’t find the “liberty must be on the line for a criminal standard” argument convincing while my counterargument about disenfranchising states still stands. And although I’ve put a couple hours of research into law reviews and CRS reports now, I haven’t seen any of my constitutional arguments struck down either.
~Max
No, they aren’t. They can decide, according to the Constitution, what the punishment will be (or to acquit, if it doesn’t fit, to paraphrase South Park) up to and including removal from office and a bar to ever holding office again. Here is the wiki on it if you are interested. What I found most interesting about the Wiki linked to is the list of folks who have been impeached and what the Senate decided to do or not do about them. It’s an interesting list and you can see that often they did decide to remove folks from office and bar them from ever running again.
I’m fairly sure in this case it will break down along partisan lines though, which means Trump will be acquitted.
IANAL but my take is: Tramp’s UN Secretary and Putin’s Defense Minister, both cabinet officers respectively, both declared that Russia is waging war on the US. The treason clause: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Team Tramp giving aid and comfort to Russia sure looks to me like treason, QED.
AFAIK removal is automatic upon a GUILTY verdict.
I saw a suggestion that if Moscow Mitch turns on Tramp, he can specify a secret ballot, giving GOPs cover to vote realistically. Without a secret vote, and without some major horrendous shitstorm proving Tramp’s treasons, party-line acquittal is likely, yes.
Maybe, but I think that would effectively take 81 votes, as 20 senators can demand a recorded vote on any question.
The Senate (i.e. Mitch) crafts the trial rules. Can existing rules readily be suspended for the duration?
Here is what the wiki article I linked too says wrt the Senates role:
So, they need a 2/3rds to convict, but then they get to set the punishment as well. There doesn’t seem to be anything automatic about if they convict, and there were a bunch of examples in the article where the Senate chose to acquit, even when the Wookie Defense wasn’t used. My WAG though is IF they do in fact have the votes to convict that they WILL remove Trump from office as well.
My other WAG is that Congress may punt, and go for censure instead of a full blown impeachment. I THINK the Pubs would go for this, and it would also allow the Dems to slap Trump hard. It will be far less satisfying though, and I hope they don’t go for that option, instead putting it on the Republicans, squarely, to have to vote in a partisan manner to save Trump’s bacon and making it clear they are doing so for purely partisan political reasons.
The rule requiring a recorded vote on the say-so of a fifth of the membership is in the Constitution.
Removal is automatic on conviction. The only choice to make after conviction is whether or not to impose a ban on holding office in the future.
double post
QED? You haven’t made an argument about the standard of proof here, you assumed that the elements of treason were met (that Russia is an enemy for the purposes of the treason clause; that “Team Tramp” gave aid and comfort to Russia) and then concluded that the President committed treason.
~Max
As I’ve said, the Senate trial is political, not criminal; thus no “standard of proof” exists.
Each senator will calculate what will serve their own interests best. Do they bend to the fury of the inflamed GOP base rather than risk political suicide? Do they fear a future Dem president will pull the same shit if they set Tramp free? Do they think acquitting Tramp will lead to a straight dictatorship with themselves safely empowered?
“Proof” is irrelevant. Power matters.
Do you see what I’m trying to ask here? You haven’t actually taken a position on the question, you haven’t even arrived at the question yet.
I can accept your views, just as I did with JohnT at the beginning of the thread. I understand that. The Senate will do what they want to do isn’t what I’m looking for, and neither is pushing the decision back to the people they represent or the political system they live in. I can craft a hypothetical to try and tease out a substantive answer but, as you know, that involves imagining a neutral Senator which is detached from reality.
If you want to continue this discussion, pretend you are an individual Senator. The official rule is that each Senator decides his or her own standard of proof. Your constituents don’t really care one way or the other how you vote, or they are split even, and split even within each party, too. The rest of Congress either doesn’t care how you vote, or is split even both across party lines and within each party. You don’t really have any overriding interest that puts you one way or another.
Let’s say the charge is bribery. What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President took a bribe?
Let’s say the charge is treason. What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President committed treason?
Let’s say the charge is abuse of power (assuming the charge is a high crime or misdemeanor). What is the threshold for evidence, beyond which you are persuaded that the President abused his powers?
~Max
You’re asking which of Santa’s reindeer I think should be first to land on my roof. I’ll take Blitzen.
I mentioned my fantasy standards 'way upthread but I forget the details so I’ll go with the nausea standard. Honorable, conscientious senators are presented with documents, recordings, and testimony that sicken them, disgust them so much at how Tramp has befouled the office and betrayed our nation that he MUST be removed. He’ll be acquitted if nobody vomits.
I think you skipped a step. If I showed you a paper showing some sick and disgusting JFK conspiracy, and described such details as would literally make you vomit, I think that meets your nausea standard. But I don’t think you would be persuaded that my conspiracy theory is true, or is a valid basis for making a vote on anything except to remove me and my theory from your presence.
~Max
The same standard I use to decide whether I support a bill, a nomination, or whatever. The idea of a standard of proof doesn’t really come into it, because the vote is based on my best judgment, period.