And Alaska has moved to a jungle primary where the top 4 vote getters move on to the general election, so she doesn’t need to worry about being taken down by a more conservative opponent in a Republican primary.
I wonder if she still thinks Trump learned his lesson.
BTW, she’s the oldest person on the US Olympic team. They’ve just added a brow-furrowing event and she blew away the competition.
The Senate can be called back with a joint agreement to do so between the Majority and Minority leaders. It’s a provision that was incorporated in the wake of 9/11.
My mistake. Trump’s term ends on the 20th, for some reason I was thinking Congress did too.
~Max
Murkowski deserves a place on the team. Is there a synchronized furrowing event?
At least Murkowski came out right away and said Trump should resign. And, she never said she thinks he’s learned his lesson. What a ridiculous statement! But, sure, I’d allow her in the synchronized furrowing team.
Good. No sense letting years of hard training go to waste.
Cite? The Senate is currently operating under a specific order that no business will be conducted until the 19th. That order was adopted by unanimous consent on Thursday morning,
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
dissolution of the Joint Session, the Senate stand adjourned to then
convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted
on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma
session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Friday,
January 8, at 10 a.m.; Tuesday, January 12, at 12:30 p.m.; Friday,
January 15, at 10 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on
Friday January 15, it next convene at 12 noon on Tuesday, January 19;
further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be
deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the
time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day;
finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period
of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to
10 minutes each.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
~Max
The outcome of this exercise by Congress has never really been about getting him out before his term ends. That’s not doable based upon the numbers shown above. It’s to have him be first POTUS to be impeached twice, and to have him disqualified from running for Federal office ever again, which only requires a majority of the Senate, which will happen as the impeachment won’t be delivered to the Senate until after the inauguration, and there are enough Republican senators okay with that it won’t get challenged in any real way. And the reason that several Republican senators are okay with it, because they don’t want to go up against Trump in the primaries in 2024.
I don’t think the Republicans planning on running in 2024 are the same as the senators that will agree to impeach him. For example, I don’t think Rubio or Cruz will vote to convict, and McConnell may, in fact, vote to convict. I think the reason is that he attempted a coup against the United States government and also put their lives in danger.
They don’t have to vote to impeach. All they have to do is not push for a faster timeline to get it to the senate, to be voted down. By allowing it to be delivered and voted upon after the inauguration, they can let the Democratic majority to vote on disqualification which only requires a majority, not 2/3.
I guess I’m not sure what you mean when you say the Republicans are OK with it then, but it’s not that important.
If the Republicans wanted to squash this. They would use every thing at their disposal to get the articles of impeachment from the House and over to the Senate, ASAP. That way it could get voted down, even the disqualification.
But they won’t.
Schumer on Tuesday disputed that claim and said that he and McConnell could agree to reconvene the Senate in an emergency session in the next few days.
He says that legislation passed in 2004 allows the Senate majority and minority leaders to reconvene the Senate at any time to respond to emergencies.
“There was legislation passed in 2004 that allows the Senate minority and majority leader to jointly reconvene the Senate in times of emergency. This is a time of emergency,” Schumer said.
“I’ve asked him to call the Senate back — all he needs is my agreement, I’m still minority leader,” he said.
It’s apparently legislation that was adopted in the wake of 9/11 to keep the Senate from being hamstrung in the event of an emergency.
I didn’t know that. I thought that had the same threshold as removal.
It does. The disqualification is AFTER conviction. You have to convict first. THEN impose the penalties.
And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
There is no provision in the constitution for disqualification from office by simple vote.
Okay, found the cite.
The “law” referred to is actually a Senate resolution introduced by Senator Frist the day he announced that they found ricin in the Dirksen building. It can be found in the Senate handbook under the nonstatutory standing orders, or from the Congressional record.
Relating to Senate adjournments and recesses, S.R. 296, 108th Cong.
Resolved, That the presiding officer of the Senate may suspend any
proceeding of the Senate, including a rollcall vote or a quorum call,
and declare a recess or adjournment of the Senate subject to existing
authorities or subject to the call of the Chair, within the limits of
article I, section 5, clause 4, of the Constitution, whenever the
presiding officer has been notified of an imminent threat.
Sec. 2. When the Senate is out of session, the majority and
minority leaders, or their designees, may, acting jointly and within
the limits of article I, section 5, clause 4, of the Constitution,
modify any order for the time or place of the convening of the Senate
when, in their opinion, such action is warranted by intervening
circumstances.
If I had to think of a legal reason not to use this, it would be that there haven’t been any intervening circumstances since 1/7, but I think transmission of articles of impeachment count as intervening circumstances. Oh well.
~Max
I appreciate the research deep dive!
[quote] Judgment - Removal and Disqualification
SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
ANNOTATIONS
Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.853
The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856
853 See discussion supra of the differences between English and American impeachment.
854 3 Deschler’sprecedents Of The United States House Of Representatives ch. 14, § 13.9.
855 See Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional And Historical Analysis 77–79 (2d ed. 2000).
856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).[/quote]
That still requires that the conviction have previously been consummated.