General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThose Senators that were complicit with the "Big Lie" should abstain from voting?
If they were out there pushing the lie that Trump won the election, they are not qualified to be a juror - they should be a defendant.
But, then again, it might make it very difficult to find 17 Republicans that were not pushing the "Big Lie"?
Regardless, in my opinion, this point should be part of the discussion. If they cannot abstain, it is not going to be a fair acquittal.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)mucifer
(23,550 posts)Bucky
(54,027 posts)They'll have their new "Contract with America"-like marketing scheme up by then.
RockRaven
(14,974 posts)And we don't need 17 Repukes to vote to convict. The standard is 2/3 of the Senators present.
If -- for example -- 20 GrOPers stayed home that day, and 4 voted to convict, then the result would be 54-26 and Trump would be convicted. If 25 stayed home Trump could be convicted just along merely partisan lines, 50-25.
Bucky
(54,027 posts)What do Republicans love more than power? Maybe not even money.
The Roux Comes First
(1,299 posts)Of a piece with the judiciary-packing Old Turtle made a career of.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,350 posts)Article I, Section 3 (in part):
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.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)because it decreases the denominator. But if they attend and abstain, they remain in the denominator of those "present," so in essence, it is the same as a "no" vote.