aloyisious wrote: » I'm presuming from this that there'd be no point in the Dems trying to go ahead with a senate trial for weeks yet, probably not before the inauguration, which explains what's been going on with the slowness of proceedings in the senate and both parties must be fully aware of the certification and swearing-in legalities yet to be done. There's no sudden lack of impetus at all there.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Clinton was a very good President in the grand scheme of things , broadly speaking he left the place in a much better state than when he arrived. He was (and still is) not a particularly good/nice person though, mainly linked to his inability to keep it in his pants Trump is an awful person who is leaving the country in an immeasurably worse place as well.
prawnsambo wrote: » I'm not sure if you're aware (you didn't mention it), but the Senate is in recess at the moment and not due to sit again until the 19th. So unless McConnell decides to resume earlier (not sure if that's his decision or that of the Senate as a whole), they can't start until then anyway.
Quin_Dub wrote: » As I understand it, there are two options for an early return of the Senate. The first is Unanimous consent , which they won't get as multiple GOP senators would refuse. McConnell also has the option of declaring an emergency sitting , which he refused to do yesterday. So it'll be the 19th at the earliest.
Tell me how wrote: » Pretty sure that MCConnells announcement yesterday ensured that it will be under the Biden Administration that the senate will next sit so as I understand it, they are not reconvening on the 19th.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Procedural question. Could the GOP pull a stroke and "abstain" from attending the impeachment trial/vote meaning that the Democrats absolutely have the 2/3rd's majority. That way , Trump gets convicted but all the GOP can claim to have not voted for it? Or are there rules that might prevent that?
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Senate quorum is 51, but I'm honestly not sure how that would work in the case of an impeachment trial. Just looked it up and nothing stopping them from doing this.
What.Now wrote: » Very good point. I wouldn't like to see it happen as it's important to get some sort of cross party support by this would definitely be a get out clause for the GOP if allowed happen. I can't see why it would not.
prawnsambo wrote: » So if 75 voted 50/25, that would be the requisite 2/3rds and you'd have half the GOP senators voting against. Can't see why not. But I doubt they would.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Correct. I also agree on your second point, I just don't see them not showing up en masse, but if the magic number is within reach (and it seems like it is) then you could see some GOP members who are pro-impeachment but not willing to put their head on the block not showing up for whatever made up reason they want (and COVID-19 would be a good one) and then suddenly the narrative is the GOP fought but on the day there were defectors (from safer seats) that pushed the vote over the 2/3 supermajority line.
Agent Coulson wrote: » They voted to impeach Trump now they are scared his cult followers may try to kill them.https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1349747027438153734?s=20
Dohnjoe wrote: » Not an answer to the question, but in my opinion (GOP) voters would 100% see this as worse than actually voting against Trump, a cowardly stab in the back through mass abstaining.
aloyisious wrote: » It looks like Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow may be Trump's defence team, along with Ken Starr, the counsel who investigated Bill Clinton. An unusual info link: https://indianexpress.com/article/world/whos-who-on-trumps-legal-team-for-impeachment-trial-6222684/
FreudianSlippers wrote: » at this point it'll probably be just Giuliani and some Saul Goodman type.
Hurrache wrote: » Can't see it being Giulliani, reportedly Trump is refusing to pay him for his recent services.
aloyisious wrote: » Cam Kamala count as the 51st in the case of NO GOP members turning up to make a quorum? The content in the following link sounds most unusual for a quorum procedure but.... Quorum - The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.https://www.cop.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm
FreudianSlippers wrote: » I don't believe the President of the Senate counts.
AbusesToilets wrote: » That's a bold statement Quin. What you judge him to have done to warrant that assessment? Many of the issues US society, and the by extension the rest of the world, began under his adminstration.
Itssoeasy wrote: » The more details that I’m hearing about attack on the US capitol the more I’m thinking that not only was there massive encouragement of it, but direct help by people in the building. It seems panic buttons were removed(I’d never thought about panic buttons being in offices but it makes sense) whic h is a bit sinister and deliberate. There was congressman James clyburn who said the people went to a specific office of his. I’ve watched a few official videos of the capitol building and its not a small building and unless you knew where to go you’d be lost.
