The Hill has reported that 51 Senators are needed to vote in favor of dismissing Trump articles of impeachment, the GOP leadership has reported that they do NOT have the needed 51 votes to dismiss the impeachment trial:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
GOP leadership: There aren't 51 votes in U.S. Senate to dismiss Trump articles of impeachment
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
Collins, Murkowski and if Lee and Paul had the conviction they pretended to...
Senators have more pull in their states then house reps. I feel there are a few Republicans who hate trump enough to make sure the trail at least resembles something real. They wont all go down with the ship
I flatout don't believe a fucking word they are saying. This is optics to make the eventual vote seem "fair".
Well that's good. Democrats had hoped similarly with Clinton's impeachment, it wasn't there, and they didn't back it.
It doesn't mean they'll hear witnesses though.
It doesn't mean they'll hear witnesses though.
yeah. That was the public position from the start. McConnell always said there'd be a trial. Assuming you have all Republicans ready to vote not to convict anyway (plus probably Manchin I'd imagine) I don't know why dismissing the charges would be perceived as a better outcome than rigging the process to be as favorable as possible, pretending that it's been fair, and then voting no to give a facade of due process and an outcome that he's been vindicated.
We know that there are Republican Senators who secretly hate trump but can't say so. My fantasy is that it comes time to vote on conviction and enough senators heel turn on Trump to convict.
Like I said, a fantasy.
Like I said, a fantasy.
It forces Senators in vulnerable states like Gardner in Colorado to vote on the record.
Me either. This reads to me like "trust us! We, like, don't even have the votes to just dismiss it!" And then they vote and have 53 votes.
Most think that withholding it from the senate was politically damaging, that she wasn't getting anything for withholding it any longer, that it was hurting vulnerable House Democrats, hurting vulnerable Senate Democrats, and overall making the case for impeachment weaker.
About a week ago, articles suggesting Democratic senate leadership had signalled to Pelosi to pass the articles over to the Senate. It didn't seem to be a winning political move to keep holding them.
Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives about a mouth ago. The Senate tries the President on those impeachment articles and has the power to remove him from office -- which isn't going to happen. Trump will be exonerated by the Senate. But he has still been impeached, only the third president in American history -- Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and now Donald Trump.
What this article is referencing is that the Senate can vote to dismiss the house articles without a full trial if they're deemed not credible. Democrats also tried this in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, unsuccessfully. Clinton was tried by the senate and exonerated.
(Richard Nixon was not impeached, he resigned before the House officially took a vote because new details had come out that saw his support in the senate collapse, a group of Republican allies approached Nixon and told him he should resign, he did)
It was always gonna go to the senate, it was just better to have a bit of a buffer on it
He is impeached. The trial would decide if he was removed.
He's already impeached, the Senate only has the power to acquit not travel back in time.
No. Senate trial determines removal from office. He is impeached.
already impeached. All this trial does is determine if he gets kicked out of office.
Ha, Portman must be feeling some heat already for his reelection in two years if he's one of the Senators.
Chief justice takes over that role overseeing Senate from vp in impeachment
Of course it's all just backroom conjecture. Five Senate Democrats said publicly last week that it was time for articles to be passed to the senate, which has been uncommon so far with the impeachment proceedings. But nobody knows for sure why Pelosi signaled on Friday that she'd prepare to pass the articles over to the senate, whether it was because Senate Democrats started to publicly state they wanted her to, or if it was backroom requests, or if it was because McConnell hasn't budged since Pelosi first withheld them, or maybe even if the Democratic primary candidates from the senate want to use it as an opportunity for a high profile rebuke of Trump with the Iowa caucuses & New Hampshire primary approaching (Warren, Sanders, Biden, Klobuchar would all have an opportunity to be involved in the trial, an advantage they have over Buttigieg, Yang, and the other non-senate candidates). All we know is that a number of Democrats started to publicly ask for the articles to be moved to the senate, a handful of OpEds came out encouraging the same midweek, and by Friday, Pelosi signalled she'd be moving to that step this week.
Maybe what Putin wants but I think Trump would wants the Republicans to fall in line like they usually do so they can just keep calling it a partisan witch hunt.
Pelosi hasn't allowed it to go to the Senate. She has signalled that she'd be willing to. This is likely because of a CNN story in the past 24 hours stating the GOP doesn't have the votes for a no-witness trial. This is how negotiations work.