On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:17:27 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/3/2020 11:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 20:57:48 -0800 (PST), Mark
wrote:

On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
OT

What would have happened in the impeachment if there were a tie vote?

The vote for witnesses was 49 to 51. One more vote for witnesses would
have been a tie.

Normally the president of the Senate, often the Vice-President, breaks
ties, but Justice Roberts is supposed to be neutral. Would he still
break the tie? Or would a tie vote lose.

They were talking about that on the news and it comes down to a tie
is a not guilty A majority wound be needed for a guilty No tie
breaker needed.

One reason there should always be an odd number of votes - - -

Wouldn't help. US Constitution requires 2/3-rds super majority (67) to
convict to impeach the President.

It's been a non-starter from the git-go; just an utter waste of time and
money instigated for purely political motives.

Correct. Impeachment is a political process, spelled out in the
Constitution. It is not a criminal process. The only possible outcomes are
conviction & removal from office, or acquittal and no removal.

The first part, the impeachment, is done. Trump has been impeached. He's
the third President in the country's history to wear that badge. He would
have been the 4th, but Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

As for acquittal being a foregone conclusion, that was always expected. It
will be very surprising if there is a conviction, but what should the House
have done? Do nothing and condone the shyster behavior of this President?
What kind of bad example would that set? No, they pretty much had to act
when they did. You can nitpick the process, but they had to do it. With
Trump looking for election help (again!) from a foreign country, it's risky
to just let the election take care of it.