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.

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:38:11 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

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.

It was an over reaction by people who have still not accepted the
results of the 2016 election and I see it as a horrible precedent. We
went four score and 11 years without impeaching a president, then
another century went by and in the last half century, one was forced
from office and 2 were impeached. It is a disturbing trend. I fear
whenever the House majority gets ****ed at a president in the future
they will impeach him.

On 02/04/2020 06:38 PM, Jim Joyce wrote:
With
Trump looking for election help (again!) from a foreign country, it's risky
to just let the election take care of it.

If Iowa is any indicator, Trump won't need foreign help. The Democrats
will torpedo themselves. 2016 redux.

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 21:45:54 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/04/2020 06:38 PM, Jim Joyce wrote:
With
Trump looking for election help (again!) from a foreign country, it's risky
to just let the election take care of it.

If Iowa is any indicator, Trump won't need foreign help.

That won't stop him from asking for it. It's not like he's going to go out
on the White House lawn, with a helicopter running in the background, and
ask Russia, China, and Ukraine to stand down. He'd follow that with a big
sweeping circle across the grass, unsure of where he's supposed to go. By
then he'll have toilet paper on his shoe and an umbrella in his hand that
he doesn't know how to fold. I may have mixed a few different events
together.

The Democrats will torpedo themselves. 2016 redux.

Iowa is a disaster. Totally self-inflicted, AFAICT.

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 23:17:45 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:38:11 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

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.

It was an over reaction by people who have still not accepted the
results of the 2016 election and I see it as a horrible precedent.

The 2016 election was problematic because of the foreign interference, but
I assume you know that the impeachment has/had nothing to do with 2016.
Instead, it was all about the 2020 election.

I see it as a natural reaction by a group of people who actually took their
oath of office seriously. When you see the President committing crimes,
should you just look the other way, like the Senate will almost certainly
do? I don't think history will be kind to these Republican Senators for not
holding the President accountable.


We
went four score and 11 years without impeaching a president, then
another century went by and in the last half century, one was forced
from office and 2 were impeached. It is a disturbing trend. I fear
whenever the House majority gets ****ed at a president in the future
they will impeach him.

That's a valid point but I'm not concerned about the time intervals. If the
very next President is also a shyster and a criminal, I'd support another
impeachment right there. I wouldn't say a President can't be impeached
because it hasn't been long enough since the last one.

On 02/04/2020 10:25 PM, Jim Joyce wrote:
The Democrats will torpedo themselves. 2016 redux.
Iowa is a disaster. Totally self-inflicted, AFAICT.


As some wag said if Burkina Faso screwed up an election that badly they
would want to send in UN observers.

Some reports say Bernie is leading in actual votes if not in their
arcane delegate systems. If the Democrats truly believe the popular vote
determines the winner...

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-5, Jim Joyce wrote:
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.

+1

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 11:18:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:38:11 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

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.

It was an over reaction by people who have still not accepted the
results of the 2016 election and I see it as a horrible precedent. We
went four score and 11 years without impeaching a president, then
another century went by and in the last half century, one was forced
from office and 2 were impeached. It is a disturbing trend. I fear
whenever the House majority gets ****ed at a president in the future
they will impeach him.

Then maybe presidents should straighten up and fly right? That's
the solution, not accepting abuse of office, because we want to
keep impeachments below some number. I suppose if there were too
many murders, the solution would be to ignore those above a certain
number?

On 2/5/2020 10:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-5, Jim Joyce wrote:
....

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?
....

A censure vote perhaps was worthy; wasting the last six months to build
a campaign issue for the upcoming election is as bad or worse in my view
than the actions undertaken.

Certainly it's a major stretch to have been worthy of impeachment; it
only came three years into his term after all the other dirty tricks
have failed in the objective of overturning the 2016 election.

Granted The Donald is uncouth and all but given the two alternatives
there's no question in my mind which direction I preferred the general
policy of the country head and given the way it looks to be going in the
nomination process don't see that changing.

Unfortunate he was the option instead of Pence, perhaps, but those were
the only two choices on the ballot--third party votes, etc., are just a
waste of a ballot in actual effect in determining the outcome.

--