How close was the vote to acquit Trump?

blackribbon said:

And this belief is based on what? There were Republicans Senators who voted to acquit Clinton even though he admitted to lying under oath.

.

Click to expand...

I refer you to Romney's remarks - have you read them completely? :

Read the full text: Mitt Romney's remarks on impeachment vote

blackribbon said:

I haven't heard anywhere that 69 votes were needed to convict. I have only heard lots of discussion about political lines and this almost 50/50 vote.

Click to expand...

This might have something to do with the fact that it takes 67 votes to convict.

blackribbon said:

Um...to have extra witnesses who were not included in the impeachment process on the House's side would have gone against every normal standard used in a trial in the United States. Considering that this was only the 3rd impeachment trial in almost 250 years, it is hard to claim that there is any standard beyond that used in our judicial system.

Click to expand...

Again, flatly untrue. I point you back to post #35: How close was the vote to acquit Trump?

Furthermore, while there have only been 3 presidential impeachments, there have been quite a few more impeachments of federal judges, for which the structure is virtually identical.

blackribbon said:

Okay....I was wrong about the number. Again, why isn't this number being stated more. Even with 67 votes, this was not even close to a conviction.

It doesn't change my point.

Click to expand...

Because if there was 51 votes for witnesses the trial would still be going on. All procedural things needed only a simple majority. The only thing that 2/3 mattered on was whether to convict or not.

blackribbon said:

But the federal judges are not put in position by a vote of the citizens of the United States. This is a more significant trial and a different branch of the government.

Again, the vote to convict President Trump wasn't even close to a conviction.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about things that should occur during the trial, I'm not sure how judges being non-elected officials has any bearing. But regardless of the federal judges, there were 3 witnesses at Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate who had not testified before the House. So your statement that it flies against precedent is 100% false.

Whether or not the vote for conviction was close is irrelevant.

RocksInMyHead said:

Whether or not the vote for conviction was close is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

You mean an acquittal is an acquittal?

If that's it, then you are right. However, that assumes that nothing is made of how close the losing side came, and we cannot honestly say that nobody has been making that point.

blackribbon said:

It wasn't close at all. Since 2/3 of the Senate needs to vote to convict a president, they were 20 votes shy of convicting him.

Interesting that the media isn't pointing this out.

So 48 for and 52 against means Trump was acquitted with overwhelming vote.

Click to expand...

The vote was no shocker and anticipated all along. In fact the majority leader, commented that trump would definately be acquitted, before the trial even began. That alone, should tell you something.

blackribbon said:

Um...to have extra witnesses who were not included in the impeachment process on the House's side would have gone against every normal standard used in a trial in the United States.

Click to expand...

Going by the analogy of the House being the grand jury and the Senate being the trial, you are 100% wrong.

Considering that this was only the 3rd impeachment trial in almost 250 years, it is hard to claim that there is any standard beyond that used in our judicial system.

Click to expand...

uh, you're still wrong. Not only was this not merely the 3rd impeachment (it was the 3rd presidential impeachment, but folks in other offices have been impeached as well), but Andrew Johnson was impeached for trying to fire a cabinet member without going through the Senate. That is hardly a "major crime".

Either way, the part I bolded was:

No president should be removed from office for anything less than a major crime

Click to expand...

That is the standard to which I was referring that I said wasn't laid out in the constitution. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is an anachronistic term that refers to what we would now call abuse of power and/or gross mismanagement. It is not "a major crime".

blackribbon said:

Why didn't the House didn't consider it important enough to hear their testimonies?

Click to expand...

The House tried to get these testimonies and the White House blocked them. They subpoenaed Don McGahn and last I heard, that's still tied up in court. John Bolton threatened to fight a subpoena. They subpoenaed Charles Kupperman, on whose legal fight John Bolton tried to piggyback. Multiple other people were ordered by the WH to not testify and, had they been subpoenaed, would likely have been tied up court for a long time as well.

Seriously - between your not hearing about the supermajority needed for conviction and your not being aware that the WH blocked these testimonies that you claim the House "didn't consider important", you really ought to consider finding some higher quality news sources.

Albion said:

You mean an acquittal is an acquittal?

If that's it, then you are right. However, that assumes that nothing is made of how close the losing side came, and we cannot honestly say that nobody has been making that point.

Click to expand...

No, it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not witnesses should have been called.

essentialsaltes said:

You are grossly mistaken.

"Mitt Romney is the first person in the history of USA impeachment to vote against their own party leader in a Senate trial..."

Republicans voting to acquit Bill Clinton is quite different from a Republican voting to remove Donald Trump.

Click to expand...

Correct.

All Senate Democrats voted to acquit Clinton
Andrew Jackson was acquited by all members of his own party.

blackribbon said:

It wasn't close at all. Since 2/3 of the Senate needs to vote to convict a president, they were 20 votes shy of convicting him.

Interesting that the media isn't pointing this out.

So 48 for and 52 against means Trump was acquitted with overwhelming vote.

Click to expand...

Not overwhelming at all. Almost dead even, in fact.

Youre just playing games with the fact that an overwhelming vote is whats required to convict.

durangodawood said:

Not overwhelming at all. Almost dead even, in fact.

Youre just playing games with the fact that an overwhelming vote is whats required to convict.

Click to expand...

Correct.

And if you want to get technical about it, it was a bipartisan vote to convict and a partisan vote to acquit.

blackribbon said:

Um...to have extra witnesses who were not included in the impeachment process on the House's side would have gone against every normal standard used in a trial in the United States. Considering that this was only the 3rd impeachment trial in almost 250 years, it is hard to claim that there is any standard beyond that used in our judicial system.

Click to expand...

Thomas Porteous would like a word.

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia