How close was the vote to acquit Trump?

[stevil]

If that was his point then his whole case is built on a paltry semantic quibble. The party leaders for the Senate are the majority and minority leaders. Romney is the only one to vote to convict a president of his own party, but he is not the only one to vote against his party or his party leader.

Comprehension and logic are funny things.
What some people would consider a very basic level of comprehension. Others can still get confused.

When Donald Trump was on trial in the Senate, people voted for or against him.
They did not vote for or against the leader of the Democrat party.
Almost all Republican senators voted for their leader, but Mitt Romney was the first person in USA history to vote against their party leader in a Senate trial.
The Democrat votes in this instance are for or against the opposition leader, not their own leader. Their own party leader was not on trial.

Same thing when Bill Clinton was on trial.
All Democratic Senators voted for their leader.
The Rupublican senators voter for or against their opposition leader.

Same thing when Andrew Jackson was on trial.
All Democratic Senators voted for their leader.
The Rupublican senators voter for or against their opposition leader.

 

[blackribbon]

Thomas Porteous would like a word.

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

Correction..."3rd US PRESIDENTIAL Impeachment". I assumed that the topic of discussion was already defined. ( I just added "US" to clarify that my discussion didn't include the time the president of some PTA was removed from office ).

 

[durangodawood]

When you need 67% and you only get 49%, that is a statistically significant difference. There is nothing "dead even" about it. This is math. It isn't really that hard to understand.

"Even" is 50/50. Thats what it means.

Conviction in this case requires something overwhelming.....not even +1.

Youre playing games. Anyone can see through what youre doing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I haven't heard anywhere that 69 votes were needed to convict.

Probably because it's 67 votes.

I have only heard lots of discussion about political lines and this almost 50/50 vote.

And I and the rest of the country heard since the start that a 2/3 majority was necessary to convict, and that it in all likelihood wasn't going to happen.

Now, perhaps the media didn't make it clear that there are 100 Senators who vote in the impeachment because that either was or should be common knowledge, or that the necessary 2/3 majority would be 67 guilty votes because that would be basic math.

Really, I don't know what you're complaining about -- the media reported the facts accurately... isn't that what you allegedly want them to do?

 

[Belk]

Correction..."3rd US PRESIDENTIAL Impeachment". I assumed that the topic of discussion was already defined. ( I just added "US" to clarify that my discussion didn't include the time the president of some PTA was removed from office ).

It is so cute how you act as if your point about 'standards' has not been refuted.

 

[blackribbon]

Comprehension and logic are funny things.
What some people would consider a very basic level of comprehension. Others can still get confused.

When Donald Trump was on trial in the Senate, people voted for or against him.
They did not vote for or against the leader of the Democrat party.
Almost all Republican senators voted for their leader, but Mitt Romney was the first person in USA history to vote against their party leader in a Senate trial.
The Democrat votes in this instance are for or against the opposition leader, not their own leader. Their own party leader was not on trial.

Same thing when Bill Clinton was on trial.
All Democratic Senators voted for their leader.
The Rupublican senators voter for or against their opposition leader.

Same thing when Andrew Jackson was on trial.
The Rupublican senators voter for or against their opposition leader.
All Democratic Senators voted for their leader.

Andrew Jackson?

But if the point you are trying to make is that all three impeachment trials (OF US Presidents...for those who need the clarification) were politically based and not based on any real accusations of high crimes or treason....then I agree. Which is why acquittal was appropriate in all the cases. Our system works.

 

[stevil]

51 Senators agreed with the House that they didn't need to hear these testimonies.

What are you talking about?

The House managers were insisting that Witnesses be brought into the Senate trials. All Democratic Senators voted for witnesses.

 

[blackribbon]

It is so cute how you act as if your point about 'standards' has not been refuted.

I was address the point being made against my post...which was comparing some federal judge's impeachment trial to prove that this was not the 3rd impeachment trial.

There was no standard even mentioned.

 

[blackribbon]

What are you talking about?

The House managers were insisting that Witnesses be brought into the Senate trials. All Democratic Senators voted for witnesses.

The House gets to call witnesses when the case is IN THE HOUSE. How hard is that for people to understand? They made the decision that they didn't need to hear any more witnesses when they ended their investigation and sent it to the Senate. The House doesn't get to tell the Senate how to run its business any more than the Senate gets to tell the House how to run it's business. The House determined it's portion of the process was done when it walked the Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate and said that it provided overwhelming evidence to prove their case.

 

[stevil]

Andrew Jackson?

But if the point you are trying to make is that all three impeachment trials (OF US Presidents...for those who need the clarification) were politically based and not based on any real accusations of high crimes or treason....then I agree. Which is why acquittal was appropriate in all the cases. Our system works.

Impeachment is a political process.
But when it comes to impeachment of a President, only once in USA history has a party member voted to convict his own party leader.
It is not surprising at all that most Republican Senators voted to acquit Trump. Especially since many of them publicly stated they would acquit even before the Senate Trial begun. Many of the Republican Senators had even stated they hadn't watched the House hearings and hadn't read the Witness testimonies from the House hearings.

The guilt of the President (in most cases) seems to be irrelevant when it comes to the Senate votes cast by their own party members.

That is why the media aren't making a big deal of the numbers of people voting for and against Trump.
The votes were largely to be expected and had nothing to do with whether Trump was guilty or not.

 

[Belk]

I was address the point being made against my post...which was comparing some federal judge's impeachment trial to prove that this was not the 3rd impeachment trial.

There was no standard even mentioned.

 

[klutedavid]

Trump being acquitted for breaking laws isn't a good thing. It's a sad day in history when the moral side doesn't do it's job. The moral thing was to punish this guilty man.

Is attempting to dig up dirt on your political opponent as Trump did through the power of his office. A moral breach or a political breach of the law?

If the political class was tested according to the Bible's moral code, I don't believe any politician would pass.

 

[blackribbon]

Impeachment is a political process.
But when it comes to impeachment of a President, only once in USA history has a party member voted to convict his own party leader.
It is not surprising at all that most Republican Senators voted to acquit Trump. Especially since many of them publicly stated they would acquit even before the Senate Trial begun. Many of the Republican Senators had even stated they hadn't watched the House hearings and hadn't read the Witness testimonies from the House hearings.

The guilt of the President (in most cases) seems to be irrelevant when it comes to the Senate votes cast by their own party members.

That is why the media aren't making a big deal of the numbers of people voting for and against Trump.
The votes were largely to be expected and had nothing to do with whether Trump was guilty or not.

And you think that the Democrats really cared if he was guilty or not? Do you believe the process of calling witnesses in the House was "fair" and non-partisan? You think that not allowing witnesses to be called by both parties showed an overwhelming desire to "find the truth"? How about the call to impeach Trump over and over from even before he did a single thing as President?

You really believe that this was a honest search for truth?

 

[blackribbon]

View attachment 271632

Darn. Proven wrong by a meme.

Facts are just too hard for some people I guess. LOL.

 

[Bobber]

The point of this post was that this wasn't even a close vote. To even convict with the lowest possible vote would have required 20 more votes. They needed 20% more support in the Senate. It isn't a 50/50 thing.

Exactly. So now the question is will those discontented choose to respect the Constitution and really and truly want to see the Republic preserved or not? If the vote was even only two votes short of removal of course the Founding Fathers would still be saying to ALL to settle down and the bring your passions in check. Is the present generation of Americans up to the challenge in doing so to show the proper restraint? We'll see. If they chose to want to throw the Republic away based on their temporary passions they might sadly discover later they really didn't have anything better to replace it with.

 

[Belk]

Darn. Proven wrong by a meme.

Facts are just too hard for some people I guess. LOL.

Yes, that does seem to be the case.

 

[stevil]

If it is simply about trust, I assume that you believe that Clinton should have been found guilty? He admitted to lying under oath.

I'm of two minds about Bill Clinton

On the one hand, him having an affair is non of the public's business. It does not make him unsuitable to be president. He ought to not have answered the question under oath.
On the other hand lying under oath is obstruction of justice/congress and impedes investigation.

But since impeachment isn't a legal process, you don't have a judge determining which questions are valid and so it becomes a judgement call. Bill should have refused to answer the question, but he was in a tricky situation because his wife was watching.
The only person for which the answer was relevant was his wife. It was irrelevant for the investigator, the house, the senate and the USA people.

Bill could be trusted to care for USA assets, he could be trusted to do what is best for the country.
Trump cannot be trusted with USA assets, it is obvious Trump does what is best for himself only.

 

[stevil]

What’s a high crime or misdemeanor? Those aren’t specific laws.

Right wing media have convinced Trump's base that this is a solid thing. That Trump hasn't crossed that line. The media invented it and Trump's base are sticking to it (desperately)

 

[blackribbon]

Is attempting to dig up dirt on your political opponent as Trump did through the power of his office. A moral breach or a political breach of the law?

If the political class was tested according to the Bible's moral code, I don't believe any politician would pass.

How about looking into potential past corruption imposed on a foreign nation? I don't think Biden is or was that big of a threat to Trump or caused Trump to lose even 5 minutes of sleep.

I don't think any US politician would pass a Biblical moral test, honestly. Biden has just realized he has to trash his Democratic candidates if he hopes to win the Democratic nomination.

And what Biden did was the definition of Quid pro quo...
"You do what I want if you want me to authorize the exchange of US money to help you". He not only admitted it...he bragged about it. Not one single first hand witness was able to testify or evidence provided that proved Trump did this. And unlike Biden, he has denied it. Ukraine got their money. Ukraine hasn't done any investigation into Biden's son's (not Joe Biden) company.

I personally think that quid pro quo has likely been done by every president and would be sort of disappointed if they didn't. I did it to my daughter last weekend. She couldn't use my car to go to a party unless the Christmas tree was finally taken down. She went to her party in the car with heated seats. We have no tree in the living room. Everyone is happy. (I always thought that was called negotiating before this this impeachment trial).

 

[blackribbon]

I'm of two minds about Bill Clinton

On the one hand, him having an affair is non of the public's business. It does not make him unsuitable to be president. He ought to not have answered the question under oath.
On the other hand lying under oath is obstruction of justice/congress and impedes investigation.

But since impeachment isn't a legal process, you don't have a judge determining which questions are valid and so it becomes a judgement call. Bill should have refused to answer the question, but he was in a tricky situation because his wife was watching.
The only person for which the answer was relevant was his wife. It was irrelevant for the investigator, the house, the senate and the USA people.

Bill could be trusted to care for USA assets, he could be trusted to do what is best for the country.
Trump cannot be trusted with USA assets, it is obvious Trump does what is best for himself only.

Actually having affairs makes a person unable to get most levels of security clearance because it makes a person more susceptible to being blackmailed. He also took advantage of his political position to seduce a young intern who was in awe of him (and only a few years older than his daughter). Her life was ruined. Her name is now synonymous with doing a lewd act.

I don't think it is as obvious that Trump is only doing what is best for himself. I see evidence that he has proven to be what is best for the US economy as well. And he didn't need the presidency to become famous or rich. How exactly did the Clintons become multi-millionaires as civil servants? Same with the Obamas? What has he gained from being President? He could be spending all his time hanging around the pool and playing golf...and he would still be making money.