There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office

I would never again vote for a Senator who agreed to a secret vote for impeachment. I have two Republican senators, and I would campaign for their primary opponents if they agreed to a secret ballot, and I would even campaign for their democratic opponents. There should be no secret votes in Congress.

 

Conviction by the Senate, upon House impeachment, is not a criminal process. The maximum penalty is removed al from office and possible prohibition from holding future office. There are no criminal punishments. Criminal indictments would be separate which may or may not follow removal from office, depending on the criminal charges. Removal from office by conviction upon impeachment is a political act, which may or may not include criminal charges.

 

A secret ballot is allowed by Congress, but it can be blocked by 1/5 of either chamber. A Senate vote can be secret, but if more than 20 Senators request it, the votes have to be made public. I don't see that happening, and I would vote against any Senator who wanted a secret vote. They are my representatives, and a secret ballot short-circuits that.

 

I suspect you didn't read the Mueller report.

 

I did. What point did you want to make? I think Manafort was Mueller's "smoking gun." If Manafort provided the "link" between the campaign and the Russians, Mueller would have recommended a Presidential indictment. Without Manafort's testimony, Mueller had only the case for obstruction, which was difficult to prove without equal prove of an underlying crime. He couldn't prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt (the DoJ standard for an indictment) and left his boss to decide about obstruction...Barr could throw out the DoJ policy on non-indictment of a sitting president and indict or, archive the obstruction evidence presented for a future DoJ AG, or Congress could pursue impeachment with the evidence gathered so far. Mueller didn't feel, IMO, it was his call without a "smoking gun" on conspiracy.
But, of course, it isn't over...the Stone trial opens new avenues.

 

Well, per the Constitution (Article I, Section 5), If 1/5 of the Senate present at a vote objects to a secret vote, it can't be secret. I'm totally against a secret vote. I would vote out any Senator of mine who agreed to it.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

 

The obvious one anyone who read and comprehended the report would come to.

 

Per the Constitution, if 1/5 of the Senate present at the vote wants it public, it will be public. That means 20 Senators can block any attempt to have this vote secret.

 

I don't care who the President is. I would object to a secret impeachment vote regardless. Glad that all it takes is 20 Senators to stop a secret impeachment vote from taking place, per the Constitution.

 

Actually, the Senate (or House) can choose to make a vote private (per Article I, Section 5), however, it only takes 1/5 to request a vote be made public.

 

I disagree totally. The people of their district deserve to know who they voted for. Glad that it takes only 20 Senators to guarantee that.

 

Tell me what you think that this means.

 

Actually, it would take 81 votes total, or 36 Republicans to have a secret vote. If 1/5 of the Senate demands an accounting of the yeas and nays, the Constitution requires the yeas and nays be made public. It would take 81 Senators to have a secret vote.

 

Do you have a source for the 1/5th of the Senate could force the vote to take place in the public?

Edit: I see you provided the source. Thanks.

 

As of the report's writing. To borrow a famous Rumsfeld phrase: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let's say Stone is convicted of being the campaign's go-between the campaign and Wikileaks and Manafort knew it and sat in on meetings wherein the political timing of the Russian stolen e-mails was acknowledged and discussed and Manafort could testify that the candidate himself was aware that the Russians had stolen the e-mails and would use them as he, Trump, saw fit. That's conspiracy.

 

Fascinating idea.

 

LoL @ "as of the report's writing".

 

Good catch...Article I, Section 5, paragraph 3, right? Sort of makes this thread moot, doesn't it?

 

It means that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities.

Which, of course, is exactly what it says.

Ipso facto, every Democrat who said they had evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, like Schiff and Swalwell, were lying the entire time.

 

Back to reality.

 

Correct. No indictment and trial, no double jeopardy. The Mueller Report is open to the future evidence.

 

IMHO it does. The Constitution is a short document and it's pretty well organized. The article writer that the OP quoted should have read it.

 

Right because 3 years of the intelligence agencies, every breathing Democrat, multiple foreign countries, multiple FISA investigations, and tens of millions of dollars was insufficient effort.

The desperation is real.

All that effort, and all you have is the most vetted POTUS in US history.

 

Agreed, or as a minimum, should have brought that provision up in the article.

 

A good many of we American voters worked with Congress trying to restore the Senate as the body to represent our own states. I am sick of a body to represent we voters bashing with a different body also doing the same thing. We must involve states in operations setting policy at the Federal level. Revoke the 17th amendment. We worked on it all during the Clinton regimes era.

Senators are the senior body of authority. Our Founders set it up that way. First the public, to wit: House of representatives who passed to the States for evaluation using the Senate. As it now is set up, it is just a fight among Pelosi vs McConnell. Mitch owes KY his full time working for them.