American Politics III: New President, Same Old Country

[Washington Resistance Army]

Murkowski and Romney are Aye's. Not really unexpected, but at least some Republicans are onboard.

[Istoreya]

did Bill Cassidy vote yes or did i mishear-

I went to check. He did vote yes.

[Andsed]

Murkowski and Romney are Aye's. Not really unexpected, but at least some Republicans are onboard.

So along with Cassidy thats about 3 Reps so far. Now we just need 13 more to come to their senses.

[Kowani]

Murkowski yes, collins yes, cassidy yes, romney yes, sasse yes, toomey yes

mcconnell no

[Cannot think of a name]

Murkowski and Romney are Aye's. Not really unexpected, but at least some Republicans are onboard.

So along with Cassidy thats about 3 Reps so far. Now we just need 13 more to come to their senses.

I mean, isn't this essentially the same vote as the one they had last week that came in 55-45?

[Istoreya]

Okay I don't know what streams you all are watching but the interview I just got cut to has a dude saying Trump can't incite a riot that was planned that THAT MAKES IT ANY BETTER?

[Washington Resistance Army]

56-44.

[Kowani]

So along with Cassidy thats about 3 Reps so far. Now we just need 13 more to come to their senses.

I mean, isn't this essentially the same vote as the one they had last week that came in 55-45?

final total: 56-44

Murkowski
Cassidy
Romney
Toomey
Collins
Sasse

[Cannot think of a name]

I mean, isn't this essentially the same vote as the one they had last week that came in 55-45?

final total: 56-44

Murkowski
Cassidy
Romney
Toomey
Collins
Sasse

The talkie box tells me Cassidy is the new arrival.

[Rusozak]

Okay I don't know what streams you all are watching but the interview I just got cut to has a dude saying Trump can't incite a riot that was planned that THAT MAKES IT ANY BETTER?

"Your honor, I do not have anger issues. This could not have been a crime of passion because I planned ahead of time. The defense rests."

[Farnhamia]

Don't you all miss Trump's flaming tweets? There's something missing.

Trump is being represented by the law firm of Meandering and Furious ~ Brian Williams

[Fartsniffage]

I mean, isn't this essentially the same vote as the one they had last week that came in 55-45?

final total: 56-44

So now it's a constitutional trial they'll all be considering the evidence carefully and voting solely on that? Right?

[Galloism]

final total: 56-44

So now it's a constitutional trial they'll all be considering the evidence carefully and voting solely on that? Right?

[X]

[Kowani]

and adjourned

final total: 56-44

So now it's a constitutional trial they'll all be considering the evidence carefully and voting solely on that? Right?

ahhahahhhaa
no

[Andsed]

I mean, isn't this essentially the same vote as the one they had last week that came in 55-45?

final total: 56-44

Murkowski
Cassidy
Romney
Toomey
Collins
Sasse

So were short 10 Republicans. Is it possible we will see something similar to what happened with the House vote where those who initially voted no voted yes for the actual vote or am I just being naive?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

That was the best episode of the American anime yet.

I love the conclusion that yes, it is ok to impeach former presidents for acts they did when they where President.

[Valrifell]

final total: 56-44

Murkowski
Cassidy
Romney
Toomey
Collins
Sasse

So were short 10 Republicans. Is it possible we will see something similar to what happened with the House vote where those who initially voted no voted yes for the actual vote or am I just being naive?

There were Republicans who voted that the trial was unconstitutional and then proceeded to vote to set up the rules for the trial, so really who knows.

[Fartsniffage]

and adjourned

So now it's a constitutional trial they'll all be considering the evidence carefully and voting solely on that? Right?

ahhahahhhaa
no

[Kowani]

final total: 56-44

Murkowski
Cassidy
Romney
Toomey
Collins
Sasse

So were short 10 Republicans. Is it possible we will see something similar to what happened with the House vote where those who initially voted no voted yes for the actual vote or am I just being naive?

technically possible
a few senators in swing states might go for it
and watch McConnell

[Esalia]

final total: 56-44

Murkowski
Cassidy
Romney
Toomey
Collins
Sasse

So were short 10 Republicans. Is it possible we will see something similar to what happened with the House vote where those who initially voted no voted yes for the actual vote or am I just being naive?

It might be my typical policy of "expect the worst so then you're either right or pleasantly surprised", but I strongly doubt we're gonna see ten Republicans flip now it's ruled as constitutional.

[Farnhamia]

So were short 10 Republicans. Is it possible we will see something similar to what happened with the House vote where those who initially voted no voted yes for the actual vote or am I just being naive?

There were Republicans who voted that the trial was unconstitutional and then proceeded to vote to set up the rules for the trial, so really who knows.

The GOP is now officially a post-truth party.

[Rusozak]

I'm doubtful of an actual conviction, barring the Trump mob tries to stop it with a part 2 of their coup attempt the day before they vote. Actual danger to their lives seems to be what it takes to steer the GOP from Trump, but only for a few weeks.

[Loeje]

There were Republicans who voted that the trial was unconstitutional and then proceeded to vote to set up the rules for the trial, so really who knows.

The GOP is now officially a post-truth party.

Only now? I think it was official sometime after the election.

[Farnhamia]

The GOP is now officially a post-truth party.

Only now? I think it was official sometime after the election.

Only when I say so. You look very familiar, stranger.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

high crimes=felonies
high misdemeanors=?

tho. It's always bothered me. There's a third way to parse it too. "High crimes = crimes, committed in high office rather than private life" and possibly "misdemeanors = crimes NOT in high office". But that gets into originalism, and what "misdemeanor" might have meant when written ...

Dangling modifiers are bad, y'll. Just because the founding fartbags use them, doesn't mean you should.

The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not have to refer to any sort of crime or anything in particular, it refers to literally whatever the Congress defines it to refer to, as the Constitution makes clear. It’s a technical term without a precise legal meaning on purpose, so it doesn’t have to be parsed.

Etymologically, it was constructed that way to intentionally be incredibly broad, a high crime being anything done contrary to an official oath of some high office, and a misdemeanor referring to any offense whatsoever. It really doesn’t mean anything at at all, as is the case with other constitutional phrases like “good behavior.”

That makes sense, but if it was intended as "anything from the worst possible crime to any identifiable misdemeanor" not two separate things, then at least one word is missing.

I understand that for its time, such plain writing in any kind of legal document was innovative. "Plain English law" across the spectrum from a national Constitution to a local council notice is an admirable concept: everyone, not just lawyers, should be able to understand the "nation of laws". But the lack of experience in expressing concepts succinctly and plainly shows in retrospect, in passages such as this which have no reason to be vague (while the 2A for instance I think does, being internally inconsistent). To be blunt, they could have just written "any misdemeanor" but writer's conceit required "high crimes" to justify Congress having this power at all.

Anyway the argument that there should be no trial failed, and it will proceed on a vote of 56-44.

And unless dramatic new evidence is presented, I think the ultimate verdict won't be any stronger than that. Any Republican who was leaning to convict Trump would presumably want the trial to proceed. Ah well.