Personally, I think its important to remember that two thirds vote is required to convict in the Senate and right now it is 50-50 split with the Vice President as a tie breaker. A substantial number of Republicans would need to vote with the Democrats for there to even be a shot at a conviction, but over the last week Republican resolve on fighting impeachment has strengthened - at least from what I have been reading.@bearish "at most a couple of GOP senators will vote for that regardless of evidence presented," as opposed to Dems who would vote before any evidence is presented! I am keen to see who will vote against party lines. Personally I think the evidence (that I've seen) is weak, so it's the Dems I'll be watching.
@trackstar "an important nod to the world"! Who on Earth thinks that such a nod is necessary?!! The nods are needed by the US. And I'm sure that the stimulus checks will be highly appreciated. However we are talking about a country where they'd rather lose body parts than have a free health service, so who knows?
Mitch McConnel and Chuck Schumer are going to accept the articles of impeachment as they expressed in the past week, but that is on poor legal ground. The entire impeachment process is subject to judicial review, as always:
- Alan Dershowitz believes that the House of Representatives violated the constitution at least 6 times while attempting to impeach the president: “They violated the free speech provision. They violated the impeachment criteria. They violated the bill of attainder. They violated due process, on and on and on.”
- Not to mention their attempts to pressure Mike Pence into invoking the 25th Amendment, to which Mike Pence responded that would violate the constitution as the 25th Ammendment is not an alternative to impeachment.
- In regards to the issue as to whether or not it is constitutionally sound to impeach a president after he leaves office, the strongest argument for that is that impeachment existed in Britain and there is contextual evidence as to how that should be interpreted. However, the counter argument is that no president in US history has been impeached after leaving office and the normal interpretation has no relationship to British Common law. The argument could easily by made that that if our founding fathers had wanted presidents to be impeachable after leaving office they would have written that in.