Replies

You would need twenty-plus Democrats to vote along with this bill. I might agree and say that five might find some reason to go along with it. This is mostly for ‘hype’.

At this point, I might also suggest that we need to go back to the Constitution and write two lines of text....giving the House Speaker ten days to hand over the Articles of Impeachment, or they fall null and void.

I believe there is a "cram down" method by which the 51 senators can change the rule in which case when the rule is changed, the Senate can proceed to vote. But vote on what?

Hawley's proposal would be to dismiss the impeachment on procedural grounds but that is certainly not the best way to proceed. McConnell as Senate leader ought to take up the impeachment as though the articles had been delivered (after all there is no constitutional requirement that there be articles of impeachment much less delivered) and entertain a motion to dismiss on the MERITS. Hawley would have the matter rendered inoperative but probably subject to revival by the House at the whim of the Democrats.

In other words, a better motion would be to dismiss assuming that all the factual allegations in the drafted articles of impeachment were true and the Senate concludes by 51 votes that the matter must be dismissed because they don't add up to an impeachable offense.

The president's main defense has always been that there was no quid pro quo and the conversation demonstrates that. The Democrats response has always been that collateral evidence proves a quid pro quo.This would tend to foreclose further investigations by the House of Representatives which, since they control the timing, will be used to affect the upcoming election. Thus, the never-ending search by the House to amplify the grounds for impeachment after the "transcript" of the conversation was released would be rendered irrelevant, at least in logic because, even assuming a quid pro quo there is no impeachable offense.