Wonder why all those republicans who thought the trial unconstitutional didn't abstain

[andym]

That IMHO would be the proper response to an unconstitutional trial, which is what they have stated about the impeachment-- certainly guilty or not guilty verdicts are not appropriate if the trial itself is not "legal." Ironic that Mitch McConnell was the one who ensured the trial would start after trump left office.

The House managers should have raised this alternative for those senators who did not believe there should be a trial. Oh well, the answer is probably that they would be considered traitors by Trumpers even for doing that.

[Laelth]

1. For most of them, I think that your assumption is correct. n/t

-Laelth

[consider_this]

2. That would have seemed more proper...

but it would also seem proper to listen to the trial before making up their minds, which most of them did not bother doing (stated up front that they had thier decision made) - some didn't even sit for all of it.
Seems like the joke is on all of us.

[hlthe2b]

3. Absentions would have been the equivalent of a "no" vote, given they were present & still count

in the denominator (and thus the 2/3 of 100 = required 67 to convict)

Only had they not shown up for the vote, would that have helped.

[Karadeniz]

4. As Burr said, there was no legitimate basis for basing the final vote on constitutionality.

The constitutional issue was settled when the majority voted in favor of the Senate's trying Trump. Burr said he voted against trial, but having been voted down, he..and everyone... was left with their oath to judge the case on its merits. So this time he voted guilty because the evidence proved guilt.