If senators abstain does it still count as a 'no' vote for impeachment?

[Kablooie]

The constitution specifies that to convict, 2/3 of the senators present must concur.
If some senators are not present that decreases the amount of votes needed to convict.

Republicans claim that the impeachment trial is not valid so they might vote abstain instead of no.
But if a senator abstains instead of voting against conviction does that still count as voting against or does it count as not being present in the impeachment?

[Mike Nelson]

1. Hmm...

... I think it's 2/3 of those present, so abstains are not votes to convict. But, what if Senators stay home? Then, the 2/3rds changes... and what if many Republicans stay home... may to say the process is not constitutional... then what happens...

[hlthe2b]

2. Edited: Reduces the denominator (that of all present) so that it requires a few less to convict

IF enough stay home, but, no it does not count as a "no" vote IF absent. HOWEVER, If present and ABSTAIN, it can count as a "NO" vote. See this from Laurence Tribe and others:

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/10/10/the-impeachment-loophole-no-ones-talking-about/

“The Constitution contains quorum requirements [elsewhere] and clearly distinguishes between percentages of a particular chamber and percentages of ‘members present,'” said Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the co-author of the book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. “That language in the provision for Senate conviction on impeachment charges is quite deliberate, creating precisely the possibility” described above.

The Senate’s formal rules on impeachment, last updated in 1986, repeat the Constitution’s “present” provision numerous times.
--snip--
The above scenario isn’t entirely foolproof, though. The rule isn’t operative in the case of abstentions—or, as Frumin puts it, “They could ‘show up’ and ‘shut up.'” Senators in the chamber who abstain, or even refuse to vote, are still in essence voting “no,” because their very presence inflates the denominator required to reach two-thirds, explained Frumin. This became clear during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, when Arlen Specter refused to vote “guilty” or “not guilty,” instead registering a vote of “not proven.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist ordered the vote to be tallied as “not guilty.”

And the Senate could, in theory, exercise its power for compulsory attendance, directing the sergeant-at-arms to arrest fugitive senators and haul them back to the chamber for the vote. But such power is only used in cases where a quorum is missing—to go from, say, 49 to 51—but never from 70 to 100, making its use in such a scenario unprecedented, and likely an abuse of power. (Frumin thinks it would violate the rules.) Of course, that hasn’t stopped Mitch McConnell before. But any measure to enlist the sergeant-at-arms would require a majority of the senators who were—well, present. (See how useful this word is?) If 30 members were absent, Democrats would presumably defeat the motion to compel the missing senators’ attendance, 47-23.

How likely is the above scenario? Not very. But as long as the country is preparing itself for any outcome, we might as well start using the correct numbers. “The rule,” says Frumin, “is pretty clear.”

[tavernier]

3. Or a cowardly way of standing up to the trumpees in the senate

while hoping not to piss off any in your constituency.