Donald Trump should be convicted unanimously by secret ballot

[Poiuyt]

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/537318-donald-trump-should-be-convicted-unanimously-by-secret-ballot

snip-

Yet, despite Trump having neither law nor fact nor common sense on his side, it is largely predicted that conviction in the Senate will lack the requisite two-thirds vote. When Trump faced the earlier impeachment, I urged that the Senate have the benefit of a secret ballot like almost all jurors have in non-impeachment matters and that all of us enjoy in primary and general elections. The wisdom of a secret ballot is even greater because of the Jan. 6 riot, the continuing threat of violence against members of Congress, and in state capitals around the country.

The Senate rules regarding the conduct of an impeachment trial, including ballot secrecy, require a simple majority (though a two-thirds majority is required for conviction). Yes, a provision (Art. I, sec. 5) authorizes either chamber in general lawmaking to make public the “yeas and nays” if one-fifth of those present so desire. This provision, however, is subordinate to the specific constitutional provisions on impeachment, including that the “sole power to try impeachments” belongs to the Senate.

-snip-

Impeachment and secrecy are likewise historically linked. Seven secret sessions were held during the impeachment trial of former President Clinton. The Senate also closed its doors during the impeachment trial of federal judges in 1933 and 1936 and on six occasions in the 1980s.

It may be contended that even if the vote is secretly taken re Donald John Trump v. The United States House of Representatives that the information will inevitably leak. Perhaps. The effect of such improper disclosure can be avoided, of course, if the vote to convict is unanimous, or even taken by voice vote.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Not. going. To. Happen. Nt

[soothsayer]

2. I feel more would vote to acquit if it were secret

But I’m a contrarian.

I think the evidence revealed will make it hard for anyone to vote to acquit unless they can do so secretly.

They’re sneaky buggers.

[Zoonart]

3. Traitors don't get to keep their plausible deniability.

On the record... every one of them.


Oh and, Hill contributors, please stop trying to conflate this with the Clinton impeachment.

[lindysalsagal]

4. Even if a deal were brokered, I don't trust them enough.

[Stallion]

5. There is no right to a secret jury verdict-since the jury can always be polled

whereupon they are required to individually affirm their verdict

[jayfish]

6. Not Good for the Democratic Process.

Like it or not, elected officials must be accountable to their constituency. Voting via a secret ballot is unaccountable.

[sanatanadharma]

7. 99 to 1 gives everyone plausible denyability

A unanimous secret ballot so no one can know how anyone voted. Brilliant!

Better yet, conviction by a secret ballot verdict of 99 to 1 gives everyone plausible deniability.

[DonaldsRump]

8. No: Get all Senators on the record as to their votes

I suspect that there is going to be some bad stuff coming out of this trial for trump. A vote to acquit can be politically damaging if so.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. Forget accountability for Senators for a moment...

What about accountability for Trump?

Most of the Republican Senators are already on record voting to dismiss the trial altogether for BS reasons. I don't see any advantage to getting them on record again.

We already know they're cowed by Trump. If a secret ballot is what it takes to convict, I see no downside.

Now that he is out of office, the urgency is lessened, I'll admit. But he is still a danger to our democracy.

What will it say to future generations that a president can lie about his own election, start a fucking insurrection, and get away with it, at least in the eyes of the Senate? Let it not be so!