I say go for it......move to exclude absent jurors.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Harry Litman
@harrylitman
Here is the ultimate hardball move.It’s just a thought experiment here, though not much worse than what McConnell has done in the past. Move to exclude the 16 jurors who weren’t present. Apparently 15 were Rs. That would then mean 56 to convict,.
6:26 PM · Feb 11, 2021

[marble falls]

1. Got my vote.

[KewlKat]

2. Is that possible?

[Nevilledog]

3. Ask Mitch.

He sure seems to do a lot of shit outside the norm.

[OAITW r.2.0]

4. Why not? Give the real cowards a chance to vacate their responsibility.

If it gets a conviction, I am OK with this.

[Tumbulu]

5. Great idea

Let’s see if they go for it.

[TwilightZone]

6. Not possible

"However, unlike criminal trials, there is no way to remove a Senator for showing impartiality. Since this is an inherently political process, our legal and political experts said that it is expected that Senators should act with political allegiances or biases. "

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-are-senators-required-to-be-impartial-jurors-during-impeachment-trial/65-4d2847d1-a65b-4ed7-9e97-b093741c9245

[Goodheart]

7. It's very possible, actually.

The Constitution specifically states that conviction requires 2/3rds of the Senators PRESENT.

[StarfishSaver]

8. "Present" means present during the vote. There is no requirement they be present at any other point

during the trial.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

13. Since the Senate makes its own rules ...

The Senate can decide to exclude from the floor those members who wear a squirrel on their head while refusing to wear a mask. Just an example, of course.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting the Senate take a vote to make a rule to exclude from the impeachment trial vote those members who have not attended the trial every day or who have failed to be attentive and in order during presentations by both sides.

[StarfishSaver]

14. That would be impossible to enforce

And a terrible precedent.

Senators not have to be on the floor in order to hear the proceedings. Members and Senators often closely monitor proceedings from off the floor - in their offices, cloakroom, various rooms just off the floor, etc. This is occurring even more during COVID. And being on the floor doesn't mean they're listening or paying attention and being off the floor doesn't mean they aren't.

No other proceeding required a Senator to have been glued to the Senate floor throughout the proceedings in order to vote. This doesn't and shouldn't, either. And not only because it would be a nightmare to enforce.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

16. Aren't you glad voters are not crazy enough to elect me Senator?

On the other hand, they elected Moscow Mitch and the Gangsters Of Putin.

[StarfishSaver]

17. You would be a huge improvement over a lot of the people who are getting elected...

[Hermit-The-Prog]

18. Thank you. We -really- need to raise that bar! :D

[StarfishSaver]

19. I meant it as a compliment, but I guess that's not really much of a compliment, is it?

[TwilightZone]

9. The argument that they're going to stay away is and has always been ridiculous.

It's a pipe dream. They're not going to stay home en masse any more than they're going to vote to convict him.

Why would they? They *want* to acquit him.

[Goodheart]

10. Certainly true, but not "impossible".

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. The Senate sets its rules, not pundits, the public, nor news media.

The Senate decides how to conduct itself and how to discipline its members.

[Rhiannon12866]

11. Twitter replies:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[kentuck]

15. I say, "Let's have a vote on it".

Kamala, are you ready to vote?