Listening to Raskin, maybe a loophole about conviction vs disqualification.

[tinrobot]

The vote to convict for impeachment requires 2/3.

For the subsequent vote on disqualification from running, it is a majority.

Just thinking out loud here, but could a GOP senator use that as a loophole? Vote for impeachment, then vote against disqualification? They could claim they were forced to teach him a lesson via impeachment, but absolutely wanted Trump to run again. And gosh darn it, that last vote just didn't go their way.

Remote possibility, but... maybe?

[hlthe2b]

1. There is no second vote for disqualification if there is not a 2/3 vote on conviction.

[tinrobot]

2. Right. GOP Senator votes to impeach, but votes against disqualifying.

Trump gets impeached, but the Democrats alone disqualify with 51 votes.

I know it is out of left field, but who knows...

[hlthe2b]

6. That' not how it works. If there is no 2/3 vote to convict, there is no vote on disqualifying

[tinrobot]

9. Let me rephrase once again.

17 or more GOP Senators side with Democrats and vote to impeach. Trump is convicted with 2/3 or more.

On the subsequent vote to disqualify, 0 GOP Senators have to side with Democrats. He can be disqualified with 51 votes.

The GOP Senators can use the second vote as cover to say they "supported" Trump and wanted him to run again.

Is that clear?

[hlthe2b]

11. That (as you now phrase it, with a conviction on the impeachment question) is correct.

The problem is getting the 2/3 to convict.

[dweller]

3. The question was from Hawley?

as I heard it, and I could have misheard, was could a president be disqualified w/o being removed ?

Really need to hear the ? again

✌🏻

[tinrobot]

5. Yes, it struck me that it was a GOP question.

Got me thinking about possibilities..

[LiberalFighter]

7. That demonstrates is not intelligent just because

they have a Stanford University and Yale degree.

[hlthe2b]

8. Hawley was trying to imply the impeachment unconsitutional by trying to get DEMS

to state that a Federal official still in office that was not convicted and thus not removed from office could still be disqualified from running again. The answer is no. He asked it only to try to get the DEMS to be inconsistent in the constitutional argument.

No conviction means no vote on disqualifiication.

[dweller]

10. That's what I thought I heard

I figured it was a gotcha ? and wondered if they were going to go after Biden
with it
✌🏻

[unblock]

4. They have plenty of political cover if only their tribe would listen to reason

But the only real political cover is a bigger alpha dog.

Some Republican needs to kick Donnie while he's down and play top dog. Problem is, people like rmoney just don't have the right authoritarian personality. Actually, that's a good thing, but then it means Donnie is still top dog until replaced....