If you can't convict, you can't acquit.

[WheelWalker]

I would argue that if, as McConnell says, the Senate lacks jurisdiction to convict then it lacks jurisdiction to acquit. The Senate having determined previously that the Senate does have the jurisdiction to acquit or convict, any Senator who refuses to be bound by that determination must simply remove himself or herself from the proceeding.

[pandr32]

1. I like that reasoning

If only!

[TwilightZone]

2. Not quite the same thing.

This isn't a civil or criminal case, of course, but our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence, so acquittal and conviction aren't subject to the same limitations. This is oversimplified for sake of argument, but anything short of a conviction is essentially an acquittal by default.

[WheelWalker]

4. I believe, and my point is, that a juror who during voir dire, despite the court having previously

ruled otherwise, continues to deny the proceeding's jurisdiction over a defendant and asserts he or she will vote to acquit based thereon, would be dismissed from the trial for cause.

McConnell is the juror I describe above, based on his email stating and explaining how he will vote to acquit.

[FBaggins]

3. I'm afraid that wouldn't hold water

Courts all over the country frequently split on the question of whether or not they even have jurisdiction to hear a given case.

I can't think of a single case where the dissenting judges on that question recused themselves from the final vote.

[WheelWalker]

5. Understand your point, but I'm speaking of jurors, not judges. See my post above.

[FBaggins]

8. They aren't jurors

That frequent shorthand for the senators' role is erroneous.

They are closer to judges.

[Wicked Blue]

6. The 'pukes are full of

shit, so they will acquit

[WheelWalker]

7. "When full of shit, you must acquit"