Will Impeachment End...

[Mountain Man]

So, I don't think there's any scenario anymore where the vote would be less than 50 against, and Roberts will NOT be the tie-breaker.

If it's 50/50, how can he not be the tie breaker? Or can he refuse to vote, and it be the equivalent of a hung jury?

[Cow Poke]

If it's 50/50, how can he not be the tie breaker? Or can he refuse to vote, and it be the equivalent of a hung jury?

He can DECLINE to vote, yes. And I think he will. It's clear that 51 votes are needed for a "simple majority" vote, and I really can't see Roberts allowing himself to be the "51st" vote on either side.

[Cow Poke]

Here is Nancy Pelosi admitting they lost.... (yeah, she doesn't actually say "we lost", but this is a "sour grapes" speech if ever there was one)

Pelosi says Trump lawyers have 'disgraced' themselves, suggests disbarment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday hammered the lawyers leading President Trump's impeachment defense, saying they've trampled on the Constitution while questioning how they've been allowed to keep their licenses.

"I don't know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they're making," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.

[Mountain Man]

He can DECLINE to vote, yes. And I think he will. It's clear that 51 votes are needed for a "simple majority" vote, and I really can't see Roberts allowing himself to be the "51st" vote on either side.

Ah, so without a simple majority, the motion is effectively tabled even if it's a 50/50 split? In that case, Roberts refusing to cast a vote is essentially the same as if he voted against.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, so without a simple majority, the motion is effectively tabled even if it's a 50/50 split?

It HAS to be a "majority vote" to pass, yes ---- in a case in the Senate, the Vice President is specifically authorized by the Constitution to break that tie as "President of the Senate". The Constitution, while not prohibiting the presiding officer in impeachment (Chief Justice) from casting the tie-breaking vote, it does not authorize him to do so.

If Roberts were to weigh in and break the tie, then we go back to the Senate who would have the power to vote to override that vote.

ETA: There's another factor here --- since the Constitution gives the SOLE POWER of impeachment to the Senate, and the Chief Justice is not a member of "the Senate", it would seem very unlikely that he would step into that venue as a voting member.

[Cow Poke]

From what I'm hearing it is 50/50 this morning which would mean that Roberts casts the tie breaker. Interesting...

Speaking of Roberts (and, like I said, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that he'll insert himself into the vote)....

Read The Question About Eric Ciaramella That Chief Justice John Roberts Just Refused To Read



So, here's the question ---

[Cow Poke]

So now, Bitter Chuck is attacking Alexander, and launching an attack on the Republicans in the Senate. It sounds like more "sour grapes" concession that "we (the House) blew it".

Yeah, the little press conference with Chuck and his colleagues appears very glum, sour, defeatist...

[Cow Poke]

So, voting on calling further witnesses happening now...

Failed - no Chief Justice involvement necessary. 51-49

[firstfloor]

Turn out the lights, the party's over.

The drama will continue in the House, in the press and in the election campaigns. The Administration, Republicans and Evangelical Christians have sealed their fate.

[Cow Poke]

The drama will continue in the House, in the press and in the election campaigns.

Absolutely no doubt about it - the Democrats will continue to pitch hissies, say stupid stuff, act in incredibly partisan ways, stretch the truth, and generally behave like their national symbol.

The Administration, Republicans and Evangelical Christians have sealed their fate.

My fate is eternal joy in Heaven, clothed in the righteousness of Christ -- I'm thrilled about that.

[rogue06]

So, voting on calling further witnesses happening now...

Failed - no Chief Justice involvement necessary. 51-49

I doubt that Roberts would have gotten involved in any case. A 50-50 vote would have meant the motion failed. It's as simple as that.

[NorrinRadd]

I doubt that Roberts would have gotten involved in any case. A 50-50 vote would have meant the motion failed. It's as simple as that.

He was asked that specific question before the vote ever occurred and he said that as an unelected officer as well as a member of a separate branch, he did not think it would be appropriate for him to cast a deciding vote. According to Chad Pergram, this will probably be recorded in the Senate's exhaustive and frequently consulted book of precedents, and will serve as a guide if not an absolute rule in future impeachment proceedings.

[seer]

51-49 no witnesses... Over by Wednesday. It should be an interesting State of the Union.

[JimL]

By Saturday? Yea or Na???

Without a fair trial no, it will not end. He will simply be impeached forever and history will determine his guilt. I would say his guilt or innocence, but we all know he's guilty.

[JimL]

I doubt that Roberts would have gotten involved in any case. A 50-50 vote would have meant the motion failed. It's as simple as that.

Right, the Senate, corrupt or not, has the sole power of the trial. If they wanted a fair trial they could have had one. Just as in the Mueller report, the president is not exonerated, the Senate, like Atty Gen. Barr, just swept it under the rug. And btw, 75% of the American people agree with that since 75% of the people wanted witnesses and documentary evidence admitted at trial.