Huh?
A’small amount’?
One handful amount?
Five fingers , right?
Huh?
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Friday said that he has spoken with a “handful” of Republican colleagues who would consider voting to remove President Trump after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House will move to impeach him.
Asked during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether he has spoken with “a single GOP colleague in the Senate who’s even considering voting for impeachment,” Murphy answered affirmatively.
“Yes,” he said, while declining to name any colleagues.
“It’s a small list, on one hand,” Murphy said.
The senator also pushed back against calls for an anonymous removal vote.
“I don’t buy this secret ballot thing. If there was a secret ballot, there’d still be only a handful of them that would vote to impeach this guy,” he said.
If the House votes to impeach the president, the focus would shift to a Senate trial to decide on if Trump should be removed. Two-thirds of the GOP-held Senate would have to vote to remove Trump for him to be forced from office, meaning at least 20 Republican senators would need to support the move.
Murphy said he thought there was a maximum of five Republican senators who might vote to remove Trump….
Note…
I wouldn’t bet on this….
Fewer than 5 GOP Senators will even consider voting Yes.
If no Senator copies Arlen Specter’s “Not Proven” non-vote, and if no Democratic or independent Senator votes against impeachment, then Trump would have less than a majority if three GOP Senators vote “Aye” and lose 51-49 if four of them do.
The usual arithmetic about the VP tipping the balance does not apply, because conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate and Chief Justice Roberts, rather than VP Pence, will preside. If all of 100 Senators vote either for or against impeachment, then either 67-33 is more than 2/3 or 66-34 is less.
(It’s just possible to conceive of scenarios when fewer than 100 Senators vote — perhaps because of an unfilled vacancy — and some might question might arise whether the Chief Justice casts a deciding vote on a 66-33 or 64-32 split. The case law is silent on this point since there have only been two previous impeachment trials for a President, both unsuccessful. On the other hand, 66-33 is the two-thirds required by Article I, sec. 3, of the Constitution; it just says that no one may be convicted without two-thirds of the Senate concurring.
(On the other hand, I presume that some procedural question might need only a majority rather than 2/3, so theoretically but rather improbably the CJ might have a casting vote on those questions. )
Corrections:
I should have said that the President might lose his moral authority, but not his office, on a 51-49 vote.
Bill Clinton failed of conviction on obstruction of justice on a 50-50 vote; so perhaps he kept his moral authority. I have no idea what the effect of a 51-49 vote would have been.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
I wouldn’t count on this either.
The pressure is likely to be too great on even the “ handful” who might think about it.
The Republicans are talking about a strategy of essentially admitting the facts but claiming that ,despite what Trump did was “ wrong”, “ it does not “ rise to the level” of justifying his removal from office.
Such would give cover to those Senators who want to express their disapproval of the conduct but could still pacify the more than 80% of Republicans who are opposed to the whole process.