Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

shockey80

(4,379 posts)
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 11:52 AM Nov 2018

We don't need 67 votes in the senate for impeachment, we need 20.

We already have 47 votes. We need 20 out of 53 Republicans to vote for impeachment. Sounds impossible, right?

I believe Lincoln needed 20 Democrats to vote for the 13th amendment. That was also impossible, but it happened.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We don't need 67 votes in the senate for impeachment, we need 20. (Original Post) shockey80 Nov 2018 OP
You mean for removal after a trial in the Senate. MineralMan Nov 2018 #1
Correct, the senate votes to convict, remove or not. shockey80 Nov 2018 #3
I don't think there's any chance in the world Manchin goes along with impeachment. Calista241 Nov 2018 #2
You just read my mind. bullwinkle428 Nov 2018 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author shockey80 Nov 2018 #5
And you have to wonder about the #FiveWhiteGuys/blue dogs/problem solvers. brush Nov 2018 #7
Lincoln needed 2 yes votes from Senate Democrats, not 20 A DAY IN THE LIFE Nov 2018 #6
I believe you are mistaken. shockey80 Nov 2018 #10
We cant even get two for a Supreme Court Justice rejection world wide wally Nov 2018 #8
Do you know for certain that Manchin or Tester or Sinema will support an Impeachment charge? brooklynite Nov 2018 #9
Of the 3 you mentioned, I'm not so sure that they wouldn't vote for removal PRETZEL Nov 2018 #12
Yep, might have to talk them into it, but it's certainly doable. backscatter712 Nov 2018 #17
I think once the House starts holding hearings on the rampant Trump corruption & Russia Collusion NewJeffCT Nov 2018 #11
Dems needed 11 Repubs in Senate in 1974 and had them if needed Jersey Devil Nov 2018 #13
I looked it up. I was right. shockey80 Nov 2018 #14
Actually, Lincoln only needed 12 Democrats. He got 14. onenote Nov 2018 #18
Remember, a lot of Republicans in the senate are up for reelection in 2020. shockey80 Nov 2018 #15
i think it would take an unexpected bombshell that can not be defused on Fox et al karynnj Nov 2018 #16

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
1. You mean for removal after a trial in the Senate.
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 11:54 AM
Nov 2018

The Senate plays no role in the actual impeachment, which is the House's responsibility.

I understand what you mean, but it's important to get this right. Too many people do not understand the process.

Response to Calista241 (Reply #2)

 
6. Lincoln needed 2 yes votes from Senate Democrats, not 20
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:08 PM
Nov 2018

The states that had seceeded were not seated in Congress. Part of their readmission was ratification of the 13th.

 

shockey80

(4,379 posts)
10. I believe you are mistaken.
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:15 PM
Nov 2018

It was the House not the senate. Lincoln needed 20 votes from house democrats. The senate had already voted for the 13th amendment. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll look it up.

brooklynite

(93,834 posts)
9. Do you know for certain that Manchin or Tester or Sinema will support an Impeachment charge?
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:13 PM
Nov 2018

That's not a suggestion that they're not "real" Democrats, but questioning of whether Red State Senators will be willing to vote in favor of conviction if there aren't enough Republican votes to pass.

PRETZEL

(3,245 posts)
12. Of the 3 you mentioned, I'm not so sure that they wouldn't vote for removal
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:20 PM
Nov 2018

6 years is a political lifetime for a Senator to be able to validate and move on from a particular vote. Since these 3 in particular were just re-elected (and elected in Sinema's case) the fact that they are in a red state may not be as big a barrier as it may seem.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
17. Yep, might have to talk them into it, but it's certainly doable.
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:45 PM
Nov 2018

If Mueller has an airtight, extremely damning case (as far as the facts go, that's a foregone conclusion), I don't see why they wouldn't.

NewJeffCT

(56,827 posts)
11. I think once the House starts holding hearings on the rampant Trump corruption & Russia Collusion
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:17 PM
Nov 2018

and more people get indicted & convicted by Mueller, public opinion will start turning more strongly against Trump... especially if the economy slows down and/or enters a recession.

potentially vulnerable senators like Cory Gardner in Colorado, David Perdue in Georgia, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis and maybe one or two more might start the stand against Trump. If a few of them defect, it could open the floodgates...

Jersey Devil

(9,862 posts)
13. Dems needed 11 Repubs in Senate in 1974 and had them if needed
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:22 PM
Nov 2018

Otherwise, Nixon never would have resigned. Dems had, at various times in 1974, 56 or 57 seats, so they would have needed 11 Republican votes. The Repubs went to Nixon and told him he had to resign because enough Repubs were going to vote to remove him from office and he resigned.

So it isn't impossible. But you would need, imo, iron clad, drop dead, solid proof of an actual conspiracy between Trump and the Russians with facts like payment of cash to the Russians or a quid pro quo agreement to drop sanctions in return for the info, etc. I don't think obstruction, no matter how severe, would do it alone.

 

shockey80

(4,379 posts)
14. I looked it up. I was right.
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:22 PM
Nov 2018

Lincoln needed 2/3 of the house to pass the amendment. He needed about 20 democrats to vote yes or some other things to happen.

onenote

(42,373 posts)
18. Actually, Lincoln only needed 12 Democrats. He got 14.
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:53 PM
Nov 2018

The vote in the House was 119-56 with 8 abstentions. The required 2/3 vote was 117. The House consisted of 84 Republicans, 72 Democrats, 16 "unconditional unionists", 9 "unionists" and 2 "independent republicans." All of the Republicans, independent republicans, unconditional unionists, and 3 of the unionists (i.e., 105 members) voted for the amendment. Eight Democrats abstained and 50 voted against (along with 6 unionists).

In order to convict and remove Trump, a minimum of 20 Republicans would have to vote aye. That's around 38 percent of the Republicans in the Senate.

Lincoln only needed 12 of 72 Democrats (17 percent), got 14 (19 percent). If you include the 8 that abstained (which made it possible to get the amendment through), you still have only 30 percent at most.

One other important distinction between 1864 and today. Almost all of the Democrats that supported the amendment were true lame ducks -- they had been defeated in November 1864 but, because in those days the new Congress didn't convene until March, they were still in office when the vote took place on January 31, 1865.

The bar was lower for Lincoln.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/38-2/h480

 

shockey80

(4,379 posts)
15. Remember, a lot of Republicans in the senate are up for reelection in 2020.
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:26 PM
Nov 2018

If the House puts forth articles of impeachment they will have a very tough decision to make.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
16. i think it would take an unexpected bombshell that can not be defused on Fox et al
Wed Nov 28, 2018, 12:38 PM
Nov 2018

I have no idea what would shake the support of enough of the Republican base to push Senators to stand against Trump. Without that, I doubt we can find 20 profiles in courage who would step up to vote to remove Trump for legal, moral or ethical reasons.

The midterms results might be interpreted that they could be at risk in the general election in blue or purple states. In red states, they are likely very safe as their states are rallying behind Trump. Something needs to come out that shakes their support. My own guess is that it will have to be something that is a continuing problem.(ie I think anything that proves that Trump is bending US foreign policy because of Russian (or Saudi Arabian) influence rather than a misguided view of US national interests rather than a clear cut link of Trump/Wikileaks/Russia which I suspect most already suspect that to be true.

I suspect that rather than impeachment, the initial concentration of the House will be investigating ongoing abuses of power by Trump, Kushner, and all the cabinet secretaries who have abused power. If Mueller is forced to end without a report or indictmenst, obviously there should be hearings on everything his investigation covered with Mueller publicly testifying. You could consider those hearings to be gathering the proof on many issues that all suggest that he should be removed.

Two years pass quickly. Those hearings could either provide fodor for impeachment charges OR reasons to vote against Republicans and Trump in 2020. They could also lead to a primary race for the Republicans if someone thinks they can defeat Trump. However, this would likely fracture the Republican party into two pieces.

This is why I will not be disappointed if the House does not quickly try to impeach Trump. They should do it only when there is at least a reasonable chance that there is a strong enough case that the Senate will remove or that the charges will be strongly supported by facts and compelling enough that they impact his level of support.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We don't need 67 votes in...