So far I count 5 Senate GOP votes for conviction

[Lord Ludd]

Romney, Murkowski, Sasse, Toomey (maybe?), Collins (finally!)

Barring Trump turning into Yosemite Sam ("Yose-mite" as he would say) & running out to the front lawn with six-guns a-blazing, where do you think the additional 12 GOP votes needed to convict might come from?

Could there be a bandwagon effect, Mitch be damned?

[PA_jen]

1. You mean Collins isn't going to give the ole "He learned a lesson" line?

[sandensea]

13. Amazing. That outrage-o-meter of hers must have buried the needle.

[Renew Deal]

2. A lot of it has to do with McConnell.

If he supports conviction, he will easily bring 20 more. I also think a lot of them don't want to vote against impeachment in this case no matter what they say verbally. McConnell might just vote to convict. Trump has put him in personal danger multiple times, especially with Covid.

[marybourg]

3. Yo-semite.

[euphorb]

4. We need 19 GOP votes to convict.

Until Warnock and Ossof are sworn in, there are only 48 Dems. There are 99 Senators, and 2/3 of that is 67. Also, I understand that Manchin may not be in favor of removal. In that case, we would need 20 GOP votes to convict.

[stopbush]

7. Not true. We need 2/3 of Senators who are present, whether that's all 100 or only 50.

[xmas74]

11. This.

The easiest thing to do would be to have most if the GOP stay away. That way they aren't on record for the vote so they aren't threatened as much by their constituents yet just nt showing up means they want him gone.

[jcgoldie]

9. 2/3 * 99 66

66-48=18

[DLCWIdem]

16. 2/3 of the senators PRESENT. Senators can be absent Say there are only 75 senato

2/3 of 75 is 50

[jcgoldie]

17. I get it

Was responding to the bad math in the post above.

[DLCWIdem]

18. Sorry i pounded it.

[pat_k]

19. Warnock and Ossoff should be sworn by Jan 23. (Certification deadline is 1/22.)

I doubt the Senate trial will get going until they are sworn and Dem majority leader is selected and new rules for running things are in place.

With removal from office off the table, it's my understanding that the following would be the consequences of Senate conviction:

Loss of benefits under the Former Presidents Act (pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection)

Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (i.e., couldn't run again)

[Atticus]

5. If 20 Republicans were "in quarantine" or "ill" or otherwise "unable to attend", I think

those 5 plus 48 Democrats would be the required two thirds of "those present".

They could call it the "Red Flu".

[stopbush]

6. Only need 2/3 of Senators PRESENT when the vote is cast to convict.

Mitch can tell the Rs to simply not show up for the vote. They can then claim they never voted to convict tRump. If 60 Senators are in attendance only 40 votes are needed to convict and remove.

[xmas74]

12. And that would be smart.

That's the way around it.

[Ferrets are Cool]

15. You beat me to it nt

[badboy67]

8. GOP: The Party of Terrorists & Democracy Usurpers

[RockRaven]

10. If they knew they'd be part of 20 or so, I bet ambitious shitheels like Rubio or Paul would do it...

Just to eliminate Trump from possibly running in 2024. Cruz and Hawley are just as cynically ambitious, but they got themselves tied up more directly in the incitement, so now they have to pretend it was not so bad.

The barrier is the selfish cowardice which Republican politics seems to select for in a nearly evolutionary fashion. If you approached each one with a list of 25 GrOPers and asked "would you be one of 26?" most would say yes. But say you've got 5 and ask them to be 1 of 6 and they all say no.

[Piratedog]

14. Burr might but Tillis will not. Mitch might actually

[crickets]

20. I believe it was Don Lemon who pointed out Friday night

that only 2/3 of the Senate members present are required to vote to convict. Constitutional scholars may disagree, and lack of sleep means I can't remember his evidence on that, but it's an interesting thought. Of course, the real problem is Mitch claiming he can't clear the calendar for any impeachment proceedings before the 19th.