A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

Story Continued Below

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will immediately move to hold a trial to adjudicate the articles of impeachment if and when the Senate receives them from the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution does not set many parameters for the trial, except to say that “the Chief Justice shall preside,” and “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” That means the Senate has sole authority to draft its own rules for the impeachment trial, without judicial or executive branch oversight.

During the last impeachment of a president, Bill Clinton, the rules were hammered out by Democrats and Republicans in a collaborative process, as then Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle recently pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed. The rules passed unanimously. That’s unlikely this time, given the polarization that now defines our politics. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are much more likely to dictate the rules with little input from Democrats.

But, according to current Senate procedure, McConnell will still need a simple majority—51 of the 53 Senate Republicans—to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn’t like. (Vice President Mike Pence can’t break ties in impeachment matters.) Those three senators, in turn, could demand a secret ballot and condition their approval of the rest of the rules on getting one.

Some might say transparency in congressional deliberations and votes is inviolable, and it’s true that none of the previous Senate impeachments have been conducted via secret ballot. But the Senate’s role in an impeachment is analogous to a U.S. jury, where secret ballots are often used. When Electoral College gridlock has resulted in the House picking the president—the House elected Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824—that vote has been secret. And, of course, when citizens vote for president, they do so in private.

Story Continued Below

Trump and those around him seem confident that he won’t lose the 20 Republican senators needed to block a guilty verdict. But it’s not hard to imagine three senators supporting a secret ballot. Five sitting Republican senators have already announced their retirements; four of those are in their mid-70s or older and will never run for office again. They might well be willing to demand secrecy in order to give cover to their colleagues who would like to convict Trump but are afraid to do so because of politics in their home districts. There are also 10 Republican senators who aren’t up for reelection until 2024 and who might figure Trumpism will be irrelevant by then. Senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski have been the most vocal Republicans in expressing concerns about Trump’s behavior toward Ukraine. Other GOP senators have recently softened in their defense of him, as well—all before the House has held any public hearings.

There’s already been some public speculation that, should the Senate choose to proceed with a secret ballot, Trump would be found guilty. GOP strategist Mike Murphy said recently that a sitting Republican senator had told him 30 of his colleagues would vote to convict Trump if the ballot were secret. Former Senator Jeff Flake topped that, saying he thought 35 Republican senators would vote that way.

While it’s unlikely Trump would support a secret ballot, it’s possible he might actually benefit from one in the long run. If a secret ballot is agreed on and Trump knows the prospect of impeachment is near, he could then focus his energies on his post-presidency. Once he leaves office, Trump faces multiple possible criminal investigations, at the federal, state and local level. He almost certainly knows that a President Pence could pardon him only for federal crimes. To avoid the prospect of serving time, Trump could negotiate a collective settlement—just as the Sackler family has done in the OxyContin matter—with all the jurisdictions now running independent investigations into his activities. Trump’s impeachment, followed by a quick resignation, might appease Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s and New York Attorney General Letitia James’s thirst for justice, making them more likely to agree to a deal.

Even McConnell might privately welcome the prospect of a secret ballot. He has always been intently focused on maintaining his Republican majority in the Senate. Trump’s approval numbers continue to languish, and support for impeachment has been rising. McConnell himself, facing reelection next year, has an approval rating of just 18 percent in Kentucky, not to mention that the Republican governor there just suffered a stunning upset in last week’s election. All of which suggests McConnell might warm to the possibility that he and his caucus could avoid a public up-or-down vote in defense of behavior by the president that’s looking increasingly indefensible.

Story Continued Below

A secret ballot might get Trump out of office sooner than everyone expects: The sooner any three Republican senators make clear that they will support nothing short of a secret ballot, the sooner Trump realizes his best course could be to cut a deal, trading his office for a get-out-of-jail-free card—a clean slate from prosecutors—just as Vice President Spiro Agnew did. And if Trump were to leave office before the end of the year, there might even be enough time for Republicans to have a vibrant primary fight, resulting in a principled Republican as the nominee.

UPDATE: Some constitutional scholars have pointed out that Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution designates that 20 senators can oppose a secret ballot on “any questions,” but “questions” are defined as “Any matter on which the Senate is to vote, such as passage of a bill, adoption of an amendment, agreement to a motion, or an appeal.” No mention of impeachment proceedings is made. And, as others have pointed out, preceding this one-fifth requirement is crucial language: “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy.” Precedents are so thin here, but it is clear the Senate has the power to make its own rules over the trial proceedings. Those rules have historically required a simple majority of support.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39108587)

The reason you do it is when you do an overthrow like that you can really purge your political opponents. If they impeach Trump they will label his visible supporters as criminals as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39111086)

The gop as it exists would cease to exist if they deposed trump

Also all of these media kikes need to be giolltined

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39109097)

======

The curious timeline for taking down Trump

BY SHARYL ATTKISSON,

It’s three full years since President Trump was elected.

Among those who predicted he could never win the election — or that he might have been conspiring with Hillary Clinton all along, worked for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, would crash the U.S. stock market his first week in office, would ban all Muslims, would send illegal immigrants home en masse on buses and trains, and would start a nuclear war — there have been real concerns.

But to others, there are different concerns that have borne out. We continue to get evidence of an orchestrated effort among government insiders and the well-connected to take down President Trump at all costs. The public evidence indicates that the effort was hatched even before he took office.

Trump critics would argue that there was good reason to devise plots against him before he was inaugurated. His supporters would argue that the opposition has crossed the line into unlawful actions involving wiretapping and attempts to frame Trump and his associates.

In any event, we can build an oversimplified timeline to make the point:

Aug. 15, 2016: After FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texts Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place.

October 2016: Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — writes, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.” Wittes writes that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He even mentions impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.

Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel.

October 2016: The FBI begins a yearlong secret wiretap on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which would have allowed intel officials access to information and conversations involving other Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. Page was never charged with any offense. The FBI never apologized for the unwarranted privacy intrusions. The lawfulness of the wiretap has been questioned.

Jan. 3, 2017: Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) publicly warns Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you.”

Jan. 11, 2017: A Politico investigation concludes that Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump in the 2016 election with help from a Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee.

Jan. 30, 2017: Days after President Trump takes office, attorney Mark Zaid tweets that a “coup has started” and “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Zaid often deals with government investigations and clients in the intelligence community.

A few months later, still in 2017, Zaid tweets: “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president” and “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Zaid also tweets that “as one falls, two more will take their place” and the “coup” would occur in “many steps.”

Zaid went on to represent the alleged whistleblower in the Trump impeachment effort. (Zaid has stated, in his own defense, that his mention of a “coup” simply referred to what he saw as a lawful attempt by attorneys to remove an unlawful president from office.)

May 17, 2017: Special counsel Robert Mueller begins investigating Trump.

August 2017: Trump critic and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is hired as an analyst at CNN. He attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

Jan. 23, 2018: Former Vice President Joe Biden publicly brags that he got Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold U.S. aid. The prosecutor was investigating Burisma, an energy company where Biden’s son had served on the board since 2014, when his father was vice president.

Feb. 1, 2018: Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan is hired as an analyst for NBC and MSNBC, where he attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

March 22, 2019: The special counsel’s probe ends without concluding that Trump or his associates conspired with Russia, despite what critics such as Brennan and Clapper long had claimed. Democrats are unable to unite on an impeachment push over the findings.

April 2019: Ukraine elects a new president. Former Vice President Biden’s son Hunter Biden steps down from the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

July 25, 2019: President Trump calls the newly elected president of Ukraine and asks for cooperation in a probe involving long-standing corruption in Ukraine along with alleged ties to U.S. Democrats and the 2016 campaign.

Aug. 12, 2019: Someone alleging to be a whistleblower files a complaint about the phone call with the intelligence community’s inspector general. The anonymous person alleges President Trump sought political dirt to use against Biden in 2020 as part of a “quid pro quo.” Quids pro quo aren’t inherently illegal or improper and are, in fact, a key component of most foreign aid. However, the whistleblower claims Trump is improperly withholding military aid from Ukraine for his own political purposes.

Sept. 9, 2019: The inspector general notifies the House Intelligence Committee about the complaint. Although Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) initially denies doing so, it turns out that he and his staff already had met with — or conspired with, depending on your view — the alleged whistleblower.

Sept. 24, 2019: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces an impeachment inquiry based on the alleged whistleblower’s claims.

On the same date, President Trump releases the transcript of his call with Ukraine’s president. There is no mention of a quid pro quo, political dirt, withholding aid or campaign 2020. Trump’s critics counter that these things were implicit. There is no evidence, however, that Ukraine provided Trump with "dirt” on Biden — a necessary component of an alleged quid pro quo.

Sept. 25, 2019: The president of Ukraine says he did not feel pushed by President Trump to investigate Biden or to take other action.

Oct. 31, 2019: The House approves impeachment process rules. The vote is largely along party lines, with two Democrats siding with Republicans.

It could be a coincidence that so many key names in this timeline — from John Brennan and James Comey, to Ukraine and CNN — factor into the Trump impeachment push. And, further, it could be a coincidence that we have ended up where some Trump critics said they hoped to be, even before he was sworn in.

On the other hand, in retrospect, the biggest surprise might be that, all things considered, it took them so long to get to this point.

Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times best-sellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program, “Full Measure.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39111068)

US is fuked

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39111085)

I member

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39111125)

in fact, few democrats would vote to impeach trump if it were secret

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39112242)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4380882&forum_id=2#39111268)