First, the House investigates through an impeachment inquiry.
Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting
Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the chief justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the president of the Senate, who is also the vice president of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires the concurrence of a two-thirds supermajority of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office and (optionally, in a separate vote) disqualification from holding any federal office in the future, which requires a concurrence of only a majority of senators present.
I don't care about the trial in the Senate. They'd never get the 2/3 needed anyway. Once the House votes for impeachment he's been 'indicted' to stand trial. There's the asterisk.
The point is we won’t even get a majority in the House.
The Democrats had 235-200 seat advantage elected 2018. That’s 34 seats. The GOP has a margin of 5. With that huge advantage, the Trump impeachment vote had 7 who did not vote to impeach Trump. 3 Dems and 4 not voting or voted Present.
You know damn well we would have more than 3 GOP seats vote against such an impeachment and probably more than 4 trying the no vote or vote present maneuver.
We would not even get close to House majority voting for impeachment, and that would be even with stronger evidence. How humiliating would that be. The asterisk would be on the GOP.
Hi Gaffer rthanks for publishing this info about impeachment of a sitting Prez.
I was never fully aware of it.
Would the process be the same. for
example,
with Mayorkas and Buttiegieg?