[Jim Noble]

"Which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely to happen?"

I think they are both going to happen.

I am presuming that the latest Trump interdimensional chess plan intends to avoid conviction. I can believe in an alternative scenario wherein he WANTS to be convicted, but I don't think that is probable.

To avoid conviction, he needs to hold 10-20 Republican Senators who would vote to convict if they could do so secretly.

It's my opinion that offering "election fraud" as a defense to incitement is a defense of "necessity", that is, "yes, I did it but I had to do it, and here's why".

I can't think of anything more certain to pull those missing ten votes over to "guilty" than that.

If that's how he wants to go out, so be it, but I think he could avoid conviction with a strict procedural defense.

And, don't forget, with Leahy in the chair, they only need 66 votes to convict, not 67.

[Alberta's Child]

Introducing election fraud isn’t an affirmative defense here. It’s part of establishing the facts of the case.

The election fraud is no less relevant in this case than the Biden family corruption was in Trump’s first impeachment.

It doesn’t matter if the threshold for conviction is 66 or 67 votes. I’ll be surprised if ANY Republicans vote to convict.

[RummyChick]

“And, don’t forget, with Leahy in the chair, they only need 66 votes to convict, not 67.”

I dont believe this is correct.

Someone offered up Ben Wade as an example but Salmon Chase presided over that. Ben Wade was President Pro Tempore and voted to impeach.

I dont have anything to show you that makes me believe you are incorrect. Do you have anything definitive that says you are correct.

[gcparent]

Election fraud is over for now. Trial is not the forum for it. If he sticks to the constitutionality issues he will get the votes he needs. He needs good lawyers and he should listen to them.

[Alberta's Child]

I would also point out that Trump’s primary goal here is not what we may think it is. The posts on this thread are all predicated on an argument over two goals: (1) avoid conviction vs. (2) expose election fraud.

I believe Trump’s mindset is closer to Item (2), but his real goal here is to completely discredit and undermine the Biden/Harris administration from the start. And that will extend to any Republicans who don’t stand up and fight them with the passion of a thousand white-hot suns, too.

[vivenne]

I agree with all you have written. It’s unconstitutional and Trump’s legal team should be in court trying to get an injunction to stop the impeachment until the constitutionality has been decided. If Trump finds lawyers who do not go for dismissal and attempt to make this about voter fraud, a number of Republicans who voted that it was unconstitutional last week will change their votes. I think Trump has been listening to Steve Bannon, who is not a lawyer to my knowledge, speaking everyday that Trump needs to bring the election fraud receipts to the trial (and not go the dismissal route). IMHO, this would be a grave mistake. The Dems in charge are NOT going to let Trump bring up the election fraud in any detail. Trump needs this dismissed quickly and prove the voter fraud in a book. Losing his entire legal team (and Turley, Dershowitz, Starr do not want to be involved—Trump has very limited options and the trial is 1 week away). This is not good and the Dems are probably salivating.

[woodpusher]

And, don't forget, with Leahy in the chair, they only need 66 votes to convict, not 67.

I believe this is incorrect. While sitting as Chairman, the President Pro Tem has cast a vote on guilt or acquittal. It is only when the chair is not a member of the Senate that the chair does not cast a vote.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf

SENATE, Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials, 1992, pg. 879

Vote on Articles:

The vote required to convict an impeached official is
two-thirds of the Senators present, and in effect a vote of
"present" is a vote against conviction.³⁵

³⁵ Oct. 9, 1986, 99-2, Record, p. 29872.

Congressional Record, October 9, 1986, pp. 29851-29950

Page 29870

October 9, 1986

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE HARRY E. CLAIBORNE

Court of Impeachment

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Laxalt).

- - - - - - - - - -

Pg. 29871

Vote on Article I

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair reminds the Senate that each Senator, when his or her name is called, will stand and vote "guilty" or "not guilty."

- - - - - - - - - -

Pp. 29871-29872

Votes on Articles I thru IV shown with Mr. Laxalt voting on each.