I don’t believe the cited clause should be, or was ever, construed to keep actual votes secret, though the Senate did deliberate privately for Clinton’s trial.
fredrichlaricciasays
A rules change to allow a secret ballot vote at the Impeachment trial in the Senate is based on the theory espoused by some — including Republican consultant Mike Murphy — that, if allowed, 20 to 30 Republican senators would vote guilty to reach the 2/3 67 votes to convict.
fredrichlaricciasays
Allowing a secret vote in the Senate makes too much sense therefore I have to assume it will never see the light of day.
Christophersays
I know it would probably work in our favor this time, but I have a principled objection to those accountable to the people casting secret ballots.
SomervilleTomsays
I envision a rule that says something along the lines of:
When an impeached President has made threats against his or her detractors, so that elected representatives have a realistic fear of of harm or endangerment to their persons or families, the Senate may conduct a secret vote on said impeachment.
I know this isn’t legal language, but you get my drift.
Bill Clinton was impeached. Bill Clinton never publicly called anybody “traitor”, never called for anybody to be executed for criticizing him, and never publicly bragged about having his minions collect dirt on his political opponents.
Richard Nixon similarly never used such language or made such threats.
The only public official I can remember in my lifetime who did anything like this was J. Edgar Hoover. Our constitutional process failed to remove him from office, even though his reprehensible methods were widely known and documented.
Fortunately, Mr. Hoover was never President.
This is an unprecedented situation. We have never had a President who appears to be acting as a Russian asset.
Vladimir Putin kills his detractors. It is not unreasonable to acknowledge that Mr. Trump may do the same.
Christophersays
That’s going further than I would. I don’t think Trump at the end of the day is capable of any more than tough talk. He’s a bully, which is all the more reason to stand up on the record and say yes, we’re voting your rear end out of the White House – deal with it!
SomervilleTomsays
@I don’t think Trump … is capable of any more than tough talk:
Tell it to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
Tell it to the thousands of asylum seekers and their children being brutalized at the order of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump doesn’t need to carry out the threats himself. There is strong evidence that Mr. Trump is working on behalf of Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin has already demonstrated his willingness to kill when it suits his purposes.
Christophersays
Trump will not kill or cause to be killed members of Congress, except possibly most indirectly in the sense that some lone wolf nutty supporter would take matters into his own hands. I remain confident he would definitely not put out a Putin-style hit. If we give in to that kind of paranoia and conspiracy-mongering then our democracy really is lost.
SomervilleTomsays
I agree that I don’t think any member of Congress is at direct risk. I think the whistleblower is very much at risk.
Professionals are very good at executing hits in a way that leaves investigators no criminal avenues to pursue. Mr. Epstein is a very good example — I think it will never be possible to know that he actually committed suicide.
Dorothy Hunt, wife of Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, died in the crash of UA flight 553 on Dec 8, 1972. She was carrying $10,000 in cash, on behalf of her husband, that was allegedly going to be used as hush money for Watergate defendants. Various sources (some of them unreliable) allege that she was also carrying $2M in traveler’s checks and money orders as well as documents incriminating Mr. Nixon. There were several irregularities in the crash and its investigation.
The NTSB concluded that the crash was caused by pilot error and that the presence of Ms. Hunt was coincidental.
My bottom line is that we know that Mr. Trump is close to Mr. Putin. We know that Mr. Trump behaves like a criminal and mobster. We know that Mr. Trump claims to like Kim Jae-ryong of North Korea. We know that the latter ordered the execution — in public — of his own half-brother. We know that Mr. Putin has ordered the execution of a growing number of critics.
The sooner we remove Mr. Trump from office, the safer all of us will be.
terrymcgintysays
They are all at physical risk. We continue to misunderstand who this man is.
terrymcgintysays
This suggestion by Somerville Tom is using fairness and justice in the way it should be used. What a sensible idea.
terrymcgintysays
It is up to the Senate, as in most things having to do with internal Senate rules.
terrymcgintysays
If McConnell sees him as being no longer useful, this could be a useful tool for McConnell. The Supreme Court would likely be loathe to intervene in an internal Senate procedural issue considering the existence of this clause in the Constitution.
terrymcgintysays
I tend to listen to Tribe when it comes to constitutional law.
I don’t believe the cited clause should be, or was ever, construed to keep actual votes secret, though the Senate did deliberate privately for Clinton’s trial.
A rules change to allow a secret ballot vote at the Impeachment trial in the Senate is based on the theory espoused by some — including Republican consultant Mike Murphy — that, if allowed, 20 to 30 Republican senators would vote guilty to reach the 2/3 67 votes to convict.
Allowing a secret vote in the Senate makes too much sense therefore I have to assume it will never see the light of day.
I know it would probably work in our favor this time, but I have a principled objection to those accountable to the people casting secret ballots.
I envision a rule that says something along the lines of:
I know this isn’t legal language, but you get my drift.
Bill Clinton was impeached. Bill Clinton never publicly called anybody “traitor”, never called for anybody to be executed for criticizing him, and never publicly bragged about having his minions collect dirt on his political opponents.
Richard Nixon similarly never used such language or made such threats.
The only public official I can remember in my lifetime who did anything like this was J. Edgar Hoover. Our constitutional process failed to remove him from office, even though his reprehensible methods were widely known and documented.
Fortunately, Mr. Hoover was never President.
This is an unprecedented situation. We have never had a President who appears to be acting as a Russian asset.
Vladimir Putin kills his detractors. It is not unreasonable to acknowledge that Mr. Trump may do the same.
That’s going further than I would. I don’t think Trump at the end of the day is capable of any more than tough talk. He’s a bully, which is all the more reason to stand up on the record and say yes, we’re voting your rear end out of the White House – deal with it!
@I don’t think Trump … is capable of any more than tough talk:
Tell it to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
Tell it to the thousands of asylum seekers and their children being brutalized at the order of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump doesn’t need to carry out the threats himself. There is strong evidence that Mr. Trump is working on behalf of Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin has already demonstrated his willingness to kill when it suits his purposes.
Trump will not kill or cause to be killed members of Congress, except possibly most indirectly in the sense that some lone wolf nutty supporter would take matters into his own hands. I remain confident he would definitely not put out a Putin-style hit. If we give in to that kind of paranoia and conspiracy-mongering then our democracy really is lost.
I agree that I don’t think any member of Congress is at direct risk. I think the whistleblower is very much at risk.
Professionals are very good at executing hits in a way that leaves investigators no criminal avenues to pursue. Mr. Epstein is a very good example — I think it will never be possible to know that he actually committed suicide.
Dorothy Hunt, wife of Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt, died in the crash of UA flight 553 on Dec 8, 1972. She was carrying $10,000 in cash, on behalf of her husband, that was allegedly going to be used as hush money for Watergate defendants. Various sources (some of them unreliable) allege that she was also carrying $2M in traveler’s checks and money orders as well as documents incriminating Mr. Nixon. There were several irregularities in the crash and its investigation.
The NTSB concluded that the crash was caused by pilot error and that the presence of Ms. Hunt was coincidental.
My bottom line is that we know that Mr. Trump is close to Mr. Putin. We know that Mr. Trump behaves like a criminal and mobster. We know that Mr. Trump claims to like Kim Jae-ryong of North Korea. We know that the latter ordered the execution — in public — of his own half-brother. We know that Mr. Putin has ordered the execution of a growing number of critics.
The sooner we remove Mr. Trump from office, the safer all of us will be.
They are all at physical risk. We continue to misunderstand who this man is.
This suggestion by Somerville Tom is using fairness and justice in the way it should be used. What a sensible idea.
It is up to the Senate, as in most things having to do with internal Senate rules.
If McConnell sees him as being no longer useful, this could be a useful tool for McConnell. The Supreme Court would likely be loathe to intervene in an internal Senate procedural issue considering the existence of this clause in the Constitution.
I tend to listen to Tribe when it comes to constitutional law.