By Missy Crane | December 9, 2019

All this time that we’ve been talking about impeachment, we’ve said that Democrats need 2/3 support to impeach President Trump – that’s true, but there’s a catch…

“Sundance” the well-respected journalist who writes for the “Conservative Tree House” tweeted out an interesting, and slightly concerning tweet regarding Artice 1, Sec. 3 in the rules for impeachment.

TEIGEN OWNED: [VIDEO] Chrissy Teigen Mocks Melania’s Looks on Video and It Goes Terribly Wrong For Her

Pay close attention to this, because now, we’re learning that Jerry Nadler is relining on a constitutional expert who believes this scheme will work to remove President Trump.

In the tweet, Sundance explains that impeachment does not *technically* require 2/3 support in the senate.

What it actually requires is 2/3 support of those who *choose* to participate.

So, Sundance theorizes, if the #NeverTrump caucus sits out the impeachment Dems could possibly impeach without the GOP.

You can see the rule below:

Trump supporters responded to the theory, some saying it would never happen, others offering dire warnings to any RINO who even considers this.

“Say 10 sat it out. You still need 2/3 of the remaining 90 (60). That brings the total up to 70 either voting to impeach or intentionally missing the vote. There are only 48 dems. That’s a heavy lift.

“45 Senators have signed resolution to condemn House. If 8 Repubs sit out, Dems need 60. They don’t have 60.”

“If they try this there will be a civil war. Bank on it.”

“Won’t happen. Here’s why. If he’s removed and takes it to trial, then wins, that would come back to haunt both parties including legal ramifications.”

“They’d be better off voting to impeach and then switching parties to run in their next election. Any GOP Senator who abstains from participating in a state won by Trump will be ending their career.”

Here’s more on the loophole:

 

The Constitution doesn’t indicate that removal from office requires two-thirds of the Senate. It requires two-thirds of senators present for the proceedings.

The inclusion of this single word in the Constitution’s impeachment clauses shifts the mathematical ledger of how impeachment, however unlikely, could go down. It allows for the all-important two-thirds threshold to exist along a sliding scale—far from the full attendance of the 100-member Senate. In theory, a vote to convict the President (or anyone else) would count as legal with as few as 34 members, not 67, assuming the absolute minimum (51) participated.

“The Constitution contains quorum requirements [elsewhere] and clearly distinguishes between percentages of a particular chamber and percentages of ‘members present,’” said Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the co-author of the book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. “That language in the provision for Senate conviction on impeachment charges is quite deliberate, creating precisely the possibility” described above.

The Senate’s formal rules on impeachment, last updated in 1986, repeat the Constitution’s “present” provision numerous times.

“It’s a sliding scale,” says Alan Frumin, the former Parliamentarian of the Senate who now holds emeritus status. “In other words, it’s not an absolute two-thirds, it’s two-thirds of some number. And there you get to the question of the denominator.”

This rule could become relevant in a variety of ways. The most significant is the number of Republicans actually required to “jump the fence,” as Democrats hope. Twenty Republicans is a tall order: Even for Republicans who are shielded from reelection in 2020, a vote to convict Trump is obviously hazardous. If a few Republicans didn’t appear, that would reduce the number of Republicans required to vote with Democrats. [Washingtonion]

This piece originally appeared on WayneDupree.com and is used by permission.

Read more at WayneDupree.com:
[VIDEO] Heartbreaking Video of Joe Biden Trying to Speak at an Iowa Event…This is Just Cruel
[VIDEO] Chrissy Teigen Mocks Melania’s Looks on Video and It Goes Terribly Wrong For Her
Report: Greta Thunberg Butt-Hurt That She Was ‘Ignored’ by World Leaders at Climate Summit

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Stacy Washington.