Tie vote for witnesses?

[Covfefe]

So there will likely be a vote on witnesses and Bolton in particular. My guess is it will go down in a 51-49 vote but its possible it could get tied 50-50 with Romney, Murkowski and Collins voting for witnesses. (I very much doubt the GOP losing 4 senators to a vote.)

In that case theoretically Justice Roberts could break the tie either way. There is precedence of that happening during the Johnson impeachment trial with the Supreme Court Justice breaking multiple ties.

I seriously doubt Roberts would do this…but it is possible and it would be fascinating to see what he does either way.

[Safiel]

@Covfefe

So there will likely be a vote on witnesses and Bolton in particular. My guess is it will go down in a 51-49 vote but its possible it could get tied 50-50 with Romney, Murkowski and Collins voting for witnesses. (I very much doubt the GOP losing 4 senators to a vote.)

In that case theoretically Justice Roberts could break the tie either way. There is precedence of that happening during the Johnson impeachment trial with the Supreme Court Justice breaking multiple ties.

I seriously doubt Roberts would do this…but it is possible and it would be fascinating to see what he does either way.

I think Roberts declines to vote in that situation.

While it happened in the Johnson impeachment, no Senator ever challenged it, so no Senate precedent exists.

If Roberts tries to vote, any Senator could immediately challenge and the Senate would proceed to an immediate vote on whether Roberts could vote.

But that won’t happen, as I think Roberts will simply decline to vote.

[JayJay]

It’ll be 51-49.

Collins will be the one to dash anyone’s hopes.

Book it.

[acsirip]

My bet is that the cover-up will be successful.

[Covfefe]

Yup- though Roberts has interceded by not allowing the mentioning of the whistleblowers name so I see hints at his ability to intercede. But generally I agree and I would be shocked if he did cast a tie-breaking vote…either way.

If he doesn’t I think that would set the long term precedence in any future impeachment cases to not intercede in this manner.

[Safiel]

@Covfefe

Yup- though Roberts has interceded by not allowing the mentioning of the whistleblowers name so I see hints at his ability to intercede. But generally I agree and I would be shocked if he did cast a tie-breaking vote…either way.

If he doesn’t I think that would set the long term precedence in any future impeachment cases to not intercede in this manner.

Also, by NOT voting, he is effectively voting NO, as a tie defeats the measure.

By not voting, he subtly aids McConnell.

[Covfefe]

@Safiel

Also, by NOT voting, he is effectively voting NO, as a tie defeats the measure.

By not voting, he subtly aids McConnell.

Absolutely. But honestly I don’t think that would be his intent. It would be to avoid entering the fray of Congressional politics. As a lib I’d love to see him vote to allow witnesses but it would set off a firestorm that would be unimaginable.

[SpacemanSpiff]

I would’ve Pence would break the tie, that being his job and all.

[Covfefe]

@SpacemanSpiff

I would’ve Pence would break the tie, that being his job and all.

Not in a senate impeachment trial. Theoretically and even historically that has been the Supreme Court Justice’s job.

[Guvnah]

Colorado’s GOP Senator (Gardner) has stated he will vote against more witnesses.

[Covfefe]

@Guvnah

Colorado’s GOP Senator (Gardner) has stated he will vote against more witnesses.

Yeah I think that was yesterday. McSally is out as well. There is an extremely remote *(in my mind) chance that Lamar Alexander could join the mutineers. But I think the strong likelihood is of no new witnesses and a quick acquittal.