89-11 to go ahead. Four hours of debate about whether they can really have a debate now follows.
I've got a buzz on.
House impeachment are using the Belknap case as a precedent.
Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate.[88] For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[89] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[89] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.[89][90] Belknap was charged with five articles of impeachment, and the Senate listened to over 40 witnesses.[3] With 40 votes needed for conviction, the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap of all charges by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority.[3][89][91] All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money from Marsh, but 23 who voted for acquittal believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction.[89][91] Grant's speedy acceptance of Belknap's resignation undoubtedly saved him from conviction.[91] After the trial, Belknap's wife and children traveled to and remained in Europe.[89] Former Senator Matthew H. Carpenter of Wisconsin, who had defended Belknap at the Senate trial, said that Belknap was entirely innocent and that if he outlived Belknap he would clear Belknap's name.[92] Carpenter was reelected to the Senate in 1879, but had been in ill health; he died in February 1881, but never produced any new evidence.[92]
Raskin is really haming it up.I'm looking forward to the defence lol .
Last edited: