(01-15-2020 08:25 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote: I don't think I would be on board with that "percentage" requirement. What if Republicans overwhelmingly controlled the House and Senate to the extent there was not enough Democrats to qualify the "percentage" requirement even if nearly all voted in agreement and there was a Democrat president that had clearly committed one or more felonies while in office and had to go?
To keep it simple... I used "percentage" on purpose rather than a specific number of votes. I am not sure what the right number would be, but let's use 50% for now.
At least half of your party should be on board with an impeachment vote. Even if there are only 100 Dems and 335 Republicans, at least you could stop a political ram-rod from happening. This is only the 3rd time it has ever happened, and none of us were alive the first time - Nixon doesn't count as the process never came to full fruition, and Clinton was pretty bi-partisan as it was obvious to all.
IMO - Impeachment should never be partisan. When you only have 1 republican congressman out of 200-ish voting for it and 3 democrats out of 235-ish voting against it, that kinda-sorta smells like partisan politics to me.
There are many many benefits of party control in the house and Senate, and many of those votes are right down the party line - I get that and I am OK with that. Removal or impeachment of a sitting President is a little different, and I believe that you need more agreement to do that than my team hates your team.
The Democratic party handled this poorly from the day DJT won the election. Anyone who understands the English language heard multiple Dems say they were out to get him [paraphrasing]. They delegitimized all of their efforts from that moment forward.