Thread by @SethAbramson

In January 2020, 45 GOP senators had the view that the Senate can vote on articles as soon as they're received. Pelosi holds the articles until January 20; the Senate votes—with an aim of precluding Trump from holding office again—that evening. All over by Biden's first full day.

https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/1347720973936689152

PS/ That a Senate impeachment trial determines removal *and* disqualification from future office means it *can* be conducted after the officeholder is no longer in office. In this case, a vote on conviction and disqualification—win or lose—would only follow Trump's term by hours.

PS2/ The idea of a vote without trial is troubling. But of course impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, as we've been told interminably, and what I'm suggesting would only occur if the president's party *refused* to conduct a timely trial following an insurrection.

PS3/ Of course it's more complicated than this. Given that this is a political trial—not a legal one—couldn't certain senators vote 1) not to convict (for instance, because they felt uncomfortable doing so without trial) but 2) to nevertheless disqualify Trump from future office?

PS4/ A given senator could decide—wholly permissibly—that the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, while the standard for preclusion from future candidacy is preponderance of the evidence. This would be one way to sidestep concerns about the lack of a full trial.

PS5/ The baseline fact is this: in politics, you can hoist your opponents by their own petards if you absolutely must in a way you *couldn't and wouldn't do* in a criminal trial. The GOP standard set for impeachment was this: you can vote without a trial, or with argument only.

PS6/ Presidents mustn't be allowed to commit impeachable offenses late in their term simply because they know they'll escape impeachment (on the theory that holding a trial under such circumstances acts as a punishment of their *successor*—by way of stepping on their presidency).

PS7/ We often say, "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact." I think that's relevant here. The president and his party—by *their own actions*—created 1) the need for a trial at a time that'd punish *Biden*, but *also* 2) a precedent for how to handle a trial that *relieves* Biden.

PS8/ *I* say just hold a trial on 1/22. Congress can walk/chew gum at the same time. But for anyone hoping to squelch impeachment with cowardly logistical whinging, I'd give the foregoing answer—as clearly such a whinger wasn't standing on principle in the first instance, anyway.