Split Thread: A second impeachment

[Silly Green Monkey]

Given that Clinton quickly conceded after the election, your point loses all sharpness. Trump however continued to say the election was rigged and that the next one would be too. You're trying so hard to make it look like Republicans aren't the only ones declining to participate in the democratic process, why?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't know if he wanted them to storm the Capitol. I seriously doubt that he wanted them to smash windows to get in. On the other hand, I know that when I heard him say those words, I feared that they would storm the Capitol. I was not at all surprised when it happened, because I could infer that as a likely outcome of what he said.

If he made the same inference, and knew it was likely, that's enough. I don't know how to go about proving he knew that. He might be so incompetent and self-absorbed that it never occurred to him to consider the impact of his words on the crowd. They were cheering for him, and that's what matters to him. I think the only way that a legal case could be made is if he made a comment to one of his advisors along the lines of "That crowd is really angry. Pence better send this back to the states or they might end up storming the Capitol." I think that would meet the legal bar, but I doubt if it actually happened.



But is it enough for impeachment? is that a low bar? I don't think so. I think the election results are clear and he is trying to get them overturned in an extra-legal process. I think that's a pretty high bar, and he has cleared it easily. I think he should be removed from office.

However, it seems extraordinarily likely that he won't be removed, except through the normal means of Biden being sworn in next week. I think the Senate show trial after he is out of office seems pretty dumb. These folks must think pretty highly of themselves if they think the most important thing is that they stand up and make speeches and force someone to vote yes or no on a question that has no legal effect.

He, his aides and his 'crime family' had a small party to watch proceedings. Don Junior's g/f was shimmying around, everyone looked very jolly like it was the Eurovision Song Contest or a Royal Jubilee party. Not once did Trump appeal to his supporters to stop what they were doing ...until long after they had gone home and even then he said how much he loved them.

That has to count as circumstantial evidence of incitement.

He as POTUS had the power to call for more police and the National Guard, and as the rioters all had their phones, he could have halted it in its tracks.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

You're trying so hard to make it look like Republicans aren't the only ones declining to participate in the democratic process, why?

Because he's yet another butt-hurt Progressive that's mad that getting rid of Trump didn't come with a socialist uprising and more concerned with poo-pooing the Democratic establishment for the sin of being centrist then with stopping Trump.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'm not playing devil's advocate - I genuinely think it's a dumb move.

And I'm not the only one - here's a lifelong hard-left columnist from The Guardian saying the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons:



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ump-exile-base



There you go - you nailed it on both counts.

Trump is an extraordinarily stupid and self-absorbed person. The idea of cause and effect is beyond his brain, and he was just playing the same game he's been playing since "Lock her up!" chants started. "Hey, they're cheering while I'm talking, I'll keep talking!"

As I keep saying, and as the Guardian bloke says, you can rise above it or sink down to his level and Democrats have chosen the latter.

Trump is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he has political acumen. He knows about populism and speaking the same language as your audience. Using words such as 'bad' instead of 'disgraceful' or 'big' instead of 'historical'. He is sly, shrewd and cunning and he has studied the art of acting dumb and getting the blue collar guys to like him This is how the Nigerian scammers work. They deliberately include poor grammar and spelling mistakes because, amazingly, it endears them to the gullible. Cassius Clay had the same gift. People loved his silly rhymes.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Meh. If Lindsey Graham's spine was made of spaghetti, it wouldn't even be al dente.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm suprised the man can stand up.

Doctors couldn't find Lindsey Graham's spine on an x-ray.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because he's yet another butt-hurt Progressive that's mad that getting rid of Trump didn't come with a socialist uprising and more concerned with poo-pooing the Democratic establishment for the sin of being centrist then with stopping Trump.

You...... do know that TheAtheist is Australian, right?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

You...... do know that TheAtheist is Australian, right?

Don't care. That's the argument he's making. I don't care if its transitive or not.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, I specifically pointed out it isn't equivalent.

Fair enough, my mistake.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The point is that Hillary and many Democrats still insist she should/would have/did win in 2016 because Russians/Assange/FBI...

And they carried out violent protests, in case you forgot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Oakland_riots

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...resident-video

https://theconversation.com/after-th...mes-next-68778.

”They” is pretty broad, it looks like it’s just “elements of the left.” That’s a difference that doesn’t apply to Trumps or any other POTUS” situation. But see below.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Seems to me both sides have their problems

This is trivially true. But the differences between what Trump has done since the 2020 election and what the left has done is as wide as a mile.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

and maybe if the leaders took the lead and showed how to win gracefully, at least some Americans might respect that.

Impeaching Trump can be properly done with regard to nothing regarding winning gracefully.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Try asking yourself what the best outcome for Xi, Putin and the mad Mullahs is here - an implacably opposed and divided country, or one where both sides can show at least some minimal cohesion?

Holding POTUS accountable constitutionally has to be part of having a cohesive country. If we can’t cohere around that, cohesion is fake. Appeasement because the other side will be upset in the face of such gross high crimes and misdemeanors is just that.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Currently showing:

Heres a screengrab on twitter of it when it was up
https://twitter.com/HKrassenstein/st...415941/photo/1

[Bob001]

Rachel Maddow made an interesting observation: Conviction by the Senate after impeachment requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present, not of all Senators. Republicans could support/allow conviction if 20 or so Repubs just stayed away from the Capitol during the vote.

[Captain_Swoop]

If there isn't any sanction on Trump then it is legitimising his actions and it will become just another tactic.
Lose the election, invade the Capitol, there's no repercussions, it might work next time.

[Captain_Swoop]

Lindsey Graham tweeted

@LindseyGrahamSC
1h
In light of President Trump’s Thursday statement pledging an orderly transfer power and calling for healing in our nation, a second impeachment will do far more harm than good.

I’m disappointed to hear the House is proceeding with a second impeachment given there are only nine days left in a Trump presidency.

It is past time for all of us to try to heal our country and move forward.
Impeachment would be a major step backward.

[Captain_Swoop]

How far does it need to go before Graham grows some balls?
If violence erupts during the inauguration what will he say then?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

How far does it need to go before Graham grows some balls?
If violence erupts during the inauguration what will he say then?

Trump has no spine and was castrated a long time ago. He's not like a lizard which can regrow a tail. Balls do not regenerate.

ETA: What galls me is that you KNOW Graham would be screaming for blood if a Democrat president had done what Trump has done. All these GOP hypocrites calling for "healing" would be.

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

How far does it need to go before Graham grows some balls?
If violence erupts during the inauguration what will he say then?

He'll blame the Biden administration for not being able to preserve Law and Order.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

How far does it need to go before Graham grows some balls?
If violence erupts during the inauguration what will he say then?

And this is after a mob followed him through National Airport calling him traitor and worse. If he hadn't been surrounded by cops they would have killed him.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ege-challenges

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Tero

They will get the 51 votes, if it's in the senate later, not now. Possibly Romney and a couple more. But they would need 17 republicans to permanently ban him from office.

I would not rule this out, the math is very different this time than in the 2020 Impeachment.

So first, the idea that a second Impeachment will make Trump and Trumpist more popular is silly. This is a holdover from Clinton gaining popularity when he was Impeached, but the circumstances were entirely different.

Most of the US felt that the Whitewater investigation had turned into a witchhunt for the Clintons to get them on anything that Republicans could, They felt that the charges were minimal, had nothing to do with Clinton's running of the office, and frankly were none of the nation's business as to if he cheated on his wife or not. On top of that Clinton worked his butt off for the country while he was being impeached, he didn't whine and try and stop or delay it, he let the process happen and for the most part, at least publically, ignored it. This is why Clinton's popularity increased (though at the same time his numbers for honesty and integrity plunged).

This is a far cry from what Trump did in 2020, and the stats show it. According to 538, on Dec 17th, the day before the Impeachment was initiated, he had an average approval rating of 43.8%. On Feb 6th, the day after the Senate declared "Not Guilty", his average approval rating on 538 was 43.9%. Even if we waited a week for the news to filter through to the polls his average approval rating was actually down to 43.3%. There was a spike two weeks after where it bounced up to 44.3% for about three days before returning to 43.3%.

Now yes, his approval rating increased in the days before the start of the Impeachment vote, going from 41.8% to 43.3%, between the 13th and 16th, and then it fell again during the start of the Impeachment, dropping to a low of 41.8% on Jan 11th, before recovering back to the 43.9% by the end. It's not a lot of movement outside of his normal ups and downs.

The other thing to remember is that even though Clinton got more popular over his Impeachment, it wasn't a huge amount, 2-3% at most, and he was already wildly popular at the time with a +60% approval rating even before Impeachement.

Okay so now that we have dealt a death knell to the whole stupid, "It'll just make him more popular" claim, let's look at the "It'll end up the same way as last time" claims.

Again, the match is totally different this time.

In early 2020 Republicans were looking at a President who was wildly popular with Republic voters and they were fast coming into the primaries for the Presidential Election. They were being asked to not only remove what most of them considered to be their best chance of winning the 2020 Presidential Election, but also to put themselves in danger of reaping the anger whirlwind created by such a removal right at the time Primaries were about to be voted on, and their actions would have been fore-front if their voters' minds.

These are pretty major reasons to vote no to impeachment and Not Guilty to the Impeachment charges.

Now consider the math for the 2021 Impeachment. The election is passed, members of the House have over a year before they need to start campaigning again, senators have up to 6 years, and a number of the Republican Senators up to vote in 2024 are in what appears to be going to be hotly contested seats with Democrat advantage. That means they need to appeal to the centrists to retain their seats, not the alt-right. Also, they won't be voting to expel a President from office, but rather to determine if he can hold office again. Politically it would be beneficial to a number of them who might be considering a 2024 run to have Trump off the board. Finally, we see that a number of the top Republicans, such as Moscow Mitch and Graham, who were the ones leading the charge to acquit Trump in 2020, have publically broken with the President over a number of topics of late. They clearly are believing that his power and the power of his supporters is waning to the point that they can directly go against his wishes, and even call him and his supporters out.

So, when you put these factors together, no reasons not to find guilty, plenty of reasons to do so, and also that a number of Republican Congress Critters are absolutely livid over the insurrection and invasion of the Capitol, writing off any Impeachment attempt as doomed to fail from the start, is not actually a guarantee. I suspect that Republicans will be a lot more willing to do so because doing so will probably be better for their political careers than not doing so.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Rachel Maddow made an interesting observation: Conviction by the Senate after impeachment requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present, not of all Senators. Republicans could support/allow conviction if 20 or so Repubs just stayed away from the Capitol during the vote.

I've been reading the Senate rules and this is correct. It's 2/3rds those casting votes. Abstentions do not figure into the vote positively or negatively. However abstentions do count towards the requirement for a quorum.

Also a Senator present cannot abstain without reason such as a conflict of interest. However he doesn't have to state that reason unless pressed to state the reason. And they usually are not pressed.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Try asking yourself what the best outcome for Xi, Putin and the mad Mullahs is here - an implacably opposed and divided country, or one where both sides can show at least some minimal cohesion?

That ship already sailed. In my view USA is already irreversibly divided. Only thing to do is excise republican tumor and their authoritarian degenerate ideology.

Right now you are trying to scare us with "let them get away with it or else" nonsensical drivel. As I said, it will have opposite result, since lack of punishment is taken as reward. For some reason you did not answered to this post, I wonder why?

What you call for is utter foolishness, to put it delicately.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I've been reading the Senate rules and this is correct. It's 2/3rds those casting votes. Abstentions do not figure into the vote positively or negatively. However abstentions do count towards the requirement for a quorum.

Also a Senator present cannot abstain without reason such as a conflict of interest. However he doesn't have to state that reason unless pressed to state the reason. And they usually are not pressed.

She wasn't suggesting they should abstain or vote "present." She was suggesting they should arrange to be out of Washington.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Lindsey Graham tweeted

@LindseyGrahamSC
1h
In light of President Trump’s Thursday statement pledging an orderly transfer power and calling for healing in our nation, a second impeachment will do far more harm than good.

I’m disappointed to hear the House is proceeding with a second impeachment given there are only nine days left in a Trump presidency.

It is past time for all of us to try to heal our country and move forward.
Impeachment would be a major step backward.

"He said he was sorry, ya'll! Geez, what more do you want?"

Well, I'll tell you, Lindsey- in light of the fact that Trump, aided and abetted by the likes of you, spent the last four years sowing civic and cultural divisions in the country just so he could reap the political dividends, and has spent every day between Nov 3 and Jan 6 sulking about and impeaching the integrity of a fair election just because he lost it (and, again, aided and abetted, etc.), and then spent Jan 6 spouting inflammatory rhetoric that anyone with half a brain could foresee would have the results it did- no. Trump doesn't get a mulligan, and you guys don't get to pretend that "healing" is something you actually care about. Nobody believes that your "come together" is for real now when you've made a policy of driving people apart up until now.

Your "party of personal responsibility" needs to show that you understand that actions have consequences. Moving forward doesn't require us to forget how we got here, and holding those who got us here responsible for it isn't any step backward. You don't get to claim the profit of the healing just because you've decided you don't like the cost of the ill.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Call me crazy but I want a little pep in the step when you're responding to an angry mob storming the Capitol.

They are not acting like they truly think what Trump was did was bad and that they can just get around to dealing with it anytime they feel like it, which was the problem with the last impeachment as well.

Given the usual glacial pace of Congress, this actually seems reassuringly speedy to me.

I get that it be nice it we could flip a switch and Trump could fall through a trapdoor into a pool of alligators, but with these legal processes there is always the type of issues where someone is going to do all the rules-lawyering they can. Even here, on this forum, there are people who "totally don&t support Trump" who are rationalizing to themselves reasons to do nothing. For me, the Democrats are moving in the right direction with this, and I would take direction over speed anyday.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The point is that Hillary and many Democrats still insist she should/would have/did win in 2016 because Russians/Assange/FBI...

Oh for Chrissakes!

Did she lead or incite a coup attempt? No, you say!? Then there are no parallels.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

You...... do know that TheAtheist is Australian, right?

Nice trolling.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Really. What other crimes could someone commit, even down to swiping a candy bar, should be punished with LOSS OF SUPPORT or SOCIAL STANDING? Do laws mean nothing to you?

"Don't kill her, people won't like you anymore!"

And the other side of the argument is that Trump is now an unpopular insurrectionist. The best sort to make an example of.

That was what I was meaning with the GOP Senators possibly deciding he's toxic to them.

With traitors - yes, do kick them when they're down otherwise treason gets up.



*I like fascists who are losers best.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

You...... do know that TheAtheist is Australian, right?

Wash your mouth out!

New Zealander, not Australian.

Originally Posted by Paul2

”They” is pretty broad, it looks like it’s just “elements of the left.”

Looks to me as though Hillary was still crying about it in 2019.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because he's yet another butt-hurt Progressive that's mad that getting rid of Trump didn't come with a socialist uprising and more concerned with poo-pooing the Democratic establishment for the sin of being centrist then with stopping Trump.

I'd call it a strawman, but that's praise your statement doesn't deserve - it's just plain old manure, straight from the bull.

Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

That ship already sailed. In my view USA is already irreversibly divided.

That's all to the good, then. I've been a critic of USA's foreign policies for a few decades now. I had forlorn hopes that the lesson of Trump's presidency might usher in an era of common sense.

Mea culpa. I keep doing that and keep being disappointed. I am, in fact, every bit as deluded as Trump voter - expecting politicians to act in best interests instead of self-interest.

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

Right now you are trying to scare us with "let them get away with it or else" nonsensical drivel

Incorrect.

I've specifically stated that the idea is to take the high moral ground, but seeing as how there doesn't appear to be any in America - or anywhere else for that matter - c'est la vie.

Good luck with the impeachment - I have no doubt Senate Republicans will block it. And it will have achieved what, exactly?

Looks to me is all it will do is salve the egos of a bunch of people hell-bent on extracting retribution.

Yippee!

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Bob001

She wasn't suggesting they should abstain or vote "present." She was suggesting they should arrange to be out of Washington.

I'm just adding to the conversation. As long as 51 Senators show up, there's a quorum and the votes are binding. So at least one Republican Senator has to show up for the vote to be valid. In fact, Trump could be convicted unanimously without a single Republican voting Yeah or Nay.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Good luck with the impeachment - I have no doubt Senate Republicans will block it. And it will have achieved what, exactly?

It's not so much what an impeachment will achieve. It's what a lack of impeachment would achieve.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I would not rule this out, the math is very different this time than in the 2020 Impeachment.

So first, the idea that a second Impeachment will make Trump and Trumpist more popular is silly. This is a holdover from Clinton gaining popularity when he was Impeached, but the circumstances were entirely different.

Most of the US felt that the Whitewater investigation had turned into a witchhunt for the Clintons to get them on anything that Republicans could, They felt that the charges were minimal, had nothing to do with Clinton's running of the office, and frankly were none of the nation's business as to if he cheated on his wife or not. On top of that Clinton worked his butt off for the country while he was being impeached, he didn't whine and try and stop or delay it, he let the process happen and for the most part, at least publically, ignored it. This is why Clinton's popularity increased (though at the same time his numbers for honesty and integrity plunged).

This is a far cry from what Trump did in 2020, and the stats show it. According to 538, on Dec 17th, the day before the Impeachment was initiated, he had an average approval rating of 43.8%. On Feb 6th, the day after the Senate declared "Not Guilty", his average approval rating on 538 was 43.9%. Even if we waited a week for the news to filter through to the polls his average approval rating was actually down to 43.3%. There was a spike two weeks after where it bounced up to 44.3% for about three days before returning to 43.3%.

Now yes, his approval rating increased in the days before the start of the Impeachment vote, going from 41.8% to 43.3%, between the 13th and 16th, and then it fell again during the start of the Impeachment, dropping to a low of 41.8% on Jan 11th, before recovering back to the 43.9% by the end. It's not a lot of movement outside of his normal ups and downs.

The other thing to remember is that even though Clinton got more popular over his Impeachment, it wasn't a huge amount, 2-3% at most, and he was already wildly popular at the time with a +60% approval rating even before Impeachement.

Okay so now that we have dealt a death knell to the whole stupid, "It'll just make him more popular" claim, let's look at the "It'll end up the same way as last time" claims.

Again, the match is totally different this time.

In early 2020 Republicans were looking at a President who was wildly popular with Republic voters and they were fast coming into the primaries for the Presidential Election. They were being asked to not only remove what most of them considered to be their best chance of winning the 2020 Presidential Election, but also to put themselves in danger of reaping the anger whirlwind created by such a removal right at the time Primaries were about to be voted on, and their actions would have been fore-front if their voters' minds.

These are pretty major reasons to vote no to impeachment and Not Guilty to the Impeachment charges.

Now consider the math for the 2021 Impeachment. The election is passed, members of the House have over a year before they need to start campaigning again, senators have up to 6 years, and a number of the Republican Senators up to vote in 2024 are in what appears to be going to be hotly contested seats with Democrat advantage. That means they need to appeal to the centrists to retain their seats, not the alt-right. Also, they won't be voting to expel a President from office, but rather to determine if he can hold office again. Politically it would be beneficial to a number of them who might be considering a 2024 run to have Trump off the board. Finally, we see that a number of the top Republicans, such as Moscow Mitch and Graham, who were the ones leading the charge to acquit Trump in 2020, have publically broken with the President over a number of topics of late. They clearly are believing that his power and the power of his supporters is waning to the point that they can directly go against his wishes, and even call him and his supporters out.

So, when you put these factors together, no reasons not to find guilty, plenty of reasons to do so, and also that a number of Republican Congress Critters are absolutely livid over the insurrection and invasion of the Capitol, writing off any Impeachment attempt as doomed to fail from the start, is not actually a guarantee. I suspect that Republicans will be a lot more willing to do so because doing so will probably be better for their political careers than not doing so.

lots of good points here.

I could see people thinking that first impeachment was playing politics. I don’t believe it was, but it was complicated and spanned a long time and unless you were following it closely it was hard to follow. Importantly nobody got hurt. I can see buying into the witch hunt angle.

I’d like to see the moderate Republicans that think consequences for his stunt in January is a witch hunt though.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Looks to me as though Hillary was still crying about it in 2019.

Hillary has been pretty quiet on it as a whole, she certainly hasn't been holding rallies bemoaning to her supporters how the election was stolen and tweeting about it for the last 4 years.

However, the Democrats actually have a right to complain about 2016, there was legitimate interference in the election. This is a proven fact, and not one of Trump's Lawyers "proven facts."

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee came out with a lengthy study and concluded that the 2016 election was interfered in by the Russians using Social Media to undermine the Clinton Campaign and to support the Trump one.

So yes, 2016 - Massive amounts of evidence of election interference on the side of Trump's Campaign (in which the evidence suggests that members of the campaign were somewhat involved.)

2020 - Very little real evidence of voter fraud or interference in the election, despite Trump and his supporters' ongoing claims to the contrary. And what fraud has been uncovered and confirmed has been by Republicans voting multiple times for Trump.

So no, 2016 and 2020 are nothing alike.

Oh, and I meant to also point out, another legitimate frustration for Democrats in 2016 was that Hillary won the National Vote by over 3 million votes. Trump lost the 2020 National Vote by over 8 million votes.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm just adding to the conversation. As long as 51 Senators show up, there's a quorum and the votes are binding. So at least one Republican Senator has to show up for the vote to be valid. In fact, Trump could be convicted unanimously without a single Republican voting Yeah or Nay.

An interesting tactic.

The Senate Leader and Whip orders Rep senators not to turn up for the impeachment hearing, giving the Dems an unanimous decision in the senate. This way the Rep can get rid of Trump while washing their hands of him as well. Later strategy is to then blame Dems for the “kangaroo court” manner of the impeachment and can also claim to their Trump devotees that the GOP had nothing to do with the impeachment process/desicion.
Trumpists are more than capable of using such screwball logic to justify blaming the Dems for the impeachment while absolving the GOP for their duplicity.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

It's not so much what an impeachment will achieve. It's what a lack of impeachment would achieve.

Bingo

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by EHocking

An interesting tactic.

The Senate Leader and Whip orders Rep senators not to turn up for the impeachment hearing, giving the Dems an unanimous decision in the senate. This way the Rep can get rid of Trump while washing their hands of him as well. Later strategy is to then blame Dems for the “kangaroo court” manner of the impeachment and can also claim to their Trump devotees that the GOP had nothing to do with the impeachment process/desicion.
Trumpists are more than capable of using such screwball logic to justify blaming the Dems for the impeachment while absolving the GOP for their duplicity.

It's kind of hard for that to be believable however.

Still, it could be spun by saying that they supported the vast majority of Trump's policies and could not justify voting for or against his conviction. Wishy washy. but what are you going to when you're between a rock and a hard place.

No way is this going to happen though.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by EHocking

The Senate Leader and Whip orders Rep senators not to turn up for the impeachment hearing, giving the Dems an unanimous decision in the senate. This way the Rep can get rid of Trump while washing their hands of him as well. Later strategy is to then blame Dems for the “kangaroo court” manner of the impeachment and can also claim to their Trump devotees that the GOP had nothing to do with the impeachment process/desicion.
Trumpists are more than capable of using such screwball logic to justify blaming the Dems for the impeachment while absolving the GOP for their duplicity.

I wonder what they will say if someone asks why republicans weren't present.

I bet half would find moronic excuses while second half would howl about traitorous republican scum that should be hanged with Pence.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by EHocking

An interesting tactic.

The Senate Leader and Whip orders Rep senators not to turn up for the impeachment hearing, giving the Dems an unanimous decision in the senate. This way the Rep can get rid of Trump while washing their hands of him as well. Later strategy is to then blame Dems for the “kangaroo court” manner of the impeachment and can also claim to their Trump devotees that the GOP had nothing to do with the impeachment process/desicion.
Trumpists are more than capable of using such screwball logic to justify blaming the Dems for the impeachment while absolving the GOP for their duplicity.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm just adding to the conversation. As long as 51 Senators show up, there's a quorum and the votes are binding. So at least one Republican Senator has to show up for the vote to be valid. In fact, Trump could be convicted unanimously without a single Republican voting Yeah or Nay.

Originally Posted by Bob001

Rachel Maddow made an interesting observation: Conviction by the Senate after impeachment requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present, not of all Senators. Republicans could support/allow conviction if 20 or so Repubs just stayed away from the Capitol during the vote.

Yup, those are along the lines I was thinking of. And with both houses and the presidency in rational hands - lots of dirt will come out about Trump, so his popularity will only fall in retrospect. The brighter GOP Senators must realise this.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Trump has no spine and was castrated a long time ago. He's not like a lizard which can regrow a tail. Balls do not regenerate.

ETA: What galls me is that you KNOW Graham would be screaming for blood if a Democrat president had done what Trump has done. All these GOP hypocrites calling for "healing" would be.

Come on, it's not as if he lied about getting a BJ.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I've specifically stated that the idea is to take the high moral ground, but seeing as how there doesn't appear to be any in America - or anywhere else for that matter - c'est la vie.

Good luck with the impeachment - I have no doubt Senate Republicans will block it. And it will have achieved what, exactly?

Looks to me is all it will do is salve the egos of a bunch of people hell-bent on extracting retribution justice.

Yippee!

No, your claim to be taking the moral high ground is tainted by your claim that it wouldn't be politically expedient to do this.

Which is it?

My view is that impeachment is necessary at the very least. And Republicans will damn themselves by voting against it.

Getting them on the record in and of itself is a good result so that when they try to run for president themselves, they cannot claim that they were totally against the storming of the Capitol, and totally would have impeached/convicted if they had had the chance.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Come on, it's not as if he lied about getting a BJ.

There were good grounds for impeaching Bill Clinton, but nothing like the cast-iron grounds for impeaching Trump.

Anyway, it isn't hypothetical any more....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...f-insurrection

Quote:

Donald Trump is facing a historic second impeachment after Democrats in the House of Representatives formally charged him with one count of “incitement of insurrection” over the Capitol Hill riot.

Five people died in the attack last week, including a police officer, which Trump prompted when he told supporters to “fight like hell” in his attempt to overturn election defeat by Joe Biden. Emerging video footage has revealed just how close the mob came to a potentially deadly confrontation with members of Congress.

On Monday, security officials scrambled to ensure that Biden’s inauguration next week would not be marred by further violence.

The US Secret Service will begin carrying out its special security arrangements for the inauguration this Wednesday, almost a week earlier than originally planned.

And ABC News said it had obtained an internal FBI bulletin which detailed plans for “armed protests” and calls for the “storming” of state, local and federal courthouses and buildings across the country if Trump was removed from power before then.

On Capitol Hill, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who in an interview on Sunday called Trump “a deranged, unhinged, dangerous president”, initiated a plan in two parts.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Seems to me both sides have their problems and maybe if the leaders took the lead and showed how to win gracefully, at least some Americans might respect that.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

"Mr FDR, I know the Japanese just bombed Pearl Harbor, but if you think about it, turning the other cheek and letting bygones be bygones would be the kind of thing that would be really respected by... errr... someone.

"I mean, you remember I told you about the worst insult ever, right? Imagine how humiliated the Japanese would be if, now that they bombed Pearl Harbor, you just decided to do nothing! I mean, they are a big "face" country right. You know that, right? It seems to me if you just ignore Pearl Harbor and stop making a big deal of it, they will be like, 'Oh, I am so ashamed and insulted that you are ignoring me!' and then we win!"

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Feel free to keep going down the road to dissolving, though - I welcome our new Chinese overlords.

Try asking yourself what the best outcome for Xi, Putin and the mad Mullahs is here - an implacably opposed and divided country, or one where both sides can show at least some minimal cohesion?

(I still laugh about the massive **** fight RandFan and I had a decade ago when I said America was massively divided and he disagreed.)

"Oh and FDR, you know about those America First people and about Hitler. Well, I tell you what. If you decide to go to war with Imperial Japan, can you imagine how much the America First people are going to rake you over the coals. Imagine how divided our society will be. Imagine Hitler, and Mussolini and Stalin just laughing their asses off if you even try to go to war with Japan. Just don't do it. Take no action. Be fearful of our enemies foreign and domestic. Do nothing! Do nothing!!"

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

I wonder what they will say if someone asks why republicans weren't present.

I bet half would find moronic excuses while second half would howl about traitorous republican scum that should be hanged with Pence.

Trumpist are now claiming the Capitol lynch mob were AntiFa in disguise.

They will force themselves to believe anything in order to maintain their Trump idolisation and the GOP are not much better.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It's kind of hard for that to be believable however.

Still, it could be spun by saying that they supported the vast majority of Trump's policies and could not justify voting for or against his conviction. Wishy washy. but what are you going to when you're between a rock and a hard place.

No way is this going to happen though.

Absolutely zero turning up is unlikely, yes. But a tactical absence may be a possibility.

Repuglyans have show over the past 5 years that they are capable of believing all sorts of ******** to support the GOP.