Split Thread A second impeachment

[turingtest]

Fine Republican House members going all in for peace and unity on the floor.

Jason Smith (R-MO): "This is a reckless impeachment. This will only bring up the hate and fire more than ever before."

Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA): "The measure before us today sets a dangerous necessary precedent."
Needless to say that both of these fine gentlemen, concerned about hate and dangerous precedents, voted last week to block the electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania. Both also supported the Texas AG lawsuit trying to get SCOTUS steal the election.

Fixed that for the honorable gentleman.

As for the first gentleman, I'm reminded of a Stephen Colbert monologue I just saw this morning (paraphrased a little): the new Republican motto- "we don't negotiate with terrorists- we give in to them!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Everyone gets that "This sets a bad precedent" is a backhanded threat, right?

They aren't really worried about precedent, they are telling us to expect them to do the same to us to "get even."

 

[turingtest]

"Your Honor, when my client yelled, 'Fire,' he was merely expressing his opinion that there may have been a fire present. Was there actually a fire? Who knows? But he has a First-Amendment right to freely express his opinion. Yes, it's a tragedy that so many people died in the panic, but my client certainly didn't tell anyone that they should panic and crush or trample others. And yet, the district attorney is persecuting my client for merely expressing an opinion."

"And he did tell them they should leave in an orderly manner!"

 

[zooterkin]

Fine Republican House members going all in for peace and unity on the floor.

Jason Smith (R-MO): "This is a reckless impeachment. This will only bring up the hate and fire more than ever before."

Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA): "The measure before us today sets a dangerous precedent."

Needless to say that both of these fine gentlemen, concerned about hate and dangerous precedents, voted last week to block the electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania. Both also supported the Texas AG lawsuit trying to get SCOTUS steal the election.

I think they misspelt, "Dangerous President".

 

[zooterkin]

Everyone gets that "This sets a bad precedent" is backhanded threat, right?

They aren't really worried about precedent, they are telling us to expect them to do the same to us to "get even."

If a Democrat President sends a mob to storm the Capitol, they will be justified in doing so.

 

[Tero]

Tom Cole is wrapping up the first procedural vote for Republican side, preaching unity. He also complained about process. That there were no witnesses and no study of what happened.

But it is unlikely that by studying the insurrection in all detail will somehow prove cause and effect. There is no other cause to invading the capitol than Trump.

 

[zooterkin]

From Twitter.

When a Republican says "impeachment is divisive" it's the same as when an abusive spouse tells you that if you leave or call the cops, you're the one tearing the family apart.

 

[johnny karate]

What Trump did is definitely not 'insurrection', his speech (widely produced as proof by some) cannot be used to claim that he intended to cause violence. The truth is rather that the massively 'progressive' infiltrated Democrats fear so much Trump that basically anything is useful to oust him. If Trump is cancelled using this 'progressive' patented method then anyone, no matter how rational, can be a victim in the future.

As defenses of right wing terrorism go, this is one of the more articulate ones we’ve seen on this forum.

Gobsmackingly stupid and morally bankrupt, but articulately expressed.

 

[Meadmaker]

If I gathered a crowd a mile and a half from someone's house and lying told them this person was a sex trafficker who was in the process of raping children in their basement, and that we were going to march to their house, my also saying 'let's be peaceful' would not be a lick of mitigation for my crime. Violence was the eminently predictable and sought outcome, even if I deny it.

This is as close to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater as it gets.

Good analogy.



I look at the last two+ months, and if everything Trump was saying about election fraud were true, about how the election was stolen by massive fraud, then insurrection and rebellion would actually be the appropriate response.

The underlying source of the problem, and the real reason he deserves to be impeached, isn't because the crowd ignored his admonition to be peaceful. It is because the crowd reacted as they predictably would to his months of lying about democracy in America.

 

[turingtest]

Good analogy.



I look at the last two+ months, and if everything Trump was saying about election fraud were true, about how the election was stolen by massive fraud, then insurrection and rebellion would actually be the appropriate response.

The underlying source of the problem, and the real reason he deserves to be impeached, isn't because the crowd ignored his admonition to be peaceful. It is because the crowd reacted as they predictably would to his months of lying about democracy in America.

That's the key word right there. To me, as I've said, for purposes of impeachment (a political standard different from a legal one), it doesn't even matter that Trump may not have intended the mob to act as they did if the outcome was one that any reasonable person would have foreseen, taking into account a full context. Trump has always been so focused on the adulation he receives from rallies that he gives no thought at all to anything else- and that is just not a reasonable stance for someone in his position to take.

Also (and as I've also said), any politician (looking at you, Lindsey Graham) who thinks that the rioters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and acknowledges that Trump's actions and words were part of the problem that led them to riot needs to explain why the rioters need to pay the fullest price possible and Trump gets a discount. "Healing" isn't an answer to that question, it's an avoidance of it.

 

[dirtywick]

people listened to what he said, went where he told them to go, and that’s what happened. I don’t think it’s that complicated

 

[carlosy]

****, Jim Jordan... what a ....****
Talking about hypocrisy and healing.
What a ****

 

[Cain]

A couple of things:
1) Trump wants to maintain power (and would welcome a successful coup; he does not care about Constitutional process).
2) Trump often has no idea what he's doing. He's a consummate BSer who makes it up as he goes along. Trump may well sincerely believe the election was stolen from him.

Grounds for Impeachment:
Trump can be impeached even if he didn't know a mob would descend on the Capitol because his comments were so irresponsible. You're not necessarily an arsonist if you're playing with matches in a forest. You could just be a garden-variety idiot.

Even more damning was Trump's inaction after his supporters stormed the building. Again, it demonstrates he's unfit to lead. What kind of president fails to secure the nation's Capitol? Parsing his words is a fool's errand. Ultimately, what matters is what he did do, and what he didn't do.

 

[slyjoe]

Cain, is that you?

ETA: If so, well said.

 

[Mader Levap]

Cain, is that you?

Remember, when Cain speaks OOC, things are very bad.

 

[Trebuchet]

Cain, is that you?

ETA: If so, well said.

I've long thought Cain should have two accounts, one for regular Cain and one for serious Cain!

 

[Mader Levap]

I've long thought Cain should have two accounts, one for regular Cain and one for serious Cain!

Nah. I like the contrast.

 

[Aber]

- While Trump did use the word 'peaceful' at the rally, he also used the phrase 'fight'... multiple times. While the term 'fight' can be used metaphorically, it is still a rather... loaded term

IIRC they also played an Elton John song more than once.

https://genius.com/Elton-john-saturday-nights-alright-for-fighting-lyrics

 

[Aridas]

Bad people!

Honestly, at this point, I think I may start just laughing at people that complain about "cancel culture." For a bit of start, though, it's well worth considering the points made in Time on the subject. Going further than that, though, the sheer audacity of Trump supporters to rage against "cancel culture" is sorta incredible. Where's all that outrage when right-wing radio hosts were literally being fired in the middle of their broadcasts for offering any criticism towards Trump? I certainly didn't hear a hint of it. Where's their outrage at the eminently predictable FLOODs of death threats towards those who break with Trump and those who Trump attacks? That sure seems to have become pretty much standard tactics on the right. There's so much more that could be poked at, really, but meh. It's just the usual situation of the right attempting to claim a moral high ground and preach at the left about the splinter in their eye while refusing to acknowledge or do anything about the friggin' log in their own eye.

The behind the scenes scuttlebutt (as always take with a grain of salt) is that unlike the last impeachment is that McConnell isn't pushing nearly as hard for the GOP to be a "single" voice and encouraging Senators to just vote how they want.

I half wonder if something similar changed in the House. If the "We all have to speak as one" thing is less pronounced this time.

Something has changed, regardless. Trump can't nominate any more activist pro corporate judges for them to rubber stamp, at this point.

Is there anyone on the right who looks at this situation and says, "maybe we did something wrong? Maybe we should do something different in the future?"

Sure. Some, at last check. Not all that many, though, by the look of it, compared to how many don't even have a foundation built in anywhere close to reality because of the constant stream of nonsensical spin, grievance, and outright lies they've been fed by the right for so very many years.

Since Trump made a perfect speech and has no regrets, GOP defense will be weak. Susan Collins saying, later, that once more Trump has learned from his mistake will be laughed at.

The "Trump has learned!" attempted defense has already been offered, apparently, albeit by others.

 

[Nova Land]

No, it does not require 67 votes in the senate to convict Donald Trump

People keep saying that if the house votes to impeach Donald Trump then 67 votes are needed in the senate to convict him. For example, here's a quote from USA Today:

A vote on impeaching Trump is expected to take place late Wednesday – and pass – in the Democrat-controlled House... Once it passes, Pelosi would then decide when to take it to the Senate, where at least 67 of the 100 members would have to support conviction.

That is not correct. It does not require at least 67 members to support conviction, and it would be good for people to stop repeating that inaccuracy.

Ah, you may be thinking, but there are 100 senators, and the constitution says it takes a vote of 2/3 of the senators to convict, so that means it takes at least 67 senators. But that's a careless misreading of what the constitution actually says.

The relevant passage is in article I, section 3 of the US constitution. Here it is:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

People keep saying we need 2/3 of the votes of the senate membership -- i.e. 67 votes -- to convict Trump. That's not what the constitution says. What the constitution says is that it takes 2/3 of the votes of those present.

If every senator were present, that would be 67 out of 100, but it's a mistake to assume 100 senators will be present. In fact, there almost certainly won't be if the impeachment trial occurs immediately, as at present there are only 99 senators, David Perdue's term having expired and Jon Ossoff not having been confirmed yet. So if all 99 members were present it would take 66 votes to convict.

But there is also no reason to assume all 99 members will be present. Very often the senate convenes and does business with less than all members present, which is why senate rules include a quorum requirement. The constitution addresses this in Article 1, Section 5: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business." So a senate quorum is 50 at the moment, and will go back up to 51 after we return to having 100 senators.

If fewer than 100 senators are present, then fewer than 67 votes are needed to convict. So instead of focusing on trying to win the votes of the Republicans who are determined not to vote for impeachment, I think it would be smarter for those who'd like to see Trump removed from office to focus on trying to convince as many of those Republican senators as possible to boycott the impeachment trial. We refuse to dignify these proceedings by taking any part in them, Republican senators who want to at least appear to support Donald Trump could say, as a way to try to stay on the good side of the pro-Trumpers while allowing them to avoid actually going on record as voting to acquit him.

There are currently 99 senators, which includes 46 Democrats and 2 Democratic-voting indies. Let's assume all of them show up for the trial and all of them vote to convict, and consider how Republican attendance at the trial would affect things.

(a) If every senator showed up it would require 66 votes to convict, so those working for impeachment would need to get 18 Republican votes. That could be very hard to get.

(b) If 9 senators stayed home, those working for impeachment would need 60 out of 90 votes to convict. That means 12 Republican votes would be needed -- which would also probably be very hard to get...

(c) But suppose 18 Republicans could be persuaded to stand firm in opposition to the impeachment by refusing to attend the impeachment trial. Now there'd be 81 senators present, so it would require only 54 votes to convict. That means if 6 Republicans vote to convict, Donald Trump is convicted and removed from office. And that seems like a number the impeachment side might actually be able to attain.