Split Thread A second impeachment

[JoeMorgue]

The GOP didn't disappear after Nixon. Can't imagine why it is going to disappear after Trump.

The Republicans either have no shame, no self awareness, or both. We have to accept the fact that they "Eureka" moment we all keep expecting them to have is never going to come, or least not our preferred version of it.

 

[Segnosaur]

The GOP didn't disappear after Nixon. Can't imagine why it is going to disappear after Trump.

The Republicans either have no shame, no self awareness, or both. We have to accept the fact that they "Eureka" moment we all keep expecting them to have is never going to come, or least not our preferred version of it.

You're right, the GOP didn't disappear after nixon, and I don't think they will disappear after Trump either.

But, there are a couple of differences between the 2 circumstances:

- The current incarnation of the GOP has a bigger issue with demographic changes. (White voters making up a smaller part of the electorate, a shift of voters from rural to urban areas, etc.) Some of that may have been an issue in the Nixon era, but it was much less pronounced.

- In the Nixon era, the republican party had some integrity... many of them were willing to turn on Nixon and supported impeachment. Today's republican party shows little or no such integrity, with them firmly in lockstep/goose-step behind Trump. This is gong to risk them alienating potential swing voters.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

ChristianProgressive isn't talking about the violence at the capitol. He's talking about the Senate impeachment vote. He considers that as treason.

Do you think that qualifies for removal under the 14th amendment?

if they supported the insurrection in any way or work to prevent the insurrectionist being brought to justice - yes, of course.
That's what the law says.

 

[Paul2]

Wtihout even hearing a single minute of evidence.

They are not Americans. They are not loyal. They must be criminally charged and removed by the DoJ.

They didn't vote to dismiss the impeachment. They didn't even vote whether impeaching a President who is out of office is constitutional. They voted on whether they should continue debating whether impeaching a President who is out of office was constitutional.

As far as I understand.

 

[Meadmaker]

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (Jan 2013)

“We must stop being the stupid party. I'm serious. It's time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It's time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. We’ve had enough of that."


He also warned that Republicans were too associated with "big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes."
"We must not be the party that simply protects the well-off so they can keep their toys, We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive."

“We must stop looking backward. … Nostalgia about the good old days is heart-warming, but the battle of ideas must be waged in the future."​

Whatever happened to the former US Representative and Rhodes Scholar?

Oh, yeah. He left the Governor’s Mansion in Jan 2016 (replaced by a Democrat). That’s just about when he decided that the private sector really needed him.

Interesting. I never knew Jindahl to talk like that.

He didn't get too far in the Republican primaries. Now I think that's a pity.

 

[Aridas]

if they supported the insurrection in any way or work to prevent the insurrectionist being brought to justice - yes, of course.
That's what the law says.

To poke at that a little - 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The impeachment trial in the Senate is not a criminal trial and should not directly affect or prevent justice from being done, so the position that voting to acquit is chargeable is on rather shaky ground, to say the least. The "incites" part, on the other hand, can much more reasonably include the way that a heck of a lot of the GOP went all in on their election lies for fundraising and political purposes.

 

[Ziggurat]

if they supported the insurrection in any way

You are avoiding my question. He was talking about the Senate vote. Do you think that vote counts? Do you think how they voted qualifies them for prosecution or removal from office? I don't want hypothetical ifs, because he's not talking hypothetically, he's being quite specific.

 

[Paul2]

I'll say it again: the vote from Tuesday in the Senate is not what everyone thinks it is. It has been widely interpreted to be a vote on whether the impeachment is constitutional, given that that was the issue that Rand Paul brought up.

But the actual vote was a vote to table, which is a vote on whether to stop discussing R. Paul's issue, to take it off the table. At least one Republican Senator claimed that his vote against tabling was merely a vote to continue the discussion, and not necessarily against impeachment. (You can take that Senator at his word, or not.)

This is not nit-picking, as some of the conclusions drawn from this vote have just gone too far.

Source

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

 

[Segnosaur]

I'll say it again: the vote from Tuesday in the Senate is not what everyone thinks it is. It has been widely interpreted to be a vote on whether the impeachment is constitutional, given that that was the issue that Rand Paul brought up.

But the actual vote was a vote to table, which is a vote on whether to stop discussing R. Paul's issue, to take it off the table.

I think this is a case of 'distinction without difference'.

First of all, the issue of Trump's impeachment (as well as the constitutionality of it) has been the subject of political discussion for weeks now. Its not like this is some brand-new issue that is blind-siding congress. Senators would already have had the opportunity to listen to experts on their own, and/or look at precedents. So claiming "I just want to discuss whether it is constitutional" seems like nothing more than a cover story.

Secondly, we've already heard multiple senators already make the claim that its unconstitutional... why are THEY so sure if other republicans think it is something to be discussed?

At least one Republican Senator claimed that his vote against tabling was merely a vote to continue the discussion, and not necessarily against impeachment. (You can take that Senator at his word, or not.)

Which senator was that?

Given the actions of the Republican party over the past decade, I am not exactly prone to taking them at their word.

 

[dirtywick]

I'll say it again: the vote from Tuesday in the Senate is not what everyone thinks it is. It has been widely interpreted to be a vote on whether the impeachment is constitutional, given that that was the issue that Rand Paul brought up.

But the actual vote was a vote to table, which is a vote on whether to stop discussing R. Paul's issue, to take it off the table. At least one Republican Senator claimed that his vote against tabling was merely a vote to continue the discussion, and not necessarily against impeachment. (You can take that Senator at his word, or not.)

This is not nit-picking, as some of the conclusions drawn from this vote have just gone too far.

Source

I agree it doesn’t mean as much as it’s being made out to be. It’s not the senates job to decide whether or not it is constitutional for one. The House voted to impeach, it’s already done whether rand Paul agrees with it or not. They’ll still have to sit through the trial and vote at the end.

It’s giving me the impression that they’re going to employ the same strategy they used on the last impeachment. And while there’s no doubt some of them will use their floor time to moan about how unfair the process is and do anything they can to avoid talking about trumps actions. the big difference now is that the Dems have a lot of control over what will and won’t be presented at the trial. It’s a lot easier to ignore the evidence when none has been presented.

If the Dems can make a good enough case for impeachment during the trial I’m not sure that strategy will work as well. So let’s see what they’ve got.

 

[dirtywick]

I think this is a case of 'distinction without difference'.

First of all, the issue of Trump's impeachment (as well as the constitutionality of it) has been the subject of political discussion for weeks now. Its not like this is some brand-new issue that is blind-siding congress. Senators would already have had the opportunity to listen to experts on their own, and/or look at precedents. So claiming "I just want to discuss whether it is constitutional" seems like nothing more than a cover story.

of course it is, but that’s how they acquitted Trump the first time. Remember the GOPs strategy was to bemoan the process not the content. they didn’t want to hear evidence or call witnesses because it was done improperly from the start.

they’re doing that again now to avoid having to take a position on it. the Dems will have to present a case so good that it can’t be ignored.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You are avoiding my question. He was talking about the Senate vote. Do you think that vote counts? Do you think how they voted qualifies them for prosecution or removal from office? I don't want hypothetical ifs, because he's not talking hypothetically, he's being quite specific.

no, and if I thought it would, I would have said it.

Though anyone who participated in the insurrection or voiced support for it should recuse themselves; but that would assume that they believed in Personal Responsibility, something completely alien to Republicans.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The Republicans are completely happy to "There's nothing in the rule book that says a Golden Retriever can't play football" us into destroying the country.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course it is. Which brings me to the question: since when is it within the purview of the Senate to determine what is Constitutional and what is not?

On the impeachment trial, it is entirely up to the Senate. This is a nuance that a lot of people miss. Impeachment itself is entirely the purview of the House, the trial is entirely the purview of the Senate. SCOTUS has been very clear this is not their domain.

So yeah, the Senate can vote on saying this, but it certainly wouldn't be a precedent that future Senates would have to follow.

That William Belknap was tried by the US Senate after he resigned is precedence that they can impeach and can hold the trial.

 

[dudalb]

You're right, the GOP didn't disappear after nixon, and I don't think they will disappear after Trump either.

But, there are a couple of differences between the 2 circumstances:

- The current incarnation of the GOP has a bigger issue with demographic changes. (White voters making up a smaller part of the electorate, a shift of voters from rural to urban areas, etc.) Some of that may have been an issue in the Nixon era, but it was much less pronounced.

- In the Nixon era, the republican party had some integrity... many of them were willing to turn on Nixon and supported impeachment. Today's republican party shows little or no such integrity, with them firmly in lockstep/goose-step behind Trump. This is gong to risk them alienating potential swing voters.

I think yhr GOP is slowly destorying itself by going more and more extreme. It might take a few years, but the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.

 

[dudalb]

it's not even a case of Party over Country, but Getting Relelcted even if you hurt the Party long term.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To poke at that a little - 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

The impeachment trial in the Senate is not a criminal trial and should not directly affect or prevent justice from being done, so the position that voting to acquit is chargeable is on rather shaky ground, to say the least. The "incites" part, on the other hand, can much more reasonably include the way that a heck of a lot of the GOP went all in on their election lies for fundraising and political purposes.

I'd love for the Democrats to tell the GOP Senators to go ahead with the impeachment trial or expect the DoJ to consider criminal charges instead.

Notice I said "consider" so these guys can't come back on Democratic hypocrisy when the DoJ files charges against Trump anyway.

Well, they will come back anyway to scream bloody murder of course, but let them. The Democrats made no promises.

And if it turns out the DoJ is reluctant to press charges against a past POTUS, then the effort to push the impeachment trial along might still be successful.

Either impeach the guy so we can block him from running for future office, or risk him being convicted of treason and not being able to run for future office anyway.

 

[dudalb]

Yeah. Pelosi is pissed. McCarthy is crying this is too divisive. But that is the point.

He's terrified that this will split the GOP because they will have to stand on one side or the other.

Irony is that but no tvoting to impeach they are taking a stand.....

 

[pgwenthold]

They didn't vote to dismiss the impeachment. They didn't even vote whether impeaching a President who is out of office is constitutional. They voted on whether they should continue debating whether impeaching a President who is out of office was constitutional.

As far as I understand.

For the record, Trump was impeached the second time while he was in office.