Split Thread A second impeachment

[Paul2]

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?

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.

Distinction without a difference: I'm happy to condemn any Repub - or, anyone, for that matter - who thinks the impeachment is improper. But that has nothing to do with that vote, even if everyone of the 45 who voted not to table also think impeachment is improper.

It was the linking of this vote to really severe consequences, like prosecution for treason, etc., IIRC, that I'm primarily objecting to.

Don't remember the Senator's name, it was on an MSNBC newscast. yesterday, I think.

 

[dudalb]

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.

Nixon was not radioactive the way that Trump is.
if the GOP becomes a party of extremims, then it is doomed in the long run.

 

[smartcooky]

Most of the GOP senate are clearly terrified of Trump, but what I don't get is why and how? Trump supporters are a minority of the country. They might represent 50% of current GOP voters, but they have also alienated many traditional GOP voters and many, many independents.

If the Senate Republicans were to unilaterally repudiate Trump by voting to convict (100-0) they would not only rid themselves of the idiot, they could also gain back a lot of respect from Republicans who voted Biden this time, other more traditional swing voters, and independents. It might not be enough to get them back for 2022, or 2024, but in the long term, I think they have more to gain than to lose. At the moment, they are driving away those voters, and will continue to do so and long as the remain fearful of him.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

I'm starting to think we might not be hearing about McConnell Republicans and Trump Republicans, but McConnell Republicans and Q-Republicans - with McConnell coming out as a Q-Republican.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

So what do they do? Hold this same debate every time this situation may arise never coming to a definitive conclusion but one that is advantageous to whatever party is in power at that time? Whoopee. What a colossal waste of time.

 

[CapelDodger]

Most of the GOP senate are clearly terrified of Trump, but what I don't get is why and how? Trump supporters are a minority of the country. They might represent 50% of current GOP voters, but they have also alienated many traditional GOP voters and many, many independents.

That's what the evidence supports, but there's the problem - these people have become conditioned to discount evidence in any and every case.

If the Senate Republicans were to unilaterally repudiate Trump by voting to convict (100-0) they would not only rid themselves of the idiot, they could also gain back a lot of respect from Republicans who voted Biden this time, other more traditional swing voters, and independents. It might not be enough to get them back for 2022, or 2024, but in the long term, I think they have more to gain than to lose. At the moment, they are driving away those voters, and will continue to do so and long as the remain fearful of him.

The evidence shows that down-ballot Republicans did better than Trump in 2020, so there are Republicans who rejected Trump but not the party (which, of course, he only joined in 2016). Those Republican voters are theirs to lose if they identify the party with Trump.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

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.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/impeachment-trial-mitch-mcconnell_n_60107ab3c5b67848ee7c0d9b

Sen. Rand Paul’s effort to stop the trial before it even got started. The GOP senator argued that holding such a trial of a former president was not constitutional, even though there is precedent for the Senate trying former government officials.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

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.

What more could they possibly need? Trump is ON RECORD inciting the insurrection.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

The evidence shows that down-ballot Republicans did better than Trump in 2020,

thanks to GOP election rigging: a combination of massive voter disenfranchisement plus carefully targeted rigged electronic election systems. This is how they "won" in 2016, and they expected it to work for them in 2020.

It would have too, if not for the fact that Trump became so utterly unhinged that he drove off more independents/etc than their calculations provided for.

 

[Solitaire]

Most of the GOP senate are clearly terrified of Trump, but what I don't get is why
and how? Trump supporters are a minority of the country. They might represent
50% of current GOP voters, but they have also alienated many traditional GOP
voters and many, many independents.

I disagree.

In the 2016 election he got 63 million votes and the 2020 election he got
74 million votes despite all the things he did and didn't do while in office.

Infographic

For all intents and purposes, Trump is the Republican Party.

 

[Paul2]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/impeachment-trial-mitch-mcconnell_n_60107ab3c5b67848ee7c0d9b

Rand Paul ‘s intent does not necessarily transfer to Senators who voted against that motion to table. All it was was a motion to table, not a motion to kill the impeachment.

 

[acbytesla]

Nixon was not radioactive the way that Trump is.
if the GOP becomes a party of extremims, then it is doomed in the long run.

I don't know about that. Nixon went and climbed under a rock in California after he resigned. McCarthy was in Mar a Lago yesterday.

 

[acbytesla]

So what do they do? Hold this same debate every time this situation may arise never coming to a definitive conclusion but one that is advantageous to whatever party is in power at that time? Whoopee. What a colossal waste of time.

It's politics and every situation is unique.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Rand Paul ‘s intent does not necessarily transfer to Senators who voted against that motion to table. All it was was a motion to table, not a motion to kill the impeachment.

The motion to table was from Schumer. Paul raise a point of order that the trial proceedings violate the Constitution and are not in order.

The Chair submitted the question to the Senate: Is the point of order well taken?

Schumer then moved to table the point of order. Schumer's motion to table was agreed to and Paul's point of order was not sustained.

Paul's point of order was to kill the impeachment trial.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's politics and every situation is unique.

Impeachment/trial after leaving office is either Constitutional or not. It's not "unique to every situation". If that's the way it's going to be handled, then it's nothing but playing political games.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Paul's objection is a paradox anyways.

Asking the Senate to determine if the Senate has a certain power means it does have that power. Even if they said no today, a future Senate might say yes. Rules written down and invoked by the chair can be overturned by majority at any time.

If he believes the body doesn't have this authority, SCOTUS is the venue to request an injunction.

 

[Stacyhs]

Paul's objection is a paradox anyways.

Asking the Senate to determine if the Senate has a certain power means it does have that power. Even if they said no today, a future Senate might say yes. Rules written down and invoked by the chair can be overturned by majority at any time.

If he believes the body doesn't have this authority, SCOTUS is the venue to request an injunction.

I.E. It's a political game. Let me guess: if it had been Obama, it would have been Constitutional.

 

[Paul2]

The motion to table was from Schumer. Paul raise a point of order that the trial proceedings violate the Constitution and are not in order.

The Chair submitted the question to the Senate: Is the point of order well taken?

Schumer then moved to table the point of order. Schumer's motion to table was agreed to and Paul's point of order was not sustained.

Paul's point of order was to kill the impeachment trial.

I stand corrected. I heard otherwise, but your scenario makes sense.

 

[bruto]

Most of the GOP senate are clearly terrified of Trump, but what I don't get is why and how? Trump supporters are a minority of the country. They might represent 50% of current GOP voters, but they have also alienated many traditional GOP voters and many, many independents.

If the Senate Republicans were to unilaterally repudiate Trump by voting to convict (100-0) they would not only rid themselves of the idiot, they could also gain back a lot of respect from Republicans who voted Biden this time, other more traditional swing voters, and independents. It might not be enough to get them back for 2022, or 2024, but in the long term, I think they have more to gain than to lose. At the moment, they are driving away those voters, and will continue to do so and long as the remain fearful of him.

That's kind of back to the old paradox William James dealt with in The Will To Believe, I think. A handful of robbers can hold up the train because they know the much greater number of victims dare not act. If they all decided to do the right thing, they'd all act together and they'd prevail, but they won't. If the whole Republican party just got together and said "let's dump T**** now, they'd probably not only save the party, without sacrificing any of their ideals, good or bad, and they'd probably win back a significant portion of the so-called base, with a strong, unified party. But they probably figure it's too late, they don't trust each other to do the right thing anyway, and so they won't dare.

 

[acbytesla]

Impeachment/trial after leaving office is either Constitutional or not. It's not "unique to every situation". If that's the way it's going to be handled, then it's nothing but playing political games.

I understand your argument. It is political games unfortunately.

The question of Constitutionality isn't really an honest argument. This isn't like other laws where precedence and stare decisis rule the day. The Constitution says the trial is performed by the Senate and not much else. So the Senate decides how that trial is run. Period.The GOP is pumping this "Constitutional narrative because it works for them, not because it is true.