House Impeachment Inquiry

[Cavemonster]

I'm not sure it's that simple. There is another kind of math you're not considering and that is election polling. These guys are going to do what keeps their own political careers alive. And they will turn on Trump in an instant if they believe it is the most politically smart thing to do.

I don't doubt they would turn on Trump the instant it became the choice that helped them keep their job.

I just really doubt that the Rebublican base would turn on Trump for anything.

And so long as the large majority of GOP voters are in bed with Trump, so is the senate.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't doubt they would turn on Trump the instant it became the choice that helped them keep their job.

I just really doubt that the Rebublican base would turn on Trump for anything.

And so long as the large majority of GOP voters are in bed with Trump, so is the senate.

Well, it remains to be "sussed out". The Senate moved forward with the demand that the Report be released. Is this calculation on their part, knowing that it's going to get released regardless of Barr/Trump shenanigans? In other words are they just trying to get ahead of the story and will revert to abject partisanship.

There are cracks showing in the foundations of Trump's support in the Senate. Not just the above but on both votes (largely for show) to deny him his emergency declaration (better known as Trump's Pilfering of Military Funds) to finance his wall. A dozen GOP Senators voted with the Dems the first time. This week's vote has only eleven Republicans but only because Rubio was absent; he was the twelfth and there's no reason to think he's changed his mind.

Now, these aren't Impeachment votes, but there are certainly enough GOP Senators who are willing to make a cosmetic show of things. Could go no where... it'll depend on whether Mitch threatens to tighten the purse strings on the re-election funds, but it could be an indication of shell-shock within the party. By the time the GOP hustled Nixon out of office, both parties were just plain worn out. This is going to get more vicious and more tiring over the next few months.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't doubt they would turn on Trump the instant it became the choice that helped them keep their job.

I just really doubt that the Rebublican base would turn on Trump for anything.

And so long as the large majority of GOP voters are in bed with Trump, so is the senate.

This.
It would take 67 Senators to remove a president. 47 are Democrats, so that means you need 20 Republicans to turn on their president. There would have to be a shift of opinion in the Republican base for that to become conceivable.

Here's a headline I saw a couple days ago:
Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment articles

To be sure, these are individual Senators speaking for themselves, but it still seems like a long, long shot at best.

There's also the matter that no poll has yet shown a majority of registered voters favor impeachment.

https://www.pollingreport.com/

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump's power is very much one of perception - always was for his entire life.

IF Republicans see he at risk, he is at risk - it might only take one major setback for the GOP to swap him out for Pence.
And the fact that as soon as Pelosi cried "Impeachment" Trump handed over all transcripts and complaints shows that he is in the defensive; and there is no clear path for him to get into the offense again before 2020.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So many people are so quick to jump ahead using the GOP narrative today as if nothing could possibly change.

History of the Nixon impeachment demonstrates these things are not static.

You watch, that Trump narrative is getting stale. Maybe all it needs is someone standing up and pointing out the Emperor has no clothes.

 

[Puppycow]

Time will tell. I hope you are right.

 

[McHrozni]

This.
It would take 67 Senators to remove a president. 47 are Democrats, so that means you need 20 Republicans to turn on their president. There would have to be a shift of opinion in the Republican base for that to become conceivable.

Here's a headline I saw a couple days ago:
Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment articles

To be sure, these are individual Senators speaking for themselves, but it still seems like a long, long shot at best.

There's also the matter that no poll has yet shown a majority of registered voters favor impeachment.

https://www.pollingreport.com/

Accorting to the article it takes four GOP Senators to break with the party and vote with dignity in order to even consider the trial workable. Moscow Mitch will abuse his powers as majority leader to the greatest extent possible, to ensure as few pieces of evidence are presented. It'll be a show trial where a good deal of the jury is there to find the defendant innocent.

Not mere "not guilty", but "innocent". If it comes to a trial in the Senate, that's what Moscow Mitch will be after.

Of course such a sham of a trial could well backfire on GOP. Such blatant abuse of power over something this important might peel away a little more support still. Plus there's always the risk of losing those few crucial Seantors out of a group of 53, making his abuse of power ineffective.

McHrozni

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is no such thing as a verdict of innocence.
But that hasn't stopped Trump and his sTrumpets from claiming "Total Vindication".

 

[Armitage72]

This.
It would take 67 Senators to remove a president. 47 are Democrats, so that means you need 20 Republicans to turn on their president. There would have to be a shift of opinion in the Republican base for that to become conceivable.

It's recently been claimed that 30 Republican Senators would vote to impeach ... IF the vote were secret.

A longtime adviser to Republicans has claimed that if the tally were held in secret, 30 Republican senators would vote to remove President Trump from office.

Mike Murphy, who has worked as a senior adviser to now-Sen. Mitt Romney and the late Sen. John McCain, appeared Wednesday on MSNBC and said that if the Democratic-led House votes to impeach the president and the Senate acquits him, it could spell political damage the Republican Party in 2020.

“I can tell you this, one Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump,” Murphy said.

It's all about loyalty to the party. Or at least the appearance of loyalty.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's just a new version of "The Lurkers all agree with me" card with a sprinkle of "People really agree with me, they are just embarrassed/scared to say so."

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not sure it's that simple. There is another kind of math you're not considering and that is election polling. These guys are going to do what keeps their own political careers alive. And they will turn on Trump in an instant if they believe it is the most politically smart thing to do.

Problem is there's no data on that. The 2018 midterm was practically treated as the "Did we really mean to elect Trump?" election with all the focus being on whether or not candidate who were "close" (nebulous as that term is) to Trump go re-elected or not and I don't remember a real consensus being reached.

 

[Horatius]

Of course such a sham of a trial could well backfire on GOP. Such blatant abuse of power over something this important might peel away a little more support still. Plus there's always the risk of losing those few crucial Seantors out of a group of 53, making his abuse of power ineffective.

McHrozni

This. Make them own it.

It's not just the Senate that will be looking at Trump, it's the entire electorate. And they'll see the evidence against Trump as well. If it's plainly clear that Trump is guilty, that will be public knowledge.

So let them stand up and publicly vote to support the guy who everyone else thinks is guilty. Make them own it.

Until now, all these GOP senators have gotten off lightly, because Trump and Moscow Mitch have been stonewalling every attempt to make the senate do its damn job. But this is one thing they probably can't stonewall. So now it's time for these senators to decide if they have any principles at all, or if they're just toadies for a criminal president.

Make them own it.

 

[Marcus]

So far, there is no smoking gun, making this more of a Clinton type event than a Nixon type event. If the Dems vote for impeachment in the house, they are really just shooting themselves in the foot, probably insuring Trumps reelection. Unless of course something more substantial comes to light, something that would peruade the Republicans to turn on him.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So far, there is no smoking gun, making this more of a Clinton type event than a Nixon type event. If the Dems vote for impeachment in the house, they are really just shooting themselves in the foot, probably insuring Trumps reelection. Unless of course something more substantial comes to light, something that would peruade the Republicans to turn on him.

If you don't consider notes showing and Trump himself even admitting that he asked a foreign leader to start an investigation into a political opponent, a smoking gun, what do you need?

 

[WilliamSeger]

So far, there is no smoking gun, making this more of a Clinton type event than a Nixon type event. If the Dems vote for impeachment in the house, they are really just shooting themselves in the foot, probably insuring Trumps reelection. Unless of course something more substantial comes to light, something that would peruade the Republicans to turn on him.

A "smoking gun" is circumstantial evidence strong enough that a reasonable person can only reach one plausible conclusion, and we have that plus a confession. A "so what" defense is not the same thing as a reasonable doubt about what happened.

 

[Marcus]

If you don't consider notes showing and Trump himself even admitting that he asked a foreign leader to start an investigation into a political opponent, a smoking gun, what do you need?

It's a value judgement really. By now we have all heard the conversation, my opinion is that it won't be enough to convince Republicans to vote to convict Trump in the Senate. Therefor we have a Clinton type event, the House impeaches but the Senate does not convict. Trump claims exoneration and uses it to forward the narrative that he is being persecuted, leveraging this into a win over Biden or Warren. I'm not saying this necessarily will happen, but I see it as a definite possibility.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It's a value judgement really. By now we have all heard the conversation, my opinion is that it won't be enough to convince Republicans to vote to convict Trump in the Senate. Therefor we have a Clinton type event, the House impeaches but the Senate does not convict. Trump claims exoneration and uses it to forward the narrative that he is being persecuted, leveraging this into a win over Biden or Warren. I'm not saying this necessarily will happen, but I see it as a definite possibility.

This doesn't even remotely resemble a Clinton-type offense, so I'm not sure why anyone would use that as a predictive model.

 

[Marcus]

A "smoking gun" is circumstantial evidence strong enough that a reasonable person can only reach one plausible conclusion, and we have that plus a confession. A "so what" defense is not the same thing as a reasonable doubt about what happened.

Nixon's case was a smoking gun. So much so that he resigned before he could be convicted by the Senate. I just don't think this will happen here.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Nixon's case was a smoking gun. So much so that he resigned before he could be convicted by the Senate. I just don't think this will happen here.

Trump's conversation with Zelensky after ordering the military aid to be withheld is a smoking gun, too, but Trump just thinks that he's allowed to shoot people.

 

[Marcus]

This doesn't even remotely resemble a Clinton-type offense, so I'm not sure why anyone would use that as a predictive model.

I'm not trying to equate the two offenses, I'm equating the two outcomes. I'm saying that I'm predicting that, like Clinton, if he is impeached by the house he will not be convicted by the senate.