[Impeachment] CONVICTION requires a 2/3 senate majority, impeachment just a half of the house. That's why it didn't happen last time. That's why it won't happen this time.
I'd like to see him sacked too, but it seems mathematically impossible at this point.
Edited to correct my confusion of impeachment and conviction!
The reporting is that Mitch McConnell is really upset with Trump and never wants to talk to him again, is undecided on conviction, and sees a potential opportunity to purge Trump from the GOP.
Honestly, I feel like the deciding factor may be whether or not on the day of the vote persons with the most influence over the GOP feel the party is better off convicting and blocking Trump from even pretending to run in 2024.
EDIT: Many in the GOP blame Trump for them losing majority of the House, the Senate, and the White House. He was already a proven losing formula before last weeks events. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they viewed him as a straight up liability for the midterms and in 2024.
I think it will be a bit more clinical but along the same lines: can you convince 17ish gop senators that they're chance of re-election goes up if they impeach and they won't get primaried either.
Given his die hard popularity with ~40% of the US population still approving [1], and with the republican base 87% approving [2], it would be brave of Mitch to take his first principled stand...
Mitch already sent a memo stating that if he was impeached, the trial would not begin until after he is out of office. So he will not begin proceedings.
I think we're going to have to wait for the base to get over him, and for that to happen I think we're going to have to wait for more continued Dem control of everything before the core voters like the idea of beating the Dems more than they like the idea of Trumpism. Might not happen for a while either given how narrow the Dem control of congress is.
Going against the base in your area is increasingly just asking to get primaried, on both sides of the aisle.
Yeah. Interesting times for Biden and the Dems. There will be a push for radicalism and a push to do as little as possible (to not mobilise the rep base). I wonder which will prevail.
Beside the pandemic, I think the performance in the first debate was disastrous. If he’d faced it like the second debate, he might well not be in this position.
Of course I think he was upset by the initial impeachment. And he probably was under the mistaken conclusion that he needed to rattle Biden to win the debate.
He was like an unbridled bronco when he needed to be more of a showhorse for the undecideds.
Modern elections are interesting because they're so close. I believe they're so close because polling has become nearly a science and the funding on both sides allow a professional process.
That means small mistakes or single bad performances decide elections in a way they couldn't even 10 years ago.
It's interesting, even for outside observers like me (limey brit)
So if 25 republican senators boycott and don’t show up to the vote they can convict along party lines... or if 17 vote to convict, or some sliding scale between those two options
I checked and it looks like I a senate race usually costs about 10m per candidate [1]. So 50m is a substantial offer. I guess the trick here is collusion: I wouldn't want to be the only one who went out on a limb, and now no one else will take my calls and 101 crazy trumpers are going to run against me in the primary. If there were 20+ willing to do it, maybe they could collectively weather the storm?
Thanks for the link, I didn't know Republicans against Trump were this well funded.
Can we have the speaker impeached next? I fail to see how the President's comments are any more inflammatory than hers.
“I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend,” Pelosi said during a press conference. “It’s a horrible thing, and I don’t see any prospect for legislation here.”
- Nancy Pelosi
Definition of uprising : an act or instance of rising up especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government
The relevant test is whether the speaker incited imminent lawless action, not just whether their words were "inflammatory". Many people made careless statements like Pelosi's, but none was really close to directly inciting any sort of uprising.
Because Pelosi didn't tell a crowd of people to walk down Pennsylvania Ave and 'give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country'.
Stating that you don't understand why there aren't uprisings is different that calling for a highly specific action (such as say walking down to the capital) that is well within the reach and capability of the crowd.
It's the context. Even ignoring what issue she was talking about, it's one thing to mention an uprising in general. It's another one to mention it when you know there's lots of people just waiting to actually do it, and you were warned multiple times that you're causing a real threat.
Same reason you don't get the same treatment for speeding a little bit which is a danger to people, as for actually speeding and running someone over.
I know some of you wont like my saying this, but the GP knows the difference. Trumpism is characterized by denial and playing dumb. They all know better, but they just don't care. I'd wager $100 GP's mind is not changed by your point, because the Trumpist argument is not in the realm of reason.
Even if he were to be pardoned for any federal crimes (which isn't implausible, even without a self-pardon) he seems pretty likely to face criminal charges in New York State and possibly, with the election extortion effort, Georgia, that are not subject to federal pardon.
Prison probably complicates a comeback campaign in 2024. (Also, even without that, he would have neither the outsider ambiguity that help him win in 2016 not the power of incumbency that helped him, but not enough to win, in 2020. He might retain enough influence with the Republican base that if he isn't disabled by legal issues he could win a nomination in 2024, but the general election seems more uphill.)
He is definitely playing a Berlusconi in terms of his fear of leaving office and interest in being abroad. Which is why they should refer him to a tribunal for treason; the dead can't run or kill prostitutes.
After the Mueller report was completed ignored by, well everyone really, I have no confidence that he's going to ever be charged with anything. Happy and hoping to be proved wrong.
There is actually some good evidence for this. Balance and motor control issues (two-handed water drinking, weird stance, the “very steep” ramp thing, later covering the ramp to navy ship), body jerking, slurred speech, lack of impulse control and empathy, etc.
The surprise Walter Reed visit was questionable, and the fact that he was administered a cognitive test only given to those with suspected dementia—then bragged about his results and claimed it was a difficult test—only add fuel to the speculation.
EDIT: Not claiming authority here or that others should conclude what I have, especially since I don’t have the time to reference all the things that convinced me.
39 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 89.1 ms ] threadI'd like to see him sacked too, but it seems mathematically impossible at this point.
Edited to correct my confusion of impeachment and conviction!
Honestly, I feel like the deciding factor may be whether or not on the day of the vote persons with the most influence over the GOP feel the party is better off convicting and blocking Trump from even pretending to run in 2024.
EDIT: Many in the GOP blame Trump for them losing majority of the House, the Senate, and the White House. He was already a proven losing formula before last weeks events. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they viewed him as a straight up liability for the midterms and in 2024.
Given his die hard popularity with ~40% of the US population still approving [1], and with the republican base 87% approving [2], it would be brave of Mitch to take his first principled stand...
[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra...
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-says-impeachment-t...
Both the flak they will get for jumping ship and the flak they will get knowing it will affect the next vote.
Going against the base in your area is increasingly just asking to get primaried, on both sides of the aisle.
Of course I think he was upset by the initial impeachment. And he probably was under the mistaken conclusion that he needed to rattle Biden to win the debate.
He was like an unbridled bronco when he needed to be more of a showhorse for the undecideds.
That means small mistakes or single bad performances decide elections in a way they couldn't even 10 years ago.
It's interesting, even for outside observers like me (limey brit)
No, it takes a simple majority in the House. It did happen last time. And it did happen this time.
Conviction after impeachment takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
> I'd like to see him sacked too, but it seems mathematically impossible at this point.
It's not mathematically impossible for 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict. It might be politically impossible, but that's a different thing.
I'll keep my hyperbole on mathematically impossible if that's ok? I like a little exaggeration. :)
So if 25 republican senators boycott and don’t show up to the vote they can convict along party lines... or if 17 vote to convict, or some sliding scale between those two options
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/anti-trump-group-go...
Thanks for the link, I didn't know Republicans against Trump were this well funded.
[1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2020/11/27/the-2020-electi... [1]
“I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend,” Pelosi said during a press conference. “It’s a horrible thing, and I don’t see any prospect for legislation here.”
- Nancy Pelosi
Definition of uprising : an act or instance of rising up especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government
Stating that you don't understand why there aren't uprisings is different that calling for a highly specific action (such as say walking down to the capital) that is well within the reach and capability of the crowd.
Same reason you don't get the same treatment for speeding a little bit which is a danger to people, as for actually speeding and running someone over.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
With this action by Pelosi, I guarantee Trump will hold office again after the next presidential election.
Prison probably complicates a comeback campaign in 2024. (Also, even without that, he would have neither the outsider ambiguity that help him win in 2016 not the power of incumbency that helped him, but not enough to win, in 2020. He might retain enough influence with the Republican base that if he isn't disabled by legal issues he could win a nomination in 2024, but the general election seems more uphill.)
[0] https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/56838/if-a-pris...
The surprise Walter Reed visit was questionable, and the fact that he was administered a cognitive test only given to those with suspected dementia—then bragged about his results and claimed it was a difficult test—only add fuel to the speculation.
EDIT: Not claiming authority here or that others should conclude what I have, especially since I don’t have the time to reference all the things that convinced me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person,_woman,_man,_camera,_...