Election 2020

[hyzmarca]

McConnell has said he'll wants impeachment at this point because he's that pissed off at Trump. No way it doesn't happen, since a conviction is guaranteed with McConnell's support.

[Kaelik]

McConnell has said he'll wants impeachment at this point because he's that pissed off at Trump. No way it doesn't happen, since a conviction is guaranteed with McConnell's support.

As a counterpoint, McConnell has told Schumer he won't support reconvening early, so the Senate will likely only reconvene on January 19th when scheduled, and you probably shouldn't take McConnell saying he agrees Trump did impeachable things as in any way effecting McConnell's obstruction.

[hyzmarca]

McConnell has said he'll wants impeachment at this point because he's that pissed off at Trump. No way it doesn't happen, since a conviction is guaranteed with McConnell's support.

As a counterpoint, McConnell has told Schumer he won't support reconvening early, so the Senate will likely only reconvene on January 19th when scheduled, and you probably shouldn't take McConnell saying he agrees Trump did impeachable things as in any way effecting McConnell's obstruction.

At this point, it doesn't matter when Trump is impeached. He's out. He's powerless. Even the Joint Chiefs have sent a letter saying that they won't be obeying his orders. The only danger is people like Pompeo, who will be making stupid destructive decisions now while they still can, but Pence taking the big seat wouldn't change that. The important thing is to draw the line in the sand, and to strip Trump of the perks and honors that come with being an ex-President. That can take its time.

Anyway, Trump is impeached.

[Kaelik]

McConnell has said he'll wants impeachment at this point because he's that pissed off at Trump. No way it doesn't happen, since a conviction is guaranteed with McConnell's support.

As a counterpoint, McConnell has told Schumer he won't support reconvening early, so the Senate will likely only reconvene on January 19th when scheduled, and you probably shouldn't take McConnell saying he agrees Trump did impeachable things as in any way effecting McConnell's obstruction.

At this point, it doesn't matter when Trump is impeached. He's out. He's powerless. Even the Joint Chiefs have sent a letter saying that they won't be obeying his orders. The only danger is people like Pompeo, who will be making stupid destructive decisions now while they still can, but Pence taking the big seat wouldn't change that. The important thing is to draw the line in the sand, and to strip Trump of the perks and honors that come with being an ex-President. That can take its time.

Anyway, Trump is impeached.

The literal article for his impeachment is about him inciting an insurrection to retain power.

If it doesn't matter because he's powerless then there is no reason to impeach him because he is incapable of inciting an insurrection and he didn't do it.

But sure, just keep telling yourself that McConnell is going to definitely help impeach the guy all his voters love when he's already out of office. He definitely won't say "Joe Biden is president, this is moot, why must the democrats do politics to attack someone when it doesn't matter anymore?"

[hyzmarca]

As a counterpoint, McConnell has told Schumer he won't support reconvening early, so the Senate will likely only reconvene on January 19th when scheduled, and you probably shouldn't take McConnell saying he agrees Trump did impeachable things as in any way effecting McConnell's obstruction.

At this point, it doesn't matter when Trump is impeached. He's out. He's powerless. Even the Joint Chiefs have sent a letter saying that they won't be obeying his orders. The only danger is people like Pompeo, who will be making stupid destructive decisions now while they still can, but Pence taking the big seat wouldn't change that. The important thing is to draw the line in the sand, and to strip Trump of the perks and honors that come with being an ex-President. That can take its time.

Anyway, Trump is impeached.

The literal article for his impeachment is about him inciting an insurrection to retain power.

If it doesn't matter because he's powerless then there is no reason to impeach him because he is incapable of inciting an insurrection and he didn't do it.

But sure, just keep telling yourself that McConnell is going to definitely help impeach the guy all his voters love when he's already out of office. He definitely won't say "Joe Biden is president, this is moot, why must the democrats do politics to attack someone when it doesn't matter anymore?"

Impeachment does a few things. Most important is that it prevents him from running in the 2024 Republican primary. Trump would win that. McConnell knows he would win that. McConnell does not want that to happen. Curtailing that risk alone is worth it for McConnell.

It also prevents trump from getting his pension and his staff allowance and his secret service detail, which would save the government a little bit of money.

And it prevents Trump from using the title, which is more a symbolic thing but sometimes symbolic things are important. The title carries with it a lot of weight.

It might also keep him out of the Presidential Library System.

[Kaelik]

The literal article for his impeachment is about him inciting an insurrection to retain power.

If it doesn't matter because he's powerless then there is no reason to impeach him because he is incapable of inciting an insurrection and he didn't do it.

But sure, just keep telling yourself that McConnell is going to definitely help impeach the guy all his voters love when he's already out of office. He definitely won't say "Joe Biden is president, this is moot, why must the democrats do politics to attack someone when it doesn't matter anymore?"

Impeachment does a few things. Most important is that it prevents him from running in the 2024 Republican primary. Trump would win that. McConnell knows he would win that. McConnell does not want that to happen. Curtailing that risk alone is worth it for McConnell.

It also prevents trump from getting his pension and his staff allowance and his secret service detail, which would save the government a little bit of money.

And it prevents Trump from using the title, which is more a symbolic thing but sometimes symbolic things are important. The title carries with it a lot of weight.

It might also keep him out of the Presidential Library System.

1) The point I am making is that the REASON for impeaching him according to the article is because he continues to be a threat to the lives of amongst others, congress people. So in fact, it sure seems like under the basis of the impeachment that whether he is removed on January 14th or impeached post 20th matters. Whether McConnell feels that way or not, that's the reason for the impeachment. So when you said "it doesn't matter" you were expressing your own opinion, not a realpolitik McConnelling and what I'm saying is that if you believe that then you believe there actually should not be an impeachment (on the grounds it was done).

2) Skipping right past the impeachment/removal distinction, technically, removal also doesn't prevent him from running again. It gives them the opportunity to have another vote to decide that.

3) Another thing impeaching and removing Trump does, besides prevent him from running in 2024, is piss off a metric fuckton of McConnell's close friends, political allies, donors, and voters for practically no gain. It also does something republicans are very good at understanding and democrats are bad at understanding: It tells the american people that the republican party is bad and wrong and evil and not normal. Those are all things McConnell doesn't want to do.

McConnell can wisely bet that famous winner Donald Trump will not be running for President again in 2024 at the age of 78 after having lost, because he just won't be that into it and will hate the idea of losing.

So even under McConnell realpolitik there are still lots of downsides and very few upsides.

I also have no idea why you even mentioned secret service and travel budgets. Are we supposed to pretend McConnell cares about chump change in the federal budget? Or is this just supposed to be red meat to make people feel better about the successful removal that hasn't happened and is unrelated to my point that McConnell will say it is moot to avoid dividing his party?

[Thaluikhain]

How would impeaching him take away his powers of armed deplorables summoning? Impeach him, sure, be worried about him spurring on domestic terrorists, sure, but I'm not seeing how the two really link together. Or is it just insurrection specifically intended to keep him in power, not insurrection in general that's the problem?

[Kaelik]

How would impeaching him take away his powers of armed deplorables summoning? Impeach him, sure, be worried about him spurring on domestic terrorists, sure, but I'm not seeing how the two really link together. Or is it just insurrection specifically intended to keep him in power, not insurrection in general that's the problem?

Presumably he (and his insurrectionists) would think that an insurrection that keeps him in power is a lot easier than just showing up to off the current president and declare yourself dictator that way.

[MGuy]

Gaming this out in my head McConnell has every reason to support impeachment and then not actually make it happen. Which as kaelik points out seems to be what he's doing. McConnell is in a no lose situation. He got significant gains from Trump's presidency and Dem leadership and Biden are promising not to actually undo his greatest achievements to focus on trying to maintain the system as is. American seem to have a fleeting idea of what's going on in Capitol Hill so you don't want to inflict a major trauma that will stick out in Trump supporter brains. They clearly exist in enough numbers to flip close elections. If you toss Trump out early that'll be a move that would stick out. Something like 40 to 50% of Republicans had no problem with the Capitol invasion and less politically aligned people think of it as a joke and aren't going to base their vote on something symbolic like that.

I should also say that I don't think it matters if he actually gets impeached. What matters to me is the messaging here. Not for Trump or any of his ilk but if you can even count on the dems to at least do an ultimately meaningless symbolic gesture for the sake of establishing that there is actually a line in the sand at all. Given that there was a god damned debate about what should of been a super easy decision it seems that 'where' the line is for some number of them is still unclear but they are still making it clear that there is some standard. Granted its one so low most people can walk over it without noticing.

If I were to worry about future Trump influence I'd be worried about what the media is going to do with him. They helped build this particular monster. by making a spectacle out of him because the people in the media are, putting it charitably, out of touch. The correct thing to do would be to freeze Trump and anyone who dares mention him, his ideas, or his antics out for the good of the public. Future violence is inevitable at this point and seeing where the Fox News wind is blowing we are indeed headed into Situation D.

That means the Republicans are going to be harnessing the hate and absorbing it into the party just like the Tea Partiers. Obviously the strat is going to be making Biden out to be an absolute monster and finding euphemisms to signal that Democrat rule is illegitimate. I'm wondering if it's going to be even worse than it was under Obama.

[Grek]

The point behind impeaching Trump isn't to keep him from trying to regain power. Whatever else he plans to do in terms of insurrections and calling for terrorist acts, he's still going to do even if he's impeached and removed. The point is to very loudly punish Trump in order to signal that sending armed goons to attack Congress is unacceptable - something that I'm confident that everyone on this board can see appeals to congress critters of every stripe. Even McConnell isn't going to obstruct the proceedings to do something about the peasant lynch mobs being sent to hang unpopular Senators.

[Kaelik]

He is literally already sending letters to Schumer letting him know he's going to obstruct proceedings.

So you should be saying "he will only obstruct them a little bit, but not like, a lot"

But also again, McConnell knows that "let's all get together and agree that the republican president did something that needs to be punished" is going to cause him two different kinds of political trouble as low information swing voters are told that republicans do bad things and his base is told that he and most of the rest of the senators are deep state globalists that they should stop voting for.

[erik]

I imagine even if McConnell’s turtle penis gets hard at the thought of impeaching trump and trump losing his grip on his base (each a big if), he still would want to make the process a big mess that distracts and obstructs Biden from getting anything else done. I doubt he feels a political incentive to do this cleanly and quickly.

[Prak]

I don't think impeaching Trump is meaningless. First of all, as said above, it's about drawing a line in the sand. Further, if he's actually removed, or rather, if his status as former president is stripped (given that as I write this there is only a bit more than 24 hours before the inauguration), he is also stripped of the benefits of having been president. He does not receive an immense basic income for storing in his ass, he does not enjoy the protection of the secret service, etc. These are good things in and of themselves, essentially meaning that he is not rewarded for his four year all out assault on the people of America (and other countries).

But also, personally, I want Trump punished, embarrassed, and left with nothing. I want him metaphorically* tarred and feathered and ran out of town on a goddamned rail. I want him ruined. Much like the literal actual nazi party of early 1900s Germany, the only way to defeat Trump is to crush him utterly and without mercy. A message needs to be sent, both to the right wing, and also to Trump his own damned self, that you do not get to walk out of four years of fear mongering, attacks on everyone who is not an able bodied straight white cis man, and treating the presidency like a fucking piggy bank, and continue on with your life getting a paycheck and protection billed to the very people you attacked.

I've gotten to the point that I want all right wingers put in a fucking boat and told "don't care where you go, but you can't stay here," but I've been told this is unreasonable, so I want the next best thing- complete embarrassment and ruination for them, starting with Trump. Every pol who enabled, encouraged, or actually materially aided the attempted coup, can be next.


*I am bound by the rules of the forum to insist that this is metaphorical

[Blade]

Just noticed that Donald's lawyer is "Castor Jr".
"Castor Juniors" is the French translation for Disney's "Junior Woodchucks".

[Kaelik]

Democrats cleared the vote to have witnesses with some republicans voting for it too.

Then Republicans said they would GASP filibuster things if Democrats called witnesses. So democrats immediately caved like they always do, decided not to call witnesses, and Trump was not convicted as usual.

Republicans will still filibuster everything they want to.

Presumably the democratic leadership is happy, because the only thing witnesses could have done is damage the republican party. And as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer tell us all the time. We must have a strong republican party that prevents voting rights legislation and controls state houses to do voter suppression.

[Harshax]

This being the 2nd time that an official has been impeached, but acquitted on the technical argument that they can be convicted for having left office, the only real way to address the Republican hand-wringing about the constitutionality of impeachment is to introduce an amendment.

[Kaelik]

This being the 2nd time that an official has been impeached, but acquitted on the technical argument that they can be convicted for having left office, the only real way to address the Republican hand-wringing about the constitutionality of impeachment is to introduce an amendment.

Amazing that you could say something so dumb and also so pointless.

[Harshax]

To put this in den terms, if Republican neckbeards are going to OSR the constitution, “only” because a tenuous interpretation of the RAW, they should have their feet put to the fire and adopt a homebrew, eg: amendment, to the document.

[Kaelik]

To put this in den terms, if Republican neckbeards are going to OSR the constitution, “only” because a tenuous interpretation of the RAW, they should have their feet put to the fire and adopt a homebrew, eg: amendment, to the document.

To put this in politics terms. If you are a fucking moron who believes this has anything to do with what anyone believes the constitution says just never fucking talk about politics or vote again because you are too stupid to be allowed in this sphere.

Impeachment is an act of political messaging and an expression of political power not a fucking interpterion question which is a thing you should have discovered in 1998 at the latest, but even if you didn't figure it out then, we had another impeachment this term and it was very fucking clear that time and also again this time.

If you believe that ANY possible constitutional text would have changed republicans votes then you are expressing that you lack any ability to recognize patterns whatsoever and you see square tiled floors as a random collection of lines with no discernable shape.

[Harshax]

If you can’t parse the subtext of my point, you are a terrible lawyer.

[MGuy]

This being the 2nd time that an official has been impeached, but acquitted on the technical argument that they can be convicted for having left office, the only real way to address the Republican hand-wringing about the constitutionality of impeachment is to introduce an amendment.

I'm no lawyer so you're going to have to help me parse this in a way to allow me to understand it. How is the introduction of an amendment at all relevant given the situation and party we're dealing with?

[Harshax]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I know enough about the Framer's intent to understand that the Constitution is an imperfect document and there is a mechanism in place to amend the Constitution to clarify that language.

It was clearly demonstrated that a majority of conservative and liberal Constitution scholars interpreted the articles under which an official can be impeached and banned from office in favor of the impeachment managers.

And there is another group of scholars and at least some Republicans that opined that the article could not be interpreted in the way the impeachment managers asserted.

If you have some Republicans who said their hands were tied by the language of the Constitution, a bipartisan group of scholars who interpret the Constitution to mean that an officer can be impeached while holding office and tried, despite no longer hold office at time of trial, and a majority of Congressional representation that supports this interpretation, then it stands to reason that the door too amend the Constitution to clarify the impeachment process has been flung wide open.

If you're a pest-control specialist, you don't stop the job when you stop finding rat droppings behind the refrigerator. You seek out and remedy the problem at its roots. You find every ingress that rodents have into a customers home and your remediate all the issues that a rat has taken advantage of to infiltrate a home.

It is now in the Public Record that some Republicans struggled with the language of the Constitution. It is now in the Public Record that literally one-half the time an impeachment trial has been called, the Congress struggled with the language of the Constitution.

In both cases, where the Congress "struggled" with the language of the Constitution, the evidence overwhelmingly supported a guilty conviction.

If something works correctly half the time, it is time to fix it.

[Whatever]

it stands to reason that the door too amend the Constitution to clarify the impeachment process has been flung wide open.

Fuck no, it doesn't. Amending the constitution requires 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of the states. It's a nonstarter.

[Harshax]

it stands to reason that the door too amend the Constitution to clarify the impeachment process has been flung wide open.

Fuck no, it doesn't. Amending the constitution requires 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of the states. It's a nonstarter.

I know of at least 3 Republican senators who quoted Constitutional language as their only reason for acquittal. So, it's not exactly inconceivable.

And, to be honest, I don't think an Amendment to the language of impeachment would have changed the outcome. But if you can hide behind language, because of reasons, taking away that sidestep forces these spineless weasels to contort themselves even further to justify acquittal.

That's a powerful to to hold people accountable. If a politician can't hide behind procedure, then they have to take a real position that can be the subject of public discourse at election time.

Mitch specifically cited Constitutionality as his reason for acquittal. He very nearly said that it was the only reason. And if that's a lie, then removing questionable language from the Constitution means his lie must get more complex. And, the more complex a lie, the easier it is to unravel.

Regardless, those who voted no have put themselves in an indefensible position and the impeachment manager's presentation is nearly a pre-made political ad to refute those senators.

[Whatever]

Mitch is literally 100% personally responsible for the vote being delayed until Trump was out of office. That's his excuse because he wanted it to be. Take it away and he would absolutely find, or create, something else.