A cartoon on the editorial page of a Sydney newspaper last week: Trump in the witness box (although it may have been meant as the dock) - I was only ordering followers.
Especially given everyone seemed to agree that barring Trump from running again would be a separate vote from impeachment. So what, precisely, was impeachment actually supposed to achieve in practice (as opposed to symbolically)? If it couldn't achieve anything in practice then I think there's a real question about the process. The law doesn't normally like that sort of thing.
.
I think (but I am no lawyer or constitutional scholar, and I am in the UK so could very well be wrong) that a vote to debar Mr Trump from standing for federal office could only happen had the Senate found him guilty. So a conviction was a necessary precondition for banning him from standing.
Especially given everyone seemed to agree that barring Trump from running again would be a separate vote from impeachment.
As I understand it, it's a second vote conditional on Trump actually being impeached. The Senate can't vote to bar just anyone from office. So one thing impeachment would have achieved is making that second vote possible.
In the sense of narrow political advantage, this is probably good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans: it means the Republicans aren't yet able to move on from Trump and the way is not yet clear for an heir to Trump. (But then I thought Trump was an easy candidate to beat when he first ran.)
He can’t live forever. Just the age and bulk for a major cardiac event.
Out of sight out of mind.
There’s quite a few of the so-called patriots facing charges and prison time for their idiocy: will he bail them out? Not bloody likely.
Reminds me of our very own populist bastard Joh Bjelke-Peterson ( long time premier of Queensland who fancied himself as PM 39-odd years ago); today’s cock of the walk is tomorrow’s feather duster.
He can’t live forever. Just the age and bulk for a major cardiac event.
He may be too old or too unwell in four years to try again himself but he will still have influence to put pressure on better people to stop them or push his preferred candidates. He's still divisive and dangerous to democracy.
His acquittal sends a message to would-be tyrants everywhere that the world's most powerful democracy allows attempts to override democracy using violent mob, without consequences and maybe they should give it a go in their country. Nothing to lose!
Out of sight out of mind.
There’s quite a few of the so-called patriots facing charges and prison time for their idiocy: will he bail them out? Not bloody likely.
No, for their actions (driven and enabled by their gullibility and stupidity).
It only means that 43 senators chose not to vote for his conviction for reasons of their own
As my brother said this morning: 43 senators voted to spend eternity in hell, whereas the rest voted to spend it in heaven.
Or as a friend of mine would say, “Oh, the 7 Republicans who voted to convict are still going to spend eternity in Hell. They’ll just get offered a cup of water every now and then.”
His acquittal sends a message to would-be tyrants everywhere that the world's most powerful democracy allows attempts to override democracy using violent mob, without consequences and maybe they should give it a go in their country. Nothing to lose!
This.
This is what's so dangerous. The world's largest and most influential democracy has just vindicated Facism. That has consequences way beyond the USA and way beyond the lifetime of Donald J Trump.
This is why we should be so worried. This is why bringing Trump to justice is so important.
I was chatting to a Serbian colleague the other day about Slobodan Milošević. When he came to power there were loads of posters with his face on. A cartoon written at the time depicted Milošević talking to one of these flyers and asking it
"What will become of us?" The poster replied;
"They'll take me down and hang you."
Slobodan Milošević died whilst awaiting trial in the Hague. To many Serbians he remains a hero who stood up the the oppressive Turks and The West. Justice matters. In terms of the wider world, Serbia isn't very important, the USA is. Serbia doesn't have a long and cherished (and mythologised) democratic history...
You see the point. This is why it really, really matters. If the next popularist demagogue is competent, boy do WE have a problem.
The reason I am not fatalistic is because there are still lots of avenues to pursue. It is a matter of courage. But it is vitally important.
I think it might be overestimating the psychological influence of the US to think that there is a potential tyrant somewhere, who had previously been reluctant to stage a fascist coup, but will now look at the events of Janurary 6 and say "Oh well, if the US senate acquitted Trump, I guess I can force my way into power here, too."
I think wannabe dictators make their choices based on the internal power balances of their nations, PLUS the potential for getting external support(in the form of money, weapons, recognition) from larger nations. If those things line up in their favour, they'll make their move. If not, they won't.
Especially given everyone seemed to agree that barring Trump from running again would be a separate vote from impeachment.
In the sense of narrow political advantage, this is probably good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans: it means the Republicans aren't yet able to move on from Trump and the way is not yet clear for an heir to Trump. (But then I thought Trump was an easy candidate to beat when he first ran.)
It's not good for anyone for Trump to be around, politically or otherwise. The longer he is poisoning civic society and whipping up the worst elements of his base the more difficult it is for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to accomplish anything worthwile.
Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities? Also comments on the 7 who voted for conviction.
A more interesting question is why Rob Portman (OH) voted to acquit. He's the other Republican Senator (in addition to Burr and Toomey) who has announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term (2022). Keeping his options open in case he changes his mind?
And then there was Mitch McConnell's chickenshit speech [video] explaining his vote to acquit. He basically argued that Trump was undeniably guilty but had to be acquitted because he was out of office and impeachment is only for current officials. Putting aside the fact that this contradicts historical precedent, the reason Trump's impeachment wasn't tried while he was in office was McConnell's own refusal to call the Senate back into session!!! That's the law school definition of chutzpah. ("I ask the court to show mercy on me for killing my parents on the grounds that I am recently orphaned.")
Some of his supporters want to be the next Trump, and it's entirely possible that one will, and will be more successful at it. Trump put a bunch more plays in the already fat Republican playbook on how to stay in power as a minority, and the chances that the next amoral fascist will be smarter than Trump aren't zero.
The US is at an inflection point. We either find a way to preserve our democracy within the next two to four years or we lose it. Trump's supporters aren't going away. They're in 33 state houses right now with bills promoting voter suppression.
I wasn't surprised, in spite of being hopeful, that t was acquitted. The helpless, angry feeling needed an outlet, so I sent emails to the Florida senators who were such cowards.
The whole world saw it happen live on television and yet the senate find him ‘not guilty’.
Utterly incomprehensible.
The ex Vice President came this // close to being killed. I wonder what the story would be now if that had happened?
It's not incomprehensible. There's the politics of course, but even besides that.
As much as it pains me to even consider that Mitch McConnell might have a point, I can genuinely see that it's unclear that impeachment makes sense as a process for someone who is no longer in office.
Especially given everyone seemed to agree that barring Trump from running again would be a separate vote from impeachment. So what, precisely, was impeachment actually supposed to achieve in practice (as opposed to symbolically)? If it couldn't achieve anything in practice then I think there's a real question about the process. The law doesn't normally like that sort of thing.
An actual criminal trial might be quite a different matter. The question is whether anyone is going to have the fortitude to press charges - either for what happened in Washington DC or for the pressure he put on Georgia.
You mean to say "conviction". Impeachment is what the House did, and it's a done deal.
Let's face it, conviction on impeachment was never supposed to be easy. And I cannot condemn 43 senators to hell (there is a hell, in my mind, but it is empty.} True, they do not seem to have a spine, and they will not get John F Kennedy Profiles in Courage medals.
But, now it is up to federal and state courts to hold him responsible.
Some of his supporters want to be the next Trump, and it's entirely possible that one will, and will be more successful at it. Trump put a bunch more plays in the already fat Republican playbook on how to stay in power as a minority, and the chances that the next amoral fascist will be smarter than Trump aren't zero.
The US is at an inflection point. We either find a way to preserve our democracy within the next two to four years or we lose it. Trump's supporters aren't going away. They're in 33 state houses right now with bills promoting voter suppression.
Has it ever been this bad before? Since the Civil War? I realise it was in the South with Jim Crow until the 60s, but nationally?
Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities? Also comments on the 7 who voted for conviction.
A more interesting question is why Rob Portman (OH) voted to acquit. He's the other Republican Senator (in addition to Burr and Toomey) who has announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term (2022). Keeping his options open in case he changes his mind?
Thanks for this detail and for your following post as well . I find it interesting that apart from Toomey, all are from States I'd have thought of as being very conservative. Conservatives with a conscience?
The whole world saw it happen live on television and yet the senate find him ‘not guilty’.
Utterly incomprehensible.
The ex Vice President came this // close to being killed. I wonder what the story would be now if that had happened?
It's not incomprehensible. There's the politics of course, but even besides that.
As much as it pains me to even consider that Mitch McConnell might have a point, I can genuinely see that it's unclear that impeachment makes sense as a process for someone who is no longer in office.
Especially given everyone seemed to agree that barring Trump from running again would be a separate vote from impeachment. So what, precisely, was impeachment actually supposed to achieve in practice (as opposed to symbolically)? If it couldn't achieve anything in practice then I think there's a real question about the process. The law doesn't normally like that sort of thing.
An actual criminal trial might be quite a different matter. The question is whether anyone is going to have the fortitude to press charges - either for what happened in Washington DC or for the pressure he put on Georgia.
You mean to say "conviction". Impeachment is what the House did, and it's a done deal.
And then there was Mitch McConnell's chickenshit speech [video] explaining his vote to acquit. He basically argued that Trump was undeniably guilty but had to be acquitted because he was out of office and impeachment is only for current officials. Putting aside the fact that this contradicts historical precedent, the reason Trump's impeachment wasn't tried while he was in office was McConnell's own refusal to call the Senate back into session!!! That's the law school definition of chutzpah. ("I ask the court to show mercy on me for killing my parents on the grounds that I am recently orphaned.")
👏👏 Brilliant. If ever anyone sought for one person to personify everything that went wrong with the GOP from 2016 onwards then the pasty-faced McConnell is the man.
Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities? Also comments on the 7 who voted for conviction.
A more interesting question is why Rob Portman (OH) voted to acquit. He's the other Republican Senator (in addition to Burr and Toomey) who has announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term (2022). Keeping his options open in case he changes his mind?
Thanks for this detail and for your following post as well . I find it interesting that apart from Toomey, all are from States I'd have thought of as being very conservative. Conservatives with a conscience?
North Carolina is fairly purple. From the 70s until the last decade, we’ve tended to elect Democrats (granted, generally moderate Democrats) in state elections and Republicans for Senate and President. We’ve only had three Republican governors since Reconstruction. Republicans only took control of the state legislature in the last decade, again for the first time since Reconstruction.
Statewide elections here tend to be close one way or the other.
Some of his supporters want to be the next Trump, and it's entirely possible that one will, and will be more successful at it. Trump put a bunch more plays in the already fat Republican playbook on how to stay in power as a minority, and the chances that the next amoral fascist will be smarter than Trump aren't zero.
The US is at an inflection point. We either find a way to preserve our democracy within the next two to four years or we lose it. Trump's supporters aren't going away. They're in 33 state houses right now with bills promoting voter suppression.
I see your point however (a) there is the hope that you ( or your new rulers) find a way to “preserve democracy” and prevent another near-catastrophe.
Compulsory voting would be a start IMHO and an overhaul of the Electoral College gerrymander.
I think I’m right and for your collective sakes I hope you’re wrong.
Can a US Shippie please advise whether it's a beyond reasonable doubt test or balance of probabilities? Also comments on the 7 who voted for conviction.
A more interesting question is why Rob Portman (OH) voted to acquit. He's the other Republican Senator (in addition to Burr and Toomey) who has announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term (2022). Keeping his options open in case he changes his mind?
Thanks for this detail and for your following post as well . I find it interesting that apart from Toomey, all are from States I'd have thought of as being very conservative. Conservatives with a conscience?
Utah's large Mormon population, as I recall, takes matters of personal integrity very seriously and Trump was far more unpopular among them than among evangelical Christians. Romney is on solid ground with his stance.
What is the likelihood of those who voted "not guilty" being unseated at the next election by disgusted swing voters?
You would have thought that they presented Democrats with open goals.
Utah's large Mormon population, as I recall, takes matters of personal integrity very seriously and Trump was far more unpopular among them than among evangelical Christians. Romney is on solid ground with his stance.
I should have specifically excluded Utah as well, given that it was Mitt Romney - he seems to have become the leader of the old-style Republicans both in that state and nationally.
What is the likelihood of those who voted "not guilty" being unseated at the next election by disgusted swing voters?
It takes money -- oodles of it -- and an ad agency who knows how to mount an effective advertising blitz. And, one would hope (but dream on), a candidate who, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion.
What is the likelihood of those who voted "not guilty" being unseated at the next election by disgusted swing voters?
It takes money -- oodles of it -- and an ad agency who knows how to mount an effective advertising blitz. And, one would hope (but dream on), a candidate who, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion.
So fascism is now more entrenched than ever before in the GOP and therefore all future Republican presidencies.
I find it hard to believe that no one in the GOP harbors aspirations to high office but is willing to set them aside in favor of standing behind you-know-who. I am puzzled that no one has said, "He is not what my party and I stand for. We repudiate him."
Some Republicans have stated that, @Amanda B Reckondwyth. Mitch McConell, while he voted to acquit, then went on a 20 minute rant about how horrible Trump is.
But the issue gets complicated: Do you start a third party (which, the way the system is structured, is doomed to failure) or do you try to cleanse the party of pro-Trumpers (which, becassuse they have become so entrenched, is also likely doomed to failure)? There is a nice discussion of the problem here..
Of course, if you don't have aspirations to high office you can just leave the party, but that is not a practical choice if you want to win high office.
You'd think they look further ahead beyond trump and his loathsome followers to the long-term good of their party and the country. They seem to be a party of amoral blind sheep.
Once again, Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Electoral College except maybe in Nebraska and Maine. The Electoral College is made up of the total congressional districts in a given state plus two--the number of senators each state has, but the way it votes depends on the total votes in the state.
I'm not sure that's the case. Even assuming Trump becomes a persona non grata in Republican circles like Bush the Younger, the latter's followers didn't so much "melt back into the woodwork" as change hats (typically some kind of tricorn adorned with teabags) and claim to be independents who had never heard of this George W. Bush person but they were very concerned about the dangers of black presidents budget deficits. In other words, they didn't go anywhere or melt away, they just adopted a new schtick.
What is the likelihood of those who voted "not guilty" being unseated at the next election by disgusted swing voters?
You would have thought that they presented Democrats with open goals.
The Senators voting to acquit whose seats are up for election in 2022 (omitting those who have announced their retirement) are:
Roy Blunt (MO)
John Boozman (AR)
Mike Crapo (ID)
Chuck Grassley (IA)
John Hœven (ND)
Ron Johnson (WI)
John Kennedy (LA)
Jame Lankford (OK)
Mike Lee (UT)
Jerry Moran (KS)
Rand Paul (KY)
Marco Rubio (FL)
Tim Scott (SC)
John Thune (SD)
Todd Young (IN)
Senators in bold have either announced they're running again or filed paperwork to that effect. I missed the announcement that Richard Shelby (AL) has announced his retirement at the end of his present term, so that's going to be another open seat in the 2022 Senate elections, along with Burr (NC), Portman (OH), and Toomey (PA). With the exceptions of Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio everyone on that list is a Senator from a reliably Republican state. In other words, they don't have a lot to fear from voters in a general election but they do have to worry about their credibility as Republicans being challenged in a primary.
I find it hard to believe that no one in the GOP harbors aspirations to high office but is willing to set them aside in favor of standing behind you-know-who. I am puzzled that no one has said, "He is not what my party and I stand for. We repudiate him."
Some Republicans have taken that step. It's mostly resulted in them losing whatever office they held at the time. I'm sure a lot of ambitious Republican politicians would be overjoyed to have Trump defenestrated from the Republican party, they just don't want their own fingerprints to show up at the crime scene. This was pretty much the same situation as existed in the 2016 Republican presidential primary and the Republicans were unable to solve that conundrum either.
I'm wondering how bad a president would have to be to get Impeached AND Convicted.
Any thoughts?
Would it be 'easier' to get rid of a thoroughly awful Democrat (I'm assuming it's misplaced loyalty in trump's case and that his party puts loyalty (blindness to failings of 'one of their own') above justice and honest dealing ?
I find it hard to believe that no one in the GOP harbors aspirations to high office but is willing to set them aside in favor of standing behind you-know-who. I am puzzled that no one has said, "He is not what my party and I stand for. We repudiate him."
How are they going to get to higher office by opposing someone who is massively popular in their own party? Trump is what the party stands for, though some in the establishment may be uncomfortable admitting it.
I'm wondering how bad a president would have to be to get Impeached AND Convicted.
I think this might be a little like wondering "How bad would a man's crimes have to be for him to get convicted in a trial where his mother was the judge?"
IOW the whole system is set up in a way that pretty much guarantees either a foreordained aquittal or a foreordained conviction, depending on the partisan make-up of the Senate.
Some Republicans have stated that, @Amanda B Reckondwyth. Mitch McConell, while he voted to acquit, then went on a 20 minute rant about how horrible Trump is.
But the issue gets complicated: Do you start a third party (which, the way the system is structured, is doomed to failure) or do you try to cleanse the party of pro-Trumpers (which, becassuse they have become so entrenched, is also likely doomed to failure)? There is a nice discussion of the problem here..
Of course, if you don't have aspirations to high office you can just leave the party, but that is not a practical choice if you want to win high office.
There is AFAIK a serious problem with the gatekeepers for the Republican Party, if you are a "hell no" Trump-er and want to get elected to high office. Because many / most of these are still convinced that they need to appease the rank and file lunatics-for-Trump, and without their (the gatekeepers') support, the chances of even getting on the ballot are much smaller. They have access to the donors, the political machinery, and all that.
You'd think they look further ahead beyond trump and his loathsome followers to the long-term good of their party and the country. They seem to be a party of amoral blind sheep.
Some Republicans have stated that, @Amanda B Reckondwyth. Mitch McConell, while he voted to acquit, then went on a 20 minute rant about how horrible Trump is.
But the issue gets complicated: Do you start a third party (which, the way the system is structured, is doomed to failure) or do you try to cleanse the party of pro-Trumpers (which, becassuse they have become so entrenched, is also likely doomed to failure)? There is a nice discussion of the problem here..
Of course, if you don't have aspirations to high office you can just leave the party, but that is not a practical choice if you want to win high office.
There is AFAIK a serious problem with the gatekeepers for the Republican Party, if you are a "hell no" Trump-er and want to get elected to high office. Because many / most of these are still convinced that they need to appease the rank and file lunatics-for-Trump, and without their (the gatekeepers') support, the chances of even getting on the ballot are much smaller. They have access to the donors, the political machinery, and all that.
Never-Trumpers don't have a problem with Republican gatekeepers, they have a problem with Republican voters. Jeb! had more money than anybody else, but he wasn't what the voters wanted.
The trouble with Republican gatekeepers (or one of their troubles, anyway) is that they didn't keep the damn gate. The Republican presidential primaries have been steadily infiltrated with crazier and crazier candidates over several cycles. After having entertained the notion that Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann should be considered serious contenders for the nomination of the party, it really shouldn't have come as a shock that Republican voters would vote for a cartoon character when finally given the chance.
It was a pretty much foregone conclusion that Trump would not be convicted by the Senate. There was little in the way of incentive for 17 GOP Senators to take a principled stand. (How history will remember you is not an incentive for most of that particular selection of humanity.) We all know that prosecution is all but inevitable in New York, and investigation is underway in Georgia. Since impeachment is not governed by the procedural rules or evidentiary law of criminal trials, could not Congress turn to the 14th Amendment § 3, to prevent Trump from holding office, as that would require only a simple majority rather than 2/3, and would not be double jeopardy? Criminal prosecution would not be double jeopardy because it would the first time that Trump would be facing criminal prosecution for inciting sedition. Granted, criminal prosecution faces a higher evidentiary bar, but would it not still be an avenue worth exploring?
Fun fact: my undergrad professor for American constitutional law was Gene Edward Smith. We once discussed in class different theoretical scenarios of impeachment, and the recent one of Senate trial after leaving office came up as of academic interest. (As did a somewhat Clintonian scenario - this was during the Reagan administration. ) TBH, if two months ago you asked me who William Belknap was, I would have shrugged, "Uh, I dunno..."
Comments
Brilliant!
I think (but I am no lawyer or constitutional scholar, and I am in the UK so could very well be wrong) that a vote to debar Mr Trump from standing for federal office could only happen had the Senate found him guilty. So a conviction was a necessary precondition for banning him from standing.
In the sense of narrow political advantage, this is probably good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans: it means the Republicans aren't yet able to move on from Trump and the way is not yet clear for an heir to Trump. (But then I thought Trump was an easy candidate to beat when he first ran.)
Somebody should lipsynch Trump to Hitler in that movie scene.
Perfectly politically comprehensible. Just as Hitler's unstoppable rise to democratic power was. Pence was a traitor, see, justice!
Out of sight out of mind.
There’s quite a few of the so-called patriots facing charges and prison time for their idiocy: will he bail them out? Not bloody likely.
Reminds me of our very own populist bastard Joh Bjelke-Peterson ( long time premier of Queensland who fancied himself as PM 39-odd years ago); today’s cock of the walk is tomorrow’s feather duster.
His acquittal sends a message to would-be tyrants everywhere that the world's most powerful democracy allows attempts to override democracy using violent mob, without consequences and maybe they should give it a go in their country. Nothing to lose!
No, for their actions (driven and enabled by their gullibility and stupidity).
This.
This is what's so dangerous. The world's largest and most influential democracy has just vindicated Facism. That has consequences way beyond the USA and way beyond the lifetime of Donald J Trump.
This is why we should be so worried. This is why bringing Trump to justice is so important.
I was chatting to a Serbian colleague the other day about Slobodan Milošević. When he came to power there were loads of posters with his face on. A cartoon written at the time depicted Milošević talking to one of these flyers and asking it
"What will become of us?" The poster replied;
"They'll take me down and hang you."
Slobodan Milošević died whilst awaiting trial in the Hague. To many Serbians he remains a hero who stood up the the oppressive Turks and The West. Justice matters. In terms of the wider world, Serbia isn't very important, the USA is. Serbia doesn't have a long and cherished (and mythologised) democratic history...
You see the point. This is why it really, really matters. If the next popularist demagogue is competent, boy do WE have a problem.
The reason I am not fatalistic is because there are still lots of avenues to pursue. It is a matter of courage. But it is vitally important.
AFZ
I think it might be overestimating the psychological influence of the US to think that there is a potential tyrant somewhere, who had previously been reluctant to stage a fascist coup, but will now look at the events of Janurary 6 and say "Oh well, if the US senate acquitted Trump, I guess I can force my way into power here, too."
I think wannabe dictators make their choices based on the internal power balances of their nations, PLUS the potential for getting external support(in the form of money, weapons, recognition) from larger nations. If those things line up in their favour, they'll make their move. If not, they won't.
It's not good for anyone for Trump to be around, politically or otherwise. The longer he is poisoning civic society and whipping up the worst elements of his base the more difficult it is for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to accomplish anything worthwile.
The Republican Senators who voted to convict are:
You'll note that the only one who will be facing the voters again in the near term is Murkowski, who has already demonstrated her ability to keep her Senate seat even in the face of opposition from the Republican party. Being named "Murkowski" in Alaska is kind of like being named "Kennedy" in Massachusetts or "Romney" in Utah.
A more interesting question is why Rob Portman (OH) voted to acquit. He's the other Republican Senator (in addition to Burr and Toomey) who has announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term (2022). Keeping his options open in case he changes his mind?
What makes you think that?
Some of his supporters want to be the next Trump, and it's entirely possible that one will, and will be more successful at it. Trump put a bunch more plays in the already fat Republican playbook on how to stay in power as a minority, and the chances that the next amoral fascist will be smarter than Trump aren't zero.
The US is at an inflection point. We either find a way to preserve our democracy within the next two to four years or we lose it. Trump's supporters aren't going away. They're in 33 state houses right now with bills promoting voter suppression.
I know. It won't help. But I had to do something.
Tom. Cotton.
Unlike Trump or Cruz Cotton can pass for human most of the time, but underneath he's even more of a fascist than Trump.
You mean to say "conviction". Impeachment is what the House did, and it's a done deal.
Or Josh Hawley. Or Tucker Carlson.
But, now it is up to federal and state courts to hold him responsible.
This is not over by a long shot.
Has it ever been this bad before? Since the Civil War? I realise it was in the South with Jim Crow until the 60s, but nationally?
Thanks for this detail and for your following post as well . I find it interesting that apart from Toomey, all are from States I'd have thought of as being very conservative. Conservatives with a conscience?
Yes, sorry.
👏👏 Brilliant. If ever anyone sought for one person to personify everything that went wrong with the GOP from 2016 onwards then the pasty-faced McConnell is the man.
Statewide elections here tend to be close one way or the other.
I see your point however (a) there is the hope that you ( or your new rulers) find a way to “preserve democracy” and prevent another near-catastrophe.
Compulsory voting would be a start IMHO and an overhaul of the Electoral College gerrymander.
I think I’m right and for your collective sakes I hope you’re wrong.
And independent electoral commissions to fix boundaries and run the elections.
Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Utah's large Mormon population, as I recall, takes matters of personal integrity very seriously and Trump was far more unpopular among them than among evangelical Christians. Romney is on solid ground with his stance.
You would have thought that they presented Democrats with open goals.
I should have specifically excluded Utah as well, given that it was Mitt Romney - he seems to have become the leader of the old-style Republicans both in that state and nationally.
It takes money -- oodles of it -- and an ad agency who knows how to mount an effective advertising blitz. And, one would hope (but dream on), a candidate who, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion.
So fascism is now more entrenched than ever before in the GOP and therefore all future Republican presidencies.
But the issue gets complicated: Do you start a third party (which, the way the system is structured, is doomed to failure) or do you try to cleanse the party of pro-Trumpers (which, becassuse they have become so entrenched, is also likely doomed to failure)? There is a nice discussion of the problem here..
Of course, if you don't have aspirations to high office you can just leave the party, but that is not a practical choice if you want to win high office.
Without the integtrity.
Why not, if your new party (presumably the Democrats) adopt you as their own and are content to have you stand for office under their auspices?
As a Democrat yourself, how many Republicans can you name that you would want running as Democrats?
I'm not sure that's the case. Even assuming Trump becomes a persona non grata in Republican circles like Bush the Younger, the latter's followers didn't so much "melt back into the woodwork" as change hats (typically some kind of tricorn adorned with teabags) and claim to be independents who had never heard of this George W. Bush person but they were very concerned about the dangers of black presidents budget deficits. In other words, they didn't go anywhere or melt away, they just adopted a new schtick.
The Senators voting to acquit whose seats are up for election in 2022 (omitting those who have announced their retirement) are:
Senators in bold have either announced they're running again or filed paperwork to that effect. I missed the announcement that Richard Shelby (AL) has announced his retirement at the end of his present term, so that's going to be another open seat in the 2022 Senate elections, along with Burr (NC), Portman (OH), and Toomey (PA). With the exceptions of Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio everyone on that list is a Senator from a reliably Republican state. In other words, they don't have a lot to fear from voters in a general election but they do have to worry about their credibility as Republicans being challenged in a primary.
Some Republicans have taken that step. It's mostly resulted in them losing whatever office they held at the time. I'm sure a lot of ambitious Republican politicians would be overjoyed to have Trump defenestrated from the Republican party, they just don't want their own fingerprints to show up at the crime scene. This was pretty much the same situation as existed in the 2016 Republican presidential primary and the Republicans were unable to solve that conundrum either.
Any thoughts?
Would it be 'easier' to get rid of a thoroughly awful Democrat (I'm assuming it's misplaced loyalty in trump's case and that his party puts loyalty (blindness to failings of 'one of their own') above justice and honest dealing ?
I think this might be a little like wondering "How bad would a man's crimes have to be for him to get convicted in a trial where his mother was the judge?"
IOW the whole system is set up in a way that pretty much guarantees either a foreordained aquittal or a foreordained conviction, depending on the partisan make-up of the Senate.
There is AFAIK a serious problem with the gatekeepers for the Republican Party, if you are a "hell no" Trump-er and want to get elected to high office. Because many / most of these are still convinced that they need to appease the rank and file lunatics-for-Trump, and without their (the gatekeepers') support, the chances of even getting on the ballot are much smaller. They have access to the donors, the political machinery, and all that.
This isn't true across the board, but is possibly becoming more so, as those with integrity self-select out. See this article (it'll cost you a click, but still) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/politics/republicans-leaving-party.html
The trouble with Republican gatekeepers (or one of their troubles, anyway) is that they didn't keep the damn gate. The Republican presidential primaries have been steadily infiltrated with crazier and crazier candidates over several cycles. After having entertained the notion that Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann should be considered serious contenders for the nomination of the party, it really shouldn't have come as a shock that Republican voters would vote for a cartoon character when finally given the chance.
It was a pretty much foregone conclusion that Trump would not be convicted by the Senate. There was little in the way of incentive for 17 GOP Senators to take a principled stand. (How history will remember you is not an incentive for most of that particular selection of humanity.) We all know that prosecution is all but inevitable in New York, and investigation is underway in Georgia. Since impeachment is not governed by the procedural rules or evidentiary law of criminal trials, could not Congress turn to the 14th Amendment § 3, to prevent Trump from holding office, as that would require only a simple majority rather than 2/3, and would not be double jeopardy? Criminal prosecution would not be double jeopardy because it would the first time that Trump would be facing criminal prosecution for inciting sedition. Granted, criminal prosecution faces a higher evidentiary bar, but would it not still be an avenue worth exploring?
Fun fact: my undergrad professor for American constitutional law was Gene Edward Smith. We once discussed in class different theoretical scenarios of impeachment, and the recent one of Senate trial after leaving office came up as of academic interest. (As did a somewhat Clintonian scenario - this was during the Reagan administration. ) TBH, if two months ago you asked me who William Belknap was, I would have shrugged, "Uh, I dunno..."