Trump would be the first president to be impeached and then found guilty by a Senate

[eleny]

I'm all for impeaching the criminal.

But the legacy of the first U.S. president removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors being a Republican is something they could never live down.

I've heard some pundits say that this week's revelations could turn some R Senators. But, imo, no matter how much they'd want to, I don't think a single Republican Senator will vote guilty. There's no way they could slink into the shadows and hide from recriminations.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Unanimous consent. nt

[eleny]

2. History would forever link their Party with the dubious distinction of being the first prez removed

[Xipe Totec]

9. If it's inevitable...

[unblock]

3. Not going to happen, at least not formally

I can't see republicans allowing that to happen.

If only at the last minute, they'll convince donnie to resign first, like they did Nixon.

Donnie can paint a better picture if he resigns. Not so easy if he's convicted.

[eleny]

6. They can threaten but not a single R will vote him guilty, imo

I hoped that he would resign under the mounting pressure. But I'm preparing for him to hang in there because he doesn't want to go to jail. He has to know the bind the Republicans are in. So he benefits and thus buys time.

I don't know if we have a prayer of taking over the Senate with enough of a majority to remove him. So I'm preparing myself for the long haul.

[empedocles]

4. If more signficant revelations keep coming, and support erodes . . .

Cultural shifts. Even 'cons don't smoke cigarettes that much anymore.

[eleny]

7. Even if the 'cons know they'll wear that heavy legacy of being the first Party with a removed prez?

[mysteryowl]

5. ...and then spend time in JAIL

...and then, be convicted by the world court for his inhumane treatment of migrants and asylum seekers.

[mn9driver]

8. I have zero doubt that Trump will be impeached by the House, but

There is no actual requirement in the Constitution that the Senate has to hold a trial:

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

So, the Senate has the “sole Power”, but does that mean that the Senate “shall” or “must” try all impeachments? I bet Mitch McConnell doesn’t think so.

The Senate rules do say this:

“III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, 102 the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.”

But Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Any bets on whether McConnell will convene an impeachment trial instead of changing Senate rules? The GOP shitbags will never allow a trial to take place.

[eleny]

10. "....if ordered by the Senate..."

It sounds to me that the word "if" removes a requirement to convene a trial.