General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Senate is likelier to remove Trump after impeachment than you think
I found an interesting article debunking the myth that tRump has guaranteed protection in the Senate. It seems especially pertinent now that people are beginning to lose their fear to testify against tRump, and repub Senators are speaking out against his Turkish debacle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/11/senate-is-likelier-remove-trump-after-impeachment-than-you-think/
As the House of Representatives builds momentum to impeach President Trump, conventional wisdom holds that the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove him would be impossible.
This conventional wisdom is wrong.
While getting rid of the president this way remains far from certain, its more likely than most observers will admit. And its becoming a stronger possibility day by day as Trumps foreign policy stumbles remind GOP senators that speaking out against the president doesnt have to be political suicide.
Historically inclined naysayers cite the acquittals of our only two impeached presidents as support for the argument that Trump wont be removed. Those examples, both of which ended with the commander in chief beating the charges against him and serving out his full term, on first blush do appear to bolster that case.
<snip>
The wrong lesson, however, can be taken from Johnsons nonconviction. Senators allowed the president to remain in place partly because they suspected the law that the president had violated to prompt his impeachment, the Tenure of Office Act, itself stood on particularly shaky ground. (It was, in fact, later ruled unconstitutional.) Other articles of impeachment against Johnson included crimes like speaking ill of Congress in public which may very well have contravened a lingering norm from the early days of the republic but fell very well short of warranting immediate ejection from the presidency.
Its hard to imagine Trumps forthcoming impeachment resting on such weak foundations. Most likely, articles of impeachment against him will point to core abuses of power, obstruction of justice and failure to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas and thats if the House only chooses to highlight misdeeds related to the Ukraine debacle.
<snip>
But its worth recalling that Clintons acquittal came largely because his violations of law were intended to cover up a personal affair, not a matter of state, and were not seen as a persistent pattern of inherent unfitness. The situation now is quite different. Trumps actions on the Ukraine scandal alone implicate the constitutional fabric itself, and they build on inappropriate activities described in detail in the scathing Mueller report. This all puts senators tasked with judging Trump in a different place than those who judged Clinton.
<snip>
Not so now. While the GOP has largely embraced Trumps political program even where it breaks with long-standing party orthodoxy, he has earned little enduring loyalty within the establishment. Republican senators remain loathe to break openly with the president, but former senator Jeff Flake last month candidly assessed that 35 of his former GOP colleagues would vote to remove Trump from office if the poll were taken in private. Anybody who has sat through two years, as I have, of Republican luncheons, Flake also said, realizes that theres not a lot of love for the president.
Flakes point has limited utility; a Senate trial of Trump would not end, of course, with a private vote. His observation nevertheless reveals a core truth: Republican support for Trump is highly instrumental, not fundamental. If the presidents overall approval rating sat above 60 percent (as Bill Clintons did during his impeachment trial), or if the majority of the American people opposed impeachment and removal as they did then, or even only if support among Republicans for Trumps impeachment and removal remained in the single digits, fear of Trumps tweets would probably keep GOP senators in line.
Polls now tell a different story. Trumps aggregated approval rating has never escaped the 35 to 45 percent band, keeping it stunningly short of Clintons overall numbers. Plus, a new Fox News poll shows 51 percent of respondents support impeaching and removing Trump. And a Washington Post-Schar School poll reveals that 18 percent of Republicans support his impeachment and removal.
In this environment, even the small dose of political courage weve seen this week from Republicans on Capitol Hill matters. On the Ukraine affair, at least two GOP senators Mitt Romney (Utah) and Ben Sasse (Neb.) publicly expressed concern about the presidents actions. Before Trumps angry tweets responding to Romney could become a headline story, the presidents decision to expose Kurds in northern Syria to Turkish attacks spurred much wider criticism from Republican senators, including firm Trump ally Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). Talk is cheap, yes. But coming on the heels of so many instances of GOP senators silence in the wake of Trumps controversies, one can forgive The Posts Shane Harris for calling it a Republican rebellion. Most importantly, the president uncharacteristically refrained from lashing out at those who disagreed with him.
Political momentum has odd properties. When tides turn, they often turn quickly and harshly. While the basic math still points to a Senate acquittal, this week nevertheless brings to mind Winston Churchills words after the British victory at El Alamein in 1942: Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)Sasse is nothing but a grandstander. He talks a big game, then rubber-stamps Trump's agenda.
Romney is still running for president, even when he isn't.
Flake has no credibility. See: Kavanaugh.
I wouldn't put much faith in any of them representing the rest of the GOP.
groundloop
(11,488 posts)The debacle with Turkey and the slaughter of thousands of Kurds may just be the beginning of the end. We shall see.
(I reread what I just posted and kind of feel sick to my stomach talking about all the human pain and suffering as though those people are simply a political football).
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)I just don't see a lot of signs and have zero confidence that even one will do the right thing.
I'd happily be proven wrong.
stopdiggin
(11,095 posts)except that I'd point out we would need something like 12-13? Doesn't happen on an individual basis. There would have to be some kind of coalition or pact ...
And I too .. would dearly love to be proven wrong.
bdamomma
(63,658 posts)starts to spread their tentacles in the US while there are babies, and children locked up on the Southern border.
mopinko
(69,809 posts)and do not discount the harm that he is doing himself w the military right now. mcraven is the tip of the iceberg.
the worm is turning. hell, spinning.
Poiuyt
(18,087 posts)Isn't there some clause that says an impeached president is ineligible to hold federal office?
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)In the event of removal, he would likely be declared ineligible. It is not, however, mandatory.
Poiuyt
(18,087 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)there is a clause in the Constitution. If impeached and convicted in senate, he would be ineligible for any federal office.
Period. and no parole for impeachment, either.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)" A convicted president can be prohibited from again holding office if the Senate so decides, per Article I Section 3, which includes: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Disqualification is not automatic, but up to the Senates discretion."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/failed-impeachment-nullify-term/
lastlib
(22,981 posts)What dirty shit does he have up his sleeve to protect his comrade in crime? I saw somewhere that he met GOPher senators to discuss impeachment, and I can't help but think he's cooking something up, using (or, more likely, twisting) the rules to determine the outcome in GOPee's favor. I just can't put it past him. He has been saying that the Senate has no choice but to hold a trial, but hasn't tipped his hand about procedures or guidelines. What's to stop him from just holding a quick vote on the charges as soon as the House brings them in, and thwart the whole process? I know the Chief Justice is supposed to preside, but I can't help but think he's gonna pull a fast one on us.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)public corruption in their re-election campaigns
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)That's certainly not what I cite, and I haven't seen a single person cite those acquittals as reason to believe Trump won't be removed.
The main reason cited seems to be the fact that Cult45 would be pissed off and cause trouble for any Republican (who hopes to remain in office) who turns on Trump. There's also the strong possibility that at least some in the Senate (e.g., Rand Paul) are beholden to Russia just as much as Trump is.
I don't think the acquittals of Johnson and Clinton have, for most "naysayers," anything whatsoever to do with why it's believed conviction is highly unlikely.
stopdiggin
(11,095 posts)background noise to fill out the "piece."
Arthur_Frain
(1,784 posts)Not bloody likely. Anyone who really thinks they will grow some spine or cojones anytime soon is whistling in the dark. The only way he goes is if hes voted out decisively, and then we have to figure out how to get him out of the White House proper, cause hes dug in like a tick.
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)So long as they are uncovering information and have Trump and the Republicans on the defensive, they should continue to do what they have been doing.