Censure ! Why the fuck not?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

We hereby censure the President of the United States for asking a foreign government to intervene in the 2020 United States election by investigating his US political rival.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Why not ?

In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.

[democrattotheend]

21. I thought they censured Clinton?

Or was that just the House that voted for censure?

[Harker]

2. He clearly deserves a sharp rebuke...

a weighty condemnation... a hearty denunciation.

All of which would have been most appropriate as he slithered out of office.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. Slithered out of office? Thought I heard Reps say "bad, but

not impeachable.' Why not see who think it's bad? Nothing to lose at this point. Cut our losses.

[Harker]

4. I meant slithered out after being ousted from office by trial.

As it stands, any and all further official expressions of disapproval would be welcomed by me.

Unofficial ones, too.

I reflexively flip a bird at all banners, signs, flags, etc. bearing his loathsome name. If I ever should be so unfortunate as to see him, I'll give him one directly.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Love your whole vibe, Harker

I as well

[Harker]

6. We are but works in progress, are we not?

I appreciate you, Laura PMAD.

On my best days, the creep with the homemade 4'×8' painted OSB "Trump 2020" sign in his front yard is at the street getting his mail when I drive past on my way to work.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. Love that! Can't change the big disastrous picture,

Pick away at the crumbs.

[Harker]

8. "Crumbs" is right.

A bird from my hand is worth two at the Bushes.

[Blaukraut]

9. I said earlier today that a censure is likely

McConnell, above anything, wants to maintain power. Censuring Trump will allow his endangered caucus members something to take home and brag about, and will also let Trump know that he is on notice and not to attempt any other impeachable acts in the future if he hopes to have a senate majority in a second term. Whether Trump will heed that warning is a whole other matter, though.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. You think it would pass?

[Blaukraut]

15. If McConnell signs off on it, definitely

That old bastard holds all the strings and will only do what benefits him and his caucus. If it means slapping dear leader on the wrist, so be it. He got his way with the pace of the acquittal, too. Trump wanted two gloating opportunities, and has been deprived of both of them by MoscowMitch.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Hmmm..makes me think,...Don't give anything to them..let

them flail ?

Do you think a centure would help them or us?

[Blaukraut]

18. I think it would help all of us

It would eliminate the ability for Trump to claim he is exonerated. (Which means if he tried the same thing again, it would be immediate grounds for another round of impeachments and the public would also be fully on board.)

Meanwhile, the Democrats can still hammer the vulnerable Republicans for abdicating their responsibility by disallowing witnesses and turning the impeachment trial into the cover up it was.

Finally, being censured would drive Trump crazy, because nothing but total exoneration will be acceptable for him. So he would stir his base into a (even more) vengeful mob and go after those republican Senators who voted for it. And we would get to sit back and enjoy the carnage until November.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. +1. What do we do to make it happen? Surely they

have thought of it ? Do we have to go viral crazy?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. I would have it ready and introduce two seconds after

Impeachment conviction vote. I think allowing them time to strategize turns out bad for us.

[Takket]

10. a tiny little consolation prize

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Yes, better than nothing?

[Takket]

13. better than nothing.......

but the best prize will i hope be turning this debacle into political suicide for rethug Senators and winning back the senate and the white house in november.

[Harker]

14. Yes.

For a very, very long time.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Need to gather the most brilliant minds, pollsters,

Dem strategists, Mad Ave admen, Dem leaders, big $$ donors and figure out the best way forward. If it's ground up ( the Senate) so be it.

[democrattotheend]

20. That's what I was thinking

And I feel like Repukes like Lamar Alexander put themselves in a position where they'd have a hard time justifying voting against censure after admitting what Trump did was wrong. Censure would make it a lot harder for Trump to claim he was exonerated.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Yes, no head count, but struck me that a lot said that,

A no vote against Censure would definitely equal an "I don't think he did ANYTHING wrong". Great fodder for campaign ads. Actually almost better.

[kentuck]

24. They need to show that his behavior was not "appropriate".

They should push to censure him.

[D_Master81]

25. At this point yes

We aren’t getting impeachment, never were. At least with censure he can’t go around the country for 9 months claiming exoneration. He may anyhow but at least we could point to that and say it wasn’t an exoneration, just his party to chicken to do the right thing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. The GOPers won't even do that.

They're too afraid of retribution. Romney got himself disinvited from CPAC just for voting to hear witnesses.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. You may be right. But it would be one more strike

against them for whomever runs against them to use?

[The Genealogist]

27. I guess it will boil down to a few things:

How will the deplorables respond at the ballot box this fall if the Senate censures their precious dainty-digited god? What will the wealthy sponsors of the Republicans do? What will Vlad do? I kind of doubt that there will be any kind of consequences for Donald.