Trump 2nd Impeachment News/Talk Megathread

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are there votes in the Senate for his conviction?

Nobody knows. Unlike last time, it's at least an outside possibility.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1347546062882537472

ok putschist

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

McConnell inadvertently doing further damage to Trump by denying him a second exoneration.

Who says it's inadvertent?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not to defend the moral and political cowardice that's going into the decision that's apparently been made to freeze Trump out informally rather than through the constitutionally prescribed means, but I don't think I've seen a single person anywhere on the internet moot the possibility that many in Congress are genuinely traumatized by what they went through on Wednesday and are themselves not acting entirely rationally.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If it's true that the public office ban in an impeachment case can be accomplished by a simple majority, that might actually have serious legs. Although then we're probably stuck in 2024 with Don Jr. or Ivanka pulling the Lurleen Wallace move.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

House Republicans Ask Biden: Get Pelosi to Back Off Impeachment

A group of House Republicans who voted to accept President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory asked him to persuade Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back off impeaching Donald Trump for instigating Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The lawmakers, led by Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, warned in a letter to Biden on Saturday that Trump’s impeachment would inflame his supporters anew, and damage Biden’s efforts to unify the country.

“In the spirit of healing and fidelity to our Constitution, we ask that you formally request that Speaker Nancy Pelosi discontinue her efforts to impeach President Donald J. Trump a second time,” they wrot

This group includes Mace, by the way. So much for her being a potential yes vote.

It's from same 7 Republicans who were the original ones behind [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-trump-biden-election_n_5ff295d0c5b65a92290f7943?]the letter[/url] earlier this week opposing efforts to challenge electors:
 Ken Buck
 Thomas Massie
 Chip Roy
 Kelly Armstong
 Tom McClintock
 Mike Gallagher
 Nancy Mace

Interesting assortment. I wonder if these seven are going to be a sort of "contrarian Republican caucus" going forward.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How would impeachment actually work with this little time left? The House just votes without debate and the senate debates just a day or two before taking a vote?

Search on French Revolution 1793 (Reign or Terror).

The Reign of Terror contained a significant element of mass radicalization and mob rule. Sound familiar?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Politico says Kinzinger is expected to vote yes, and Dems are also targeting Fitzpatrick, Katko, Herrera Beutler, Upton, and Cheney, among others.

Is this Upton's last term?

Eh, whats the point? I don't think there are 17 Senate Republicans willing to convict. Maybe 5-6 at most.

And 100 days into Biden's term, it'll be ancient history, so less urgency. By that point, Republicans will be focused on obstructing Biden's agenda and co-opting Trump's base. Taking away Trump's pension just won't be worth it for 17 Republicans.

Four days ago, I supported impeachment because I thought Trump needed to get out immediately at all costs. Now that that's not going to happen, I support impeachment because being the first President to be impeached twice and the first to leave office while under impeachment are historical distinctions that Trump deserves.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1348687213840781314

So, in other words, she'll vote to acquit in April but doesn't want to give the impression of being a dead-ender wackjob now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Has there been any consideration to admitting DC before the trial to decrease the number of Republicans who would have to go out on a limb and convict?

Not that admitting states just for impeachment votes is a good precedent, but since DC statehood is a 100% lock this year anyway, might as well move it up on the calendar. After all, the Americans living in DC deserve a voice in this matter.

1. Admit DC as 25 states
2. Have quick elections in all 25 new states
3. Remove Trump from office without any Republican votes even though he already left
4. Profit!

So much talk about how “liberals hate socialists more than fascists”, not so much about how the reverse is also true for a certain obnoxious portion of the left.

I do love how there was this catchphrase among socialists and far leftist that goes “scratch a lib and a fascist bleeds”. Yet these past 4 years under the closest to a fascist we have had in office we have seen this segment of leftist like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Chapo Trap House, and posters like Jfern and Big Abraham that spend there time only attacking mainstream democrats just to be a contrarian and in cases outright defend Trump

Some of us remember Obama's neoliberal warmongering.

Okay, but what mystifies people isn't why a hard leftist would be hostile to mainstream Democrats, it's why a hard leftist would be even more hostile to mainstream Democrats than to Trump and Trumpism, a position that only makes sense if you presuppose that 1. foreign policy is so overwhelmingly more important than domestic policy that a President can literally attempt to abolish representative democracy at home and still be preferable to a "normal" President whose foreign policy was worse than the aspiring autocrat's and 2. excessive use of hard power is the only kind of bad foreign policy. Normal people, including normal leftists, reject both of those premises.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Has there been any consideration to admitting DC before the trial to decrease the number of Republicans who would have to go out on a limb and convict?

Not that admitting states just for impeachment votes is a good precedent, but since DC statehood is a 100% lock this year anyway, might as well move it up on the calendar. After all, the Americans living in DC deserve a voice in this matter.

1. Admit DC as 25 states
2. Have quick elections in all 25 new states
3. Remove Trump from office without any Republican votes even though he already left
4. Profit!

So much talk about how “liberals hate socialists more than fascists”, not so much about how the reverse is also true for a certain obnoxious portion of the left.

I do love how there was this catchphrase among socialists and far leftist that goes “scratch a lib and a fascist bleeds”. Yet these past 4 years under the closest to a fascist we have had in office we have seen this segment of leftist like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Chapo Trap House, and posters like Jfern and Big Abraham that spend there time only attacking mainstream democrats just to be a contrarian and in cases outright defend Trump

Some of us remember Obama's neoliberal warmongering.

Okay, but what mystifies people isn't why a hard leftist would be hostile to mainstream Democrats, it's why a hard leftist would be even more hostile to mainstream Democrats than to Trump and Trumpism, a position that only makes sense if you presuppose that 1. foreign policy is so overwhelmingly more important than domestic policy that a President can literally attempt to abolish representative democracy at home and still be preferable to a "normal" President whose foreign policy was worse than the aspiring autocrat's and 2. excessive use of hard power is the only kind of bad foreign policy. Normal people, including normal leftists, reject both of those premises.

When everyone is acting like Trump is worse than Hitler while Democrats aren't much better than Trump, what's the point of piling on with Trump. I'm more scared of Presidents that the media isn't so willing to stand up to.

Okay, but the Democrats are much better than Trump. Again, the only reason any leftists dispute that is that Certain Folks have fifty years' worth of costs sunk into the Extremely New Left idea that imperialism is when the United States projects hard power; the more hard power the United States projects, the imperialister it is; and American imperialism is the gravest problem facing the world and renders all other issues irrelevant. It's the edgy-online-leftist equivalent of abortion single-issuism on the right, and, as it turns out, has had exactly the same effect of propping up an overtly right-wing-authoritarian president as somehow the moral alternative to Teh Ev0l Librulz.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Has there been any consideration to admitting DC before the trial to decrease the number of Republicans who would have to go out on a limb and convict?

Not that admitting states just for impeachment votes is a good precedent, but since DC statehood is a 100% lock this year anyway, might as well move it up on the calendar. After all, the Americans living in DC deserve a voice in this matter.

1. Admit DC as 25 states
2. Have quick elections in all 25 new states
3. Remove Trump from office without any Republican votes even though he already left
4. Profit!

So much talk about how “liberals hate socialists more than fascists”, not so much about how the reverse is also true for a certain obnoxious portion of the left.

I do love how there was this catchphrase among socialists and far leftist that goes “scratch a lib and a fascist bleeds”. Yet these past 4 years under the closest to a fascist we have had in office we have seen this segment of leftist like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Chapo Trap House, and posters like Jfern and Big Abraham that spend there time only attacking mainstream democrats just to be a contrarian and in cases outright defend Trump

Some of us remember Obama's neoliberal warmongering.

Okay, but what mystifies people isn't why a hard leftist would be hostile to mainstream Democrats, it's why a hard leftist would be even more hostile to mainstream Democrats than to Trump and Trumpism, a position that only makes sense if you presuppose that 1. foreign policy is so overwhelmingly more important than domestic policy that a President can literally attempt to abolish representative democracy at home and still be preferable to a "normal" President whose foreign policy was worse than the aspiring autocrat's and 2. excessive use of hard power is the only kind of bad foreign policy. Normal people, including normal leftists, reject both of those premises.

When everyone is acting like Trump is worse than Hitler while Democrats aren't much better than Trump, what's the point of piling on with Trump. I'm more scared of Presidents that the media isn't so willing to stand up to.

Okay, but the Democrats are much better than Trump. Again, the only reason any leftists dispute that is that Certain Folks have fifty years' worth of costs sunk into the Extremely New Left idea that imperialism is when the United States projects hard power; the more hard power the United States projects, the imperialister it is; and American imperialism is the gravest problem facing the world and renders all other issues irrelevant. It's the edgy-online-leftist equivalent of abortion single-issuism on the right, and, as it turns out, has had exactly the same effect of propping up an overtly right-wing-authoritarian president as somehow the moral alternative to Teh Ev0l Librulz.

Even if we ignore the fact that Democrats like Obama are war criminals, they suck on plenty of other issues.

If you can name an issue area that Democrats are as bad as or worse than Republicans on from a leftist perspective, I'm happy to hear it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I love "sitting" in an ancient ethical & political philosophy (Zoom) class rn when I could be watching Jamie Raskin just commit homicide on live TV instead.. oh well, I guess that's what Wednesday's for.

Literally in a constitutional law class as we speak.

Political and social philosophy class here

Teaching a third-grade reading class.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't know if anyone else posted this but I found it interesting:

13 Senators have been jurors in 3 out of the 4 Presidential impeachment trials:
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
Richard Shelby of Alabama
Dianne Feinstein of California
Patty Murray of Washington
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Dick Durbin of Illinois
Jack Reed of Rhode Island
Susan Collins of Maine
Chuck Schumer of New York
Mike Crapo of Idaho

And if the trial happened just a little over a month earlier Pat Roberts of Kansas and Mike Enzi of Wyoming would also be included in this list.

Anyone besides Bernie who served in the House and Senate for all 3 modern impeachments? Not sure if I'm phrasing it correctly.

EDIT: Remember now Graham was in the House for Clinton's as well.

Yep! Besides Bernie and Graham there were quite a few:
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
Richard Burr of North Carolina
John Thune of South Dakota
Bob Menendez of New Jersey
Ben Cardin of Maryland
Sherrod Brown of Ohio
Roger Wicker of Mississippi
Roy Blunt of Missouri
Jerry Moran of Kansas
Rob Portman of Ohio
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin

Markey too!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1359242078325256193

At least he admits it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1359984631144017921

I want to belief

Tuberville's stupidity is both his greatest weakness and his greatest strength.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Crickets on this thread today.

What is there to discuss?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People still think this is all about one Trump speech at one rally? As if!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The very first presidential impeachment, and the one that came closest to a conviction, was of a President who violated an unconstitutional law that Congress passed specifically so they could impeach him when he eventually broke it. So let's not have this hand-wringing about whether Trump's incitement was incitement-y enough to actually get him convicted of a crime, and if not then how dare Congress impeach him for it. That is fundamentally not what impeachment is about and nobody in Congress has ever been under any sincere illusions that it is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I honestly don't think the acquittal is the disaster that everyone else seems to, even though I of course agree that it's a miscarriage of justice. Clinton was acquitted much more resoundingly in his impeachment and yet history hasn't exactly been kind to the behavior that he got impeached for. Call me a bloomer, idk. For now I'd rather pivot back to following policy and what the Biden administration and Democratic Congressional majorities are doing.