Trump 2nd Impeachment News/Talk Megathread

[Frodo]

According to some reports, Rudy is going to lead Trump's defense and plans to raise the voter fraud claims in the trial.

Even more than that, he plans to say that because the voter fraud claims are true, they cannot be incitement to violence. This is pure delusion. I understand the partisan reality that Trump is likely to be acquitted, but by the time Rudy is done Republican Senators may be ready to vote to convict.

Their best chance is to say that Trump is protected by the First Amendment but I haven't heard anything of the sort come from the Trump camp.

"They basically claimed that anytime [Trump] says voter fraud, voter fraud -- or I do, or anybody else -- we're inciting to violence; that those words are fighting words because it's totally untrue," he said. "Well, if you can prove that it's true, or at least true enough so it's a legitimate viewpoint, then they are no longer fighting words."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032

Wow, this trial is gonna be comical. And he's agreeing to do this after Trump stiffed him on the $20K/day bill, no less.

What if that's why?

Do you really think Rudy capable of playing 4-dimensional chess like that? 

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

According to some reports, Rudy is going to lead Trump's defense and plans to raise the voter fraud claims in the trial.

Even more than that, he plans to say that because the voter fraud claims are true, they cannot be incitement to violence. This is pure delusion. I understand the partisan reality that Trump is likely to be acquitted, but by the time Rudy is done Republican Senators may be ready to vote to convict.

Their best chance is to say that Trump is protected by the First Amendment but I haven't heard anything of the sort come from the Trump camp.

"They basically claimed that anytime [Trump] says voter fraud, voter fraud -- or I do, or anybody else -- we're inciting to violence; that those words are fighting words because it's totally untrue," he said. "Well, if you can prove that it's true, or at least true enough so it's a legitimate viewpoint, then they are no longer fighting words."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032

Wow, this trial is gonna be comical. And he's agreeing to do this after Trump stiffed him on the $20K/day bill, no less.

What if that's why?

Do you really think Rudy capable of playing 4-dimensional chess like that? 

How would you tell the difference between Rudy trying to fail and trying to succeed at this point?

[You are responsible]

According to some reports, Rudy is going to lead Trump's defense and plans to raise the voter fraud claims in the trial.

Even more than that, he plans to say that because the voter fraud claims are true, they cannot be incitement to violence. This is pure delusion. I understand the partisan reality that Trump is likely to be acquitted, but by the time Rudy is done Republican Senators may be ready to vote to convict.

Their best chance is to say that Trump is protected by the First Amendment but I haven't heard anything of the sort come from the Trump camp.

"They basically claimed that anytime [Trump] says voter fraud, voter fraud -- or I do, or anybody else -- we're inciting to violence; that those words are fighting words because it's totally untrue," he said. "Well, if you can prove that it's true, or at least true enough so it's a legitimate viewpoint, then they are no longer fighting words."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032

That's almost like trying to prove that Jews are indeed a dangerous and inferior race as a defense at the Nuremberg trials.

[WMS]

Congressperson Jaime Beutler explains her impeachment vote, one event at a time. This case obviously is not a close one, and I would submit that it is precisely conviction that will help to heal the country and bring closure to  the absolutely most horrific set of acts ever committed by a POTUS. I must admit I was very traumatized by the events, and I am very sad most Pubs in Congress do not understand the absolute need to set a precedent  that the advocacy of violence by innuendo or implication or by enablement to overturn a democracy, cannot go unanswered by anything other that a permanent ban on holding federal office. I also think it would be "healing" for all to hear the actual facts, of which the below are a foretaste that are so utterly damning, and as I said, frightening.

https://twitter.com/HerreraBeutler/status/1349959275922206721

I can’t wait for certain blue avatars to declare that this means nothing and that Trump did nothing wrong. Happened already in this thread...

You mean like this comment? ...

... the idea that Trump "instigated insurrection" is preposterous, and will be found so by history. 

I was actually thinking of a different blue avatar but that’ll do

[Torie]

Rudy sighting seen at White House, the guy who is now claiming that Trump's rhetoric cannot be viewed as incitement because the election was in fact stolen. That sounds close to claiming that the mobs actions were justified and legal because it was the only way to stop the steal. Rove says Rudy being the counsel for Trump in the impeachment trial will increase the odds for conviction. Who knew? And Rudy is the guy Trump is stiffing on his legal bills. Maybe this is the way for Rudy to get them paid.

[Badger]

According to some reports, Rudy is going to lead Trump's defense and plans to raise the voter fraud claims in the trial.

Even more than that, he plans to say that because the voter fraud claims are true, they cannot be incitement to violence. This is pure delusion. I understand the partisan reality that Trump is likely to be acquitted, but by the time Rudy is done Republican Senators may be ready to vote to convict.

Their best chance is to say that Trump is protected by the First Amendment but I haven't heard anything of the sort come from the Trump camp.

"They basically claimed that anytime [Trump] says voter fraud, voter fraud -- or I do, or anybody else -- we're inciting to violence; that those words are fighting words because it's totally untrue," he said. "Well, if you can prove that it's true, or at least true enough so it's a legitimate viewpoint, then they are no longer fighting words."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032

Wow, this trial is gonna be comical. And he's agreeing to do this after Trump stiffed him on the $20K/day bill, no less.

What if that's why?

Do you really think Rudy capable of playing 4-dimensional chess like that? 

Another weird part among many is he's playing to a venue where only 6 Republican Senators voted against certifying the Electoral College results, as opposed to the house were over two-thirds of the GOP caucus did so. The man apparently can't do even basic math.

[Ljube]

Rand Paul has some thoughts on impeachment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/rand-paul-warns-one-third-of-republicans-will-leave-party-if-gop-senators-back-impeachment/

I must admit that his argument is pretty compelling.

I would love to see Donald Trump convicted and barred from running for office ever again. I would also love to see Trumpism thoroughly discredited and rejected by the Republican Party. But at the same time, I would hate to see a third of the Republican voters leave the party and the political process, or start a new party. That would destroy the Republican Party and would leave us defenseless against the radical left.

I am torn between my desire to get rid of Trump and my fear that that would cause the Republican Party to fracture. The best possible outcome would be for Trump to somehow fade away.

[GP270watch]

 There is no chance of 1/3 of The Republican party voting anything but Republican, they hate Democrats too much. Anybody who doesn't know this hasn't paid attention to the last 30 years of politics.

[Motorcity]

So, how many republican senators are going to vote to convict? I’m trying to make a predictitt bet

51-52
53-54
55-56
57-58
59-60
61-62
63-64
65-66
67+

[Ferguson97]

So, how many republican senators are going to vote to convict? I’m trying to make a predictitt bet

51-52
53-54
55-56
57-58
59-60
61-62
63-64
65-66
67+

I'm gonna say we get Romney, Murkowski, Toomey, Colllis, Lankford, and Sasse, plus all of the Democrats, so 56 total.

[GeorgiaModerate]

So, how many republican senators are going to vote to convict? I’m trying to make a predictitt bet

51-52
53-54
55-56
57-58
59-60
61-62
63-64
65-66
67+

I'm gonna say we get Romney, Murkowski, Toomey, Sasse, Colllis, Lankford, and Sasse, plus all of the Democrats, so 57 total.

Sasse only gets one vote.

[Ferguson97]

So, how many republican senators are going to vote to convict? I’m trying to make a predictitt bet

51-52
53-54
55-56
57-58
59-60
61-62
63-64
65-66
67+

I'm gonna say we get Romney, Murkowski, Toomey, Sasse, Colllis, Lankford, and Sasse, plus all of the Democrats, so 57 total.

Sasse only gets one vote.

lol damn, didn't catch that

[JoeInator]

What's the likeliest path to conviction? I can see all the Democrats, Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Sasse and Toomey voting to convict, giving us 55 guilty votes. Who are the next 12 most likely GOP senators vote to convict?

[brucejoel99]

What's the likeliest path to conviction? I can see all the Democrats, Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Sasse and Toomey voting to convict, giving us 55 guilty votes. Who are the next 12 most likely GOP senators vote to convict?

McConnell & all the institutionalists (think: Portman, Shelby, etc.) that he can wrangle + enough conservatives (think: Cotton, Rick Scott, Graham, etc.) boycotting because they "believe" that the Senate lacks the constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment trial of a former President, thereby lowering the threshold for conviction.

[JoeInator]

What's the likeliest path to conviction? I can see all the Democrats, Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Sasse and Toomey voting to convict, giving us 55 guilty votes. Who are the next 12 most likely GOP senators vote to convict?

McConnell & all the institutionalists (think: Portman, Shelby, etc.) that he can wrangle + enough conservatives (think: Cotton, Rick Scott, Graham, etc.) boycotting because they "believe" that the Senate lacks the constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment trial of a former President, thereby lowering the threshold for conviction.

OK, thanks! I just found a list I made a few days ago dividing GOP senators into groups based on how likely I thought it was they would vote to convict (assuming nobody boycotts the trial):

Tier I: Don't bother if they're not on board
Lisa Murkowski
Mitch McConnell
Susan Collins
Ben Sasse
Pat Toomey
John Thune
Mitt Romney
Shelley Moore Capito

Tier II: They could survive a vote to convict for one reason or another
Richard Shelby
Chuck Grassley
Joni Ernst
Roy Blunt
Deb Fischer
Richard Burr
Rob Portman
Ron Johnson
John Barrasso

Tier III: A bit of a long shot but still possible
Dan Sullivan
John Boozman
Marco Rubio
Jim Risch
Todd Young
Mike Braun
Jerry Moran
Bill Cassidy
Roger Wicker
Steve Daines
Thom Tillis
Kevin Cramer
John Hoeven
Mike Rounds
John Cornyn

Tier IV: Probably not but hey, you never know
Tom Cotton
Mike Crapo
Rand Paul
Jim Inhofe
James Lankford
Tim Scott
Bill Hagerty
Marsha Blackburn
Mike Lee

Tier V: Yeah, this isn't happening
Tommy Tuberville
Rick Scott
Roger Marshall
John Kennedy
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Josh Hawley
Lindsey Graham
Ted Cruz
Cynthia Lummis

Are these tiers fairly reasonable or is there anything that I'm way off the mark on?

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Its not happening, these are the same Rs that acquitted Reagan and Bush Sr and Ollie North on Iran Contra, there will never be a conviction of a Prez, we were on a slippery slope when Ds acquitted Clinton

[Kamala-Tim 2024]

Seems like the new line is that it’s unconstitutional to try a former president. Do it and see if he sues!

Also Rudy says he won’t be Trump’s lawyer because he’s supposedly a witness in the case. Sad!

[Torie]

I have posted before that the details of the facts surrounding the delay of Guard deployment and the prospects of Trump being convicted, I believe are very closely related - the potential proverbial smoking gun.

Below is a link to the  timeline that delves into the delay in deploying the National Guard. It is not clear that Trump ever authorized the deployment (rather Pence did it). Here is the relevant paragraph from the article.

"3:19 p.m.: McCarthy explains in a phone call to Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Miller has already approved full DCNG mobilization. Miller later releases a statement saying, “Chairman Milley and I just spoke separately with the Vice President and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol. We have fully activated the D.C. National Guard to assist federal and local law enforcement as they work to peacefully address the situation.” No mention is made of Trump’s involvement. [emphasis added.]

Just what the F was Trump doing during these critical hours other than squirting lighter fluid on the fire?

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/timeline-of-national-guard-deployment-to-capitol/

[Ljube]

I have posted before that the details of the facts surrounding the delay of Guard deployment and the prospects of Trump being convicted, I believe are very closely related - the potential proverbial smoking gun.

Below is a link to the  timeline that delves into the delay in deploying the National Guard. It is not clear that Trump ever authorized the deployment (rather Pence did it). Here is the relevant paragraph from the article.

"3:19 p.m.: McCarthy explains in a phone call to Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Miller has already approved full DCNG mobilization. Miller later releases a statement saying, “Chairman Milley and I just spoke separately with the Vice President and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol. We have fully activated the D.C. National Guard to assist federal and local law enforcement as they work to peacefully address the situation.” No mention is made of Trump’s involvement. [emphasis added.]

Just what the F was Trump doing during these critical hours other than squirting lighter fluid on the fire?

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/timeline-of-national-guard-deployment-to-capitol/

You're right, Torie. If Trump ignored calls to intervene, he would have to explain why he did that. And since he won't be able to explain his inaction, the only logical conclusion would be that he wanted the insurrection to succeed.

That would be enough for a near unanimous conviction and rejection by the people.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Anyone know when the House will send the articles to the Senate? Do they want to wait a few days to let Biden install his cabinet? I think that's defensible, but they can't wait too long because it will start to look petty.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Anyone know when the House will send the articles to the Senate? Do they want to wait a few days to let Biden install his cabinet? I think that's defensible, but they can't wait too long because it will start to look petty.

Rumor is tomorrow or Friday.

[TarHeelDem]

Anyone know when the House will send the articles to the Senate? Do they want to wait a few days to let Biden install his cabinet? I think that's defensible, but they can't wait too long because it will start to look petty.

It's just one article.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyone know when the House will send the articles to the Senate? Do they want to wait a few days to let Biden install his cabinet? I think that's defensible, but they can't wait too long because it will start to look petty.

Rumor is tomorrow or Friday.

They could have done this to try to prevent Barrett from being confirmed, but instead might time it to prevent Biden's cabinet from being confirmed? Amazing.

[Andrew Cuomo is a No Go]

Anyone know when the House will send the articles to the Senate? Do they want to wait a few days to let Biden install his cabinet? I think that's defensible, but they can't wait too long because it will start to look petty.

Rumor is tomorrow or Friday.

They could have done this to try to prevent Barrett from being confirmed, but instead might time it to prevent Biden's cabinet from being confirmed? Amazing.

There is no way whatsoever the Democrats could have prevented Barrett from being confirmed. The Senate would just immediately dispense with the articles, vote them down, then move on to confirmation.

[Pericles]

Anyone know when the House will send the articles to the Senate? Do they want to wait a few days to let Biden install his cabinet? I think that's defensible, but they can't wait too long because it will start to look petty.

Rumor is tomorrow or Friday.

They could have done this to try to prevent Barrett from being confirmed, but instead might time it to prevent Biden's cabinet from being confirmed? Amazing.

If RBG died in late December or early January it could have been stopped, but McConnell had so much time to fill the seat that there was no way he could be stopped.