Trump 2nd Impeachment News/Talk Megathread

[Doomer]

So is there really any chance of a Trump conviction at this point in time? I even feel like it will be difficult to get past 55 votes for conviction.

It doesn't seem like it.

[GeorgiaModerate]

So is there really any chance of a Trump conviction at this point in time? I even feel like it will be difficult to get past 55 votes for conviction.

It doesn't seem like it.

It all depends on Mitch McConnell.  If he goes along with conviction, there's a good chance (though by no means a certainty) that he'll bring along enough other Republicans to convict.  If he doesn't vote for conviction then it has zero chance.  According to reports, he is genuinely undecided on which way to vote.  IMO he very likely does want Trump disqualified from running again, but his overriding concern is the political calculation on whether it's better for the party to force Trump out now or let him hang around.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said Sunday that he believes holding an impeachment trial for former President Donald Trump is constitutional, a position that puts him at odds with some of his Senate colleagues.

"I'll of course hear what the lawyers have to say for each side. But I think it's pretty clear that the effort is constitutional," Romney told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

The Utah Republican said that he's reviewed law review articles, which have shown that "the preponderance of the legal opinion is that an impeachment trial after someone has left office is constitutional."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/24/politics/mitt-romney-trump-impeachment-cnntv/index.html

[henster]

I question the wisdom of Dem leaders pushing to do this now when a stimulus bill needs to passed by March 14, when extended unemployment expires and most of Biden's cabinet is not even confirmed. Impeachment would take precedence over all other Senate business and doing anything else during the trial would require unanimous consent (not happening). If trial lasts 2-3 weeks and most likely ends with no conviction, Dems are going to have wasted weeks and having to rush to pass a massive stimulus by March 14.

[Kamala-Tim 2024]

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1353464367568846849?s=12

Sadly I don’t disagree with him. I think every minute spent not trying him - including doing all the good things a Democratic Senate should be doing - is another minute Republican Senators can come up with justifications for voting to acquit.

[7,052,770]

Schumer should ask Trump to prepare a written defense and the House to prepare a written argument for conviction. He should then distribute it to the 100 senators on a Friday, give them the weekend to look over it, and then hold the conviction vote on a Monday morning. Each senator can decide for him or herself whether to prepare or not, but that way they get the vote, they get the evidence out there, but they don't spend valuable time debating it.

[BudgieForce]

I question the wisdom of Dem leaders pushing to do this now when a stimulus bill needs to passed by March 14, when extended unemployment expires and most of Biden's cabinet is not even confirmed. Impeachment would take precedence over all other Senate business and doing anything else during the trial would require unanimous consent (not happening). If trial lasts 2-3 weeks and most likely ends with no conviction, Dems are going to have wasted weeks and having to rush to pass a massive stimulus by March 14.

I'm under the impression Covid Relief will get done during the two week period both sides get to work on their trial briefs. At least that seems to be what Schumer intends to happens. Biden's team was already meeting with the problem solvers caucus today to discuss the Covid Relief bill.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Schumer should ask Trump to prepare a written defense and the House to prepare a written argument for conviction. He should then distribute it to the 100 senators on a Friday, give them the weekend to look over it, and then hold the conviction vote on a Monday morning. Each senator can decide for him or herself whether to prepare or not, but that way they get the vote, they get the evidence out there, but they don't spend valuable time debating it.

I agree, we are in a Pandemic, no use to waste time on this trial

[Doomer]

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1353464367568846849?s=12

Sadly I don’t disagree with him. I think every minute spent not impeaching him - including doing all the good things a Democratic Senate should be doing - is another minute Republican Senators can come up with justifications for voting to acquit.

He’s absolutely correct.  The longer they wait, the fewer votes to convict there will be.  I’ve said this right from the beginning.  The Democrats are fools for waiting so long.

If they wait much longer, the only Republican votes to convict might dwindle down to just Romney and Murkowski.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

The D's have to convince Daines, Ernst, and Rick Scott to get 17 votes and they didn't have them from the beginning anyways.

Just like the power sharing agreement, the D's aren't gonna last much longer holding the Senate in limbo and Rs control Committee chairs anyways. If they don't go nuke soon, Schumer is gonna get rolled

[CellarDoor]

Portman just announces he is not running for re-election.  I wonder if that increases the odds he'd vote to convict.

[brucejoel99]

Portman just announces he is not running for re-election.  I wonder if that increases the odds he'd vote to convict.

Definitely, but he was always one of those who'd be voting to convict in the event that McConnell did.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1353752924401393665

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

This trial is worthless, Trump has been CENSURED but won't be convicted

[All Along The Watchtower]

Patrick Leahy famously is not intimidated by thugs, whether they be the Joker, Dick Cheney, or Donald Trump.

[SteveRogers]

Patrick Leahy famously is not intimidated by thugs, whether they be the Joker, Dick Cheney, or Donald Trump.

Yeah, but he also famously can’t tell when an open jar of Lex Luthor’s pee is sitting right next to him, and that troubles me.

[MarkD]

I have changed my vote in this thread from "No" to "Yes," with these thoughts in mind:

I still do not believe it is accurate and appropriate to accuse Trump of inciting the riot that occurred at the Capitol. During the speech at the rally that day, Trump explicitly told the audience that he expected them to be PEACEFUL when they marched to the Capitol. He never told the crowd to enter the Capitol building and he never told the crowd to do anything that stops Congress from counting the electoral college ballots. The individuals of the crowd who did enter the Capitol building probably had it in mind to do so ever since they made their plan to go to Washington D.C. that day, but Trump himself did not encourage them to do what they did. That was why I voted "No" to begin with, and I stand by that assessment.

But I have since decided that Trump does deserve the impeachment article that passed the House because of the portion of the article that observes "⁠President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to 'find' enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so."

I supported the first articles of impeachment against Trump -- those that passed the House in December 2019 -- and in the 2018 elections I was rooting for the Democrats to retake the House precisely because I did want Trump to be impeached.

[Badger]

I have changed my vote in this thread from "No" to "Yes," with these thoughts in mind:

I still do not believe it is accurate and appropriate to accuse Trump of inciting the riot that occurred at the Capitol. During the speech at the rally that day, Trump explicitly told the audience that he expected them to be PEACEFUL when they marched to the Capitol. He never told the crowd to enter the Capitol building and he never told the crowd to do anything that stops Congress from counting the electoral college ballots. The individuals of the crowd who did enter the Capitol building probably had it in mind to do so ever since they made their plan to go to Washington D.C. that day, but Trump himself did not encourage them to do what they did. That was why I voted "No" to begin with, and I stand by that assessment.

But I have since decided that Trump does deserve the impeachment article that passed the House because of the portion of the article that observes "⁠President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to 'find' enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so."

I supported the first articles of impeachment against Trump -- those that passed the House in December 2019 -- and in the 2018 elections I was rooting for the Democrats to retake the House precisely because I did want Trump to be impeached.

I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of Trump's to the mob on January 6th, and I believe a line-by-line parsing it out shows that any expectations for peaceful Behavior work very much with a nudge and wink, and buried Within calls for direct Hands-On action rather than peaceful protest. However, I also agree with you that his seeking to pressure the Georgia secretary of state was likewise fully impeachable.

More to the point, being willing to change one's mind is all too rare an event anywhere, including Atlas, so kudos to you for that.

[Kamala-Tim 2024]

I would also add that the rioters would not have even been in DC were it not at Trump’s urging.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1353752924401393665

Leahy is a Watergate baby, he was elected in the 1974 Watergate landslide.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1353752924401393665

Leahy is a Watergate baby, he was elected in the 1974 Watergate landslide.

Will Leahy run for reelection in 2022? I hope he's not thinking about becoming another Robert C. Byrd.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1353752924401393665

Leahy is a Watergate baby, he was elected in the 1974 Watergate landslide.

Will Leahy run for reelection in 2022? I hope he's not thinking about becoming another Robert C. Byrd.

As far as I know, he's been taking all of the necessary steps & doing what he needs to be doing to run for re-election. Of course, the difference between him & Byrd is that Leahy - be it in committee, on the floor, in interviews, in his wonderful movie cameos, etc. - is very much still on top of his game. He's very much a super-ager like Biden rather than a Feinstein or a Thurmond.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

As far as I know, he's been taking all of the necessary steps & doing what he needs to be doing to run for re-election. Of course, the difference between him & Byrd is that Leahy - be it in committee, on the floor, in interviews, in his wonderful movie cameos, etc. - is very much still on top of his game. He's very much a super-ager like Biden rather than a Feinstein or a Thurmond.

Patrick Leahy is awesome. However, it's time for him to step aside and let a fresh face succeed him. I hope that he doesn't run for re-election next year.

He's been in office for over 46 years. That's just mind boggling. There have been 9 presidents during his time as a U.S. senator.

[BlueSwan]

As far as I know, he's been taking all of the necessary steps & doing what he needs to be doing to run for re-election. Of course, the difference between him & Byrd is that Leahy - be it in committee, on the floor, in interviews, in his wonderful movie cameos, etc. - is very much still on top of his game. He's very much a super-ager like Biden rather than a Feinstein or a Thurmond.

Patrick Leahy is awesome. However, it's time for him to step aside and let a fresh face succeed him. I hope that he doesn't run for re-election next year.

He's been in office for over 46 years. That's just mind boggling. There have been 9 presidents during his time as a U.S. senator.

It's funny how US politicians just seem to stay in office until they die, become ill or are voted out.

In Denmark, politicians are generally regarded as "over the hill" when they hit 60 and most just leave politics around that point. It's very very rare for active politians to be over 70 in Denmark.

Both extremes are a bit sad, honestly. You shouldn't feel too old for politics because you are over 60. But on the other hand having the political system dominated by 80 year olds doesn't seem optimal either.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1353752924401393665

Leahy is a Watergate baby, he was elected in the 1974 Watergate landslide.

Will Leahy run for reelection in 2022? I hope he's not thinking about becoming another Robert C. Byrd.

Robert C Byrd is in a Wheel chair. Look at James Inhofe, he is 86 yrs old, Leahy won't retire