The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Blitz24]

I believe it was yesterday that the president gave a speech indicating that he would do it all over again, and threatened congress over impeachment. This is an on-going situation, not a resolved one.

This is why I believe he will still be impeached even if it occurs after the 20th. The impeachment would take care of one factor in 2024, and that is to prevent Trump from running for office again (if he's still eligible otherwise).

 

[Keef]

I believe it was yesterday that the president gave a speech indicating that he would do it all over again, and threatened congress over impeachment. This is an on-going situation, not a resolved one.

Oh absolutely, that's why the impeachment needs to continue. But as for invoking the 25th, they thought too hard. They should've done it that day, the precedent was obvious as hell. Sometimes in extreme situations, I find, it's actually better to not think about what you're doing and go with your gut. All of us on the outside were screaming for the 25th and we were right but Pence dilly dallied and now we have to settle for impeachment, which should continue. Pelosi gave him the ultimatum, she's doing what she said she would.

 

[Danoff]

Oh absolutely, that's why the impeachment needs to continue. But as for invoking the 25th, they thought too hard. They should've done it that day, the precedent was obvious as hell. Sometimes in extreme situations, I find, it's actually better to not think about what you're doing and go with your gut. All of us on the outside were screaming for the 25th and we were right but Pence dilly dallied and now we have to settle for impeachment, which should continue. Pelosi gave him the ultimatum, she's doing what she said she would.

Pence could invoke the 25th based on yesterday's speech. Or after consideration. There is no reason to think that it does not apply now. I can see why it might have been better to do it sooner, but it is absolutely appropriate now, or tomorrow. None of that precludes ongoing impeachment though, we should be doing both.

 

[McLaren]

Seems info is coming out that there are GOP members who support impeachment, but are afraid for their lives/families if they say yes.

 

[jjaisli]

It's like Dr. Frankenstein pleading, Help, save me from the monster I created.

 

[UKMikey]

Seems info is coming out that there are GOP members who support impeachment, but are afraid for their lives/families if they say yes.

Looks like things haven't changed. Like someone else said, it's ironic that people who yuugely largely voted for a president on the issue of abortion are facing the consequences of getting into bed with people they maybe shouldn't've.

Rep. Peter Meijer: Some Republican representatives felt pressured to try and overturn the results of the PA and AZ votes because they felt their families were in danger if they voted to certify.

https://reason.com/2021/01/08/amash-successor-peter-meijer-trumps-deceptions-are-rankly-unfit/

 

[TexRex]

It's like Dr. Frankenstein pleading, Help, save me from the monster I created.

Nein!

 

[TB]

To me, it sounds like he's telling Congress to figure it out and he wants no part of it.

Because that's the kind of spine we want in a Presidential candidate...

 

[Scaff]

Seems info is coming out that there are GOP members who support impeachment, but are afraid for their lives/families if they say yes.

Now they know what most Democrat members go through pretty much daily with Trumps base.

 

[Rossell2]

And there it is. Impeachment 2: Impeach Harder.

 

[TexRex]

Now for the acquittal phase of the process.

In not unrelated news...

...Lindsey Graham is a ****ing worthless husk of a man.

 

[UKMikey]

And there it is. Impeachment 2: Impeach Harder.

I was hoping for "Elected Boogaloo".

 

[Dennisch]

Now for the acquittal phase of the process.

In not unrelated news...

...Lindsey Graham is a ****ing worthless husk of a man.

Those rats will do anything to keep their jobs. ****ing worthless piles of ass. All of them.

 

[Blitz24]

Those rats will do anything to keep their jobs. ****ing worthless piles of ass. All of them.

He also is throwing them under the bus and putting targets on their backs.

 

[Grayfox]

I still do not think the Senate will convict (if there's time for it to go that far) even though they should have done the first time.

But he had more supporters back then, he did not encite mob rule.

 

[TexRex]

But he had more supporters back then, he did not encite mob rule.

Assuming every Democratic senator votes to convict, which isn't really a reach, that conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate...or 17 Republicans. There are 435 voting members in the house and only ten voted to impeach.

I just don't see the GOP coming out for this. They're broken toys.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I predict 2-3 will vote for conviction.

 

[TexRex]

I predict 2-3 will vote for conviction.

I think it's right around there as well. Is that just a guess at a number or have you counted those who you think may?

Romney is a lock. I'm pretty sure Murkowski is right there as well. Toomey could flip on his approval of an impeachment attempt. Sasse had stern words but I don't know if he can be counted on for conviction.

McConnell's word is nothing. I don't expect anything from him personally on a conviction and I don't put any stock in his ability to sway additional senators.

 

[Blitz24]

I think it's right around there as well. Is that just a guess at a number or have you counted those who you think may?

Romney is a lock. I'm pretty sure Murkowski is right there as well. Toomey could flip on his approval of an impeachment attempt. Sasse had stern words but I don't know if he can be counted on for conviction.

McConnell's word is nothing. I don't expect anything from him personally on a conviction and I don't put any stock in his ability to sway additional senators.

See, the fact that the vote may not come until after the Inauguration might be against Trump. He could still be held liable if there is more violence during the next week. On top of that, if he immediately flees the country come the 21st, I can't imagine that will help earn support.

 

[TexRex]

See, the fact that the vote may not come until after the Inauguration might be against Trump. He could still be held liable if there is more violence during the next week. On top of that, if he immediately flees the country come the 21st, I can't imagine that will help earn support.

The latter seems a little far-fetched (it's me saying that, mind). Honestly, I think it's been decided already and a trial is just a formality and an opportunity for the overwhelming majority of the GOP to say, "we're still with Trump."

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I think it's right around there as well. Is that just a guess at a number or have you counted those who you think may?

Romney is a lock. I'm pretty sure Murkowski is right there as well. Toomey could flip on his approval of an impeachment attempt. Sasse had stern words but I don't know if he can be counted on for conviction.

McConnell's word is nothing. I don't expect anything from him personally on a conviction and I don't put any stock in his ability to sway additional senators.

Just a quick guess. I'm betting the same for Romney and Murkowski, and left room for another.

Their words don't really mean anything, so all the other others are wildcards unless they are forever trumpers.

 

[Lain]

Assuming every Democratic senator votes to convict, which isn't really a reach, that conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate...or 17 Republicans. There are 435 voting members in the house and only ten voted to impeach.

I just don't see the GOP coming out for this. They're broken toys.

Some House Republicans who want impeachment might’ve felt safe voting against it to please their voters, since it was definitely gonna go through thanks to the Democratic majority.

There’s a bit more moral pressure on Senate Republicans to do the right thing. I’m not super optimistic about it (they’re still Republicans after all), but I think there’s a chance.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Dennisch]

Delusional must be in their blood.

 

[Danoff]

Accidental self-own.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Hey, it's the most bipartisan vote in impeachment history. A new win for Trump

 

[UKMikey]

Accidental self-own.

Accidental was leaving the tweet up when his dad was impeached the first time. Not deleting it before the second impeachment is something else.

 

[TexRex]

Accidental self-own.

It's also a pretty **** take...which...yeah, that's not terribly surprising given the source.

At the time of that tweet, there had been half the number of presidential impeachments as there have been now; one for Bill Clinton and one for Andrew Johnson.

Slick Willy is an obvious one. He lied under oath during grand jury testimony and he both obstructed justice himself and gave orders to others to obstruct justice. I was for impeachment and disappointed that he wasn't convicted, despite having voted for him the first time around. Deplorable? Sure.

Andrew Johnson isn't so obvious. Though there were numerous charges against Johnson, the primary cause for impeachment was his violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which would [unconstitutionally] prohibit him from dismissing a member of his cabinet, specifically his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, for whose protection the act was explicitly drafted and passed--it was a trap. While my own political and social views mean I'm not particularly fond of Johnson's positions and policies, the case for his impeachment was a turd. Deplorable? Sure. Deplorable because he was impeached? Swing and a miss.

 

[Lain]

Do we make a new thread for Biden Impeachment, or...?

 

[TexRex]

"They were calling for him to be impeached before he even took office."