What will happen from the impeachment?

[James Brown]

What would Republican Senators gain if they vote President Trump out of office?

 

[Old Woman in Purple]

What would Republican Senators gain if they vote President Trump out of office?

Oh, I dunno.... Perhaps a chance to show they actually have morals & ethics? Not that that is worth even a spit these days, politics-wise. /cynic

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What would Republican Senators gain if they vote President Trump out of office?

Oh, I dunno.... Perhaps a chance to show they actually have morals & ethics? Not that that is worth even a spit these days, politics-wise. /cynic

They have abundantly shown they have neither. But it's more about the Republicans in the seats that are up for grabs in 2020 and whether or not THEIR constituents give a shit if they have morals and ethics.

 

[Elixir]

What would Republican Senators gain if they vote President Trump out of office?

Oh, I dunno.... Perhaps a chance to show they actually have morals & ethics? Not that that is worth even a spit these days, politics-wise. /cynic

They have abundantly shown they have neither. But it's more about the Republicans in the seats that are up for grabs in 2020 and whether or not THEIR constituents give a shit if they have morals and ethics.

It takes a lot of niaveté to think that a majority voting against those republicans is going to remove them from office in 2020. Minimum 10% margin will be required to knock off a gerrymandered representative, even without vote-altering shenanigans (to which Congress is about to give its assent), and red state senators are fairly guaranteed a free ride thanks to FOX, Sinclair Broadcasting and social media blitzes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Democrats have adequately demonstrated two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The "transcript" is enough to show he communicated to Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating his political opponent. And Trump told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas. Among other supporting evidence for both of these articles. Why do you think more evidence is needed for Republican Senators?

Because it seems pretty clear to me that not enough of them will consider that telling Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating a possible crime by Biden, or that he told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas, is sufficient for removal of a President for abuse of power or any other reason. Again, they would need more evidence againt Trump, not necessarily more evidence that he did what he is accused of (i.e., telling Zelensky, etc.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Democrats have adequately demonstrated two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The "transcript" is enough to show he communicated to Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating his political opponent. And Trump told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas. Among other supporting evidence for both of these articles. Why do you think more evidence is needed for Republican Senators?

Because it seems pretty clear to me that not enough of them will consider that telling Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating a possible crime by Biden, or that he told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas, is sufficient for removal of a President for abuse of power or any other reason. Again, they would need more evidence againt Trump, not necessarily more evidence that he did what he is accused of (i.e., telling Zelensky, etc.)

There are two Articles. You are speaking of the first one, regarding Abuse of Power. Of which could also be added, Giuliani working in Ukraine pushing for this a couple months before the phone call, as attested in the hearings? It can't be much clearer that Trump wanted an investigation. The only potential avenue for more evidence would be Mulvaney confirming the military aid was held back explicitly as part of a deal. Of course, Mulvaney hasn't testified... see below.

The second Article is Obstruction of Congress. There is no gray here. Trump obstructed Congresses investigation. There is no amount of evidence that can be added to support this accusation anymore than it can be. The only question is if it is considered removable from office bad.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Democrats have adequately demonstrated two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The "transcript" is enough to show he communicated to Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating his political opponent. And Trump told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas. Among other supporting evidence for both of these articles. Why do you think more evidence is needed for Republican Senators?

Because it seems pretty clear to me that not enough of them will consider that telling Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating a possible crime by Biden, or that he told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas, is sufficient for removal of a President for abuse of power or any other reason. Again, they would need more evidence againt Trump, not necessarily more evidence that he did what he is accused of (i.e., telling Zelensky, etc.)

There are two Articles. You are speaking of the first one, regarding Abuse of Power. Of which could also be added, Giuliani working in Ukraine pushing for this a couple months before the phone call, as attested in the hearings? It can't be much clearer that Trump wanted an investigation. The only potential avenue for more evidence would be Mulvaney confirming the military aid was held back explicitly as part of a deal. Of course, Mulvaney hasn't testified... see below.

The second Article is Obstruction of Congress. There is no gray here. Trump obstructed Congresses investigation. There is no amount of evidence that can be added to support this accusation anymore than it can be. The only question is if it is considered removable from office bad.

No, I'm speaking of both (or more potential ones). That is why I said "or any other reason". It's not even clear to me how many of them will consider that "Obstruction of Congress" is something for which a POTUS can be removed (the causes for removal are based on the Constitution, not on federal law, and I do not know how they're going to interpret that one), but I think if a sufficient number hold that that would be a cause for removal, they're also going to hold that telling them not to testify was within his constitutional powers, so that they don't constitute obstruction of congress in the relevant sense.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Obstructing Congress is equivalent to a felony, which would fall under a "high crime." It is entirely constitutionally based, because a primary mandate of Congress is to keep the Office of the President in check. This is why both Nixon's and Clinton's articles included obstruction.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Democrats have adequately demonstrated two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The "transcript" is enough to show he communicated to Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating his political opponent. And Trump told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas. Among other supporting evidence for both of these articles. Why do you think more evidence is needed for Republican Senators?

Because it seems pretty clear to me that not enough of them will consider that telling Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating a possible crime by Biden, or that he told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas, is sufficient for removal of a President for abuse of power or any other reason. Again, they would need more evidence againt Trump, not necessarily more evidence that he did what he is accused of (i.e., telling Zelensky, etc.)

But you are not completely arguing against my position which is that he will be censured in the Senate, not removed...for something inconsequential such as "the appearance of conflict of interest." See, you are keeping it to extremes instead of something in the middle.

I will add that it is kind of weird that you are arguing only on the evidence we have seen so far since the actual trial happens in the Senate. [Remember the topic of the thread is what is going to be the outcome of the Senate trial.] Someone like Romney ought to agree to subpoena Bolton. Yes or no?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Democrats have adequately demonstrated two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The "transcript" is enough to show he communicated to Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating his political opponent. And Trump told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas. Among other supporting evidence for both of these articles. Why do you think more evidence is needed for Republican Senators?

Because it seems pretty clear to me that not enough of them will consider that telling Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating a possible crime by Biden, or that he told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas, is sufficient for removal of a President for abuse of power or any other reason. Again, they would need more evidence againt Trump, not necessarily more evidence that he did what he is accused of (i.e., telling Zelensky, etc.)

But you are not completely arguing against my position which is that he will be censured in the Senate, not removed...for something inconsequential such as "the appearance of conflict of interest." See, you are keeping it to extremes instead of something in the middle.

I will add that it is kind of weird that you are arguing only on the evidence we have seen so far since the actual trial happens in the Senate. [Remember the topic of the thread is what is going to be the outcome of the Senate trial.] Someone like Romney ought to agree to subpoena Bolton. Yes or no?

I'm not keeping anything to the extremes. I wasn't making any comments on the option of censure, but not removal. It might happen, but I think it is improbable.

And yes, some of them would want to subpoena Bolton. I said on the current evidence, he will not be removed, and far more would be needed (I don't think anything Bolton knows will do).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Obstructing Congress is equivalent to a felony, which would fall under a "high crime."

Oh, you mean obstructing Congress meeting the criterion for a felony?
That seems to require threats or force or something like that (except the "corruptly" part, but that's open to interpretation)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505


If you have another law in mind, I think enough Republican Senators will say that actions by the POTUS in this context are within his powers, and as such, they do not constitute obstruction of Congress.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Obstructing Congress is equivalent to a felony, which would fall under a "high crime."

Oh, you mean obstructing Congress meeting the criterion for a felony?

No, I mean it is equivalent to committing a felony and thus considered a "high crime."

I think enough Republican Senators will say that actions by the POTUS in this context are within his powers, and as such, they do not constitute obstruction of Congress.

It doesn't matter if they argue whether or not they are within the powers of the President. The question is do they violate the powers of Congress. Congress is more powerful than the President. He is subordinate to them, not the other way around. No one--including the President--can obstruct a Congressional investigation without an exceptional reason to do so. Trump has no such reason.

Saying, "I'm the President and I can do whatever I want" is not a reason. Again, that's precisely why both Nixon's and Clinton's articles included obstruction and the SCOTUS has routinely concluded that no President is above the law. In that case, the "law" means the terms of the Constitution first and foremost.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, I mean it is equivalent to committing a felony and thus considered a "high crime."

I think enough Republican Senators will say that actions by the POTUS in this context are within his powers, and as such, they do not constitute obstruction of Congress.

It doesn't matter if they argue whether or not they are within the powers of the President. The question is do they violate the powers of Congress. Congress is more powerful than the President. He is subordinate to them, not the other way around. No one--including the President--can obstruct a Congressional investigation without an exceptional reason to do so. Trump has no such reason.

Saying, "I'm the President and I can do whatever I want" is not a reason. Again, that's precisely why both Nixon's and Clinton's articles included obstruction.

I guess we will have to wait and see what they say about it, but I think that enough of them will say that he was within the POTUS prerogatives (the reason would be to keep some things secret or whatever).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Obstructing Congress is equivalent to a felony, which would fall under a "high crime."

Oh, you mean obstructing Congress meeting the criterion for a felony?
That seems to require threats or force or something like that (except the "corruptly" part, but that's open to interpretation)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Everything is up to interpretation because that is how language works. What do you mean specifically? Pointing to something and needing help with an explanation doesn't count.

If you have another law in mind, I think enough Republican Senators will say that actions by the POTUS in this context are within his powers, and as such, they do not constitute obstruction of Congress.

Why is that a valid argument, i.e. democracies require transparency among co-equal branches of govt and to the people to an extent except in cases of national security which this isn't. So what power enumerated in the Constitution are you talking about?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No, I mean it is equivalent to committing a felony and thus considered a "high crime."

I think enough Republican Senators will say that actions by the POTUS in this context are within his powers, and as such, they do not constitute obstruction of Congress.

It doesn't matter if they argue whether or not they are within the powers of the President. The question is do they violate the powers of Congress. Congress is more powerful than the President. He is subordinate to them, not the other way around. No one--including the President--can obstruct a Congressional investigation without an exceptional reason to do so. Trump has no such reason.

Saying, "I'm the President and I can do whatever I want" is not a reason. Again, that's precisely why both Nixon's and Clinton's articles included obstruction and the SCOTUS has routinely concluded that no President is above the law. In that case, the "law" means the terms of the Constitution first and foremost.

I agree with everything you're saying. But not enough Joe Sixpacks give a shit or are aware enough to see what's happening. It isn't an emotional hatefest, it's serious.

Honestly, every person I know who supports Trumpo doesn't respect the law. They want what they want and if they can get away with breaking laws they will do so because they think they're entitled. Whether it's lying about financial need, stealing outright, committing insurance fraud or something else, they really don't have a sense of justice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But you are not completely arguing against my position which is that he will be censured in the Senate, not removed...for something inconsequential such as "the appearance of conflict of interest." See, you are keeping it to extremes instead of something in the middle.

I will add that it is kind of weird that you are arguing only on the evidence we have seen so far since the actual trial happens in the Senate. [Remember the topic of the thread is what is going to be the outcome of the Senate trial.] Someone like Romney ought to agree to subpoena Bolton. Yes or no?

I'm not keeping anything to the extremes. I wasn't making any comments on the option of censure, but not removal. It might happen, but I think it is improbable.

How did you compute a probability of < 50%?

And yes, some of them would want to subpoena Bolton. I said on the current evidence, he will not be removed, and far more would be needed (I don't think anything Bolton knows will do).

But do you think that "far more" would be needed merely for censure over something inconsequential, like the appearance of conflict of interest? I don't think it would be far more merely for that.

This option would allow swing state Republicans to remain loyal to the President, appear loyal to the Constitution, and give the appearance to Independents that they are not subservient to the President without alienating much of their hardcore Republican base at all. Likewise, for any Republican Senator such as Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio who may wish to appeal to the general populace in the future for Presidential election purposes the option of censuring the President makes them electable. There are approximately 13 competitive races plus just these three (not that we know them all) plus all the Dems is very close to the 2/3 needed. So the bar of evidence you are talking for conviction may not be the case for censure.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Everything is up to interpretation because that is how language works. What do you mean specifically? Pointing to something and needing help with an explanation doesn't count.

It's open enough. If he shot someone to stop him from testifying and that was established, it's not open to interpretation in a relevant sense that he used force: everyone would recognize that he did. On the other hand, if he ordered people under his authority not to testify before Congress, some will say that that is not corrupt, but reasonable in context, or whatever.

Why is that a valid argument, i.e. democracies require transparency among co-equal branches of govt and to the people to an extent except in cases of national security which this isn't. So what power enumerated in the Constitution are you talking about?

I'm talking about the use of his power to give orders to his subordinates, for example to keep some things secret or whatever. There is enough wiggle room there to satisfy enough Republican senators, in my view.

 

[Gun Nut]

The Republicans have made the best possible argument for Obstruction that can be made.
They claim that the "second-hand" witnesses' testimony is not sufficient to proceed. Congress cannot move forward. they are obstructed, stopped, prevented from reasonably moving forward, because the info is "only second-hand".
Let's all agree with that... Congress cannot proceed with that level of evidence.
Trump has prevented the first-hand witnesses from testifying. In doing so, he has created this agreed upon inability to proceed.. obstruction of congress proven.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

GOP: You can't convict on Article One because most of the testimony has been second hand.
Dem: What about Article Two?
GOP: Oh, that is bad, but it isn't bad enough to warrant removing from office.
Dem: But if they testified, they'd implicate Trump's guilt of Abuse of Power.
GOP: Yeah, but that also doesn't raise to the level to warrant removing him from office.

There are two Articles. You are speaking of the first one, regarding Abuse of Power. Of which could also be added, Giuliani working in Ukraine pushing for this a couple months before the phone call, as attested in the hearings? It can't be much clearer that Trump wanted an investigation. The only potential avenue for more evidence would be Mulvaney confirming the military aid was held back explicitly as part of a deal. Of course, Mulvaney hasn't testified... see below.

The second Article is Obstruction of Congress. There is no gray here. Trump obstructed Congresses investigation. There is no amount of evidence that can be added to support this accusation anymore than it can be. The only question is if it is considered removable from office bad.

No, I'm speaking of both (or more potential ones). That is why I said "or any other reason". It's not even clear to me how many of them will consider that "Obstruction of Congress" is something for which a POTUS can be removed (the causes for removal are based on the Constitution, not on federal law, and I do not know how they're going to interpret that one), but I think if a sufficient number hold that that would be a cause for removal, they're also going to hold that telling them not to testify was within his constitutional powers, so that they don't constitute obstruction of congress in the relevant sense.

Nixon had to give up the tapes based on the SCOTUS case Nixon v US, so there is no reasonable basis to suggest the President can withhold staff and documents from a Congressional investigation.

Speaking of which, if a President can withhold documentation and staff from Congressional investigations, there can be no "Obstruction of Congress", ever. Additionally, such a concept could make impeachment almost impossible, save egregious publicly recorded behavior... like shooting a person on Fifth Avenue.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How did you compute a probability of < 50%?

As usual, humans look at the available information (e.g., what we know about the case, about them, etc.), and come up with an intuitive probabilistic assessment. I did the same everyone does in their lives, nearly all of the time. It looks improbable. Not enough Republican senators appear inclined to censure, in my view, though that might change depending on both new evidence or new political developments on unrelated matters.

Why not?

I don't see any reason to suspect Bolton has evidence of things that are particularly more damning than what was said.