What will happen from the impeachment?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump would likely be motivated to do so, out of revenge. He doesn't need to fund much, by the way. He just needs to tweet, and maybe show up once or twice.



The party will not go up against Trump. They will other do as he says, or stay out of it.

Of course we will have to wait and see, but right now an inconsequential censure is very viable. There isn't really a good reason to poopoo all over it.

poopoo all over it?
I wasn't even talking about that scenario when you brought it up for some reason. And I'm not poopooing all over it, but just making my assessment that it is improbable. I'm not even saying it will not happen.

Your post seems inconsistent with your previous posts in which you stated the outcome would depend on the evidence and specifically criticized others as dehumanizing Republicans. You now seem to be saying the Party will never disagree with Trump, no matter the evidence. Meanwhile, I am not really saying they would be in disagreement as a seemingly inconsequential censure might be something Trump could agree to behind the scenes or just not get the ramifications of. In any case, what is the bar of evidence for when the Party will disagree with Trump in your view? In my view, a very minor disagreement over seemingly inconsequential wording in a censure does not have a bar that cannot be reached in the hearings because some Senators have already expressed support for a greater censure.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, but in on-line discussions, miscommunication is rampant. Still, reading context, he said

You mean obfuscate? You were arguing about evidence, but at least you cleared that hurdle and are understanding that the GOP's obfuscation will have nothing to do with any actual honest interpretation of the law.

From there, I got the distinct impression that he meant deliberately.

However, his reply to my post - in which he considers people who say what they believe a case of obfuscation - is not compatible with that interpretation, so I reckoned that despite what appeared to be the case in context, he probably did not mean necessarily deliberately, but I asked to confirm.

By the way, what do you understand, reading context?

I kinda don't care. I only brought it up because your phrasing was weird. Obfuscated, if you will. Ironic.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your post seems inconsistent with your previous posts in which you stated the outcome would depend on the evidence and specifically criticized others as dehumanizing Republicans.

No, there is no inconsistency. I originally said that in order to get Trump removed, Democrats would need a lot more evidence against Trump than what they have, which then was challenged, and then it's all on record, but I was always saying that the evidence that would be required would be - again - far more than what they have, and moreover, also considerably more than what would be rationally required - and more than I think will be gathered, very probably.

You now seem to be saying the Party will never disagree with Trump, no matter the evidence.

No, that is not it. They are human, and while they are biased towards their side and are being epistemically irrational in most cases, they are not epistemically irrational to any arbitrary degree. For nearly every one of them, there is an amount of evidence that would suffice.

Now before I was talking about GOP Senators. Now we are talking about GOP authorities at a state level in swing states, who do not have to decide on impeachment, but - in this scenario - they are assessing whom to support in the primaries. It's a very different matter. Many probably do not like Trump already. But in those cases, for the sake of their political careers, they'll probably stay out of it, rather than going up against someone endorsed by Trump. There is some amount of evidence that would change that too - even their assessment as to whether it's in their interest to go against Trump would change. But in my assessment, that is unlikely to happen.

Meanwhile, I am not really saying they would be in disagreement as a seemingly inconsequential censure might be something Trump could agree to behind the scenes or just not get the ramifications of.

It would be different if Trump were to agree, because in that case probably he would not support candidates going up against censoring Senators. But I don't think he's going to do that. Why would he?

Meanwhile, I am not really saying they would be in disagreement as a seemingly inconsequential censure might be something Trump could agree to behind the scenes or just not get the ramifications of. In any case, what is the bar of evidence for when the Party will disagree with Trump in your view?

That depends on the member of the GOP, and the thing that they're trying to establish. For example, it is one thing to persuade a person that Trump has meet the conditions for removal than to convince them that he meets the conditions for censure. And then, it is in some cases a different thing to convince them to actually vote for removal or censure. And then it's a different thing to convince them to support a candidate who voted for censure. And then, that varies from person to person.

By the way, my original comment that Democrats would need a lot more evidence to remove him was not a suggestion that the bar for sufficient Senators would be crossed. I think that's very improbable. Now surely the bar for censure is lower, and the bar for supporting an opponent after there was a vote of censure is somewhere in between, as you need the evidence for censure first, and then to get enough members of the local GOP to support the opponent. I think they're all improbable, but to different degrees.

In my view, a very minor disagreement over seemingly inconsequential wording in a censure does not have a bar that cannot be reached in the hearings because some Senators have already expressed support for a greater censure.

If you mean the bar for convincing them that Trump deserves censure, that I think it can be reached realistically for enough Senators. But the bar for convincing them to actually go ahead with it is higher, because in that case, they are also considering whether it's better not to censure him, either for the sake of the country, or their own political careers (e.g., they would consider what the primary voters will be inclined to do, and the voters bars to reckon that Trump deserves it, or even whether GOP Senators should censure him even if he deserves it, etc.), or both - and maybe a few other factors too.

 

[fromderinside]

Unlike most of the rest here I think Trump will resign when the drip drip drip of proven allegations drives Republicans to go to Trump and tell him he is going to be impeached if he doesn't resign.

He already knows he's going to be impeached. He's not probably not afraid, as he counts on winning the Senate trial.

.. and the 2020 election... not on merit.. on the hard work of the Democrats that will skillfully pluck disaster from the talons of success, as usual.
Latest evidence of this.. The "No Malarkey" tour. Nuff said.

Gun Nut calling democrats bad political planners. Whodathnk.

I prefer operational critiques rather that gotcha finger pointing.

Like:

I guess Gun Nut missed the episode where republicans nominated an idiot who knows nothing about how policy switching on a whim impacts alliances. Yes the one whose policies and actions are now endangering a bunch of countries around Russia.

Now these fearful republican politicians choose job security rather than stand up for enduring policy with those we support against such aggression.

In addition:

I'm calling republicans who let this idiot do did this to us by putting their electoral safety above national security traitors.

And I'm calling those who support him and cheer him unpatriotic money grubbing idiots.

Finally:

Maybe if you keep up your spam I'll get angry and say something that might embarass you.

 

[southernhybrid]

Actually, the people in Iowa seem to like the "No Malarky Tour". The latest poll from Iowa has Biden at the top with Sanders just one point behind him. I thought at first that Biden made a mistake, but I also thought that he was just poking some fun at himself. It's refreshing to see a politician who can make fun of himself, unlike the current asshole in the White House, who can't take the faintest bit of criticism without going on a twitter rant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Actually, the people in Iowa seem to like the "No Malarky Tour". The latest poll from Iowa has Biden at the top with Sanders just one point behind him. I thought at first that Biden made a mistake, but I also thought that he was just poking some fun at himself. It's refreshing to see a politician who can make fun of himself, unlike the current asshole in the White House, who can't take the faintest bit of criticism without going on a twitter rant.

It's interesting how people identify with Trumpo's emotional rants. I think he attracts people who think they should be rich, but they've been conspired against and so have to work for a living, deal with problems but go about trying to destroy their fantasy enemies.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, the people in Iowa seem to like the "No Malarky Tour". The latest poll from Iowa has Biden at the top with Sanders just one point behind him. I thought at first that Biden made a mistake, but I also thought that he was just poking some fun at himself. It's refreshing to see a politician who can make fun of himself, unlike the current asshole in the White House, who can't take the faintest bit of criticism without going on a twitter rant.

It's interesting how people identify with Trumpo's emotional rants. I think he attracts people who think they should be rich, but they've been conspired against and so have to work for a living, deal with problems but go about trying to destroy their fantasy enemies.

Or WOULD be rich, if the government wasn't stealing their taxes to pay for welfare moms and such...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, the people in Iowa seem to like the "No Malarky Tour". The latest poll from Iowa has Biden at the top with Sanders just one point behind him. I thought at first that Biden made a mistake, but I also thought that he was just poking some fun at himself. It's refreshing to see a politician who can make fun of himself, unlike the current asshole in the White House, who can't take the faintest bit of criticism without going on a twitter rant.

It's interesting how people identify with Trumpo's emotional rants. I think he attracts people who think they should be rich, but they've been conspired against and so have to work for a living, deal with problems but go about trying to destroy their fantasy enemies.

Life is hard... but it wasn't hard when I was a kid. Of course, I didn't have a job. I saw an elderly man with a MAGA hat on... and all I can think is, when and why was America better? During the wars? Amid the assassinations? When we were worried about being nuked by the Soviets?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Actually, the people in Iowa seem to like the "No Malarky Tour". The latest poll from Iowa has Biden at the top with Sanders just one point behind him. I thought at first that Biden made a mistake, but I also thought that he was just poking some fun at himself. It's refreshing to see a politician who can make fun of himself, unlike the current asshole in the White House, who can't take the faintest bit of criticism without going on a twitter rant.

It's interesting how people identify with Trumpo's emotional rants. I think he attracts people who think they should be rich, but they've been conspired against and so have to work for a living, deal with problems but go about trying to destroy their fantasy enemies.

Life is hard... but it wasn't hard when I was a kid. Of course, I didn't have a job. I saw an elderly man with a MAGA hat on... and all I can think is, when and why was America better? During the wars? Amid the assassinations? When we were worried about being nuked by the Soviets?

The end of WWII to the 70's, was the golden age, I'd guess. And in ways, I agree. It certainly was easier to get a job, and pay was better.

What's ludicrous to me is the idea that Trump or even a competent Prez could return us to that state.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Life is hard... but it wasn't hard when I was a kid. Of course, I didn't have a job. I saw an elderly man with a MAGA hat on... and all I can think is, when and why was America better? During the wars? Amid the assassinations? When we were worried about being nuked by the Soviets?

The end of WWII to the 70's, was the golden age, I'd guess. And in ways, I agree. It certainly was easier to get a job, and pay was better.

What's ludicrous to me is the idea that Trump or even a competent Prez could return us to that state.

It's easy, ban computers. There could be some unintended consequences, but if the 50's to 70's are as great as people remember them, it'll be worth it!

 

[Horatio Parker]

Life is hard... but it wasn't hard when I was a kid. Of course, I didn't have a job. I saw an elderly man with a MAGA hat on... and all I can think is, when and why was America better? During the wars? Amid the assassinations? When we were worried about being nuked by the Soviets?

The end of WWII to the 70's, was the golden age, I'd guess. And in ways, I agree. It certainly was easier to get a job, and pay was better.

What's ludicrous to me is the idea that Trump or even a competent Prez could return us to that state.

It's easy, ban computers. There could be some unintended consequences, but if the 50's to 70's are as great as people remember them, it'll be worth it!

Ok, but they must be able to keep their phones.

 

[Gun Nut]

Actually, the people in Iowa seem to like the "No Malarky Tour". The latest poll from Iowa has Biden at the top with Sanders just one point behind him. I thought at first that Biden made a mistake, but I also thought that he was just poking some fun at himself. It's refreshing to see a politician who can make fun of himself, unlike the current asshole in the White House, who can't take the faintest bit of criticism without going on a twitter rant.

It's interesting how people identify with Trumpo's emotional rants. I think he attracts people who think they should be rich, but they've been conspired against and so have to work for a living, deal with problems but go about trying to destroy their fantasy enemies.

Or WOULD be rich, if the government wasn't stealing their taxes to pay for welfare moms and such...

.. and all the Jews, Niggers, and Atheist Faggots rigging the system against them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Actually, the people in Iowa seem to like the "No Malarky Tour". The latest poll from Iowa has Biden at the top with Sanders just one point behind him. I thought at first that Biden made a mistake, but I also thought that he was just poking some fun at himself. It's refreshing to see a politician who can make fun of himself, unlike the current asshole in the White House, who can't take the faintest bit of criticism without going on a twitter rant.

It's interesting how people identify with Trumpo's emotional rants. I think he attracts people who think they should be rich, but they've been conspired against and so have to work for a living, deal with problems but go about trying to destroy their fantasy enemies.

Life is hard... but it wasn't hard when I was a kid. Of course, I didn't have a job. I saw an elderly man with a MAGA hat on... and all I can think is, when and why was America better? During the wars? Amid the assassinations? When we were worried about being nuked by the Soviets?

You've nailed it. People want to be kids again like in middle and grade school, maybe just as puberty is arriving or just before. At this age we're naive and largely immune to despair because we're not so smart and people are taking care of us.

But then we have to grow up and become proactive, get a job, deal with unpleasantness, unfairness and plain old bad luck. Of course there are lots of other things that are super.

Getting a decent paying job was certainly easier back in the 70's, people think this was a normal time and it should all be so rosy. They overlook the bad stuff. Maybe without such fantasies more people would be jumping off bridges. But I digress.

... and all the Jews, Niggers, and Atheist Faggots rigging the system against them.

So true.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There can be no censure from the Senate. The republicans there and in the House have been saying he didn't do anything wrong. And this is kinda cool because now it means any president can do the same thing. And then he can refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. It's all perfectly legal going forward.

There are indeed Republicans in the Senate who are saying Trump did nothing wrong. The vast majority of Senators have not discussed censure though. A few are on record...

For example, Lamar Alexander said what he did was inappropriate, but fell short of being in favor of impeachment. A censure would be compatible with Alexander's take.

Susan Collins is afraid to say anything at this time.

So let me elaborate, those persons are talking about a harsh censure. I am not. I am discussing a compromise on a compromise: a statement that Trump did not intend to do wrong but ought not in the future create an appearance of conflict of interest. This is less than a typical censure and could still be used for all persons to save face.

Senator Pat Roberts said a few Senators might support a censure in exactly this manner, i.e. "depending on what it says."

Senator Kramer said a censure would be an admission of doing something "terribly wrong," but in the scenario I wrote about a long time ago now in the op this isn't true. So the premise is false for that argument.

Now like Collins, Romney also wouldn't comment on censure at this time.

But note according to both Politico and National Review there are Senators who said they'd be in favor of it privately.

Now, again, this is merely out of a small sample because it really hasn't been discussed and in context it's about a vaguely defined censure...not the half-assed kind I have been discussing which ought to have more support.

Lastly, let me just add that if it becomes a thing on the table, I think Democrats should take it. The reason is the same as Pelosi's reason for the impeachment-to protect the 2020 election. Even an inconsequential censure establishes the Legislature as a co-equal branch and puts in writing that Trump ought not behave in such a way. So, if he were to do it again, like with China or Saudi Arabia, having the censure on record would put Dems in a good position to call him on it and either apply real consequences or use it against Republicans at large.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/politics/lisa-murkowski-senate-impeachment-trial/index.html

To add--

Murkowski has also recently shown some moderate views on the subject and so I believe she would also be easily convinced to move to censure. So, that's Alexander, Romney, Collins, Roberts and Murkowski.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, I guess we should add to this thread: Trump will start a war to avoid impeachment and as a re-election ploy, because that's how deeply evil and desperate he is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, I guess we should add to this thread: Trump will start a war to avoid impeachment and as a re-election ploy, because that's how deeply evil and desperate he is.

A lot of people voted for the person with the most entertainment value, they thought he was perfect. We may be now finding out what that show is going to cost.

3500 more troops headed to Kuwait just in case they're needed. That used to be called an escalation. Now we just call it a surge or added force protection.

I agree he killed a very bad person. Fuck, if you're going to kill all the very bad people on the planet you're going to run out of bullets.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This just in...

The impeachment will not be dismissed.

Several Republicans such as Lamar Alexander, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins say they want to hear from witnesses. There may be more.

These are largely the same persons I had posted might favor censure.

 

[Elixir]

This just in...

The impeachment will not be dismissed.

Several Republicans such as Lamar Alexander, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins say they want to hear from witnesses. There may be more.

These are largely the same persons I had posted might favor censure.

So far it's just lip service. Let's see what happens when the chips are down.
Still wish Pelosi would hang on to the article... it's not too late!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This just in...

The impeachment will not be dismissed.

Several Republicans such as Lamar Alexander, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins say they want to hear from witnesses. There may be more.

These are largely the same persons I had posted might favor censure.

But will they change their mind once it goes to the Senate?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This just in...

The impeachment will not be dismissed.

Several Republicans such as Lamar Alexander, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins say they want to hear from witnesses. There may be more.

These are largely the same persons I had posted might favor censure.

But will they change their mind once it goes to the Senate?

A vote on whether to hear from witnesses will not happen until after opening arguments. So there is a glimmer of hope that witnesses will be allowed.

As far as I am concerned that would be a victory because the most important witnesses did not testify. If theses witnesses can be sworn in and made to testify that is a major victory because their testimony is on record. Can perjury ensue later?