Gee, how would I ever think a crazy thing like that?
By projection.
I can’t see how I could be projecting that. I’ve just noticed you seem to often take spiteful joy in Republican missteps.
Maybe it would be “politically” a good idea, but there is an opportunity cost to everything. I want things that are pragmatically a good idea. For instance- 64,000 Americans died of opiod overdoses last year. That is more than 20 9/11s worth of casualties! How about addressing that, save some actual lives and future potential of the nation instead of charging at the windmill that is impeachment?
Yes, if it is a slam-dunk that it is not a windmill, go for it. But it is hard for me to imagine finding the votes.
Trump is despised by most members of House and Senate. If they had a reasonable hope that Trump’s base wouldn’t hang them for it, they’d push him out of office in a heartbeat. Everyone’s rooting for Mueller right now.
It took steady erosion over many months of hearings to get the public to agree Nixon had to be impeached. The votes weren’t there at the beginning of that one, either. Give Fox something they can’t avoid covering, and even their base can’t avoid seeing it.
CarnalK, you’re just verifying it.
Pence would likely do as much or more harm that Trump is doing, albeit he may be less likely to bumble his way into setting off a nuclear war.
A real gain would be forcing Republican senators to defend treasonous Trump, and losing everyone but hard core conservatives, or vote to remove him from office, thus losing the hard core conservatives they can’t be elected without. Impeachment would put them between a rock and a hard place.
You will never get a charge of treason, so you can forget about that.
First of all, it takes only a majority of the House of Representatives to “impeach.” It takes 67 Senators to “convict and remove.” Remember, Bill Clinton was “impeached” successfully.
If, somehow, the Democrats can get 51 Senators, they may consider it early in 2019, so they can claim, “A majority of Senators voted to remove him! #NotOurPresident!” However, what would be much more likely would be a symbolic gesture in November, 2020 if he loses the election.
John Mace, the crusher of dreams.
Pfft. The dude spends a lot of time tweeting, watching TV, golfing, and doing campaign rallies. One more useless endeavor isn’t going to stop him from “damaging” anything. He’s little more than a figurehead.
Thank you. Obviously “convict and remove” is what I mean, but I am not phrasing it correctly.
Not unless Mueller finds a true ‘smoking gun,’ which does seem unlikely.
Then again, with Trump’s big mouth, who knows?
I agree, it is probably not technically treason.
But what you you call a deal to help with the election in exchange for relaxing sanctions and letting Russia have its way with its neighbors?
If that is proven, it’s the biggest political scandal in US History.
A myth? Fiction?
Let’s hope. But I wouldn’t put it past him.
I agree that if the Dems reclaim the HoR in January it’s likely that Pelosi will be elected Speaker. But I think it’s important to remember that it’s not a guarantee. If the Speaker role goes to someone more palatable to the Pubs than Pelosi, that changes the dynamics quite a lot.
That’s fine, as long as we agree that the evidence available to date doesn’t support that theory.
I’m not following you here. Are you saying that the GOP holds the HoR in the next general election? Cause otherwise, wouldn’t Ryan no longer be Speaker after 20 Jan 2019? Or does the Speaker from the now-minority-party remain Speaker until the now-majority-party elects a replacement?
IIRC, if Pence leaves office for any reason (and Trump is still POTUS) then Trump nominates a new VP who must be approved by a majority of both the House and the Senate. If this happens after Jan 20 2019, who do you think Trump might nominate that would get approved? (Frankly, I have no idea. If McCain were still healthy, I’d say he’d have a chance. Otherwise I do not have a clue.)
So suppose Pence is out and the approval process for VP takes forever. Now if Trump is impeached and convicted, the presidency would go to the Speaker of the House, right? If that speaker is Pelosi and it looks like impeachment and conviction are imminent, I think that the GOP congress critters may well be pretty flexible on who would replace Pence.
I’m am not as sanguine as some about the potential for Democrats to regain control of the House in the 2018 general election, but if it occurs it pretty much guarantees that a Republican-led Senate will aboslutely not vote for removal of both Trump and Pence even if a case could be made for the latter. And the odds of the Senate being dominated by Democrats in that election are slim at best even if you assume they hold onto all existing seats. The notion of the GOP giving into an impeachment process that ends with Pelosi (or some other Democrat; Pelosi is the likely favorate for a Democratic House Speaker but not a certain lock) in the White House is about as fanciful as white rabbits in waistcoats worrying about the time. Unless, of course, you are operating under the assumption that the Republicans in Congress are suddenly going to take notice and do “the right thing” when the Mueller investigation reveals collusion with foreign agents even if it means their undoing, in which case even Charles Dodgson doesn’t have that much imagination.
This could all change if increasing negative public opinion befalls the Republican candidates as a whole in the next ten months, but Trump has already done pretty much all the damage he can do to the GOP and they’re still looking favored to control the Senate come 2019. So as it stands, impeachment and removal looks like a non-starter.
Stranger