Or are you saying the GOP senators would vote to remove Trump over the real articles, but still cover their asses with the base by pointing to the articles they voted against? Is there even article-by-article voting?
In any event, I think it’d be nuts to present anything but the strongest possible case.
If the 'pubs can attack any of the articles of impeachment, they will go after the weaknesses in that one and ignore the other ones.
If you really want to get it straight, re-read the post. Spelling it out for you, even conviction on a single one of the Articles clears the way for removal. The America-hating fuckstick has to be acquitted on ALL articles, in order to stay in the WH.
Okay, never mind.
Anyway, the answer to your last question is, yes. Each Article is voted on separately.
Ignorance fought! Thanks, sincerely.
Now carlb’s idea makes a little more sense – but I still don’t like it, for two reasons:
[ol]
[li]If the Dems include less serious articles, it will be easy for Pubs to dismiss the entire impeachment as partisan and frivolous.[/li][li]Voters will only care about the outcome, not the individual articles, so GOP senators won’t get any CYA with their base by only voting to remove on the “serious” articles.[/li][/ol]
Wikipedia has a nicely detailed page about Senate impeachment of federal judges.
Looking through it, there seems to be evidence for the tactic of including ‘weaker’ articles of impeachment as part of the whole bundle, i.e. some judges were acquitted on multiple charges yet were still convicted of others and so removed from office. Here is one example and here is another.
In fact, when I looked at the Wiki article the other day (before I had read carib’s post) I just assumed there had been an effort made to give all the senators opportunity to vote for acquittal on at least one charge in order to give them political cover as necessary.
Whether this tactic could or would be applied to impeachment of the POTUS is unclear.
Amen. When you’re smashing a cockroach you want the biggest brick you can find.
When this does go to the Senate the Democrats should put more emphasis on Trump’s demand that Ukraine exonerate Russia for interfering in the 2016 election and less on the demand to investigate the Bidens. With the latter I could see many Senators excusing it as fighting corruption and somehow being a legitimate use of presidential power. With the former, however, you have money that the Senate ordered Trump to give to Ukraine to defend itself from its mortal enemy that he withheld to benefit that enemy. Not only that he wanted Ukraine to find evidence that contradicted the findings of the Senate’s own Intelligence Committee. Much harder for any Senator to excuse that.
Yeah, this is what I had in mind, and I agree that your counters have a lot of validity. I guess I was thinking that, based on the last couple of days, once articles are formally voted upon it’s going to be very difficult to completely hand-wave away the worst of Trump’s offenses. This could provide an opportunity to sway a few Republican Senators, particularly ones who are already uncomfortable with Trump. If giving them a little political cover helps get a conviction and removal, I’m OK with it. I wish it weren’t necessary, but I can live with it.
I was trying to figure out swayable Senators based on their class - figuring that the most recently elected class has more room to maneuver than the class up for re-election in 2020. Turns out, I don’t know as much about how dug-in the various Senators are as I thought I might.
For the sake of discussion, here is the list of Republican Senators in Class I, who are not up for re-election until 2024:
Barrasso, John (R-WY)
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)
Braun, Mike (R-IN)
Cramer, Kevin (R-ND)
Cruz, Ted (R-TX)
Fischer, Deb (R-NE)
Hawley, Josh (R-MO)
Romney, Mitt (R-UT)
Scott, Rick (R-FL)
Wicker, Roger F. (R-MS)
Romney would seem the most likely to break from the pack, and I’ve heard some thinking that Cruz might actually be amenable to hearing evidence and voting on it. I would bet that Rick Scott will stay with Trump to the end, and I think Blackburn is unlikely to consider removal. I just don’t know enough about the others to offer an opinion.
What about the Republican distraction about “no quid pro quo”? What about the claim that since the aid wasn’t specifically, dumbly and incriminatingly mentioned, the Ukrainians didn’t even know that the aid had been approved and then held by Trump?
Just a single report, for all I know. And I suppose, but I doubt, that it may not be accurate:
“But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.
The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.
The timing of the communications about the issue, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than United States and Ukrainian officials had acknowledged. And it means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations being sought by Mr. Trump.”
(As if the quid pro quo was actually the problem with the call. It is not.)
I’ve posted this before. It’s from Twitter so take it with a grain of salt. But this is the best logic I have seen for having Democrats go beyond Ukraine and follow the money (note that this thread was made nearly two months ago but the logic doesn’t change:
The idea is to make such an overwhelming case that it will be impossible for McConnell to punt in any way and make any Senators who would vote against removal to look really, really compromised themselves.
Coincidentally, this morning the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the Manhattan DA’s subpoena to Mazars for Trump’s tax and financial records.
It did not go well for Trump, which was expected since their defense that you cannot even investigate a sitting president led to this exchange:
The prevailing thought is that this case will go to SCOTUS sooner than later but it’s not likely the panel will be sympathetic to Trump’s arguments.
I’m watching the news. This is beyond ridiculous. A large group of Republican Congress- people have stormed the closed door inquiry hearing and are refusing to leave. Are these grown-ups adults or petulant toddlers? It’s reportedly a mob scene, and they’ve settled in, refused to leave, and ordered a fricken pizza.
Obviously yesterday’s testimony has scared Trump to death, and he’s ordered his toadies to fight back and cause a scene.
They want to be arrested, so that they can get hauled off chanting “Attica, Attica!”
Matt Gaetz and his clique of brownshirts. Plus, they brought in recording devices into a secure room where no recording devices are supposed to be allowed. After the committee was adjourned and the room cleared, Capitol police had to be brought in to sweep the room for recording devices.
I called Ted Cruz and john Cornyn’s offices today and let them have it. Told them that this scene has done nothing but convinced America that the Republican Party is nothing more than a criminal organization.
The Matt Gaetz clan, literally, really, brought pizza with them.
My son called me and said this is the Republican version of “Storm Area 51, they can’t stop us all!” After Gaetz got thrown out last week, they teamed up. I needed that laugh, because this is seriously disturbing.
I am reminded of the adage about how to argue a court case: if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither: pound the table and shout.
Republicans are pounding the table. They’re barely bothering to dispute the facts re: Trump and Ukraine – they’re just bitching about the process.
(I have great faith in Nancy Pelosi, but I don’t like secrecy much, myself. I hope there’s a good reason for it and that it ends quickly.)
There is no secrecy. The Republicans know what’s going on. The issue here is that it’s not the right Republicans who know what’s going on.