Well, as much as I would like to see Donnie impeached, I’m prepared to admit that it is extremely unlikely.
But at the end of the day, there will be sufficient ‘sealed indictments’, state and federal charges against him that after he leaves office, he’ll spend a few years and most of his wealth attempting to defend himself against all of them and likely end up with prison terms both at the state and federal level.
Whether anyone on the right wants to admit it or not, he’s committed so many crimes through his family, his companies, his charity, et al that he’s not going to be allowed to retired peacefully and be a thorn in every future president’s administrations.
Not to say he won’t constantly run his mouth about them.
Okay, but unless I missed it I don’t think I agree with what Sherred has said. I don’t see McConnell pulling any type of shenanigans as far ad a Senate trial is concerned.
I don’t either, but only because there won’t be an impeachment until *after *the Resident’s own party repudiates him, whatever the chances of that may be, and there’s a likelihood of a removal vote. McConnell is essentially a party man, not a Trump man except by convenience, and he’s certainly not an America man.
If he lets the Senate trial happen, then at a minimum he would have to allow the House impeachment managers to make their case against Trump on the Senate floor with the whole nation watching, informing the nation in no uncertain terms of the specifics of Trump’s high crimes.
Sure, the Senate would still vote to acquit, but it would damage both Trump and the GOP Senators who voted to acquit, and it would likely help boost Dem turnout.
Or Mitch could just deny them that forum. The flak about “why didn’t you have a trial” would fall on him, he’d still get re-elected, and he’d shield his Senators from having to cast a vote that would hurt many of them either way they cast it.
It’s becoming clear that the House won’t impeach, that Pelosi will stall and stall. But if they did, I’d bet a healthy sum that there would be no Senate trial.
I agree completely. I’ve made the argument before about it hurting Trump, helping the Dems, and maybe doing enough damage to Rep senators that maybe one might flip. No one as of yet, whom I’ve tried to convince of this, will say this is at least a possibility.
Okay, but I stand by my belief (and admittedly it may be more a hope) that if it comes to it, even McConnell will not risk the fallout of preventing a senate trial. The only question now, is, what’s a healthy sum?
We cannot let the gang of socialist America-hating conduct this witch-hunt any longer. The leader of the anti-democratic party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to take over the country. We must stand firm with the American People, and stop her and her gang of unamerican fake news promoters. These hateful socialist women, together with the America-hating deep state will never take over our country.
This is why we will not hold a trial in the Senate. The American People are 100% behind us and our great, Dear Leader today.
I’m not sure how serious you are being here, but funny stuff nonetheless.
But McConnell, I think, is more given to quotes like the following, regarding the Garland nomination:
And what has been entirely consistent with what the Senate has done when the House voted to impeach, is that they had a trial each time. McConnell will need a hell of a reasonable explanation as to why he would prevent a trial, one that he can convince people of is not political in nature. I don’t see what even Mitch could come with.
Well, then, Snowboarder Bo and DrDeth, since I’ve pretty much agreed to take RTFirefly up on a bet about whether there will be a trial if an impeachment happens, I suppose I should ask if you want a piece of this too. Assuming of course, that the bet is not too healthy. I mean, I’m comfortable with my stance, but I’m not an idiot!
My understanding is that by using the word “impeachment” more investigative options rise. More the better, far as I see it. Doesn’t mean all the Dems have to march in lockstep shouting in one voice. “Moderates” can still urge caution and cowardice, still hedge their bets to see how it develops, see what new evidence can be brought before the people. Il Douche isn’t going to shrug and shut up, he will scream bloody murder for every shoe that drops. The Dems don’t have to, he will do it for them! As public sentiment evolves, the gutless wonders will edge closer. If it does not evolve, well, them’s the breaks, but they lose nothing by biding their time. Failure is already the worst that can happen!
If a clear and overwhelming majority for impeachment arises, so much the better. If it cannot be accomplished before the next election, then let the Party of Darkness be seen as the obstinate obstruction to the people’s will. Groovy.
It will be far too late for Republicans to get religion and try to change their stripes, and moderate Dems are not at risk. There are few strategic advantages better than patience and a really stupid enemy.
If this is Granny Pelosi’s strategy, it is a good one, it keeps all the options open and advances the cause. She doesn’t need to unify the moderates and the left, Il Douche will do that for us!
I just responded to it, I think. After all this time here, I still forget where the “Sent Messages” folder is, and I got no indication the message went thru.
Geez, silly me, thinking that McConnell only acts based on things that are reasonable. But seriously, if he does try to stop it, I’m just saying that I think McConnell will feel he needs one.
Assuming of course, that the bet is not too healthy. I mean, I’m comfortable with my stance, but I’m not an idiot!