If you’re talking about convincing most Republican voters… No, that would not be enough to convince them. Even if it was so blatant that it was obvious that Trump had betrayed his country. The key here is that you assume “Rationally Interpreted”. Most Republican voters have long passed the ability to think rationally about the topic of Trump.
They are all in, emotionally and intellectually speaking. There is at this point nothing, literally NOTHING that Trump could do that would ever cause them to think that Trump has to go. Any bad thing reported will simply be dismissed as “fake news”. They will attack the messenger rather than believe the truth. They are now completely dependent upon Trump being the all powerful Authority.
For most Republican voters, we are in Kim Jong Il territory now. They cannot emotionally change their minds.
What if there was no smoking gun evidence that Trump knowingly conspired with the Russians, but instead a series of financial crimes, including tax evasion, money laundering for Russian Olligarchs, use of his political office and executive actions to enrich himself and his family etc?
Would that be enough, or do you consider only proof of direct conspiracy with a foreign power sufficient. Also what would you consider to be proof of coordination? If there were emails between Stone and Assange discussing the best time to release the DNC emails would that be sufficient?
Essentially, yes. They are “all-in” at this point. There is no going back, no matter what. They are engaging in massive self-deception, and there is little anyone can do at this point to get through to them. If they break with Trump now, their entire world crumbles.
I don’t exaggerate when I compare them to North Koreans under Kim Il-sung.
I’m not actually convinced that the Republican Senate could control the timing of the impeachment trial at all. It seems to me that, once the House passes a bill of impeachment, at any time after that John Roberts can legally walk into the Senate chamber, pick up the gavel, and say “Let the trial commence.”. If the President (or President Pro Tem) of the Senate does not preside over the trial, by what authority can he determine its timing?
There would have to be strong evidence. Certainly evidence strong enough for the Senate to convict on conspiracy allegations. It’s tough to speculate on evidence that may or may not exist; each possible scenario requires individual consideration.
If there were emails between Stone and Assange, did Trump know? How do we know? Did anyone in Trump’s campaign know? What’s the evidence of that? There are so many variables it’s impossible to render an opinion on each one.
If there is strong evidence that Trump committed a financial crime, what was his role? Was it an ancillary character within the organization? Was the crime serious? And on and on and on. It’s impossible to speculate on what ifs.
While it’s possible that the House might impeach Trump, (but I think really, really unlikely, as the Democrats will not want to do it) it is completely, absolutely impossible for the Senate to convict him. Trump could appear in the senate chambers, holding hands with Putin, and swear fealty to the Russian state. And the GOP would pretend that he was just joking. Trump could shoot Paul Ryan in the face with a gun. And the GOP would look the other way and shrug.
There is a better chance that the Earth will spontaneously fling itself into the sun than that the Senate Republicans would ever vote to convict.
The only thing would be if Trump started supporting liberal policies. Short of that, no there isn’t anything he can do that would cause the GOP to want him removed from office.
Even for Nixon, it took months of hearings in the HJC before the majority of Republicans came to agree it had to be done. And that was when they still had a significant country-before-party faction.
Well, maybe they can stall by declaring a need to form a committee to investigate such and such. If permission to do so is denied by Roberts, then could they not waste more time by petitioning SCOTUS?
In any case, I’m not sure that an active attempt to make the timing coincide with the election is even necessary. Might it not play out that way naturally? How soon can it be over?
Not all Republicans are Trumpists.
I’m not even sure that most Republicans are Trumpists.
Dacien has offered his(?) suggestion, as a Republican, on what it would take for him to support impeachment.
Shodan is a Trump apologist, to be sure, but I don’t think he qualifies as an all-in Trumpists, just a never-give-an-inch Republican. As such, he may not care to speculate on what it would take for him to support impeaching Trump, but I hope he will engage in the discussion in good faith.
(Laugh if you must.)
I consider that to be a significant exaggeration.
Sure there are parallels, so it’s not exactly apples to oranges, but the similarities are rather surface level (persimmons to oranges), while the difference in the degree of perniciousness is huge (bitter apples to rotten apples).
Making those kinds of comparisons and broad-brush statements in this thread is not likely to invite participation from Republican-identifying Dopers. That might be fine if all you want to hear is more leftist speculation on what Republicans think, but on this issue, I’d really like to hear from Republicans themselves.
Do we have any “Republican-identifying Doper” who has said, “If Trump does X, I would support impeachment?”
We have a lot of anti-Trump Dopers who have surmised that there is no X (or X would have to be something quite implausible, such as tax hikes and immigration reform)
But to your point, it’s absolutely necessary to have a set of values or principles that are non-negotiable. No matter what, we should never be okay with a criminal in the White House (exceptions apply; lying to the Special Counsel is a crime, but I wouldn’t have supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton). Even if they’re doing things we like, there needs to be a set of principles that cannot be violated. We can’t operate in a body politic that simply pushes “their side” at any cost.
Problem with Trump is, as far as I see it, he’s guilty of terrible judgment, bad character, and associating himself with shady individuals, but nothing that rises to the level of impeachable criminality. Mueller’s been at this a while, and he’ll be at it still, and I’ll be watching.
Speculation is all we can do at this stage.
Hence the hypothetical nature of the OP.
But I would say at this stage there’s plenty of evidence to formulate more than just wild guesses.
You’re playing apologist to hypotheticals when the OP is asking you what it would take for Republicans to support impeachment.
So, you get to provide the answers to every question you just asked and then tell us if you think that’s enough to impeach him.
The problem is Republicans don’t want to set a standard that they’re not sure Trump will be able to live up to.
“Oh sure, if Trump did something seriously wrong, like give nuclear weapons technology to Iran, I’d be the first to call for his impeachment.”
Six months later:
“You have to look at this in the proper perspective. Iran was going to get nuclear weapons anyway. So Trump was just looking ahead to the future and creating some good will so he can apply his world-class deal-making skills later on. And you’d all be saying this was a great idea if Hillary had done it.”