Would anything convince the Republicans to impeach Trump?

[sps49sd]

@KidCharlemagne

What, if anything, could convince the Pubs that that they either had to, or wanted to, impeach Trump? Surely neither lying to the FBI nor obstruction of justice will do it. Neither probably would concrete evidence that Trump knew of the Trump Tower meeting. What level of collusion or financial shenanigans do you think could potentially force the Pubs’ hands? And do you think there is anything at all that could send his approval rating below 33%?

Solid evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[enipla]

@sps49sd

Solid evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Like admitting on national television that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chronos

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?

What happens if all the Republican Senators decide to walk out and go home for a break? Or for that matter vote that the Chief Justice is out of order and ask the Sergeant at Arms to remove him?

Not that there’s any real possibility that the Chief Justice is going to attempt such a bizarre power grab.

[Not_Carlson]

@steronz

Yeah, I find these threads interesting, people saying, “Well if there’s convincing evidence that he actually committed a crime, then of course he should be impeached.”

Isn’t obstruction of justice a crime? Trump has fired the head of the FBI in order to interfere with a lawful investigation into his own campaign; he’s fired the head of the justice department for the same reason, after spending well over a year denigrating him for recusing himself from the investigation; he’s publicly attacked his own investigative agencies for their role in the investigation; he’s praised those who refuse to cooperate with federal investigators, and castigated those don’t.

This is all obstruction of justice. It’s a crime, Trump has committed it, and it’s all public. So I don’t buy this notion that any additional evidence of criminal deeds would change anyone’s mind.

Maybe finding the impeachable crime is a little like finding the missing link.

Futurama Missing Link

[ThelmaLou]

Mueller Is Laying Siege to the Trump Presidency
It won’t be a single news event that takes down the president.

I quoted the earlier part of this article in the Mueller thread. It talks about how it won’t be One Big Thing that brings thump down (if he is brought down), but that Mueller is laying siege. The article concludes (my bold):

…So what will the big one look like, if not some Mueller-lobbed bombshell? When the walls are finally breached, how will we know that it really is the beginning of the end? Here’s a hint: The big one will not be a legal development, an indictment, or a plea. It will be a political development—that moment when the American political system decides not to tolerate the facts available to it any longer. What does that look like? It looks like impeachment. It looks like enough Republicans breaking with the president to seriously jeopardize his chances of renomination or reelection. The legal developments will degrade the walls. But only this sort of political battering ram can breach them.

Not all sieges succeed. Mont-Saint-Michel, a tiny fortified island off the coast of France, withstood English siege for the entirety of the Hundred Years’ War. If the political system does not come to care about what we are learning, it doesn’t matter how many boulders Mueller hurls against the walls of Castle Trump; the forces laying siege to it will, like the defeated Ottoman Empire after the siege of Vienna, eventually slink away into the snow.

Grim stuff, this. “But only this sort of political battering ram can breach them.” And that’s not guaranteed.

[enipla]

@ThelmaLou

Mueller Is Laying Siege to the Trump Presidency
It won’t be a single news event that takes down the president.

I quoted the earlier part of this article in the Mueller thread. It talks about how it won’t be One Big Thing that brings thump down (if he is brought down), but that Mueller is laying siege. The article concludes (my bold):
Grim stuff, this. “But only this sort of political battering ram can breach them.” And that’s not guaranteed.

I’ve wondered this. If even in the face of overwhelming evidence and proof of crimes and the Senate does not impeach is there anything in the toolbox that could remove Trump?

I would assume if it got to that point that 25th Amendment would not be used.

I guess a state/s could try him in absentsia, but then what?

[Not_Carlson]

@DSeid

Confused.

The question of the thread is what would it take to get those who support him, or at least express such support, to no longer do so, to even support impeachment/conviction.

It wouldn’t be a question of any meaning if they didn’t support him now.
And let’s be fair. For most of Obama’s course he ran 80 to 90% approval in Gallup among self-identified Democrats (and around 10% among self-identified Republicans). Not so different than Trump in that sense. Did that make those 90% either “Obamaists” or “stubborn partisans”?

The OP asked “What, if anything, could convince the Pubs that that they either had to, or wanted to, impeach Trump?”

While some posters have essentially responded by saying “ain’t nothing gonna convince the Trumpists/MAGA-bots”, I’ve tried to suggest that not all Republicans are necessarily all-in Trumpists, but that they may not be willing yet to support impeachment because of party commitment.
I’m curious what it would take to turn these folks around and so I tried to get Shodan to contribute something in the spirit of discussion, but he’s not responding.

As to your last question, no, because A) the nearly 90% of Republicans who claim to approve of Trump need not necessarily be Trumpists (or stuborn partisans for that matter) and B) context kind of matters.

[Railer13]

@Chronos

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?

This has probably been presented earlier somewhere on the Dope, but I’m going to quote what the Constitution says about impeachment and trial by the Senate.

From Article 1, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

This appears to my non-legal-trained mind that if the House impeaches a person, the Senate has the power to try that person, or to not try that person. How they arrive at that decision is certainly not clearly defined. But if McConnell and his fellow Republicans decide not to hold a trial, I don’t see any recourse to force them into doing so.

@HurricaneDitka

What happens if all the Republican Senators decide to walk out and go home for a break? Or for that matter vote that the Chief Justice is out of order and ask the Sergeant at Arms to remove him?

Not that there’s any real possibility that the Chief Justice is going to attempt such a bizarre power grab.

Now, if the trial starts, and all the Republicans walk out, then all that would be needed to convict would be 2/3 of the Democrats. And I like those odds.

[Chronos]

HurricaneDitka, how is it a “bizarre power grab” for someone to do the job the Constitution sets out for them? Roberts wouldn’t be “grabbing” the power to preside over the President’s impeachment trial; he’s had it for decades, and the office he holds has had it for centuries.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Chronos

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?

IANA constitutional law expert, but a document titled RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN
THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT
TRIALS seems to lay it out pretty specifically.

IANA constitutional scholar and I should not attempt to summarize it, but it appears to me that the Chief Justice can’t force a trial, yet the Senate also doesn’t have much wiggle room to delay it either. If McConnell does try to delay, it would go to the Supreme Court, and again the rules seem pretty clear that the Senate must hold a trial. I expect all the Republican senators would show up for bootlicking duties and acquit.

So it’s nice to thing about Roberts swooping in to save the day, but it seems like that can’t be a thing.

[enipla]

@HMS_Irruncible

IANA constitutional law expert, but a document titled RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN
THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT
TRIALS seems to lay it out pretty specifically.

IANA constitutional scholar and I should not attempt to summarize it, but it appears to me that the Chief Justice can’t force a trial, yet the Senate also doesn’t have much wiggle room to delay it either. If McConnell does try to delay, it would go to the Supreme Court, and again the rules seem pretty clear that the Senate must hold a trial. I expect all the Republican senators would show up for bootlicking duties and acquit.

So it’s nice to thing about Roberts swooping in to save the day, but it seems like that can’t be a thing.

Well at least they would be on record for voting to acquit a criminal. Not that their supporters will give a shit.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@enipla

Well at least they would be on record for voting to acquit a criminal. Not that their supporters will give a shit.

I support this, just saying temper your expectations.

[CaptMurdock]

The GOP’s Big Donor lose big bucks thanks to Cheeto’s tariffs. They put the arm on the Congressional leadership: “Mitch, this man has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors. You agree…don’t you?” TurtleMan nods his head so fast he gives himself a concussion. Let the wild rumpus start.

[Johnny_L.A]

@sps49sd

Solid evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nope.

BENGHAZI! EMAILS! MOOSLIMS! SQUAAAAAAAAAWK!

[The_Voice_Of_Reason]

While I was glad to see a GOP Senator from the red state of Tennessee Corker stand up and say he’s had enough of this clown Trump I was not happy to see the seat of a GOP Senator who would most certainly vote to impeach Trump should ground be discovered go to another GOP Senator who probably won’t take that position.

[Sage_Rat]

On further thought, I think that the way it will play out is that by the time impeachment comes to the Senate, the White House will be in such disarray from lack of employees, people doing too many jobs, too many criminal cases being reported on every day, etc. that whether the Republicans in the Senate are really interested in Trump’s crimes or not, they’ll certainly be pushed over the edge by the sheer quantity of chaos in the Executive branch. It will be blocking them from being able to do their job, and from the government being able to run effectively.

Trump is a man with a thin skin and it’s about to be laid out bare for the entire country that he has lived his life scamming people and destroying his father’s business in order to keep up the pretense that he isn’t a complete failure as a businessman.

The man is going to melt into a crying, petulant mess and it won’t be pretty.

He’ll be impeached in short order.

(And then go to jail, if he hasn’t fled the country in time.)

[alphaboi867]

Well Republicans are already calling the withdrawal from Syria as “worse than what Obama did” so…

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Quartz]

One month and one day to go, folks.

[asahi]

@alphaboi867

Well Republicans are already calling the withdrawal from Syria as “worse than what Obama did” so…

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Hell, he’s even getting hammered by Ann Coulter for wimping out on wall funding. If he’s perceived as wussing out on his base, that could be a problem. Of course shutting down the government over a funding tantrum and having civil servants not get paid at Christmas time is also a problem.

Trump’s in a sticky situation now. Daily drips from the multiple federal probes and even ex-judge and Fox commentator Andrew Napolitano has indicated (on Fox News, no less) that Trump might already have a sealed indictment waiting for him the day he leaves office. He lost the House last month and it doesn’t seem like he has really recovered from it.

Even so, his base is strong enough and worth enough to his fellow republicans that they don’t dare speak of joining Democrats on an impeachment. But if the economy tanks in the next 12 months - and there’s a chance it might - then I think you’ll see some moderate Repubs grow a pair, and even if they don’t have enough votes for an outright impeachment, they could cripple him politically. Once Republicans stop fearing him and fearing his base, Trump is in yuge trouble.

[FlikTheBlue]

@alphaboi867

Well Republicans are already calling the withdrawal from Syria as “worse than what Obama did” so…

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It’s like I mentioned earlier. The only thing that Trump can do that will make Republicans turn on him is taking liberal positions. If you assume that in in general pro-war = Republican and anti-war = Democrat, then something like this will of course get the Republicans in congress to come out against him. On the other hand the war in Syria is not exactly a top 10 issue that most people are basing their votes on, so in the end this particular issue will end up being a tempest in a teapot.