The ongoing Republican whisper campaign, according to more than a dozen sources who spoke to CNN, is based on a shared belief that a successful conviction is critical for the future of the Republican party. Multiple sources describe this moment as a reckoning for the party...."Trump created a cult of personality that is hard to dismantle," said a former senior Republican official. "Conviction could do that."
It could. But it could also do something else. I'm trying to picture what Trump's defense will look like and how people will react to it. "Mitch said to me he wants Trump gone," but Trump is already gone. How "gone" do you need to render him? A big show of crushing someone beyond any real need can make onlookers side with him.
ADDED QUESTIONS:
1. Is "a successful conviction... critical for the future of the Republican party"? If the answer isn't "yes," then why would there be a "shared belief that a successful conviction is critical for the future of the Republican party"? Are you dubious that this "shared belief" exists?
2. How many of these "dozen sources" are Republicans? How many are members of Congress? At least one — unless CNN is wrong — is a "Republican member of Congress," but I'll bet he's not a Senator, or CNN would have said so. It seems likely that not one of the sources is a Republican Senator.
3. A successful conviction might be "critical for the future of the Republican party," but is an unsuccessful effort to seek a conviction more useful to the Republican party than avoiding the trial on a procedural ground?
4. What do you mean by "Republican party"? These people who are saying "a successful conviction is critical for the future of the Republican party" — if they exist — aren't they elite insiders talking about preserving their hold on a party that chose Trump rather than one of them? How will the trial reach out to Trump supporters as opposed to alienating them?
Posts
251 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251He left them with clenched sphincters!
Impeach the mother fucker!
The text of the constitution does not address the question of timing. So we must argue inferences, and precedents
The first impeachment trial was held after a man resigned and was no longer in office. Framers were alive and in the senate. So that is a strong argument for a trial being constitutional now.
The impeachment clause references a penalty which can only apply to persons who are no longer in office. Trump is currently eligible for these offices. Thus conviction would not be nugatory. This is another argument in favour.
The case against lies in the clause Begley misrepresented. That clause though refers to the (then) only available mechanism to remove a president. That clause does imply that that is the only purpose impeachment can have, any more than saying the senate must ratify treaties means that is the only thing the senate can do.
Conclusion: he can be tried.
Ming McConnell is taking a massive risk, here. What if he gets a conviction and then it is declared unconstitutional ? Because maybe it is legally & metaphysically impossible to impeach a man who is not President. Every republican senator who votes for such a travesty would be primaried and lose: a Rhino mass suicide ! (MM wouldn't mind so much as he has accumulated 22.5 Million bucks from a political career that started in 1968.) So go for it Mitchster!
It will be interesting to see how far they will go to limit Team Trump's ability to defend. Timeline and other info learned after snap House judgement means they need to jam it through without meaningful debate.
If Kimchee Mitch is the firewall against shit rules, well..it will be quite shitty.
I gotta wonder how many of The Turtle's voters have buyer's remorse, lately.
I'm a Republican, and the comments I read here from some commenters piss me off. Sure, a lot of establishment Republicans weren't enthusiastic about the outsider Trump in 2016, but when he got the nomination and then (surprise!) won the election, the vast majority of Republican officeholders supported him. What we need in 2022 is a strong Republican response to what I am sure will be Democrat overkill. Trump could and should help there. In 2024, I don't want to see a lame-duck Trump as the Republican candidate, but a strong Republican candidate who can earn the support of the Trump supporters.
Bonus is that it would really bolster Joementia's call for Unity...unity!
He bag production
He got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard
He one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together, right now, over me.
Godfather
Boy are you at the wrong place. The Trumpkins here *hate* your idea of the GOP. The biggest hate objects here are Romney and McCain, but there's a goodly number of Reagan haters too. Look at how they describe McConnell, the guy who got more Republican judges confirmed than anyone else.
Me, I agree with you. But I am high on their hate list too.
Make no mistake. Most of them would prefer to let the Democrats win every office and appoint every judge than accept a slight to Trump or co operate with your kind of GOP.
I don't want Trump to run in 2024. He broke through the doors of political correctness. The door to freedom is now open. I don't want a Republican Party either. There's no fixing it. It's a bad brand. The brand is toxic. We have a K-12 school system awash in Gov't Union perversity that teach our children -'Democrat good', Republican, bad.
We got this massive vote fraud in 2020 because the Democrats knew they were done. Over. I expected the Republican Party would follow soon after.
But...Democrats cheat, and they are violent. Been that way since 1834.
Where there are Democrats, there will be Republicans. A pox on both their houses.
@rcocean
But only Cheney has the Establishment institutional support to even think about speaking for Mcconnell.
I didn't wander into Althouse to piss off proud Republicans, but it has turned out to be a rewarding experience, and something I've developed a taste for.
IMHO Trump isn't really relevant to the problem any more, and I don't hate the Romster, though I do despise him. Mitch has always struck me as the little brown-nosing narc in every classroom, and McCain . . . well, McCain had suffered a lot.
The more The Ds accomplish, the more they wreck themselves, so let 'er rip.
Narr
Always kick a political party when it's down, you may never get another chance
Ken opined: "there's a goodly number of Reagan haters too."
Do tell.
The problem with Congress [or at least a problem] is that the freshman congress-folk are told to play the game or else. If they don't fall in line with leadership, spend many hours fundraising and vote the way they're told, they are effectively shunned, denied meaningful committees appointments and left out of the power loop. This isn't new but it's more firmly entrenched than ever. I think term limits are the only solution. The term 'career politician' lacks the cachet of 'public servant'.
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.
Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside;
Ken B, the word is "shall". In this Democrat shit show, when the Article of Impeachment will be delivered, the President of the United States is Joe Biden.
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
So in the case of a real conviction by the Senate, presided by the Chief Justice, the convicted person could not "hold and enjoy any Office of honor trust or Profit" That refers to appointed offices, Cabinet positions, judge appointments...not elected positions.
The power of congress to impeach the President is in a case were the violations so egregious the vast majority of senators are required to convict. There is no prohibition against the people voting for whoever they wanted. That would look a lot like a Bill of Attainder, Again, if the crime is so egregious, more than 50% of voters would not elect such a criminal...right? But, the constitution does affirm that after an impeachment, criminal charges can be brought (if only a crime were committed huh?) Even the crazed vengeful Democrats were smarter than attempt to prove a crime. Crimes require enumerated provable elements. Democrats admit, in both impeachments, no crimes existe.
mock,
Given the tech available, one could make an ever more feasible argument for keeping Congress critters in their home states.
I don't want to see a lame-duck Trump as the Republican candidate, but a strong Republican candidate who can earn the support of the Trump supporters.
You have described a unicorn. A fantasy creature that only exists in the minds of children.
The only person the establishment would approve, will have earned the establishments praise by stabbing President Trump in the back at every turn. Trump supporters (+80% of all Republicans)
are onto McConnell and what he represents, and have no intention of supporting such a critter.
Iowan
Good to see you accept Biden is president. So, Roberts doesn’t preside. The senate makes its own rules, they can choose someone else. Althouse would be a fun pick.
I agree they cannot bar Trump from holding elective office. But he can be barred from sitting on the Supreme Court or being the ambassador to Finland.
"I'd like to see DJT sue Chuckles the Schemer for civil rights violations."
Considering DJT's litigation record. I don't think Chuckles has too much to worry about.
Currently rereading Gore Vidals 1876.which I last read back in the 70s.
A few minutes ago I read this paragraph. The president is grant. Belknap was his secretary of war. He was impeached even though he'd had already resigned but not convicted in the senate. Everyone believed him guilty but a number of senators did not think they had jurisdiction since he had resigned.
The President is shocked, and, I should think, alarmed, for by allowing Belknap to resign, Grant inadvertently (the adverb used by his supporters) made it impossible for Belknap to be impeached, because in the eyes of many constitutional authorities an official may not be impeached, much less convicted of a crime committed in office, when he no longer holds that office.
John Henry
This too comes to mind. This happened after he had already been dead for 3 years. Per Wikipedia
Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey on 30 January 1661, the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I, and was subjected to a posthumous execution, as were the remains of John Bradshaw, and Henry Ireton. (The body of Cromwell's daughter was allowed to remain buried in the Abbey.) His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn, London, and then thrown into a pit. His head was cut off and displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685.
John Henry
Maybe wasername can lend congress her Trump head to display on a pole outside congress until the real one becomes available.
John Henry
John Henry
They dug up a Pope centuries earlier. Odd that seeking an analog of Trump you'd pick a man who incited an insurrection, but your implications are yours to choose.
Dick,
President Trump did win in a landslide.
John Henry
John Henry
Thanks for the reminder. I was wondering what novel to read next. The Vidal it is.
Ken,
Not a fan of Cromwell but even less a fan of English (and Canadian) royalty. I think he was on the right track.
It was an "insurrection" because in the end the royalty defeated him.
When the royalty is defeated, as in the US, it is celebrated as a glorious "revolution"
Winners get to write the history books. That is why the war betwthe states is commonly portrayed as a "Civil War", not an incursion by one group of sovereign countries into another group of equally sovereign countries.
John Henry
John Henry
Ken,
Also, was not seeking an analog of President Trump. I was making an analogy oy Congress's bizarre behavior.
John Henry
Good choice, Ken. I am thoroughly enjoying 1876.
Gonna reread Burr next. Then the rest of the heptology. I think I'll skip rereading Lincoln. Never read any of the rest. Not even sure I had known of them till I was checking the publication date of 1876.
John Henry
I think I can give an Occam's Razor answer to why impeachment is being pushed. The Dems are doing their best to provoke further violence from "domestic terrorists" so that they have justification to start hunting down and locking up 75 million "white supremacists." I'm not clear on why some Reps are on board, other than that they don't want to be removed from office and locked up as well.
If this group succeeds they will find they have lots of donors but very few voters.
Which may be what they want. Objectively, they showed no interest in taking advantage of the voters the Tea Party (2009-11) and Trump (2015-20) brought to their door. They do not want to be a majority party, they are happy in their role as corrupt grifters who enrich themselves by fooling some rubes into voting for them and contributing. Controlling a few red states gives them enough cred to play their game at the national level, but the last thing they want is to have to actually govern--we saw that in 2017 when to their surprise Trump delivered the White House and Congress, and they had no idea what to do with it.
They have no interest in assembling enough voters to win national elections.
CNN said:
"Mitch said to me he wants Trump gone. It is in his political interest to have him gone. It is in the GOP interest to have him gone. The question is, do we get there?" Said "one Republican member of Congress," quoted in "McConnell privately says he wants Trump gone as Republicans quietly lobby him to convict" (CNN).
IF this is true, and, while plausible and believable, it's still a big IF, then I'm not surprised. Politicians and the elite take care of themselves first, last, and always. Seems counterintuitive to offend so many who voted for Trump to crush him in the name of grievance, vengeance, and cleansing. But maybe Cocaine Mitch has made the calculation that because Trump got people who were not normally politically-active, no great loss there since they were bystanders before and would go back to the bleachers. All politics is local, and McConnell may be banking on the fact that active voters will support their Senator regardless. I assume the Dems will march in lockstep/goosestep to convict, even alleged moderate Joe Manchin. Mitt, Murk, Collins, Sasse, Thune, and Mitch are probably guilty votes. McConnell only needs to get 11 more. Who's vulnerable in 2022? Who doesn't come up until 2024 and 2026, when voter memory fades?
McConnell only needs to get 11 more.
Only? And you need at least a dozen, not just eleven, because I don’t think either Manchin or Murkowski want to run for re-election in 2022 as “the 67th vote to convict Trump.” That will be particularly true if Biden lets his environmental wackos convince him to strangle Alaskan oil and/or West Virginia coal, as is likely. There are rumors that Murkowski might retire. I’ll believe it when I see it, but if she votes to convict Trump on specious charges she may have little choice. As to whether Thune would be a vote to convict. Well, he’s up for re-election in 2022 so we shall see.
Ken B said...
Iowan
Good to see you accept Biden is president. So, Roberts doesn’t preside. The senate makes its own rules, they can choose someone else. Althouse would be a fun pick.
Under what constitutional power?
Where in the constitution do I go to learn about Congress Impeaching a private citizen?
We can impeach Judges. The people have no opportunity to remove a judge, so their representatives can. Cabinet 'officers' are appointed. If the President refuse to address harmful actions, Congress can. Ditto Ambassadors. But no provisions for Private Citizens.
Those are the enumerated impeachment powers. Yes the Senate can make their own rules, but they have no power to invent an new class of persons controlled by impeachment.
No/ Donald J. Trump cannot be impeached. Even if he were responsible for an erection.
The Dems are doing their best to provoke further violence from "domestic terrorists" so that they have justification to start hunting down and locking up 75 million "white supremacists."
It explains why there are STILL 25,000 troops in DC.
Maybe they could get the Constitution printed on a carpet, and they could all take a shit on it, and then do a little dance to spread it around. Unity, we could call it.
Walter suggests: mock,
Given the tech available, one could make an ever more feasible argument for keeping Congress critters in their home states.
Yes. Far too much power concentrated in DC. I'm for moving the national Capital to Topeka Kansas. Better yet, somewhere in North Dakota.
Whenever the source of the storyline is anonymous, then the storyline is not news, it's a device to point in a direction.
But that doesn't mean that McConnell doesn't want Trump gone forever. He will try to find the votes.
The Voters job will be to remind the Republican Party who it is that gives them power. Voters will need to remind them they are watching, and counting: Who is there to Vote No, who is there to Vote Yes, and who isn't there at all - which is a coward's Vote for Yes.
It is also the Voter's job to raise a hue and cry with UnConstitutional procedures are used to achieve a corrupted end. Such as impeaching without allowing legal representation, or holding a trial of a President who has left office. By being a coward in the past, Roberts is now faced with a choice that has no coward's preference. Either way he chooses, it can't be through cowardice.
Rt41Rebel observes: I think I can give an Occam's Razor answer to why impeachment is being pushed. The Dems are doing their best to provoke further violence from "domestic terrorists" so that they have justification to start hunting down and locking up 75 million "white supremacists." I'm not clear on why some Reps are on board, other than that they don't want to be removed from office and locked up as well.
Yes. They need another Reichstag fire.
Am I to understand that all the National Guard troops used to guard the inauguration were all vetted to ensure acceptable political views and that the military will be purged of any Right-ist tendencies? If so, how are we to counter this tyranny?
Biden Approval rating 48%
Trump approval rating 51%
Just a heads up.
Ken B is here because he can say things here that he can't voice in Canada. Canada has laws against 'hate speech.' And 'hate speech' as we all know is what the listener wants it to be.
Ken B is a hypocrite. Piss off ya hoser.
Each Cabinet agency should be moved at least 500 miles from DC
President Trump tried to do that. The push back the most intense of anything he attempted.
The GOP: I see it as the GO Along To GET Along with the Dems Party. They WANT to be losers.
The thing about the Senate trial is that it will put Trump right back into the arena with the entire media for his platform, after his opponents in the uniparty and their oligarch masters have just used so much capital to isolate him. I wonder if they're taking seriously the fact their isolation of Trump thus far is probably the most effective tactic they've ever deployed against him? Because it sounds like in their eagerness to try to hobble him, they're about to toss him into the briar patch.
OH NO, Trump must be sitting in FL thinking, DON'T DO THAT!
I wonder who among the GOP is crafty enough to roll with the Br'er Rabbit strategy, and goad the turds in their own party and the rest of the uniparty into doing the thing that would most cement Trump as a massive figure in US history.
Will Trump teach America lesson from Hank Rearden
does Bill of Attainder need signature by /President/
and use this for performance art signing statement
John henry said...
Maybe wasername can lend congress her Trump head to display on a pole outside congress until the real one becomes available.
... but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law...
-----------
The Tragedy of The Donald - Act 3 is still to be written and performed
1: All "anonymous sources" are garbage. Only a fool believes anything produced in an article based on anonymous sources.
2: "Trump created a cult of personality that is hard to dismantle," said a former senior Republican official. "Conviction could do that."
No, GOP Establishment disregard for GOP voters led to a situation where GOP voters were desperate to find a politician who would not treat them with contempt.
Trump met that bill.
Attacking him simply shows that the politician doing so hates GOP voters.
3: It could. But it could also do something else. I'm trying to picture what Trump's defense will look like and how people will react to it. "Mitch said to me he wants Trump gone," but Trump is already gone. How "gone" do you need to render him? A big show of crushing someone beyond any real need can make onlookers side with him.
They want to intimidate anyone who would take up the mantle and continue Trump's approach of working for the voters, rather than the people with payoffs.
Because they're bullies and thugs
ADDED QUESTIONS:
1. Is "a successful conviction... critical for the future of the Republican party"?
They think it's critical for having a "Republican Party" that is under the total control of the corrupt politicians, not the voters.
There's two possibilities here:
A: They're right, and they'll get a "Republican Party" that they control as it disappears into irrelevance without voters
B: THey're wrong, and it will just incite the proles to decorate teh lampposts with them
2. How many of these "dozen sources" are Republicans?
They're "anonymous sources". Which means CNN is lying
3. A successful conviction might be "critical for the future of the Republican party," but is an unsuccessful effort to seek a conviction more useful to the Republican party than avoiding the trial on a procedural ground?
Unless the entire GOP Establishment quickly lines up behind Trump, they're toast whether or not their attempt to "strike at the King" fails
4. What do you mean by "Republican party"? These people who are saying "a successful conviction is critical for the future of the Republican party" — if they exist — aren't they elite insiders talking about preserving their hold on a party that chose Trump rather than one of them? How will the trial reach out to Trump supporters as opposed to alienating them?
Bingo
Greg.
All they are doing with all their political theater against Trump and the voters is making Trump the republican party. McConnel is toast. The anti-Trumper Republicans are toast. They don't have a chance in hell of getting reelected.
The political machinations are all very interesting, but I think if I were a Senator, I'd listen to the charges and the evidence in support of and against them, vote according to the weight of the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. However, we can be certain that not a single Senator will do that.
It would be a lot easier to vote to acquit Trump if he apologized, something like, "I'm sorry. I never meant to encourage violence. I thought they were going to just demonstrate outside the Capitol Building. I was shocked when the crowd broke in. I didn't realize that some hotheads were going to take my words as encouragement to storm the Capitol. I'm sorry."
Douglas said...
It would be a lot easier to vote to acquit Trump if he apologized
VP Harris raised money for a bail fund that bailed out a child molester.
Has she apologized for that?
A Bernie Bro tried to murder See Scalise and the rest of the House GOP Softball team. Has Bernie apologized for that?
A bunch of Democrats encouraged BLM, that went out and looted, burned, destroyed, and murdered.
Did any of the Democrats apologize for that?
No to all of the above?
Then no apology for you
Post a Comment