Maybe we should just impeach Trump

Articles to be introduced Monday


https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/washington-dc-riots-trump-news-friday/h_6730f3c932c438afbd93334423f1a680

What would impeaching him accomplish at this point, especially if it's after his term is over?

Space wrote:
What would impeaching him accomplish at this point, especially if it's after his term is over?

Julian, wrote:

Very wrote:
apparently, if you impeach BEFORE inauguration, you can have a senate trial AFTER inauguration.

For what possible purpose? Sanction him to be unable to run again?

^ this.  also, generally to admonish/shame him as being the only president to have ever been impeached twice.  he was outraged at the first one, can't wait to hear about his reaction to doubling up.

reminder: by the time this will hit the senate, the Dems will be in control.  should they follow through, we won't have to worry about DJ-T in 2024.  i'll take it.

But you need two thirds of senate to remove or 16 Republicans

hence my nom de plume earlier today of 67 votes-hatch …so I think you need 17, but whos counting

Jules…your twin is proposing a good legislation

Joaquin Castro
@JoaquinCastrotx
In addition to supporting the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump, I am also preparing legislation that would prohibit any federal building or property from being named after President Donald J. Trump.
President Trump incited an insurrection that damaged some our nation’s most significant and sacred federal property.
Most importantly - let us learn from our past.

Donald Trump should never become a future generation’s confederate symbol.

I still don't believe it's a wise idea, but given the struggle for control of the Republican party before the 2024 election, I could see the possibility, albeit very remote, that there are perhaps 17 Republican Senators who would play along, especially if they weren't up for re-election until 2024 or 2026.

Just wrote:
But you need two thirds of senate to remove or 16 Republicans

aside: they would need to pick off 17 GOP senators. Dems have 50 but Kamila only gets to vote in the case of a 50-50 tie.  as soon as the vote becomes 51-49 (without her vote), she has to sit on the sidelines.  so 2/3 = 67, AKA 50 + 17.

vansmack wrote:
especially if they weren't up for re-election until 2024 or 2026.

and they don't have 2024 presidential aspirations.  you'd think that cruz would be the first in line to deep-6 DJ-T and clear his path of an unbeatable rival, but he needs - and craves - that trumpastic base.  so he'll pretend to defend the soon-to-be-ex-prez while secretly hoping that enough other GOPers will join in.

sweetcell wrote:
and they don't have 2024 presidential aspirations. 

Yes and no.  A large percentage of Trumps base were not Republicans before and only voted for him as the anti-establishment candidate.  They merely identified with the Republicans because he was the Republican nominee.  It is unclear what they do in future elections if he were not on the ballot (or Trump backed candidates).  There could be some that could see this an opportunity to take the party back from Trump's influence and could see a non-Trump aligned candidate for President as being a strong position (not saying I agree with this, but it is a conceivable strategy).   

sweetcell wrote:

Just wrote:
But you need two thirds of senate to remove or 16 Republicans

aside: they would need to pick off 17 GOP senators. Dems have 50 but Kamila only gets to vote in the case of a 50-50 tie.  as soon as the vote becomes 51-49 (without her vote), she has to sit on the sidelines.  so 2/3 = 67, AKA 50 + 17.

Math, smath. Trump got 74.2 million votes and he rounds it to 75 million. Can't we round 66.666666666….. to 66?

Can we go back to talking about my “how do we get Murkowski to list as an Independent and caucus with the Dems” thing?

Space wrote:
Math, smath. Trump got 74.2 million votes and he rounds it to 75 million. Can't we round 66.666666666….. to 66?

Funny every time I see someone post on Twitter that he got 75 mil…I'm like MAGA's suck at math as he only got 74.2

One of the best proposals I saw today was passing a bill requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns, which could dissuade he who needs to pardon himself from attempting to run again

Julian, wrote:
Can we go back to talking about my “how do we get Murkowski to list as an Independent and caucus with the Dems” thing?

so this is trending
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski calls on President Trump to resign and questions her future as a Republican.

vansmack wrote:
There could be some that could see this an opportunity to take the party back from Trump's influence and could see a non-Trump aligned candidate for President as being a strong position (not saying I agree with this, but it is a conceivable strategy).   

some may indeed adopt this strategy, but that "some" doesn't include the likes of Cruz.  he and his ilk have no original political thought, expediency and convenience is the best they can come up with.  why innovate when you can take over daddy's spot as soon as he's gone?

i completely agree that cruz et al. pinning their hopes on the MAGA base isn't going to work, at least not nearly as well as they hope it will.  trumpism is above all else a cult of personality.  cruz is at a serious disadvantage, given that he doesn't have a personality ("annoying" and "lecherous" don't count towards one).

A fun read


https://www.adn.com/politics/2021/01/08/alaska-sen-lisa-murkowski-calls-on-president-trump-to-resign-questions-her-future-as-a-republican/

sweetcell wrote:

Just wrote:
But you need two thirds of senate to remove or 16 Republicans

aside: they would need to pick off 17 GOP senators. Dems have 50 but Kamila only gets to vote in the case of a 50-50 tie.  as soon as the vote becomes 51-49 (without her vote), she has to sit on the sidelines.  so 2/3 = 67, AKA 50 + 17.

It's Kamala Harris, not Kamila Harris. Kamala Harris, like the Ugandan Giant.

https://www.katc.com/news/national-news/james-harris-pro-wrestler-known-as-kamala-the-ugandan-giant-dies

sweetcell wrote:
some may indeed adopt this strategy, but that "some" doesn't include the likes of Cruz.

I was clearly not including any Senator who was in favor of holding up the Electoral College approval process in my possible 17 Senators who would consider voting to impeach him.