ianfianf wrote:All's this circus is going to do is increase his majority in November.
What's that based on?
There's been a fair bit of evidence over the last few years that your average voter is a malicious imbecile.
How does Trump correctly being impeached change that though? Why does it provide him a larger majority in states in 2020?
Because it makes it easier for him to amplify the same stupid logic that got him elected in 2016.
Anyone with a brain can clearly see that Trump is a problem, not a solution; that he's adding to the swamp, not draining it; that he's practising corruption, not fighting it; and that he's weakening American democracy, not strengthening it.
But if you're daft enough to believe him when he tells you he's a self-made man of the people upholding the constitution, you're daft enough to believe it in 2020 when the Republican party tells you:
"See! Trump was found NOT GUILTY by the Senate. The whole impeachment process was an abuse of power by the Democrats because they want to overrule the decisions of the people! Send a big "F you" in their direction - and re elect Trump! Show them that you know what they want!"
I think it’ll appeal to his narrow-ish voter base, certainly, but please remember that Trump lost the popular vote quite resoundingly in 2016 and he hasn’t done anything to gain ground on the Democrats anywhere outside his heartlands. It’s not hard to see things swinging heavily in favour of the Democrats regardless of what happens here.
Even if impeachment means Trump increasing in popularity (and I don’t think that’s true), it should still be done. Because he deserves impeachment.
Sitting back and letting powerful arseholes get away with anything and everything is not a good way forward. Trump will survive thanks to the Senate, but that doesn’t mean it is not worth doing.
Saigon Slick wrote:I think it’ll appeal to his narrow-ish voter base, certainly, but please remember that Trump lost the popular vote quite resoundingly in 2016 and he hasn’t done anything to gain ground on the Democrats anywhere outside his heartlands. It’s not hard to see things swinging heavily in favour of the Democrats regardless of what happens here.
Exactly. The mid-term elections were very bad for Trump in those battleground states that propelled him to the White House, he's incredibly unpopular, and most people want him impeached and removed from office for the crimes he's being held up on. There's little to no tangible evidence that impeaching Trump would boost his popularity and as Moggy says it's the right thing to do regardless.
The problem is necessarily the popular vote, though. 2016 also proves he can win without it, and it's only the lopsided electoral college he needs to win.
The electoral college inherently favours Republicans due to it current set up. What's more, the Democrats masses of voters are largely congregated in big cities, often along the coast - places that turn Blue every time anyway. Generally these cities are getting bigger in size and population number, possibly adding to the liberall Democratic vote, but not adding to their electoral college tally or swinging a state.
Places that are swing state tend to be more rural, often "Middle America". The type of people that may see aggressive Democrats as power hungry or hawkish, or a acquired Trump as innocent of left-wing charges and held up by a Democrat-leaning House.
It's not right, but the election is probably going to centre around the same sort of swing state as 2016.
As an aside, didn't Bill Clinton's impeachment lead to his approval rating rocketing? And largely not from his core supporter base, but from people either on the fence or centre-right, who saw it as opportunistic, and politics-driven rather than about justice or abuse of office? Due to politics being more partisan today, people may have already made up their minds long before this, but there is a danger it that those voting against Trump have already decided anyway, but those who are undecided may find it galling if Trump is acquited and we're still talking about the impeachment come the autumn.
The last two times there's been an impeachment scandal the party in office has lost the next election.
Clinton's impeachment generally made voters desire a candidate with "honesty" (somehow choosing Bush for this but they we go) and a decent majority of voters agreed with the decision to not remove him from office. That is unlikely to take place now. Trump's crimes are also very different from Clinton having an affair and lying about it, it's much more comparable to Watergate, where Nixon undoubtedly saw a collapse in public approval.
Cuđđoolph wrote:The last two times there's been an impeachment scandal the party in office has lost the next election.
Clinton's impeachment generally made voters desire a candidate with "honesty" (somehow choosing Bush for this but they we go) and a decent majority of voters agreed with the decision to not remove him from office. That is unlikely to take place now. Trump's crimes are also very different from Clinton having an affair and lying about it, it's much more comparable to Watergate, where Nixon undoubtedly saw a collapse in public approval.
Bush received less votes than Gore and that’s if we accept that they didn’t steal Florida.
Starts Tuesday 21st January at 6pm. Trial will continue Monday to Saturday for a number of weeks.
Where
"Judge"
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, although the 100 senators will ultimately act as both judge and jury. Justice Roberts is there to make sure the trial sticks to the predetermined rules.
"Jury"
The 53 Republican and 47 Democratic senators are not allowed to talk during the trial and must surrender their phones and other electronic devices. After reviewing the evidence, they will vote on whether to convict Mr Trump, and thus remove him from office. Mr Trump is the third president to face an impeachment trial after Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, who were acquitted.
Prosecution
A group of seven Democrats will act as impeachment managers - essentially prosecutors for the House, who will present its case for impeachment to the Senate. They include Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, both frequent targets of Mr Trump's anger.
Adam Schiff: The lead manager, Schiff, led the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the Ukraine scandal. He is a former federal prosecutor.
Jerrold Nadler: As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler handled the second phase of the House’s efforts, ushering articles of impeachment to the House floor.
Jason Crow: A former litigator and Army veteran, Crow was one of seven Democrats with national security backgrounds who backed an impeachment inquiry in a September op-ed.
Sylvia Garcia: As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Garcia played a role in the impeachment inquiry. She is a former judge in the Houston Municipal System.
Val Demings: A member of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, Demings was involved in both House investigations. She is a former police chief.
Hakeem Jeffries: As chair of the House Democratic caucus, Jeffries is the highest-ranking House Democrat to serve as an impeachment manager. He is a former corporate lawyer.
Zoe Lofgren: Lofgren worked as a staffer on the Judiciary Committee during Watergate, served in the House during Clinton’s impeachment and played a role in the inquiry into Trump.
Defence
President Trump's defence team will include special prosecutors from President Bill Clinton's impeachment - Ken Starr and Robert Ray.
Alan Dershowitz, whose past clients include OJ Simpson, is also part of the team which will be led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Mr Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow.
Pat Cipollone: A former partner at a white-shoe law firm and commercial litigator whose clients included Trump’s business, Cipollone became White House counsel in 2018.
Jay Sekulow: Chief counsel to the conservative American Center for Law and Justice and a talk radio host, Sekulow is part of Trump’s personal legal team.
Kenneth Starr: The former independent counsel’s investigation of Clinton led to his impeachment for lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Alan Dershowitz: A member of O.J. Simpson’s “dream team” of lawyers, the former Harvard law professor wrote “The Case Against Impeaching Trump” in 2018.
The team also includes Robert Ray, a former Whitewater prosecutor; former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi; a Florida lawyer for Trump, Jane Raskin; and two Cipollone deputies, Michael Purpura and Patrick Philbin.
Witnesses
For now, no witnesses are slated to appear.
In a December letter to McConnell, Schumer sought to hear from four witnesses who didn’t testify before the House: Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; Robert Blair, a senior Mulvaney adviser; John Bolton, the former national security adviser; and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget.
Bolton said in a statement that he’s “prepared to testify” if subpoenaed, although Trump said he might invoke executive privilege to block him “for the sake of the office.”
Trump has also said he’d like to see Joe Biden, Pelosi and Schiff called as witnesses. Some Republicans have suggested calling Biden’s son Hunter, who was on the board of the company that Trump wanted Ukraine to announce it was investigating.
The Decision
Closing arguments from both sides will likely take several days. After that, the Senate will deliberate on the articles of impeachment -- another moment that is likely to be in secret.
Once deliberations are over, senators will vote publicly on conviction or acquittal. Under existing Senate rules, they will each stand at their desks and give their verdict, guilty or not guilty, on each count.
Under the Constitution, it takes two-thirds of the Senate – 67 votes – to convict Trump. That almost certainly won’t happen because none of the 53 GOP senators have yet said they think he’s guilty. If found guilty, Trump would be removed from office. The House impeachment resolution also states that he would be barred from serving in any federal public office again.
Yep, it's pretty amazing that Mitch has said on TV that he won't be impartial and will be working with Trump staff when he's taken an oath to be impartial. Why that isn't a huge issue is beyond me but it seems that nothing matters any more and facts are unimportant.
Peter Crisp wrote:Yep, it's pretty amazing that Mitch has said on TV that he won't be impartial and will be working with Trump staff when he's taken an oath to be impartial. Why that isn't a huge issue is beyond me but it seems that nothing matters any more and facts are unimportant.