Just watched Bill Maher. He said the Senate needs 67 votes to get #45 out

[Maraya1969]

I never thought about that and it is not a happy thought.

But I then remembered what the GOP did to get Gorsuch into the SCOTUS. They changed the rules.

Is it possible for the Dems to change the rules to get that mobster out of the White House?

[grantcart]

1. No it's in the constitution

[Maraya1969]

3. And the SCOTUS rule wasn't?

[Wounded Bear]

9. No. Fillibuster is not in the Constitution...

It falls under the clause in Article One that allows the houses of the Congress to make their own rules. That's why the Senate has it and the House doesn't.

[grantcart]

10. No. The cloture rule (rule to close debate) is part of the rules of the Senate and are affirmed at

the beginning of each class of the Senate.

In the first 150 years it was needed just once and then at the beginning of the 20th century it was used a few more times, so it was changed from 66 votes to 60 votes.

It remained at 60 votes for legislation and confirmation of judges until the Republicans wanted to ram through judicial appointments with just 51 votes so the supermajority for cloture for judicial appointments was reduced to a simple majority.

I wish that we would get rid of the filibuster all together because the Democrats, being reasonable, never really use it that often and it is used on every single piece of legislation that the Republicans put forward.

Even if it meant that really bad legislation got through it would be better for us, IMO, because people would vote out more Republican Senators.

[bench scientist]

11. The Constitution says the President can nominate a Justice the Senate Advises and consents on that

Article II. Section 2 clause 2:
'He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

It does not specify the number of votes required. This was a Senate Rule. Congress has, both the House and Senate, the right to determine its own rules of procedure as stated in
Article I. section 5 clause 2:

" Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

[Xipe Totec]

2. Nope. This is in the constitution, not the Senate rules. nt

[Maraya1969]

4. Oh. Well if it comes to that hopefully Trump will be in such hot water the some GOP'ers

might actually do the right thing to get rid of him.

[bench scientist]

5. No.this is in the Constitution Article I Section 3 clause 6.

Article I Section 3 clause 6. states:
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.

You need 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict.
You could get less than 67 say if someone was not there, McCain due to illness for example.

[applegrove]

6. Democrats don't need to start undoing norms ourselves. Follow the constitution.

[mercuryblues]

7. No and even if they could

I wouldn't want them to.

Which is why GOTV is important. We need enough house members and senators to mute trump.

Or have the repubs impeach now, if Mueller's investigation turns up anything big that they will be forced to act

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

8. We may not be able to get him out, but with control of the House (and with luck, the Senate)

we can render him impotent. Although I'm sure there's another porn star waiting in the wings who is waiting to report that's already happened.

[onetexan]

12. Agree that's why this blue wave in november is so crucial to stop this trainwreck

[tavernier]

19. I like your post best.

[RhodeIslandOne]

13. Nope

Of course the GOP also knew they didn’t have the votes to convict Bill Clinton in the Senate and they went for it anyway.

[DFW]

14. Impeachment is done in the House, conviction and removal is voted on by the Senate

The whole process, as we saw with Clinton, is lengthy, distracting, and makes a president concentrate on his defense instead of his job, which is why the Republicans considered Clinton's impeachment a success even though they knew from day one they didn't have the votes in the Senate to remove him from office.

With a weak, incompetent president, the incentive to go through the motions is greatly diminished, as it is the background manipulators who run the place, and they are not affected if their figurehead is knocked off his pedestal. This is why Pelosi said impeachment of W was off the table when Howard Dean led the Democrats back to Congressional majorities in 2006 and Pelosi to the Speaker's gavel. Cheney, who was running things in the first place, would just have taken W's place officially. Impeaching Trump wouldn't affect Fox Noise, Putin, Pence or the Koch brothers in the slightest, because removing him (as long as Pence is in place) wouldn't change things any.

Put Trump and Pence up for provable crimes, and not only will they resign on their own (think Spiro Agnew), but their departure under those circumstances would not require a two thirds Senate majority that we'll never muster in the first place. More than 33 Republican Senators would not vote to convict a sitting Republican president even if he had ordered their home states nuked. However, get them in court on charges that are airtight, force them to resign in disgrace, then all Republicans will have trouble even remembering their names in the next election campaign.

[Cosmocat]

20. Mostly agree, but not a even a .0001% chance

45 resigns ...

[DFW]

21. Two possibilities which he could rationalize in his own mind

He'd have to be talked into them by the right people, of course, but that's the easy part. Setting up the scenario is the trick.

1.) Health reasons. Nature seems to have blessed arteries with immunity from prosecution (i.e. clogging) despite his awful diet. Some people just have the genes to get away with that forever, but most do not. If he has a debilitating circulatory incident, it is the perfect excuse to git while the gittin' is good.

2.) Legal reasons close in on him. He'll be able to fend it off for longer than anyone suspects, as I'm sure he has had himself insulated by several layers of fall guys. But if his protection wears thin, there is always "Mission Accomplished, my work is done here," and he leaves for a (in his mind) well-deserved retirement after a job well done: "I didn't even need four years, and still accomplished more than Obama did in eight."

[Initech]

15. The idea of impeachment is a joke.

Even if it did make it past the House, it would fail in the Senate, and it would all but guarantee another 4 years of this shit. I say we keep doing what we are doing. Any gains in any election are gains. We are winning in places we haven't won in decades. As bad as it is right now, let's keep it at 4 years. We cannot afford another 4.

[Awsi Dooger]

16. Tunnel vision types never get the joke

We'll probably be stupid enough to proceed.

I agree with your premise. A failed impeachment process would likely be just what Trump needs to win back support of independents.

Besides, he would be more humiliated by an election defeat than a removal.

[Cosmocat]

22. It isn't a joke, it's a necessity

The norms have to be reestablished.

Not holding Ws admin to account (which didnt necessarily have to be impeachment) for lying the country into Iraq was a mistake because it normalized doing such things.

If 45 being a Russia stooge, having an endless array of corrupt and compromised scumbags in key national security posts and 45 wiping his ass with the emulmonts clause not rise to the level of imoeachment, then why did the Founders put into place?

[pnwmom]

17. If we control the House, we control all the Committees, we control the agenda.

And the agenda will be to drag out every bit of Trump corruption -- in the US and around the world -- and expose it to the light. And to get as many of his people as possible indicted, tried, and convicted.

If Trump makes the mistake of firing Mueller or Rosenstein or both, the House can put them in charge of an even more massive House investigation.

The Republicans in the Senate will then have a choice: either enough of them (about half) will have to vote for conviction, or they will face a massive repudiation from voters in 2020.

Remember, most DUers have a pretty good idea of how extensive and how deep the corruption goes. The average voter doesn't -- yet. But we'll have a chance to change that once we take the House.

[Silver Gaia]

18. Excellent points.

[roamer65]

23. If we take control of the Senate, it becomes much easier.