Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
66 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What do Dems do if McConnell won't allow a vote? (Original Post) BigmanPigman Sep 2019 OP
I think he has no choice. RandySF Sep 2019 #1
I just heard on Chris Hayes that he does have a choice BigmanPigman Sep 2019 #4
He doesn't have to bring it to the floor or hold a trial...this is why I am lukewarm about Demsrule86 Sep 2019 #10
Unfortunately, the constitution provides no requirement of trial beachbumbob Sep 2019 #14
Pelosi trying to investigate McConnel would be of little recourse Massacure Sep 2019 #37
Make It A Campaign Issue Me. Sep 2019 #2
Yep... Campaign on it... Moscow Mitch afraid of the possibility of guilty. keithbvadu2 Sep 2019 #31
Take it to the people and to the streets. Zoonart Sep 2019 #59
Good luck with that customerserviceguy Sep 2019 #39
He has to allow a trial and vote sir pball Sep 2019 #3
He controls the rules. He can always change them StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #8
Do 51 R Senators want to vote to end impeachment though? sir pball Sep 2019 #33
They wouldn't have to vote to end impeachment StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #36
I guess they could vote again to renew the need afterwards. sir pball Sep 2019 #38
They don't need to vote to change anything permanently StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #40
Actually, McConnell can block a trial. Big Blue Marble Sep 2019 #12
That's a long shot. sir pball Sep 2019 #29
Trust McConnell to do what is best Big Blue Marble Sep 2019 #34
I hope so sir pball Sep 2019 #35
If the Republicans vote to change the rules with a Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2019 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Sep 2019 #66
As currently enacted, the Senate Rules REQUIRE trial on a very specific timeline mn9driver Sep 2019 #24
I don't think that's a rule they'd ever change sir pball Sep 2019 #30
Sit back and eat popcorn. He'd only be destroying Republican chances in 2020 hlthe2b Sep 2019 #5
What can they do? guillaumeb Sep 2019 #6
Yes, that's what I thought unfortunately. BigmanPigman Sep 2019 #7
Thank him Botany Sep 2019 #9
Win-win situation. Actually, I hope he doesn't. GulfCoast66 Sep 2019 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author bucolic_frolic Sep 2019 #13
They win in 2020 hurple Sep 2019 #15
So Trump can run for re-election under impeachment for selling out the US ... Jim__ Sep 2019 #16
This edhopper Sep 2019 #17
+10000, especially if the country is 60% plus in favour of impeachment (I think we get there) Celerity Sep 2019 #45
He'll hold a vote... lame54 Sep 2019 #18
Let Moscow Mitch destroy any chance of a republican senate... pbmus Sep 2019 #19
I think GOP defections from the basket of deplorables will enough impact Moskow's Mitch ... marble falls Sep 2019 #20
Let him leave Trump in Limbo eleny Sep 2019 #21
Then his precious Senators will wear it around their necks when they run. Yavin4 Sep 2019 #22
Run against him for disallowing a vote. Big Time. Captain Zero Sep 2019 #23
We'll cross that bridge when it comes, ecstatic Sep 2019 #25
Mitch is up to his carapace in kompromat Mr. Ected Sep 2019 #26
ditch Moscow Mitch in 2020 Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2019 #27
The more the Rs protect Trump the more amunition they give Dems. Kablooie Sep 2019 #28
They pound him over protecting the criminal in the white house Salviati Sep 2019 #32
Write poems? "Moscow Mitch is Putin's bitch" struggle4progress Sep 2019 #41
I think I read somewhere rownesheck Sep 2019 #42
I have said he wont have the hearing from day one Cosmocat Sep 2019 #43
I agree. BigmanPigman Sep 2019 #44
Changing the Senate rules to avoid bringing up a vote to convict Buckeyeblue Sep 2019 #46
He doesn't need any votes Cosmocat Sep 2019 #48
There was no rule requiring a vote on a SCOTUS nominee onenote Sep 2019 #49
Point stands Cosmocat Sep 2019 #50
Another in a long line of predictions that will be wrong onenote Sep 2019 #51
Sorry Cosmocat Sep 2019 #61
Didn't say you did. onenote Sep 2019 #62
Washington DC's streets would look like the protests in Hong Kong. NurseJackie Sep 2019 #47
Buy pitchforks and torches? Act_of_Reparation Sep 2019 #52
Put pressure on all the networks exboyfil Sep 2019 #53
Actually this could be good for us politically, lark Sep 2019 #54
He might let it run with the vulnerable R's voting to impeach bigbrother05 Sep 2019 #55
you may find this article interesting bdamomma Sep 2019 #56
It's what WE need to do choie Sep 2019 #57
Flake thinks there are 35 republican senators who Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2019 #60
KR! Cha Sep 2019 #63
Cut some patriotic campaign ads talking about the founders' visions juxtaposed with Trump tweets. NCLefty Sep 2019 #64
He'd be so obviously frustrating the Constitutional procedures treestar Sep 2019 #65

Demsrule86

(68,456 posts)
10. He doesn't have to bring it to the floor or hold a trial...this is why I am lukewarm about
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:16 PM
Sep 2019

impeachment...all risk and little to no reward for Democrats...particularly the house...we must preserve the house.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
14. Unfortunately, the constitution provides no requirement of trial
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:22 PM
Sep 2019

for time line. McConnel can simply not bring it up. I'll take that as a campaign issue in Nov. 2020. I would advise Pelosi to instruct investigation into McConnel and his wife for their corruption. Haul them before a committee and under oath.

Massacure

(7,512 posts)
37. Pelosi trying to investigate McConnel would be of little recourse
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:44 PM
Sep 2019

It's not like she can impeach him. The House impeached Senator Blount in 1797, and the Senate basically told the House to go pound sand before turning around and expelling him using a different constitutional clause around how "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." No member of Congress has been impeached since.

keithbvadu2

(36,654 posts)
31. Yep... Campaign on it... Moscow Mitch afraid of the possibility of guilty.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:03 PM
Sep 2019

Campaign on it... Moscow Mitch afraid of the possibility of guilty.

sir pball

(4,737 posts)
3. He has to allow a trial and vote
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:11 PM
Sep 2019

It's in the Senate rules - they could theoretically vote to change them, but I doubt he'd get THAT one through. And even if he did, I imagine SCOTUS would smack it down. Impeachment is written into the Constitution in black and white.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
8. He controls the rules. He can always change them
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:15 PM
Sep 2019

If the vote looks close, I wouldn't put anything past him.

sir pball

(4,737 posts)
33. Do 51 R Senators want to vote to end impeachment though?
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:04 PM
Sep 2019

Let's say they do vote that way...the next Dem they want to impeach, do they want to lose the trial option? That's beyond a "nuclear option", that's some Dr. Strangelove Doomsday Machine shit.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
36. They wouldn't have to vote to end impeachment
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:23 PM
Sep 2019

They can just adjust the rules so that, in this particular case, they don't have to conduct a trial.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
40. They don't need to vote to change anything permanently
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 11:21 PM
Sep 2019

They just need to adjust the rules to fit this one situation.

Big Blue Marble

(5,046 posts)
12. Actually, McConnell can block a trial.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:19 PM
Sep 2019

Impeachment in the House maybe written into the constitution,
but the trial in the Senate can be stalled. We know how good McConnell
is at stalling.

[link:https://www.niskanencenter.org/is-a-senate-impeachment-trial-optional/|

sir pball

(4,737 posts)
29. That's a long shot.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:59 PM
Sep 2019
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.

Judgment 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, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Art. I, Sec. 3, Clauses 6-7

I suppose he could argue they don't HAVE to try him, the Constitution doesn't say they *must*, but I can't see him trying to dodge that freight train any more than I can see even the current SCOTUS allowing him to - in the event he tried, it would certainly fall to them.

Big Blue Marble

(5,046 posts)
34. Trust McConnell to do what is best
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:10 PM
Sep 2019

for McConnell and to hold on to the Senate. He has set the precedent to ignore
the constitution when it is to his advantage.

If it works for him, there will be a trial; if it does not work for him,
there will not be a trial.

My money is on: The Republicans will force Trump to resign so they will not
have to be on the record either way.

sir pball

(4,737 posts)
35. I hope so
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:13 PM
Sep 2019

But if he does actually change the rules, and it's allowed, at least they'll never try a Democrat again!

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
58. If the Republicans vote to change the rules with a
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 09:16 AM
Sep 2019

Simple majority, that's the indication that there are no Republicans who want to see him out. None with the courage that is.

So stalling might be a good strategy for them..or best of the worst. If we impeach, they have no good option.

1) sell your soul and allow the criminal to stay in

2) vote to kick him out and face the wrath of angry deplorables.

Response to Big Blue Marble (Reply #12)

mn9driver

(4,419 posts)
24. As currently enacted, the Senate Rules REQUIRE trial on a very specific timeline
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:49 PM
Sep 2019

once the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate.

But yes, the Rules can be changed with a simple majority vote by the Senate. So, GOP Senators will have to go on record as voting to prevent a trial. Those up for re-election may not like that. We will see.

sir pball

(4,737 posts)
30. I don't think that's a rule they'd ever change
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:01 PM
Sep 2019

They are many things, but not THAT stupid - they would never change a rule that would allow a Dem Senate to not try a Dem President. That would be like literally burying your gun in front of the enemy.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
6. What can they do?
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:12 PM
Sep 2019

They could publicly ask concerned voters to flood McConnell's office with calls, emails, etc.

They could suggest that people visit these GOP Senators in their offices.

They could conduct public hearings every single day and note that the GOP controlled Senate will not act.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
11. Win-win situation. Actually, I hope he doesn't.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:16 PM
Sep 2019

He’s not going to be convicted anyway. So seeing the republicans ignoring the constitution(again) would be rich right before an election.

But he will allow it. Because, as stated above he has no choice. And not allowing would hurt them badly.

Say what you want about the turtle. He understands politics.

Response to BigmanPigman (Original post)

Jim__

(14,062 posts)
16. So Trump can run for re-election under impeachment for selling out the US ...
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:25 PM
Sep 2019

... and the republican senate refusing to look at the charges. I'm not sure that puts the Dems at a disadvantage.

Celerity

(43,090 posts)
45. +10000, especially if the country is 60% plus in favour of impeachment (I think we get there)
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 07:27 AM
Sep 2019

IF Moscow Mitch STILL refuses to hold the trial, the Rethugs will LOSE the Senate.

There are 13 total Rethug or now open Rethugs Senate seats in some sort of play:

Here is my completely up to date, most detailed post yet on the state of the races.

We need a plus 4 net to flip the Senate to a 51-49 Dem advantage (so no power sharing agreements needed at all) as it stands, and a plus 5 net if Paedo Moore is not the Rethug Alabama nominee (and even that bastard will be hard for Jones to beat in a POTUS year in Alabama) and we lose Doug Jones. We should absolute hold all our other seats. Jeanne Shaheen in NH is the only one that is probably not a 99% lock, with the Rethugs choosing between Don Bolduc, former U.S. Army brigadier general, Bill O'Brien, former Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Kelly Ayotte, former U.S. Senator and former Attorney General of New Hampshire, Scott 'Pickup' Brown, U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, and 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from New Hampshire, and the lunatic Rump stooge (and Hope Hicks' ex BF/verbal abuser), Corey Lewandowski. Bolduc and Ayotte are probably their best shots there (with Bolduc worrying me the most), but I feel really good about our chances to hold it, due to Rump being between 11 and 17 points (depending on the poll) underwater overall in NH.


These are all the remotely possible races where we can flip, all 13 of them. Some are very much a stretch, and also we are having a lot of big names refuse to run, in fact, all the arguably best candidates in 11 of the 13 seats have all refused, so far, to run.


These are the only 2 states ATM with our strongest possible candidates running:

Arizona Mark Kelly has a great chance at beating McSally. This was (until Hickenlooper got smart) the only state so far that we had the best potential candidate already running.

Colorado Hickenlooper now running makes it 90-95% that we flip this. Even if you do not think he is the best on policy, he still is the most electable. All I ask is that he knocks it off with the red-baiting (saying progressives are bringing back Stalin and Marx's policies), which is asinine and plays into the Rethug's hands. I would much prefer Joe Neguse or Andrew Romanoff to Hickenlooper strictly on policy.


Now the ones who do NOT have our strongest candidates running as of yet:


Alaska (I hope Mark Begich, our ex US Senator there, runs versus Sullivan, he has said he was not, but now may change his mind.) If Begich ends up completely declining, then it will probably be between Ethan Berkowitz, the mayor of Anchorage, and Forrest Dunbar, Anchorage assemblyman and nominee for Alaska's at-large congressional district in 2014.

Maine (Susan Rice, who has said no quite emphatically, would have been the best to knock out the POS hypocrite Collins IMHO, but hopefully we can find another great one, it looks likely to be Sara Gideon atm, I think Gideon can take out Collins, just was more sure on Rice, but she is not going to run.)

Montana (The most glaring one, probably, grrrr as Bullock is basically the only one of ours who would have a great chance at beating Daines, I think Bullock would defeat him, but he has said dozens of times he will not run, I just heard him say it again today. Only redeemable way this works is if Biden makes him his VP pick, which I fully support, as that ticket is the hardest to attack for Rump and the Rethugs.) I think we MIGHT have a shot if Brian Schweitzer changes his mind and runs.

Tennessee (open Rethug seat, due to Alexander retiring, I so hope Tim McGraw (yes the superstar singer, who said for years he would run when he was 50, and he is 52 now) reconsiders his turndown, he would have the best shot from all I have seen, most of the other candidates we have are already one time losers, some just last year, or pretty unknown. The two I see who are the best should McGraw not change his mind are Jeff Yarbro and James Mackler)

Georgia With Isakson retiring (there will be an interim Repug appointed for the last year) There are now TWO seats we can flip. Stacey Abrams and Sally Yates would have had the best chances by far to beat Perdue and Rethug X, but each one has said no over and over, so it is going to be much harder I fear, even though Perdue is weak, and a shit campaigner. So far it looks like the best of the rest are Teresa Tomlinson, Jon Ossoff, Stacey Evans, Sarah Riggs Amico, Jason Carter (Jimmy's grandson), Kasim Reed,and Michelle Nunn.

Kansas (open Rethug seat due to Roberts retiring, the right candidate for us has a shot, maybe Kathleen Sebelius, but she also just said no, and a big local paper says that really hurts our chances This is a carbon copy of Montana, just swap in Sebelius for Bullock, its a Red state and all the insiders say she is only Dem who can win.)

Iowa (Cindy Axne and Vilsack, probably our 2 best chances to beat Ernst, both have declined to run, but I have hope we can find another great candidate, Theresa Greenfield (I think she will be the Dem winner) or Abby Finkenauer look to be the best of the rest, this is like Maine to me)

North Carolina (our two best candidates by far, Foxx and Stein, have both said no, grrr, I so hope one, especially Foxx, re-considers) Tillis is so ripe for the picking if we get one of those 2 to run, and still may have a shot if it is another, Cal Cunningham perhaps, or Erica Smith, but both will have a harder time that Stein or Foxx would have had. This one is so so irritating me.

now the two wishful thinking states:

Kentucky This is probably the 2nd toughest. Andy Beshear might have had a shot at dumping McTurtle, but he is running for Governor, Amy McGrath is who we are going to have to roll with, and it is not impossible, due to McConnell being truly hated even by some Rethugs, his overall approval numbers are worse than Rump by far, amongst the bottom in all the Senate. Overall a huge reach, but so hope Moscow Mitch goes DOWN. McGrath needs to make no more errors like the one she did right at kickoff (saying she would have voted yes for Kavanaugh for SCOTUS. The same thing crushed Bredesen in TN in 2018, it so depressed our base turnout.)

Texas Cornyn in Texas is the toughest reach, IMHO, even if Beto runs (which I doubt he will.) Cornyn is streets ahead of Cruz in terms of TX popularity. I like Amanda Edwards a lot, I hope she wins the Primary, but, I do not see a pathway to anyone beating Cornyn unless something massive breaks our way. MJ Hegar is the Democratic frontrunner atm.


We would need to win FIVE of those 13 to flip it to 51-49 IF Jones goes down in Alabama, and only CO is even close to one that I would say is a pretty good chance to label a semi-lock, and some are just downright so so hard, even if the best candidates change their minds and run. My true target is 6 flips, so we are at 52-48, and thus negate Manchin and Sinema, who vote with the Rethugs 55% of the time, far more than any other Democratic Senators. I SO hope Hickenlooper does not become the 3rd member of that posse, lolol.

Schumer and Cortez Masto have been so poor at recruiting the best candidates, it is one of the biggest stories of 2020 so far. I am going to give up on pulling the people who I think are strongest in ME, IA, (those two I can be happy with who we have) TX, and KY. We just have to roll with who we have there now. AZ and CO now have our best possible, so that leaves:

AK (Begich run!)
MT (Bullock run! or if he is VP, or if he refuses, Schweitzer run!)
TN (McGraw run!)
KS (Sebelius run!)
NC (Foxx and/or Stein run!)
GA (2 seats) (Abrams run! and Yates run! if Abrams is the VP or refuses still, hopefully we can find another strong candidate from that list above.)

IF all those above change their minds and run, I can say, with at least 60% or more confidence, we will hit at least 6 flips, and maybe, IF Rump just gets crushed, win 11 of the 13, and if he goes down with my biggest possible EC count giving us EVERY remotely possible EV, we may get all 13, plus keep Jones. If that happened we would have 60 seats, so a filibusterer proof majority.

Finally, one of the dead Red lock states is by far the best bet to be a huge surprise, that being Mike Rounds in SD going down, hopefully to ex-Senator Tim Johnson's son, Brendan Johnson. The max possible EC victory count by the way, that paved the way for a 13 out of 13 sweep plus Jones holding and SD even maybe flipped, was our Dem POTUS nominee 472 - Rump 66. A girl can dream!

pbmus

(12,422 posts)
19. Let Moscow Mitch destroy any chance of a republican senate...
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:34 PM
Sep 2019

I really like the sound of Mitch the bitch hold up the vote...

marble falls

(57,009 posts)
20. I think GOP defections from the basket of deplorables will enough impact Moskow's Mitch ...
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:36 PM
Sep 2019

to get onto the floor. But before it gets there until it passes first through some Senate committees, too.

I give Speaker Pelosi kudos for knowing when to hold them and when to drop them. Lets just be sure we drop Pence before he pardons Trump.

Yavin4

(35,421 posts)
22. Then his precious Senators will wear it around their necks when they run.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:39 PM
Sep 2019

They enabled a criminal to occupy the White House.

Captain Zero

(6,782 posts)
23. Run against him for disallowing a vote. Big Time.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:48 PM
Sep 2019

And run against all the GOP for not pushing him to allow a vote.

ecstatic

(32,648 posts)
25. We'll cross that bridge when it comes,
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:51 PM
Sep 2019

but before it goes to a vote, can they do a surprise Pence impeachment too?

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,249 posts)
27. ditch Moscow Mitch in 2020
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:53 PM
Sep 2019

If the investigations don't turn up crimes by Moscow Mitch, we can still hang around his neck:

* actively blocking all attempts to secure our elections

* actively providing relief from sanctions to Putin and his oligarchs

* selling out to Russian mobsters to build an aluminum plant in Kentucky

* backing TrumPutin's diversion of money from the military, Puerto Rico, and even education to build a wall for Mexicans to play on

Kablooie

(18,608 posts)
28. The more the Rs protect Trump the more amunition they give Dems.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:58 PM
Sep 2019

I can't believe the majority of voters are fine with Trumps criminality.

Salviati

(6,008 posts)
32. They pound him over protecting the criminal in the white house
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:03 PM
Sep 2019

This is the difference between all the impeachable things trump did before now and this Ukraine scandal. With the previous scandals, if the house impeached and the senate either failed to convict or didn't take it up, the issue was complex enough that narrative would get muddied and undoubtedly fault the Democratic house for impeaching when they knew the senate would not convict.

This issue is straightforward enough that on the basis of what he's already admitted to, he deserves to be removed from office. The investigation will undoubtedly show how much worse it is and how much deeper it goes. If the senate fails to convict, or doesn't bring it up, the narrative will judge the senate republicans harshly.

rownesheck

(2,343 posts)
42. I think I read somewhere
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 05:48 AM
Sep 2019

that he has like a 19 percent approval rating in Kentucky. When he's up for re-election, they can reveal to him the consequences of not taking up impeachment in the Senate. They can send him packing.

Buckeyeblue

(5,499 posts)
46. Changing the Senate rules to avoid bringing up a vote to convict
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 07:52 AM
Sep 2019

Would not be in his best interest. If he has the votes to change the rules, he has the votes to acquit. Might as well vote to acquit. Senators up for reelection would need to vote for the rule change. It would be easier to defend a vote to acquit.

I could see a scenario where some Republican senator might try to organize a coalition to join the Democrats to vote to convict. I don't think it's very likely. But we are in strange, uncharted territory right now.

If a Republican were to be able to get enough support to lead a convention, he/she would be hailed a hero. They would immediately run for president promising a new era of bipartisanship, might even select a Democrat as a running mate and would easily win the election. And a lauded place in American History.

Cosmocat

(14,558 posts)
48. He doesn't need any votes
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 08:24 AM
Sep 2019

He will simply make up the rule, like he did with Merrick Garland.

"You can't have impeachment proceedings for a POTUS when he is running for re-election."

Whatever the "rules" say doesn't mean jack to him, if he does not follow them, what is going to happen to him?

Nothing.

onenote

(42,581 posts)
49. There was no rule requiring a vote on a SCOTUS nominee
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 08:32 AM
Sep 2019

There are specific detailed rules including timetables for commencing and conducting an impeachment trial. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Cosmocat

(14,558 posts)
50. Point stands
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 08:38 AM
Sep 2019

That is why I noted that if he does not follow the rules, nothing will happen to him.

He will simply take the next step ...

onenote

(42,581 posts)
51. Another in a long line of predictions that will be wrong
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 08:41 AM
Sep 2019

Like the predictions made by several DUers that McConnell wouldn’t seat Doug Jones or some other duly elected Democratic Senators.

onenote

(42,581 posts)
62. Didn't say you did.
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 12:19 PM
Sep 2019

But your prediction follows the same line of reasoning as other predictions that because McConnell didn't allow a vote on Garland (which he wasn't required to do by any rule), he can and will refuse to act where there are rules in place.

As you said, we'll see.

lark

(23,061 posts)
54. Actually this could be good for us politically,
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 08:48 AM
Sep 2019

although it would be very bad for the country. This just shows that repugs are totally lawless and do not support the constitution. it might be better than a hearing where repug lies would totally dominate and McConnell would squelch any Dem all the time and then drumpf could claim - complete exoneration! Not having the hearing is not exoneration and that's what drumpf demands and expects.

bigbrother05

(5,995 posts)
55. He might let it run with the vulnerable R's voting to impeach
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 08:50 AM
Sep 2019

And enough that are safe or not up for election voting it down to come up short to convict. If 35 vote against, the trial fails.

Neither Mitch or Trump would like the spectacle, but not having a trial for show would be worse.

Can just hear "Exonerated!"

Management of the trial in the Senate by the House prosecutors will be critical.

Mittens might cast the deciding vote to oust him and proclaim himself as the White Knight to rescue the GOP's dignity.

bdamomma

(63,797 posts)
56. you may find this article interesting
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 08:53 AM
Sep 2019

it isn't any new we already did not know.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/26/1888115/-Democrats-are-saving-the-American-Republic-and-Republicans-absolutely-hate-that?utm_campaign=trending

snip of article:


Imagine if Democrats had not taken control of the House of Representatives in 2018, and Republicans were still in control of both chambers of Congress. Would an attempt by this president to withhold $400 million in taxpayer-allocated funds for the purpose of extorting a foreign nation—all in order to fabricate some lurid dirt on his perceived 2020 Democratic opponent—have ever seen the light of day, let alone led to an impeachment inquiry?

Of course not. The Department of Justice under Donald Trump is now more corrupt than at any point in our nation’s modern history. It exists, by virtue of a venal toady named William Barr, to serve the needs of this president, whether illegal or otherwise. The executive branch of our government is rotten through and through, with rank looters at the head of virtually every department and agency. What Trump did was merely business as usual for these people—nothing to see here, and no there there. The corruption can be read in their reactions to the impeachment inquiry, and heard in their talking points on Fox News.

Even if it had been leaked by someone, that whistleblower complaint would have been explained away if the right had control of both the House and Senate, quashed and buried, with the approval, tacit or not, of every Republican in Congress. The American public may have never known about it, much less seen a copy of it.




 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
60. Flake thinks there are 35 republican senators who
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 09:27 AM
Sep 2019

hate trump. For them, the best scenario would probably be that there is never a single vote in the Senate. And pin their hopes on trump losing in 2020.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
65. He'd be so obviously frustrating the Constitutional procedures
Mon Sep 30, 2019, 05:42 AM
Sep 2019

And it would make Dotard look guilty and look like an attempt to keep the POTUS above the law. In an election year. Even the Turtle would know not to pull that crap in this situation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What do Dems do if McConn...