demagogue on 14/1/2021 at 04:33
They have to get 2/3 of a quorum. The Senate will be split 50/50. I think they said at least 6 GOP senators might get on board. (Up to 20 have made negative statements against Trump which put them in the running.) If they can get +10, then if 10 GOP senators are no-shows, 60 will be 2/3 of the quorum of 90 members present. (It's right on the line, but VP Harris will get a vote to break it in favor of impeachment, I think.) So that's something of a wildcard possibility in the political calculus.
Nicker on 14/1/2021 at 04:37
There are reports that along with GOP officials conducting recon tours of the Capitol Building for MAGAHATS in the days before the Coup attempt (when even family members were barred) (
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/capitol-riots-ayanna-pressley-panic-buttons-b1786678.html) the panic buttons in some offices had been torn out.
Quote:
Panic buttons installed in Ayanna Pressley’s congressional office were torn out before rioters stormed the Capitol last week, her staff have said.
Sarah Groh, who serves as Ms Pressley’s chief of staff, was with the congresswoman when president Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the US Capitol building last Wednesday.
She told the Boston Globe that she had reached for the panic buttons installed in Ms Pressley’s office as they tried to barricade themselves in.
But, when they went to press panic buttons, Ms Pressley’s staff saw that they weren’t there, and appeared to have been ripped out.
“Every panic button in my office had been torn out - the whole unit,” Ms Groh told the paper.
demagogue on 14/1/2021 at 04:49
Speaks to premeditation. But we already knew it was premeditated because of what they were carrying with them. This adds that officials may well have been part of the planning. Either way, it's more support for the case that Trump didn't need to say the thing directly because they know exactly what he was getting at when he called them to that "stop the steal" gathering.
Nicker on 14/1/2021 at 04:53
Sorry, everybody. My bad!!
It was Cuba all along.
[video=youtube;-7Op-gfzdSU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Op-gfzdSU[/video]
Cipheron on 14/1/2021 at 05:17
Quote Posted by demagogue
They have to get 2/3 of a quorum. The Senate will be split 50/50. I think they said at least 6 GOP senators might get on board. (Up to 20 have made negative statements against Trump which put them in the running.) If they can get +10, then if 10 GOP senators are no-shows, 60 will be 2/3 of the quorum of 90 members present. (It's right on the line, but VP Harris will get a vote to break it in favor of impeachment, I think.) So that's something of a wildcard possibility in the political calculus.
A couple of issues there. Firstly, supermajorities don't need "tie breakers". You just need the supermajority. Tie breakers are used because 50/50 votes are equal. Second, it would be Pence not Harris, until Trump's gone anyway. Third, Ossoff and Warnock aren't sworn in yet. They're expected to be sworn in some time next week one article suggests the 20th, but the Republicans running Georgia have until the 22nd to actually certify the results.
(
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_runoff_elections_in_Georgia_(January_5,_2021)#When_will_election_winners_be_sworn_in.3F)
Quote:
The winners will be sworn in once results are certified. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) has until January 22, 2021, to certify results. David Perdue's term ended at noon on January 3, 2021. The seat he held will be vacant until the regular runoff election results are certified. Sen. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to temporarily serve the term Johnny Isakson won, which ends January 2023. She will remain in office until the election is decided, and whoever wins the race will complete the term.
So the situation is 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1 vacant seat. The vote would *have* to be on the 19th of January, because that's the first day the Senate returns from recess, and by the 20th, Trump won't be president any more. So the vote needs exactly 66 votes, meaning 48 Democrats and 18 Republicans would have to vote for it. If you took your scenario however and modified it so that 9 Republicans were no-show then you'd need 12 Republican Senators to change sides (60/90: no tie-breaker needed, because there is no concept of a tie in super-majorities).
Best-case scenario is that the Republicans en-masse don't show up out of "protest" and then the impeachment gets passed. This is a way the Republicans could shed Trump like a hot potato while giving plausible deniability.
Nicker on 14/1/2021 at 05:39
Also, by the time of the vote, a number of Senators might be cooling their heels as co-conspirators and insiders in the Coup. Every bit helps.
demagogue on 14/1/2021 at 06:29
Quote Posted by Cipheron
A couple of issues there.
For the record, I'm talking about if the vote is in a few weeks or months when the new members are already seated and Harris would then be VP, because the trial itself is said to be going to take weeks, so it'd be a retrospective impeachment after he's already out of office, as I understood it. I don't think there's necessarily a constitutional bar on a retrospective impeachment, and it still has real consequences as many have pointed out (losing government support, no library, no chance to stand for re-election, etc.).
Cipheron on 14/1/2021 at 09:26
Quote Posted by demagogue
For the record, I'm talking about if the vote is in a few weeks or months when the new members are already seated and Harris would then be VP, because the trial itself is said to be going to take weeks, so it'd be a retrospective impeachment after he's already out of office, as I understood it. I don't think there's necessarily a constitutional bar on a retrospective impeachment, and it still has real consequences as many have pointed out (losing government support, no library, no chance to stand for re-election, etc.).
Apparently this information is not factual
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/fact-check-tweet-trump-impeachment-run-2024-secret-service/index.html)
Quote:
A viral tweet claims that impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time would mean he would lose the ability to run for president in 2024.
That's not true. Nor are other claims in the tweet.
The tweet was posted on Friday, two days after a Capitol insurrection by a mob of Trump supporters sparked a new impeachment push from House Democrats. As of early Monday, it had more than 181,000 retweets and 725,000 likes. It says the following: "For those wondering if it's worth impeaching him this time, it means he:
1) loses his 200k+ pension for the rest of his life
2) loses his 1 million dollar/year travel allowance
3) loses lifetime full secret service detail
4) loses his ability to run in 2024
Facts First: The tweet is inaccurate in multiple ways.
1) Trump would lose his post-presidency pension only if both the House voted to impeach him and then the Senate voted to remove him from office; impeachment itself, without removal, would not result in Trump being denied any benefits.
2) The law makes clear that presidents who have lifetime Secret Service protection never get a $1 million travel allowance.
3) It is unclear that Trump would lose lifetime Secret Service protection even if the Senate voted to remove him and prohibit him from running.
4)
Even a Senate vote to remove Trump would not prohibit him from running in 2024; for the Senate to ban him from the presidency, it would have to hold an additional vote on this question. As for the impeachment trial after he's out of office, this is largely untested waters. You can be sure that they'll fight it tooth and nail to say it's not constitutional (until they decide to do that to a Democrat, at which point it'll become constitutional again).
demagogue on 14/1/2021 at 09:46
Yes, we're talking about after conviction by the Senate. What happens after a mere impeachment (nothing) has already been made precedent by Nixon & Clinton. And yes, when there isn't precedent, there's a big question mark that the Supreme Court ultimately has the prerogative to decide.
I imagine on first blush they'd ultimately decide against it, not just because of partisanship (they've ruled against Trump before), but, I mean, on the face of it it's about removing a person from office, and laws don't normally get interpreted to do something impossible (remove someone not in office). But they'll have good lawyers digging up obscure precedents saying who knows what, like if you start the process before he's out, does that mean anything?
I'm not myself too worried about it, because at this point the much bigger fish to fry are the upcoming criminal charges against him. If he's convicted of obstruction or whatever, I think that effectively does the same job that impeachment is after, in terms of souring the public to him and breaking his cult-like spell.
Oh, one thing though, what would prevent him from running again is the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who participated in insurrection from running for office (Civil War related). A criminal charge for incitement of insurrection probably won't work (I posted about that above), but an impeachment on it might be sufficient to trigger that, or anyway, that's a reason to give it a shot.
