The Hill: Is a trap being set at the Impeachment?

[TLK Valentine]

Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?

Over the past week, I have heard from three seasoned Republicans who fear that President Trump and the West Wing are seriously underestimating the potential danger of a Senate trial. Human nature and common sense dictate that, despite the well-meaning resolution circulated by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) condemning the House impeachment process, it's important for the White House to understand that the weight of history is settling upon the shoulders of these senators — some of them quite weak — and because of that pressure, private conversations are taking place and a trap may be sprung for the president in that trial.

A potential trap set by seemingly loyal Republican senators.

(emphasis mine)

The right keeps howling that the impeachment is a coup attempt by the Democrats, but there's a lot of logic in this article: Donald was mocked and criticized by plenty of Republicans during his campaign -- McConnell, Cruz, Ryan, Graham, Christie, etc... they all considered him a disgrace...

...until Donald got elected...then they all seemingly changed their tunes, but hey, politicians lie, amirite?

If the GOP still doesn't like Donald (and they don't), and see an opportunity to deep-six him and put the far more workable Pence in charge as the face of their party and the country (and they do), will they take it?

Thoughts?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?



(emphasis mine)

The right keeps howling that the impeachment is a coup attempt by the Democrats, but there's a lot of logic in this article: Donald was mocked and criticized by plenty of Republicans during his campaign -- McConnell, Cruz, Ryan, Graham, Christie, etc... they all considered him a disgrace...

...until Donald got elected...then they all seemingly changed their tunes, but hey, politicians lie, amirite?

If the GOP still doesn't like Donald (and they don't), and see an opportunity to deep-six him and put the far more workable Pence in charge as the face of their party and the country (and they do), will they take it?

Thoughts?

Honestly, I think even the never Trumpers understand the precedents at stake here. Partisan impeachment processes that undermine law and try and convict not on fact but instead on what they "think" someone means by what they do is a very dangerous precedent to set.. it's unthinkable and unheard of..

They are going to protect the already established precedents, at all costs. Getting rid of Trump even if you don't like him isn't worth what this will cause in the future if successful...

 

[Bobber]

Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?



(emphasis mine)

The right keeps howling that the impeachment is a coup attempt by the Democrats, but there's a lot of logic in this article: Donald was mocked and criticized by plenty of Republicans during his campaign -- McConnell, Cruz, Ryan, Graham, Christie, etc... they all considered him a disgrace...

...until Donald got elected...then they all seemingly changed their tunes, but hey, politicians lie, amirite?

If the GOP still doesn't like Donald (and they don't), and see an opportunity to deep-six him and put the far more workable Pence in charge as the face of their party and the country (and they do), will they take it?

Thoughts?

Can't see it. If there really was some undercurrent actions to conspire against the President I'm guessing there'd be some sign of it among House Republicans.....as in at least some of them floating around the idea that the inquiry was justified and perhaps even a few voting to impeach in the House. Not to have ANY House Republicans go that direction and the Senate Republicans do so would make the party look like the craziest party in history. (although I'm sure some might make a joke about that)

It won't shock too many though if there's 1 or 2 Senate Republicans side in with impeachment and removal and for the reason that I don't even have to mention their names for ones to know who I'm talking about should signify their reasons were purely personal. Even with that concerning one of them I don't think he will though....he might say something not flattering about the President but he'll vote along party lines. We'll see.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?



(emphasis mine)

The right keeps howling that the impeachment is a coup attempt by the Democrats, but there's a lot of logic in this article: Donald was mocked and criticized by plenty of Republicans during his campaign -- McConnell, Cruz, Ryan, Graham, Christie, etc... they all considered him a disgrace...

...until Donald got elected...then they all seemingly changed their tunes, but hey, politicians lie, amirite?

If the GOP still doesn't like Donald (and they don't), and see an opportunity to deep-six him and put the far more workable Pence in charge as the face of their party and the country (and they do), will they take it?

Thoughts?

Recalls the wishful thinking for faithless electors, and no more likely to materialize.

 

[Bobber]

Recalls the wishful thinking for faithless electors, and no more likely to materialize.

And I don't believe Senate Republicans even have doubts now that Trump isn't a President they don't want to support. Prior to his being elected YES as they wondered what the future would hold with this shall we say, unusual candidate but seeing he's held true to their values of putting forth Conservative judges, great tax cuts and the lists of other things I do think they're quite impressed. I'm sure they're not a fan of his ways of expressing things but I think they look at bigger picture issues.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

And I don't believe Senate Republicans even have doubts now that Trump isn't a President they don't want to support. Prior to his being elected YES as they wondered what the future would hold with this shall we say, unusual candidate but seeing he's held true to their values of putting forth Conservative judges, great tax cuts and the lists of other things I do think they're quite impressed. I'm sure they're not a fan of his ways of expressing things but I think they look at bigger picture issues.

Exactly! Their principles only matter if they don’t get in the way of political expediency. All their concerns about the character of the president and the dignity of the office went out the window when they saw they could win an election with this guy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can't see it. If there really was some undercurrent actions to conspire against the President I'm guessing there'd be some sign of it among House Republicans.....as in at least some of them floating around the idea that the inquiry was justified and perhaps even a few voting to impeach in the House.

I would expect the exact opposite, actually. The House Republicans know that the articles of impeachment are going to be passed, so why tip their hand too soon?

If the House GOP showed signs of dissent, it would make Donald paranoid about what the Senate was thinking.

As it is, he doesn't have a care in the world, because he's convinced that the fix is in... and isn't the whole point of a "trap" that the victim not see it until they step in it?

Not to have ANY House Republicans go that direction and the Senate Republicans do so would make the party look like the craziest party in history. (although I'm sure some might make a joke about that)

• Ted Cruz called Donald "utterly amoral," a "narcissist," and "unsuited for the presidency,"
• Rick Perry called Donald "a cancer on Conservatism," and "a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense."
• Lindsey Graham called Donald's candidacy a "dangerous idea" that grew into "an evil force." He called Donald himself an utter "kook," and a couple of things that the CF profanity filter won't let me repost.
• Mick Mulvaney called Donald "a terrible human being," "absolutely not a role model," and in fact, "one of the most flawed human beings ever to run for president in the history of the country."

Now they're loyal minions, one and all... or so they say.

Trust me, we passed "crazy" years ago... or is it crazy like a fox?

It won't shock too many though if there's 1 or 2 Senate Republicans side in with impeachment and removal and for the reason that I don't even have to mention their names for ones to know who I'm talking about should signify their reasons were purely personal. Even with that concerning one of them I don't think he will though....he might say something not flattering about the President but he'll vote along party lines. We'll see.

The reasons to oppose Donald might be personal, but the reasons to defend him are purely political.

These politicians have re-election to think about -- at least, most of them do... and Donald's coattails have been getting shorter and shorter... his endorsements in gubernatorial races haven't had the desired effect.

If they realize that defending Donald won't help their own political futures, then it's time for them to think about what's best for the party... and what if enough of them decided that deep-sixing him and putting Pence in charge would be best for the GOP as a whole?

Now, I'm not saying this is going to happen... the GOP will most likely fall in line... but shouldn't the White House at least consider the possibility?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Exactly! Their principles only matter if they don’t get in the way of political expediency. All their concerns about the character of the president and the dignity of the office went out the window when they saw they could win an election with this guy.

Sanford, Walsh, and Weld said it best in their editorial: "If a party stands for nothing but reelection, it indeed stands for nothing."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Recalls the wishful thinking for faithless electors, and no more likely to materialize.

This isn't "wishful thinking" -- The Hill is trying to warn Donald to take impeachment seriously.

 

[hislegacy]

Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?
(emphasis mine)

The right keeps howling that the impeachment is a coup attempt by the Democrats, but there's a lot of logic in this article: Donald was mocked and criticized by plenty of Republicans during his campaign -- McConnell, Cruz, Ryan, Graham, Christie, etc... they all considered him a disgrace...

...until Donald got elected...then they all seemingly changed their tunes, but hey, politicians lie, amirite?

If the GOP still doesn't like Donald (and they don't), and see an opportunity to deep-six him and put the far more workable Pence in charge as the face of their party and the country (and they do), will they take it?

Thoughts?

It's an interesting POV and has some merit, but considering the strength of the US at this point combined with the +94% approval rating from the party, it's hard to swallow.

The whole adventure has had repercussions on the Democratic Party, with one member completely leaving the party, and at the same time the Republicans has been laser focused in support of the President.

The only vote that had bi partisan support was the vote against the Impeachment inquiry.

 

[hedrick]

If it were a secret vote, he would probably be removed. But I doubt that any Republicans will have the courage to vote for removal publicly.

 

[hislegacy]

If it were a secret vote, he would probably be removed. But I doubt that any Republicans will have the courage to vote for removal publicly.

How about the House vote being secret also - think it would pass if there were no repercussions for voting against party lines?

I get the inclination that it would not pass the House if it was a secret vote.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's an interesting POV and has some merit, but considering the strength of the US at this point combined with the +94% approval rating from the party, it's hard to swallow.

Agreed -- but as I said before, the whole point of a trap is that the victim not see it until he falls into it.

Now, I don't think the GOP is clever enough to pull this off, but still... it'd be very careless of the White House not to take impeachment seriously.

The whole adventure has had repercussions on the Democratic Party, with one member completely leaving the party, and at the same time the Republicans has been laser focused in support of the President.

One member leaving the party is hardly a repercussion... more of a hiccup. And it remains to be see what kind of future Donald has waiting for Van Drew should the new Republican lose his re-election.

In any event, if I were the House GOP, I wouldn't be doing a victory dance...

GOP Retirements Spike, Diminishing Hope Of Retaking House Majority In 2020

The only vote that had bi partisan support was the vote against the Impeachment inquiry.

Let's see:

H.R. 660
Rules for Impeachment Inquiry

YES NO No Vote
D 231 2 1
R 0 194 3
I 1 0 0

You have quite the whimsical definition of "bi partisan support."

 

[hislegacy]

YES NO No Vote
D 231 2 1
R 0 194 3
I 1 0 0

Not whimsical at all - bipartisan means both parties voted on a specific side.

Your own numbers show - the yes vote had only one party in favor and the no votes had members of both parties. The no vote was the only bipartisan vote.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not whimsical at all - bipartisan means both parties voted on a specific side.

Your own numbers show - the yes vote had only one party in favor and the no votes had members of both parties. The no vote was the only bipartisan vote.

As I said -- whimsical. 2 dissenters out of over 230 voters isn't what a reasonable person would call a display of bipartisanship.


Now, for a counterexample, when Donald ordered the US to retreat from Syria, the House voted 354-60 to condemn it.

YES NO PRESENT No Vote
D 225 0 0 9
R 129 60 3 5
I 0 0 1 0

See the "yes," column? That's what bipartisanship looks like.


A year earlier when he declared the American Press to be "The enemy of the American people," the Senate Resolution to condemn his words was unanimous. That, too, is what bipartisanship looks like.

On the flip side, when Donald tweeted that four certain US Representatives ought to "go back where they came from," only four GOP Representatives condemned him. I wouldn't consider four to be "bipartisan"; why should I consider 2?

 

[Bobber]

Exactly! Their principles only matter if they don’t get in the way of political expediency. All their concerns about the character of the president and the dignity of the office went out the window when they saw they could win an election with this guy.

It all depends on the degree you think Trump is not of a good character? Not a great character in an illegal way? Not a good character in they think he's a danger to the nation? I don't believe they really think that about him now seeing him in action for a period of time. You'll disagree but that's what I think.

 

[Bobber]

As I said -- whimsical. 2 dissenters out of over 230 voters isn't what a reasonable person would call a display of bipartisanship.

You don't think that's how it'd be reported on left wing media if one Republican even showed a sign of dissent towards a position of their party?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You don't think that's how it'd be reported on left wing media if one Republican even showed a sign of dissent towards a position of their party?

Not only do I not think so, but I already know it hasn't, because a couple of Republicans have shown their unwillingness to echo the POTUS' alibis, but nobody in the liberal media is claiming that the push for impeachment is "bipartisan."

Unless you've heard something I haven't..

 

[Bobber]

Not only do I not think so, but I already know it hasn't, because a couple of Republicans have shown their unwillingness to echo the POTUS' alibis, but nobody in the liberal media is claiming that the push for impeachment is "bipartisan."

Unless you've heard something I haven't..

Did they sign on in favour of the impeachment inquiry? No. You're stretching things out here a bit. If they signed on to that they'd be saying it.

They said it a couple of years back when McCain and two others wouldn't sign on with Republicans on the Obama Care repeal issue. They called the three Senators showing bipartisan support. That's 3 Senators out of 51.

McCain remembered for bipartisanship, decisive Obamacare vote

 

[TLK Valentine]

Did they sign on in favour of the impeachment inquiry? No. You're stretching things out here a bit. If they signed on to that they'd be saying it.

They said it a couple of years back when McCain and two others wouldn't sign on with Republicans on the Obama Care repeal issue. They called the three Senators showing bipartisan support. That's 3 Senators out of 51.

McCain remembered for bipartisanship, decisive Obamacare vote

You didn't even read the title of the article you just quoted, and that's... unfortunate.

It explicitly said that McCain was bipartisan, not the vote.