Those constant posts calling for impeachment do realize it needs 2/3 of the Senate, to convict,

[still_one]

Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2018, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

right?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I have often thought that a prerequisite for posting on DU, at least in political forums,

should be to have read the Constitution and passed a short, simple quiz about it. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the basic structures and procedures of our government.

[still_one]

13. ++++++++++++++++++++

[bearsfootball516]

28. Wish we could like replies, because I would like this.

[tammywammy]

32. +1 n/t

[MineralMan]

41. Yes!

[BootinUp]

2. I was never good at fractions. Heh

[OliverQ]

12. 2/3rds of 100 is 67. You need 67 Senators to convict and remove from office.

[still_one]

14. Now that is a valid reason

[JonLP24]

3. I'm waiting til 2019

Especially if Mueller makes a report the shows Trump committed crimes who gives it to Rosenstein if he gives it to Congress. Or better yet indicts him but that is something a Supreme Court would most likely decide. I believe the evidence will be overwhelming and the pressure but it all comes down to Mueller but we need Democrats willing to vote yes or it won't go nowhere.

If Democrats committed treason like this the Republicans would never let us off the hook.

Edit this is the only op I see talking about impeachment but if there are impeach threads I would like to recommend them.

[Pinkflamingo]

4. Stay calm and vote everyone!

I’m bothering the White House now. I’m telling Shitler to rescind the Kavanaugh nomination and nominate Merrick Garland instead. I know it doesn’t help, but it makes me feel better.

I think we’re all just blowing off steam here. It’s nice to dream. I once heard “Never take away a person’s hope, that might be all they have.”

[Andy823]

5. I think

Some of those posts are meant to stir the pot.

[Caliman73]

6. Impeachment is driven by the House, not Senate.

What you and likely those calling for impeachment get wrong is that the House impeaches, but the Senate is necessary to Convict and thus remove the president from office.

Bill Clinton was impeached, but he was never tried by the Senate because there were not enough votes to try or convict.

[unblock]

7. He was tried, just not convicted.

[JonLP24]

8. Even I knew that part

If Rosenstein gives a report by Mueller to Congress we need to impeach.

[Gothmog]

10. Clinton was tried by the Senate

The GOP could not get even 50 votes to convict. The GOP needed 67 votes and failed to come close

[still_one]

15. If you read my OP that is what I said

[Caliman73]

36. Yes. It says that ... now.

Still, people are calling for impeachment because they are angry and because it is appropriate, even if it isn't politically realistic right now. Would you have been one of those people advising Black people or LGBT people not to push for Civil Rights because they were not politically expedient in the 50's and 60's, until they were?

Seeing Trump dragged out of the White House in cuffs is even less likely than impeachment and removal from office, but that doesn't stop me from wanting it or from posting that it should happen. People just need to vent.

[still_one]

39. That was what I changed because one other poster couldn't extrapolate when I said 2/3 of the Senate

my point, in spite of the fact most did understand my point

[EffieBlack]

60. Apples and oranges - but when blacks pushed for civil rights, they were very strategic

Calling for impeachment in September, a month before the midterms, is not analagous to blacks fighting for civil rights, but ...

We were extremely strategic in the civil rights movement and very careful about timing. We didn't denand everything all at once right now. We measured the times, calculated the possibilities and very strategically picked our battles, selected our tactics and tools, and called our shots. And we changed things incrementally.

No one is saying that impeachment is unwarranted and shouldn't be done. We just need to be smart about when and how we show our hand, don't put the cart before the horse, and focus on first things first - like the midterms.

So this comparison just doesn't hold water. Please read some history about the movement and you'll see why.

[mcar]

43. Incorrect

He was tried in the Senate.

[Gothmog]

9. Yes it takes 67 votes to convict and remove

Impeachment is not a releastic remedy

[Ccarmona]

11. The OP's Header is Actually Wrong, Impeachment Just Takes a Majority in the House

The House of Representatives first passes, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. It’s the Senate that Convicts
the accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present" is required. It’s Conviction removes the defendant from office. If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Do you, personally, think there's any point at all to impeachment if a conviction doesn't follow?

It would seem likely to allow Trump to say "I was found innocent" if it didn't get the 2/3rds in the Senate.

[Ccarmona]

21. Can't Say, Without Knowing the Charges nor the Public Sentiment at that Time

You’re assuming that the Senate at that time mirrors it’s current make-up.
We can only wait and see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Pretty much whatever happens in November, a third of Republicans would need to convict

It's pretty unlikely the Senate will be better that 51-49 Democrats (and independents caucusing with them) to Republicans. That would need 16 out of 49 Republicans to vote to convict.

The point is that getting a simple majority in the House is easy; getting 2/3rds in the Senate is not, and getting only the majority in the House is at best a double-edged sword, and more likely to be handing a weapon to Trump/

[Ccarmona]

27. That's True

But then the next 33 Senate Seats will be up in 2020 and available. There could vulnerable Senators that feel that voting for conviction will help their re-election, especially if the evidence is overwhelming. Like I wrote, we’ll have to wait and see.

[Blue_true]

42. I agree with you.

The Dems take the House, run a fair, professional investigation and find that Kavanaugh not only assaulted Dr. Ford when she was 15, put also participated in several gang rape situations. Video was present in the 80's, maybe someone took video of him raping a drunken female, or spiking her drink. Assuming that democrats also retake the Senate (a net gain of 2 seats), with 2020 coming up and republicans having to defend a large number of seats, how many republicans would want to be seen protecting a confirmed rapist?

The scenario is the same as having a candidate in every race, regardless of how hopeless it seems, you never know when the republican will blow up. The Republican Party has invited a lot of sleazy officeholders in, once the skeletons tumble out of their closets, one of our candidates need to be on the ballot opposing the sleazeball.

[still_one]

19. If you read my OP I specifically said it takes 2/3 in the

Senate, and I wrongly assumed people realized that was for the trial and conviction

[Ccarmona]

25. Because the Individual is Deemed Impeached Upon "Indictment" by the Majority of the House nt

[still_one]

26. Most seem to understand my point in the thread, regardless I spelled out conviction for those who

did not realize my point

[Roland99]

17. It still causes a lot of effort by the defense and could stonewall damaging legislation

and could uncover even more damning evidence re: Russia. Esp with Dems in control of the House with subpoena powers

[NurseJackie]

18. I seriously doubt it.

You make an excellent point, however.

[still_one]

20. Me too

[Hugin]

22. Before Gosuck was installed by McTurtle using the so-called nuclear option.

It required a 2/3rds majority of the Senate to seat a Judge on the SCOTUS.

So, apparently, these things are fungible.

[still_one]

23. No, not impeachment. It would require an amendment to the Constitution

[lapfog_1]

29. no the nuclear option regards a motion to proceed

which only needed 60 votes (allowing for a "modern filibuster" by 41 Senators voting "no&quot , not 67 votes.

McTurtle removed the 60 vote margin rule only for judicial appoitments... now allowing for only 51 (or 50 with the VEEP voting to break the tiie) on a motion to proceed. Once that motion passes there is another vote on the advice and consent motion to approve the nominee... and that only ever needed 51 "yeas" or 50 with the VEEP voting to break the tie.

[Ccarmona]

34. Actually, It Was Harry Reid Who Removed the 60 vote Rule for Judicial Appointments Except the SCOTUS

McTurtle took it the last step to remove the 60 vote threshold for the SCOTUS too


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271

[lapfog_1]

35. right.... if we ever get sanity from the right again

we should have the Senate re-institute the rule. We should provide the minority with a voice... but that is not possible in these times.

[Hugin]

45. Really, who cares? It's pretty obvious the road out of here is not the road we came in on.

There needs to be big changes... Constitutional amendment type changes.

But, everyone seems so locked into the status-quo now or returning to some pre-Trumpian status-quo there is no talk of real change.

Heck, we don't even know if the Democrats will be allowed to retake the House at this point and if they do what will be done to slow down or reverse the train-wreck that started with Bush vs. Gore.

[blueinredohio]

30. Who's to say we won't have 2/3 after November?

[still_one]

31. Ya think so. The polls seem to differ

[sarisataka]

33. Math

Democrats could sweep the Senate elections and they still would not have 2/3

[mcar]

44. Math

[Sunsky]

37. I believe

Republicans will bail on Trump if they get their ass handed to them in November, especially those vulnerable Senators up for reelection in 2020.

[still_one]

46. nope, their agenda is more important to them, and they will choose a different nominee in 2020 if

they want to bail on trump, but no way will they impeach

[Sunsky]

50. Well, we all have our opinions

I'm not going to play the frivolous I'm right, you're wrong game. I believe the Rs are power/poll driven and most will do what they think will help them win elections. If they see Trump as toxic some will bail on him. Right now they are torn between the "Trump base" and doing what they know is right. If in Nov our showing is so strong that it negates the Trump voters, some will feel like their hold on power is threatened by supporting him and they'll bail. Only time will tell.

[still_one]

58. sure, that is what a large percentage of the comments here are, speculation and opinions

[Hekate]

38. They don't care, because clearly it's the Dems fault. Pisses me off. nt

[peggysue2]

40. Yes, there's no way we will have the votes to convict

That being said a sweep in the House and even a small majority in the Senate will go a long way in curtailing the Trumpster and limiting the on-going damage. Short of the Senate (which needs all things lining up, perfectly), the win in the House is absolutely imperative. Without the House, we will remain in the Wilderness with limited tools to slow things down and prevent Trump from acting on his worst impulses.

Corralling and curtailing is the main thing to start. However, if the GOP loses massively and investigations produce more incriminating information that cannot be ignored or shut down, you may see even Republicans jump the Trump ship for self-survival.

We look good for the House; the numbers are lining up. GOTV is the key in November and who knows: maybe the gods will be smiling and the Senate will become a reality!

[still_one]

47. absolutely, but the Senate is going to be a very uphill battle

[peggysue2]

48. No doubt about it!

All the numbers and races need to line up perfectly. The House is the main objective and absolutely doable at this point. The Senate? A stretch at best. But I'm not counting it out.

Hope is eternal

[NeverTrumpDemocrat]

49. Wait for Mueller's report!

I think Mueller is that good of an investigator and Trump is that much of a traitor that by the time impeachment reaches the Senate we WILL be able to find 16 or so Republicans to vote to remove him from office.

[Hortensis]

51. Still One, the "constant posts" went away.

I don't understand your premise, especially since of course everyone now knows 2/3 is required. That it's been discussed until there is nothing more to say -- and then repeated anyway -- is the literal truth.

[sanatanadharma]

52. Impeachment is political

The house impeaches (levels charges)
The senate convicts and removes from office IF 67 votes

As has been mentioned here, Republican senators might be politically pressured to turn on Trump

Nixon was not convicted in the Senate but left office none-the-less

OP is too "Oh, we can't do this!", but that is not necessarily accurate

[onetexan]

55. I share the same

Repubs may have a little more spine once they know Dems have control of Congress

[Squinch]

53. I would be shocked if Mueller does NOT turn up a number of provable flat-out crimes

in the background of the unindicted co-conspirator. Depending on what those crimes are, it may become politically impossible for a number of republican Senators to NOT vote for conviction.

Stranger things have happened. Like the election of the unindicted co-conspirator in the first place.

[cyclonefence]

54. Since you think the idea is wrong-headed, why are you still reading them?

Much less creating a thread about it? I bet every post urging impeachment has been answered by one which makes your point. Learning to ignore negative stimulus is part of being an adult.

[betsuni]

57. "Learning to ignore negative stimulus is part of being an adult."

Since you think the idea is wrong-headed, why are you still reading them?

[cyclonefence]

62. You're right, of course,

but I was hoping someone would have an answer for why, instead of ignoring topics you know are wrong-headed, people don't skip those posts. I suspect we have a lot of OCDish stuff going on--and my rising to the bait demonstrates my own weakness. But I am still curious why so many smart people can't just move on--surely you're not all as immature as I apparently am.

Predictably, about once a week there'll be a post complaining about multiple posts on the same subject, "constant" posts about something that is mistaken and has already been pointed out--multiple times--or posts labeled "breaking news" after 17 other posts already covered the topic. I generally skip right by them, but a lot of people don't, and I wonder why.

I'm glad I provided so much humor for you. It's always nice to be appreciated.

[beachbum bob]

56. yes, a conviction needs 67 senators to vote YES, but impeachment is the House responsibility AND

if we are talking impeaching a Judge or a President? I would love to have kavanaugh impeached in February 2019 and have the gOP senators defend a sex abuser leading up to 2020 elections

[Cartoonist]

59. So what?

The repubs had no chance of convicting Bill Clinton, but they did it anyway.

They won. Bush was elected president.

Here's a sports allegory. It's 4th and ten at the 50 yard line. You have little chance of scoring, so you punt. Hopefully, you can pin them down inside their own 5 yard line. You still haven't scored, but you're now in a better position.

Impeachment doesn't have to end in conviction in order to move the yard markers.

[onenote]

61. The Republicans performed poorly in the House and Senate in 1998 and 2000

In 1998, for the first time in 64 years, the party not controlling the White House (in this instance the Republicans0 failed to gain any seats in the House or Senate during a mid-year election. In fact, the Republicans lost seats in the House. And in 2000, they lost both Senate and House seats, despite Bush ending up as President. The impeachment effort did nothing to rally voters to the Republicans -- if anything, it certain instances, it angered voters and they took it out on specific Republican incumbents.

[workinclasszero]

63. Did that stop the republicans from impeaching Bill Clinton

for lying about consensual sex?

Of course not because the GOP attacks democrats 24/7/365 while we surrender and let them get away with it.

Trump has sold out this country to the Russians, looted the public treasury on behalf of his damned crime family, kidnapped and caged children in virtual prisons, etc,etc,etc!

Fuck the Senate that lawless pig HAS TO BE punished!!!!!

[EffieBlack]

64. Clinton's impeachnent was never about removing him. They wanted to besmirch his legacy

It was a temper tantrum against a successful president with barely two years left in his term.

This is different. We need Trump out of there. Showing our hands now and trying to impeach him if we don't have the numbers to remove him won't result in any gain for us and will only cement him more firmly in place and make it easier for him to be relected to four more years. The effort may feel good in a cathartic sense, but going for a Pyrrhic victory at this point is just idiotic

[workinclasszero]

65. So a republican that sold the country out to Russia

kidnapped innocent children from their parents and locked them up in cages like animals subjecting them to child molesters, looted the public treasury on behalf of his crime family, put in dept heads of the EPA and Education to name a few with the aim of destroying those institutions and a hundred or so other crimes....

Will walk away free and clear with the approval of the Democratic party. Is that it?

That will be sending a large and unmistakable message to the American public and the GOP for sure.

[EffieBlack]

66. Are you having trouble comprehending plain language this morning?

Because I said nothing of the kind

[DFW]

67. Obviously. The Republicans knew that with Clinton, too.

It backfired with Clinton because he was successful and well-liked. Senators who did not vote for removing Clinton from office did not suffer at the polls next time around. Henry Hyde knew Clinton would never be removed from office by the Senate. He was going for revenge embarrassment, and distraction value.

Trump is not successful, and is not well-liked. The more his promises to the desperate turn out to be empty, the more Senators who support him during an unsuccessful impeachment/removal process are vulnerable the next time they are up for re-election. Impeachment and a trial are also very distracting to a president trying to do his job. The indignity of a Senate trial would be all-consuming to Trump, who couldn't care less about his job, but is obsessed with how he does in the headlines.