Democrats consider impeachment alternatives after GOP signals likely acquittal

[dutch508]

Star Member orangecrush (10,776 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215016122

Democrats consider impeachment alternatives after GOP signals likely acquittal of Trump


The prospect of likely acquittal for Donald Trump at his Senate trial has some Democrats contemplating an off-ramp that would condemn the former president but stop short of impeachment and a ban from future office.


Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Wednesday that he has been exploring drafting a bipartisan censure of Trump that would short-circuit a potentially lengthy trial that could impede progress on other Democratic priorities.

“It could be an alternative,” he told reporters, saying he wanted the Senate to focus on responding to the coronavirus pandemic and confirming President Biden’s Cabinet. “To do a trial knowing you’ll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time.”


Kaine’s focus on an alternative, which has been brewing since the House voted to impeach Trump over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, came a day after the vast majority of Republican senators signaled doubts about the constitutional basis for trying an ex-president on impeachment charges.

Nearly all GOP senators vote against impeachment trial for Trump, signaling likely acquittal

Forty-five of 50 Republican senators voted to back Trump on Tuesday. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who pushed the vote, said it showed that impeachment was “dead on arrival” in the Senate. Convicting Trump would require the support of 67 of 100 senators.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-consider-impeachment-alternatives-censure/2021/01/27/fdfd9b6c-60bd-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html%3foutputType=amp




So, if this is to be believed, he is going to get away with it.

 

Star Member Turin_C3PO (5,298 posts)

1. It means he won't be convicted in the Senate.

Whether he’s held responsible criminally remains to be seen.

Star Member orangecrush (10,776 posts)

6. They literally Were stopped from killing members of congress by gunfire.

They killed cops.

I am reeling in stunned disbelief that the orange jackass will see no consequences, and will be even more encouraged to incite violence in the future.

  every word in the post was a lie. Do you think the left really believes their own lies?

Star Member SergeStorms (9,936 posts)

10. It makes me wonder...

exactly what would a republican president have to do to warrant impeachment? We know what a Democrat would have to do. Anything more dangerous than jaywalking would be grounds for immediate impeachment.

Midnight Writer (9,923 posts)

11. Exactly. We need a public hearing in the Senate to show the people evidence of his crimes.

The Right Wing have their media megaphones and their people watch nothing else.

They may step out of their bubble to watch the trial of Dear Leader. Who knows? Maybe they will learn something.

Should we forego trying a criminal just because a conviction will be tough?

Star Member Demsrule86 (51,282 posts)

22. The evidence is out there. I heard this argument before the first impeachment. It won't make a difference. Those who choose to see the truth already have other are not persuadable. Personally, I would censure him and moves on. Time is of the essence. McConnell will waste months on this and for what? Acquittal...Trump declaring himself innocent?

What evidence? You didn't give any during the first farse.

Iliyah (24,711 posts)

7. There will be a trial with witnesses and discovery . . .

It's the talking point of the RWers.

Star Member BeyondGeography (36,549 posts)

17. So if you lose an election, you can manufacture an insurrection and avoid an impeachment trial

As long as, you know, you have enough people cowed in your own party to avoid a 2/3 vote against. Because, time management?

Great precedent, Timmie.

Star Member BlueTsunami2018 (1,443 posts)

23. There was never a chance he wouldn't walk on this.

The Republicans are simply too afraid of their base to do the right thing. They always have been. Thus the old adage “Republicans are terrified of their base and Democrats hate theirs.”

They want to keep their jobs, Тяцмр owns these people lock, stock and barrel. If the terrorist mob had killed members of Congress they still wouldn’t go against the boss.

But we should put them on record, for all the good that will do.

Yeah- put them on record.

Recall Ben Sasse.

[SVPete]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH7KYmGnj40&t=19s

More to the point, this shampeachment died on Inauguration Day, 2021. A person who is not President cannot be removed from the Presidency.

[Mary Ann]

Walleye (4,530 posts)

40. It broke my heart to hear about the cops that were injured because they didn't have helmets, and the

One who lost his eye. I don’t even think these Republicans are human anymore.

I didn't know that an officer lost an eye. If true, it's terrible. I do recall though, that there were officers who were permanently blinded by the Antifa and the BLM insurrectionists pointing lasers directly at their eyes. Wonder if any of the dupipo think that was heartbreaking, too.

[DLR Pyro]

Democrats consider impeachment alternatives after GOP signals likely acquittal of Trump

yep.  Keep moving the goal posts since your team is comprised of nothing but retards who can't come up with any crime President Trump has committed...

[ADsOutburst]

Midnight Writer (9,923 posts)

11. Exactly. We need a public hearing in the Senate to show the people evidence of his crimes.

The Right Wing have their media megaphones and their people watch nothing else.

They may step out of their bubble to watch the trial of Dear Leader. Who knows? Maybe they will learn something.

Should we forego trying a criminal just because a conviction will be tough?

False. Most people on the right do in fact consume some news from left wing sources. Anecdotal case in point, I've walked into the TV room to find my 75-year old dad watching snippets of Cuomo, Maddow, Lemon, et. al. I'm sure he doesn't find them at all convincing, but he hears what they have to say.

So what's the problem? The argument from people on the left are trash.

[franksolich]

Recall Ben Sasse.

Oh, absolutely.

A Republican isn't required to like another Republican, but as long as both are figures of prominence, it's important for one to not speak ill of the other.

Other than signaling his ostensible virtue, I fail to see what Nebraska's junior senator gains from this; it's almost as if he's trying to get Nebraska Democrats and primitives to like, or at least approve of, him.

Apparently what he's not seeing is that no matter what Ben Sasse says or does, Nebraska Democrats and primitives aren't going to like him anyway.

[DUmpDiver]

I didn't know that an officer lost an eye. If true, it's terrible. I do recall though, that there were officers who were permanently blinded by the Antifa and the BLM insurrectionists pointing lasers directly at their eyes. Wonder if any of the dupipo think that was heartbreaking, too.

DUpipo only revere law enforcement when it's convenient.  They spent the summer decrying police trying to protect private property from BLM and Antifa while claiming police should be defunded and replaced by social workers. Why weren't they clamoring for hoards of social workers to protect the capitol?

And remember, when Trump activated federal law enforcement to protect federal courthouses and ICE facilities Trump was a fascist and federal law enforcement were his brownshirts.

[freedumb2003b]

The prospect of likely acquittal for Donald Trump at his Senate trial has some Democrats contemplating an off-ramp that would condemn the former president but stop short of impeachment and a ban from future office.


Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Wednesday that he has been exploring drafting a bipartisan censure of Trump that would short-circuit a potentially lengthy trial that could impede progress on other Democratic priorities.

Unconstitutional.

Period.

NOTHING in the USC bars any citizen not previously impeached from running.

From Article II of the USC:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

As for impeachment, ONLY IF CONVICTED does the following come into play:

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.

That is IT.  There is no "just disqualify" mechanism.

tim kaine can go kamela himself.

[DLR Pyro]

it's ironic that the party that preaches pro-choice 24/7/365 is trying to restrict the choice of millions of Americans to vote for President Trump at a later date in time.

This is very dangerous if this current regime gets it in their heads that they can prevent the "wrong" people to run for public office.

[Wineslob]

it's ironic that the party that preaches pro-choice 24/7/365 is trying to restrict the choice of millions of Americans to vote for President Trump at a later date in time.

This is very dangerous if this current regime gets it in their heads that they can prevent the "wrong" people to run for public office.

They have.