Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Tell me how

More evidence of the incompetency of Trump.

https://twitter.com/meridithmcgraw/status/1349703873485807617

This in itself would be bad enough, when you put it with Covid, his response to BLM and then his tantrums around the election resulting in last weeks attack, he has ensured he will go down in infamy and his brand is done for.

What corporation will want to list their address in one of his buildings and all the connotations associated with it.

prawnsambo

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm presuming from this that there'd be no point in the Dems trying to go ahead with a senate trial for weeks yet, probably not before the inauguration, which explains what's been going on with the slowness of proceedings in the senate and both parties must be fully aware of the certification and swearing-in legalities yet to be done. There's no sudden lack of impetus at all there.

I'm not sure if you're aware (you didn't mention it), but the Senate is in recess at the moment and not due to sit again until the 19th. So unless McConnell decides to resume earlier (not sure if that's his decision or that of the Senate as a whole), they can't start until then anyway.

prawnsambo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Clinton was a very good President in the grand scheme of things , broadly speaking he left the place in a much better state than when he arrived.

He was (and still is) not a particularly good/nice person though, mainly linked to his inability to keep it in his pants

Trump is an awful person who is leaving the country in an immeasurably worse place as well.

I know it's probably not that germane, but he is unbelievably charismatic as a person. Anyone who's met him (my wife did some years ago) will testify to this. When he speaks, you could hear a pin drop. He has that effect on listeners.

Quin_Dub

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're aware (you didn't mention it), but the Senate is in recess at the moment and not due to sit again until the 19th. So unless McConnell decides to resume earlier (not sure if that's his decision or that of the Senate as a whole), they can't start until then anyway.

As I understand it, there are two options for an early return of the Senate.

The first is Unanimous consent , which they won't get as multiple GOP senators would refuse. McConnell also has the option of declaring an emergency sitting , which he refused to do yesterday.

So it'll be the 19th at the earliest.

prawnsambo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As I understand it, there are two options for an early return of the Senate.

The first is Unanimous consent , which they won't get as multiple GOP senators would refuse. McConnell also has the option of declaring an emergency sitting , which he refused to do yesterday.

So it'll be the 19th at the earliest.

Thanks. I knew about the unanimous requirement, just wasn't sure what power McConnell had in his own right. At least it's out of his hands after the two new Senators are sworn in.

strandroad

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're aware (you didn't mention it), but the Senate is in recess at the moment and not due to sit again until the 19th. So unless McConnell decides to resume earlier (not sure if that's his decision or that of the Senate as a whole), they can't start until then anyway.

Can't help but wonder if there is any significant unrest planned for the 20th and how it's going to affect the outcome for Trump.

Tell me how

Pretty sure that MCConnells announcement yesterday ensured that it will be under the Biden Administration that the senate will next sit so as I understand it, they are not reconvening on the 19th.

aloyisious

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're aware (you didn't mention it), but the Senate is in recess at the moment and not due to sit again until the 19th. So unless McConnell decides to resume earlier (not sure if that's his decision or that of the Senate as a whole), they can't start until then anyway.

Yes, I knew it was in recess as there had been mention of a recall to hear the case. There'd really be no point in the Dems asking/urging one on the GOP if they were deficient the numbers on their side [the two unsworn Georgian senators] making the numbers in the senate 50/48 as I think the two unsworn could NOT take part in any trial.

CNN is reporting that the trial is not to start until AFTER Biden is sworn in and Trump has left office, so it'll probably be Thurs 21st or Friday 22nd, or even the following week.

FreudianSlippers

Tell me how wrote: »

Pretty sure that MCConnells announcement yesterday ensured that it will be under the Biden Administration that the senate will next sit so as I understand it, they are not reconvening on the 19th.

I may be incorrect here, but I believe the Senate was scheduled to sit on 19 January since they recessed.

Quin_Dub

Procedural question.

Could the GOP pull a stroke and "abstain" from attending the impeachment trial/vote meaning that the Democrats absolutely have the 2/3rd's majority.

That way , Trump gets convicted but all the GOP can claim to have not voted for it?

Or are there rules that might prevent that?

FreudianSlippers

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Procedural question.

Could the GOP pull a stroke and "abstain" from attending the impeachment trial/vote meaning that the Democrats absolutely have the 2/3rd's majority.

That way , Trump gets convicted but all the GOP can claim to have not voted for it?

Or are there rules that might prevent that?

Senate quorum is 51, but I'm honestly not sure how that would work in the case of an impeachment trial. Just looked it up and nothing stopping them from doing this.

What.Now

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Procedural question.

Could the GOP pull a stroke and "abstain" from attending the impeachment trial/vote meaning that the Democrats absolutely have the 2/3rd's majority.

That way , Trump gets convicted but all the GOP can claim to have not voted for it?

Or are there rules that might prevent that?

Very good point. I wouldn't like to see it happen as it's important to get some sort of cross party support by this would definitely be a get out clause for the GOP if allowed happen. I can't see why it would not.

Dohnjoe

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Procedural question.

Could the GOP pull a stroke and "abstain" from attending the impeachment trial/vote meaning that the Democrats absolutely have the 2/3rd's majority.

That way , Trump gets convicted but all the GOP can claim to have not voted for it?

Or are there rules that might prevent that?

Not an answer to the question, but in my opinion (GOP) voters would 100% see this as worse than actually voting against Trump, a cowardly stab in the back through mass abstaining.

prawnsambo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Senate quorum is 51, but I'm honestly not sure how that would work in the case of an impeachment trial. Just looked it up and nothing stopping them from doing this.

So if 75 voted 50/25, that would be the requisite 2/3rds and you'd have half the GOP senators voting against. Can't see why not. But I doubt they would.

FreudianSlippers

What.Now wrote: »

Very good point. I wouldn't like to see it happen as it's important to get some sort of cross party support by this would definitely be a get out clause for the GOP if allowed happen. I can't see why it would not.

Those that wanted to show up to vote for impeachment could request secret ballot, which is perfectly fine in impeachment. Let's not jump the gun here to the vote though, the real dog-and-pony show would be the trial.

FreudianSlippers

prawnsambo wrote: »

So if 75 voted 50/25, that would be the requisite 2/3rds and you'd have half the GOP senators voting against. Can't see why not. But I doubt they would.

Correct.

I also agree on your second point, I just don't see them not showing up en masse, but if the magic number is within reach (and it seems like it is) then you could see some GOP members who are pro-impeachment but not willing to put their head on the block not showing up for whatever made up reason they want (and COVID-19 would be a good one) and then suddenly the narrative is the GOP fought but on the day there were defectors (from safer seats) that pushed the vote over the 2/3 supermajority line.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Correct.

I also agree on your second point, I just don't see them not showing up en masse, but if the magic number is within reach (and it seems like it is) then you could see some GOP members who are pro-impeachment but not willing to put their head on the block not showing up for whatever made up reason they want (and COVID-19 would be a good one) and then suddenly the narrative is the GOP fought but on the day there were defectors (from safer seats) that pushed the vote over the 2/3 supermajority line.

Another good reason for GOP Senators to maybe not want to show up:

Agent Coulson wrote: »

They voted to impeach Trump now they are scared his cult followers may try to kill them.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1349747027438153734?s=20

Quin_Dub

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not an answer to the question, but in my opinion (GOP) voters would 100% see this as worse than actually voting against Trump, a cowardly stab in the back through mass abstaining.

Whilst I don't think they would actually do it , they could potentially spin it by saying that they believe that it's not valid to Impeach him after the fact and that they are confident that SCOTUS would overturn any decision to convict and "implore they colleagues to not waste time going through a pointless exercise and they refuse to facilitate such a sham" blah blah blah.

aloyisious

It looks like Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow may be Trump's defence team, along with Ken Starr, the counsel who investigated Bill Clinton.

An unusual info link: https://indianexpress.com/article/world/whos-who-on-trumps-legal-team-for-impeachment-trial-6222684/

banie01

aloyisious wrote: »

It looks like Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow may be Trump's defence team, along with Ken Starr, the counsel who investigated Bill Clinton.

An unusual info link: https://indianexpress.com/article/world/whos-who-on-trumps-legal-team-for-impeachment-trial-6222684/

That link is for last year's trial team.

Cippolone is on the outs with Don, and Starr has already said no.

FreudianSlippers

Don's pretty low on lawyers, at this point it'll probably be just Giuliani and some Saul Goodman type.

Hurrache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

at this point it'll probably be just Giuliani and some Saul Goodman type.

Can't see it being Giulliani, reportedly Trump is refusing to pay him for his recent services.

Nody

Hurrache wrote: »

Can't see it being Giulliani, reportedly Trump is refusing to pay him for his recent services.

Well he's been charging over 15k USD a day and I don't think Trump finds that value for money when he's the one paying it :P

aloyisious

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Senate quorum is 51, but I'm honestly not sure how that would work in the case of an impeachment trial. Just looked it up and nothing stopping them from doing this.

The content in the following link sounds most unusual for a quorum procedure but....

Quorum - The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.

https://www.cop.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Clinton was a very good President in the grand scheme of things , broadly speaking he left the place in a much better state than when he arrived.

He was (and still is) not a particularly good/nice person though, mainly linked to his inability to keep it in his pants

Trump is an awful person who is leaving the country in an immeasurably worse place as well.

That's a bold statement Quin. What you judge him to have done to warrant that assessment?

Many of the issues US society, and the by extension the rest of the world, began under his adminstration.

FreudianSlippers

aloyisious wrote: »

Cam Kamala count as the 51st in the case of NO GOP members turning up to make a quorum?

The content in the following link sounds most unusual for a quorum procedure but....

Quorum - The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.

https://www.cop.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm

I don't believe the President of the Senate counts.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't believe the President of the Senate counts.

Just checked the Senate rules there and it's clear that it's 51 Senators, so no she wouldn't count.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's a bold statement Quin. What you judge him to have done to warrant that assessment?

Many of the issues US society, and the by extension the rest of the world, began under his adminstration.

It was a broad statement in terms of things like the deficit and employment. He had a number of important Foreign policy achievements as well.

He absolutely did things poorly and those are there for discussion.

But as I said , net net I think the US was better off after him than before.

Overheal

Won't need it. 48 Dems, 2 Dem-caucusing Independents, and at least 1 Senator who already convicted him once and would gladly do it again.



51 Senators guaranteed.

Itssoeasy

The more details that I’m hearing about attack on the US capitol the more I’m thinking that not only was there massive encouragement of it, but direct help by people in the building. It seems panic buttons were removed(I’d never thought about panic buttons being in offices but it makes sense) which is a bit sinister and deliberate. There was congressman James clyburn who said the people went to a specific office of his. I’ve watched a few official videos of the capitol building and its not a small building and unless you knew where to go you’d be lost.