3 ms·

> Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate). That’s not how that works. Conviction in the Senate

by danhak 6y ago

> Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate). That’s not how that works. Conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3 majority vote, which is vanishingly unlikely even with Democratic control.

vorpalhex 6y ago
The first impeachment attempt seemed to have a reasonable chance on paper - but quickly fell apart because Democrats demanded running up the list of charges such that the entire process became a farce. Unless Democrats can really stick to one well aimed narrow charge, this one will likely fall apart too. They only need to include one ridiculous charge to have Republicans nope out.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  There were only two articles of impeachment. How was that "running up the list of charges"
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Previous to the articles themselves was an almost 700 page investigative report - and that report came up again, and again, and again. Had it been constrained to the phone call and the facts of that specific case, it would have been a very strong case - but instead that report's other findings were so questioned and interrogated it ruined the entire case. Trump should have been impeached for that phone call. Drawing any attention away from that was a mistake.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      That wasn't the claim being made. There were two charges 1) The Phone Call 2) Obstruction of Justice The investigative report, you know the evidence, was needed. Your version of how this went down doesn't make any sense.
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        I spent several days watching the proceedings as they happened. Yes, formally there were two charges, but because the investigative report mentions other things those topics can be raised. In attempting to resist impeachment, the Republicans want to call the report into question. That includes both it's direct evidence (attacking sources, resisting subpeonas, etc) and it's other claims. If you claim A and B and I debunk B, it sure feels like I weaken A (that's not logically correct, but people fall for this trick all the time). RealClearPolitics, which is a Republican heavy source - so note here, they ARE biased - lays out the argument the Republicans used: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/28/democrats_dubious_impeachment_subtext_of_treason_142243.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/28/democr...! (and I'm not saying RCP is accurate as a whole, but I'm saying they are accurate as to the Republican argument against impeachment)

by danhak 6y ago

vorpalhex 6y ago

The first impeachment attempt seemed to have a reasonable chance on paper - but quickly fell apart because Democrats demanded running up the list of charges such that the entire process became a farce. Unless Democrats can really stick to one well aimed narrow charge, this one will likely fall apart too. They only need to include one ridiculous charge to have Republicans nope out.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
There were only two articles of impeachment. How was that "running up the list of charges"
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Previous to the articles themselves was an almost 700 page investigative report - and that report came up again, and again, and again. Had it been constrained to the phone call and the facts of that specific case, it would have been a very strong case - but instead that report's other findings were so questioned and interrogated it ruined the entire case. Trump should have been impeached for that phone call. Drawing any attention away from that was a mistake.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    That wasn't the claim being made. There were two charges 1) The Phone Call 2) Obstruction of Justice The investigative report, you know the evidence, was needed. Your version of how this went down doesn't make any sense.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      I spent several days watching the proceedings as they happened. Yes, formally there were two charges, but because the investigative report mentions other things those topics can be raised. In attempting to resist impeachment, the Republicans want to call the report into question. That includes both it's direct evidence (attacking sources, resisting subpeonas, etc) and it's other claims. If you claim A and B and I debunk B, it sure feels like I weaken A (that's not logically correct, but people fall for this trick all the time). RealClearPolitics, which is a Republican heavy source - so note here, they ARE biased - lays out the argument the Republicans used: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/28/democrats_dubious_impeachment_subtext_of_treason_142243.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/28/democr...! (and I'm not saying RCP is accurate as a whole, but I'm saying they are accurate as to the Republican argument against impeachment)