The removal loophole that no one is talking about.

[firm_bizzle]

There is about a 100% chance that Trump will be impeached and acquitted in the Senate. It will take 2/3 votes of the members present to remove Trump. However, it takes 51 (47 democrats + 4 Republicans) votes to determine how the Senate will vote. If the Senate chooses to vote in secret, there is a good chance that Trump will be removed. Here are the 4 Republicans that could vote in secret.

Mitt Romney
Susan Collins
Lamar Alexander
Jodi Ernst
Cory Gardener
Martha McSally
Thom Tillis
Lisa Murkowski

 

[sk8knight]

There is about a 100% chance that Trump will be impeached and acquitted in the Senate. It will take 2/3 votes of the members present to remove Trump. However, it takes 51 (47 democrats + 4 Republicans) votes to determine how the Senate will vote. If the Senate chooses to vote in secret, there is a good chance that Trump will be removed. Here are the 4 Republicans that could vote in secret.

Mitt Romney
Susan Collins
Lamar Alexander
Jodi Ernst
Cory Gardener
Martha McSally
Thom Tillis
Lisa Murkowski

Voting in secret to remove an elected President just doesn’t seem right.

 

[Crazyhole]

Voting in secret to remove an elected President just doesn’t seem right.

Agreed, and it would set a bad precedent. Senators need to be held to account just like the president. If they hide their record, how are we supposed to know if they are representing our state or not?

 

[Boosted87]

There is about a 100% chance that Trump will be impeached and acquitted in the Senate. It will take 2/3 votes of the members present to remove Trump. However, it takes 51 (47 democrats + 4 Republicans) votes to determine how the Senate will vote. If the Senate chooses to vote in secret, there is a good chance that Trump will be removed. Here are the 4 Republicans that could vote in secret.

Mitt Romney
Susan Collins
Lamar Alexander
Jodi Ernst
Cory Gardener
Martha McSally
Thom Tillis
Lisa Murkowski

Good call. I'm assuming you heard the tidbits from some random GOP consultant and Jeff Flake? They both said - being serious - that that 30-35 Republicans would vote to remove if it was a secret ballet. Here's an article making the case for a secret ballot back in '99. I bet we'll see more discussion of this going forward.

I don't see it as 100% for acquittal though. It's much more precarious than that and Trump's behavior is too unpredictable. Support for impeachment is about 50/43 right now. And that's with a behind-closed-doors investigative process. If you get 70-80% of independent voters supporting, pulling the national support to 60% during the trial - things could get interesting. National support will not be based solely on the facts of the case, but on Trump's behavior during the process So everything he does to secure and rally his base risks persuadable voters turning on him.

I would guess that those 30-35 Republicans are going to be highly influenced by public opinion. They know what they should do, but do they have the political cover to do it? Most Senate Republicans, IMO, would love for the era of Trump to be over. They don't like where it's taking the party and in many ways they're held hostage to it. They realize the danger the party is in running an incumbent who was just impeached, and they may fear what he'll do after being emboldened by surviving the trial.

I think this is much closer to 50/50 than people realize if you factor in the way Trump is likely to act going forward and during the trial. Look at the op-ed McRaven wrote last week. How does Trump respond if a bunch of retired Admirals and Generals start writing op-eds during the trial, calling for removal? The snowball that could build is hard to predict here. Imagine what he'll do if at some point Mitch says he's in real danger of being removed. He'll go bonkers, looking more unfit and building more support against himself.

 

[Boosted87]

Agreed, and it would set a bad precedent. Senators need to be held to account just like the president. If they hide their record, how are we supposed to know if they are representing our state or not?

These are fun discussions because these are same kinds of things debated back during the founding of the country. The Senate was intended to be a body that was not beholden to popular opinion, and that was by design at the time. Obviously today Senators win by popular vote and are not appointed anymore.

I agree that we won't see a secret ballot, but a public ballot presents it's own problems. Do you want Senators to act as a jury, weighing the facts and arguments as presented? Or do you simply want them to fall in line with popular opinion of their state, formed based on media coverage and TV commercials?

 

[UCFWayne]

that vote is not being held in secret.

 

[Crazyhole]

These are fun discussions because these are same kinds of things debated back during the founding of the country. The Senate was intended to be a body that was not beholden to popular opinion, and that was by design at the time. Obviously today Senators win by popular vote and are not appointed anymore.

I agree that we won't see a secret ballot, but a public ballot presents it's own problems. Do you want Senators to act as a jury, weighing the facts and arguments as presented? Or do you simply want them to fall in line with popular opinion of their state, formed based on media coverage and TV commercials?

In a way they were always beholden to public opinion. Senators were elected by the state legislatures, not appointed, so they were essentially just an extension of public opinion in each state, intended to represent the country's best interest as a whole.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Good call. I'm assuming you heard the tidbits from some random GOP consultant and Jeff Flake? They both said - being serious - that that 30-35 Republicans would vote to remove if it was a secret ballet. Here's an article making the case for a secret ballot back in '99. I bet we'll see more discussion of this going forward.

I don't see it as 100% for acquittal though. It's much more precarious than that and Trump's behavior is too unpredictable. Support for impeachment is about 50/43 right now. And that's with a behind-closed-doors investigative process. If you get 70-80% of independent voters supporting, pulling the national support to 60% during the trial - things could get interesting. National support will not be based solely on the facts of the case, but on Trump's behavior during the process So everything he does to secure and rally his base risks persuadable voters turning on him.

I would guess that those 30-35 Republicans are going to be highly influenced by public opinion. They know what they should do, but do they have the political cover to do it? Most Senate Republicans, IMO, would love for the era of Trump to be over. They don't like where it's taking the party and in many ways they're held hostage to it. They realize the danger the party is in running an incumbent who was just impeached, and they may fear what he'll do after being emboldened by surviving the trial.

I think this is much closer to 50/50 than people realize if you factor in the way Trump is likely to act going forward and during the trial. Look at the op-ed McRaven wrote last week. How does Trump respond if a bunch of retired Admirals and Generals start writing op-eds during the trial, calling for removal? The snowball that could build is hard to predict here. Imagine what he'll do if at some point Mitch says he's in real danger of being removed. He'll go bonkers, looking more unfit and building more support against himself.

Thanks for posting that article. I forgot to. The Senate isn't a proportional representative body, they are expected to deliberate with sincerity major issues. Voting in secret allows them to do that without worrying about votes at home.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Maybe you nuts could just worry about that "election thing" taking place in 1 year.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Maybe you nuts could just worry about that "election thing" taking place in 1 year.

Maybe Trump could stop breaking laws before the "election thing"?

 

[fried-chicken]

They better not vote in secret. I want the Republican senators on the record.

 

[firm_bizzle]

He's another political twist. 23 Senate Republicans are up for re-election in 2020. Most Senate Republicans would rather ditch Trump for Pence, especially those on the ballot in swing states.

What is better for maintaining Republican control of the Senate, Pence or Trump at the head of the ticket next year?

What is better for individual Senators' re-election chances, Pence or Trump at the head of the ticket next year?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Maybe Trump could stop breaking laws before the "election thing"?

I guess it's good that he didn't then!

 

[firm_bizzle]

They better not vote in secret. I want the Republican senators on the record.

That could put at risk a lot of Republican Senate seats.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I guess it's good that he didn't then!

-Soliciting foreign interference in an election
-Trying to hold the G7 at Doral

Those are just this month.

 

[DaShuckster]

Morning Joe Scarbourgh said on his show this morning that if there was a secret ballot in the Senate, Trump would be out on his ass in a landslide because Republican Senators detest him.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Morning Joe Scarbourgh said on his show this morning that if there was a secret ballot in the Senate, Trump would be out on his ass in a landslide because Republican Senators detest him.

Totally agree. They'll have to make a shrewd calculation as to whether it is better for them to run with Trump or Pence. Collins, Gardner, Ernst, McSally, Tillis would fare better with Pence at the top of the ticket.

 

[Boosted87]

He's another political twist. 23 Senate Republicans are up for re-election in 2020. Most Senate Republicans would rather ditch Trump for Pence, especially those on the ballot in swing states.

What is better for maintaining Republican control of the Senate, Pence or Trump at the head of the ticket next year?

What is better for individual Senators' re-election chances, Pence or Trump at the head of the ticket next year?

This is one reason I think this is much closer to 50/50 on conviction than people realize. The Political fallout is really bad in either direction for the Republican Party in general. Each specific Senator has their own specific risk set to evaluate.

If you're a Republican and Elizabeth Warren is the clear front runner by the end of the trial, 60% of the public wants Trump removed, and she's polling 55-38 or something against him head to head - you've got a big dilemma on your hands. Even if you're acting strictly in your own self interest with no thought of party or country, it gets really murky.

 

[sk8knight]

-Soliciting foreign interference in an election
-Trying to hold the G7 at Doral

Those are just this month.

The second one didn’t happen so there was no crime committed. The first one is wholly within his purview as the head of the executive and categorizing his request as soliciting foreign interference is spin. Even if they gave him a ton of smoking gun evidence and he used it, it still wouldn’t be Ukraine interfering in our elections. It would be the actual fruit of an actual investigation. But if you’re not happy with that, then it would be that term that you all were so fond of when it was HRC and DWS doing it with FusionGPS and Russia: opposition research.

Now if he solicited Ukraine to run candidates that they funded or they corrupted election officials or they bribed people not to run, or they invented information about Biden that were straight up lies intended to destroy his candidacy, or they threatened voters, etc., then they would actually be interfering in our elections.

 

[Ucfmikes]

These things happen so slowly that it will be election time by the time all is said and done

 

[DaShuckster]

The second one didn’t happen so there was no crime committed.

LOL. It was akin to a bratty kid picking up a candy bar but being stopped by the shopkeeper as he's heading to the exit.

The shopkeeper asks "You planning too pay for the candy in your pocket?"

The kid pauses and says, "Nah," handing it to the shopkeeper. "I've decided I don't want any candy from your stupid store."

 

[sk8knight]

LOL. It was akin to a bratty kid picking up a candy bar but being stopped by the shopkeeper as he's heading to the exit.

The shopkeeper asks "You planning too pay for the candy in your pocket?"

The kid pauses and says, "Nah," handing it to the shopkeeper. "I've decided I don't want any candy from your stupid store."

Sure. But the fact is there was no crime committed.

 

[jt_knight]

LOL. It was akin to a bratty kid picking up a candy bar but being stopped by the shopkeeper as he's heading to the exit.

The shopkeeper asks "You planning too pay for the candy in your pocket?"

The kid pauses and says, "Nah," handing it to the shopkeeper. "I've decided I don't want any candy from your stupid store."

But if you want to convict the kid for theft you better not stop him until he has exited the store, otherwise, he can claim he intended to pay for it all along and you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had the intent to steal it--even if he put it in his pocket while walking toward the exit. I'm not defending Trump or wading into a political discussion, just correcting your analogy.

 

[DaShuckster]

Sure. But the fact is there was no crime committed.

My point was that the intent was sure there.

 

[goodknightfl]

I could care less about impeachment, but NOTHING should be behind closed doors, every witness even now should be questioned in public, unless there is national security questions to be asked. and ALL voting should be public.

 

[UCFBS]

Voting in secret to remove an elected President just doesn’t seem right.

Agreed, and it would set a bad precedent. Senators need to be held to account just like the president. If they hide their record, how are we supposed to know if they are representing our state or not?

I like how @sk8knight put it. I would consider a Senate that votes in secret to be un-re-electable.

Maybe Trump could stop breaking laws before the "election thing"?

That hasn't stopped anyone from getting elected or re-elected ... yet.

 

[UCFBS]

But if you want to convict the kid for theft you better not stop him until he has exited the store, otherwise, he can claim he intended to pay for it all along and you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had the intent to steal it--even if he put it in his pocket while walking toward the exit. I'm not defending Trump or wading into a political discussion, just correcting your analogy.

Only what the US Media says is fact. Stop trying to involve due process, law of law and the courts.

I swear I will never vote Trump, but damn if the hypocrisy is beyond f'ing thick these days in the Democratic party.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I could care less about impeachment, but NOTHING should be behind closed doors, every witness even now should be questioned in public, unless there is national security questions to be asked. and ALL voting should be public.

No, then future witnesses can alter their testimony.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Good call. I'm assuming you heard the tidbits from some random GOP consultant and Jeff Flake? They both said - being serious - that that 30-35 Republicans would vote to remove if it was a secret ballet. Here's an article making the case for a secret ballot back in '99. I bet we'll see more discussion of this going forward.

I don't see it as 100% for acquittal though. It's much more precarious than that and Trump's behavior is too unpredictable. Support for impeachment is about 50/43 right now. And that's with a behind-closed-doors investigative process. If you get 70-80% of independent voters supporting, pulling the national support to 60% during the trial - things could get interesting. National support will not be based solely on the facts of the case, but on Trump's behavior during the process So everything he does to secure and rally his base risks persuadable voters turning on him.

I would guess that those 30-35 Republicans are going to be highly influenced by public opinion. They know what they should do, but do they have the political cover to do it? Most Senate Republicans, IMO, would love for the era of Trump to be over. They don't like where it's taking the party and in many ways they're held hostage to it. They realize the danger the party is in running an incumbent who was just impeached, and they may fear what he'll do after being emboldened by surviving the trial.

I think this is much closer to 50/50 than people realize if you factor in the way Trump is likely to act going forward and during the trial. Look at the op-ed McRaven wrote last week. How does Trump respond if a bunch of retired Admirals and Generals start writing op-eds during the trial, calling for removal? The snowball that could build is hard to predict here. Imagine what he'll do if at some point Mitch says he's in real danger of being removed. He'll go bonkers, looking more unfit and building more support against himself.

I'm sure Jeff Flake has no idea what is going on in the Senate anymore. For God sake the man was born in a town called Snowflake.

 

[Sir Galahad]

This is one reason I think this is much closer to 50/50 on conviction than people realize. The Political fallout is really bad in either direction for the Republican Party in general. Each specific Senator has their own specific risk set to evaluate.

If you're a Republican and Elizabeth Warren is the clear front runner by the end of the trial, 60% of the public wants Trump removed, and she's polling 55-38 or something against him head to head - you've got a big dilemma on your hands. Even if you're acting strictly in your own self interest with no thought of party or country, it gets really murky.

Why are you still believing polls? You would think you would have learned a lesson by now that no poll is worth a shit when it comes to Trump. First I doubt the house will impeach, there is a reason they keep pushing everything back. If they do impeach guess who will be called to testify, 1. The Whistleblower, 2. Adam Schiff. The Dem's will not let that happen.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Why are you still believing polls? You would think you would have learned a lesson by now that no poll is worth a shit when it comes to Trump. First I doubt the house will impeach, there is a reason they keep pushing everything back. If they do impeach guess who will be called to testify, 1. The Whistleblower, 2. Adam Schiff. The Dem's will not let that happen.

You aren't following any of this are you? One of the 3 individuals involved in the quid pro quo just laid the entire story out, timeline and all.

 

[sk8knight]

You aren't following any of this are you? One of the 3 individuals involved in the quid pro quo just laid the entire story out, timeline and all.

Let’s investigate recruiting foreign countries for own own personal gain chronologically. Start with Biden, then HRC and DWS, then Menendez and the Senators, then Trump. End the hypocrisy and drain the swamp.

Although, I suppose HRC would be first due to her CGI and Clinton Foundation pay for play going back years and years. So let’s investigate those very visible and blatant abuses that don’t even need a whistleblower to alert the public. Or let’s clean up politicians paying their family hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds to do nothing jobs like mailing out letters. I mean, since we’re all so interested in profiting off government positions and all.

 

[goodknightfl]

My point was that the intent was sure there.

Well I intended to speed to work this AM as I was running late, but the traffic was so bad I never got within 10 m

No, then future witnesses can alter their testimony.

Well now Democratic Reps in congress get to alter the witness testimony in leaks to the public.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Let’s investigate recruiting foreign countries for own own personal gain chronologically. Start with Biden, then HRC and DWS, then Menendez and the Senators, then Trump. End the hypocrisy and drain the swamp.

Although, I suppose HRC would be first due to her CGI and Clinton Foundation pay for play going back years and years. So let’s investigate those very visible and blatant abuses that don’t even need a whistleblower to alert the public. Or let’s clean up politicians paying their family hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds to do nothing jobs like mailing out letters. I mean, since we’re all so interested in profiting off government positions and all.

Whatabout Obama!

 

[Sir Galahad]

You aren't following any of this are you? One of the 3 individuals involved in the quid pro quo just laid the entire story out, timeline and all.

Who was that?

 

[Sir Galahad]

Well I intended to speed to work this AM as I was running late, but the traffic was so bad I never got within 10 m


Well now Democratic Reps in congress get to alter the witness testimony in leaks to the public.

You hit the last point perfectly. We have no idea who is saying what because the only thing the public hears are what the dems want leaked out. By the way, what the dem’s are doing is using a Star chamber, something never seen in US politics before.

considering Adam Schiff’s proven lack of ethics, why anyone would believe anything less than what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears from him or his committee just shows lack of understanding of the situation.

 

[Boosted87]

But if you want to convict the kid for theft you better not stop him until he has exited the store, otherwise, he can claim he intended to pay for it all along and you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had the intent to steal it--even if he put it in his pocket while walking toward the exit. I'm not defending Trump or wading into a political discussion, just correcting your analogy.

You're saying you can't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. What if there's other evidence? What if a witness overhead him telling his buddy he was about to go steal a candy bar? What if his friend he told flips on him? What if he explicitly texted his intent to a friend? What if surveillance camera footage demonstrates intent by showing him hiding the product? So yea, it's absolutely possible to use evidence to demonstrate intent outside of the final moment where the kid exits the store.

 

[Boosted87]

Why are you still believing polls? You would think you would have learned a lesson by now that no poll is worth a shit when it comes to Trump.

Because I believe in math? If you want to actually understand it better you can read about it.

You're actual argument then is - National polls under represented Trump support by 1-2%, well within the margin of error. Therefore, you believe it reasonable to ignore all polling as it relates to Trump.

 

[DaShuckster]

Let’s investigate recruiting foreign countries for own own personal gain chronologically. Start with Biden, then HRC and DWS, then Menendez and the Senators, then Trump. End the hypocrisy and drain the swamp.

The President of the United States holds up $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until he gets assurances from their leader that he'll announce an investigation of a political rival's son.

But in the World according to sk8 that's no biggie because "everybody does it."

 

[Sir Galahad]

Because I believe in math? If you want to actually understand it better you can read about it.

You're actual argument then is - National polls under represented Trump support by 1-2%, well within the margin of error. Therefore, you believe it reasonable to ignore all polling as it relates to Trump.

No, I’m saying people don’t tell the truth when it comes to representing Trump. If I posted anything positive about Trump on Facebook, I would open myself up to loss of future revenue because so many of the private equity firms I work for are based in either San Fran or the northeast. If I ever got a call from a polling group(never have) I still wouldn’t tell them anything about me.