The route to conviction in the Senate

[solarbird]

Another twitter original, as one does, in response to the usual suspects saying the usual sorts of things. We actually do have a path here and I think McConnell is signalling it pretty clearly. Here's the whys and hows.

---

Second Impeachment is official. Second Trial - well, Moscow Mitch is not going to let that happen while he's leader. But it still will, and that's his plan.

Walk with me, I'll explain.

-----

A lot of people seem to think there's no chance of conviction, but there's a real route to get there.

Step one, obviously, is getting it out of the house. That's sorted.

-----

Mitch not bringing back the Senate now is actually step two. He won't let this happen while he's majority leader, which is good, because right now, Democrats only have 48 (or 49 if you count Romney) for the ban.

But on the 22nd or so, it's a Democratic majority leader in charge.

-----

And there will be a trial, and this time, there will be evidence presented. It won't change votes, but doesn't need to. It'll make the public case for the ban.

What matters is that a lot of other Republicans - like Ted Cruz - want to be president in 2024.

-----

And a lot of donors - a _lot_ of donors - do _not_ want Trump to run again.

There's your motive. This motive is critical.

-----

Now. At that point, you need 2/3rds to convict, and you've got VP Harris as backup if there's a tie.

Cruz et al will rail against conviction at every moment...

...all while doing everything he can behind the scenes to convince other Republican senators to vote for it.

-----

We only need a third of the caucus, remember that.

For those who vote to convict, the line will be, "I felt I had to send a message about Trump's irresponsible tone and divisive rhetoric. Besides, he was already out - I'd've voted against, if it would've actually removed him."

-----

And then the same people who crossed over to convict will vote _against_ the ban on his holding office again.

It'll pass no worse than 51-49, with Romney crossing over again - or 51-50, if he doesn't.

They're only needed _once_, not twice.

-----

_This_ lets them say, "I voted against the ban, _obviously_. The Republican Party should be able to nominate anyone Republicans want - including Trump! But the Democrats rigged in a partisan conviction in a partisan abuse of power, and that's why we need to take back the Senate."

[eta: And then they'd continue, "So please donate to my re-election campaign." Wasn't room for that in the tweet.]

-----

So they can mostly vote _for_ Trump in the first round (with some defectors), vote for Trump in a block on the ban, blame the Democrats, and _still_ be rid of Donald J. Trump - at least, as a candidate.

For good.

-----

They'd be stupid _not_ to do this. That doesn't mean they won't be stupid, because they are absolutely dumber than a sack of hammers.

But politically, it's the best thing they can do, _for themselves_.

And they understand politics.

And that's the route to conviction.

-----

Doesn't mean we'll get it.

Just that there's a route.

We have a shot.

Comments

[kathmandu]

I will be interested to observe how it goes. Personally, I have a lot of trouble distinguishing when they're being RWA followers and when they're hoping to take over as the new leader. It's like 'evil vs. stupid' - so often it's both, but sometimes the stupid gets in the way of the evil, and sometimes they synergize.

[solarbird]

RWA.

Normally that means Romance Writers of America. Right-Wing Asshats? What?

[kathmandu]

Right-Wing Authoritarian, in this context.

A Canadian professor named Bob Altemeyer wrote a book a few years back, establishing that as a standard term because, he pointed out, 'right-wing' and 'authoritarian' both are fundamentally about pushing other people around. And he wrote about how people who just have strong RWA tendencies are cult/mob followers, but people who have those tendencies and a strong Social Dominance Orientation are the ones who lead the mob/cult/whatever.

[kevin_standlee]

Harris doesn't vote on the impeachment trial; the Chief Justice presides, but I'm not sure he has a vote, and that would only apply to any procedural matters, I think. But there are no ties possible on the impeachment trial vote: 2/3 is 2/3: at least twice as many yea as nay votes, and exactly 2/3 (presumably 67 as they'd probably get everyone there to vote) is still 2/3.

I hadn't considered that a vote on the ban from ever holding office (and presumably on removing all of the past-presidential perks) would only need a majority, on which VP Harris could break ties, but it does seem plausible to me. There are no precedents here of which I'm aware.

I keep seeing people saying that the courts would get involved, including and up to the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure that at any level, but certainly at the SCOTUS, the answer is "Impeachment is a political trial, and we're not a political court; we're a law court: your case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."

[solarbird]

I was thinking specifically about the ban case with Harris, it's just phrased badly. That's the danger of writing on Twitter, you combine thoughts and can't fix them later.