Trump Is Just 6 Votes Away From Impeachment

Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
I didn't. In my original comments, which you quoted, I said "may come around," which means maybe. Unlike many of the others, he's at least being thoughtful about the situation and didn't just pop out with a kneejerk NO.
Click to expand...

OK, sounds good. I had nothing else to go on so he went into the YES column based on your post. I agree he sounds more like a MAYBE. Definitely not a NO.

I took a look at John Cornyn. He was a Supreme Court Justice in Texas, and has opposed Trump on Mexican Tariffs and the TPP. He voted to confirm Hillary Clinton as Sec of State.
He has supported Trump on the Mueller Russia probe and on pulling out of Paris Climate Accord. I place him just a bit on the MAYBE side of the NO column.

Here's our new breakdown:


NO:
Rick Scott FL
Mike Braun IN
Roger Wicker MS
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
John Hoeven ND
Kevin Cramer ND
Marsha Blackburn TN
John Barrasso WY
Jim Risch ID
Rand Paul KY
Tom Cotton AR


YES:
Mitt Romney UT
Richard Burr NC
Susan Collins ME
Mike Lee UT
Lisa Murkowski AK
Martha McSally AZ
Cory Gardner CO
Marco Rubio FL
Todd Young IN
Joni Ernst IA
Jerry Moran KA
Ben Sasse NE
Rob Portman OH


MAYBE:
Richard Shelby AL
Mike Crapo ID
Bill Cassidy LA
John Kennedy LA
Josh Hawley MO
Thom Tillis NC
Tim Scott SC
Lamar Alexander TN
Shelly Moore Capito WV
Mike Enzi WY
Dan Sullivan AK
Johnny Isakson GA
Pat Roberts KA
Steve Daines MT
Deb Fischer NE
Jim Inhofe OK
John Boozman AR
Mike Rounds SD
David Perdue GA
James Lankford OK
Ted Cruz TX
Chuck Grassley IA
Mitch McConnell KY
Ron Johnson WI
Lindsey Graham SC
Roy Blunt MO
John Cornyn TX


UNDECIDED:
Pat Toomey PA
John Thune SD


These are only guesses based on what I could learn about each one of these figures. Some of the placements are based on posts by participants in this thread. As new information becomes available, these column entries are all subject to being shifted around. If you believe any of these guesses are unlikely, please say why. Tell me what you think. Specific reasons will be given strong consideration. (Generalizations are not useful for this exercise.)
 
It looks like what we are ending up with for this exercise is not that much outright identifiable support for Trump on the question of conviction on impeachment. Just 11 suspected NO voters.

We have 13 entries that sound believable for a YES to convict vote, and a whole lot in the MAYBE column.

Doesn't look like a shoe-in for Trump at all.

It could go either way.
 
Hello Threedee,

Threedee said:
The more we learn about the situation with the Ukraine, the fewer Congresspersons will want to be voting on impeachment.
Click to expand...

Actually for me it is the reverse. The more I learn about the situation, the more convinced I am of the duty and need to convict. To allow this crime to go unpunished will surely lead to more blatant crimes. Left unchecked, the perpetrator will no doubt grow further emboldened with a sense that there are no constraints.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Threedee,



Actually for me it is the reverse. The more I learn about the situation, the more convinced I am of the duty and need to convict. To allow this crime to go unpunished will surely lead to more blatant crimes. Left unchecked, the perpetrator will no doubt grow further emboldened with a sense that there are no constraints.
Click to expand...

you need to find a real crime tho, silly witch hunter.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Threedee,



That was a teaser. The OP also says the article is two years old. The OP goes on to say we are trying to make an approximation of what we believe the Senate vote on a current conviction would be. Strangely enough, we are currently at 14 YES votes, (meaning we are 6 votes away from conviction) but it sounds like we may drop to 13 depending on the discussion about Blunt.
Click to expand...

they still haven't even taken a vote to start. don't count those chickens. dont put that cart there.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Threedee,



Actually for me it is the reverse. The more I learn about the situation, the more convinced I am of the duty and need to convict. To allow this crime to go unpunished will surely lead to more blatant crimes. Left unchecked, the perpetrator will no doubt grow further emboldened with a sense that there are no constraints.
Click to expand...

What crime?

When/IF the proverbial "shit hits the fan" (meaning bringing impeachment to a vote), you'll find, like the expectation of Hillary winning the presidential election, you'll never find enough votes to impeach Trump. Wishes don't always come true :laugh:
 
PoliTalker said:
Actually for me it is the reverse. The more I learn about the situation, the more convinced I am of the duty and need to convict. To allow this crime to go unpunished will surely lead to more blatant crimes. Left unchecked, the perpetrator will no doubt grow further emboldened with a sense that there are no constraints.
Click to expand...

We've already seen this happen, with the Toadstool bellowing for China to open an investigation too.
 
PoliTalker said:
Like he is their favorite guy and they are just waiting for any request to show how much they appreciate him.
Click to expand...

Because when the Toadstool barks, everyone better jump, or else.

79byvk9.jpg
 
Dark Soul said:
Trump doesn't care if the vote to impeach. The resultant trial in the Senate will expose the Deep State players, and then he wins.

I don't see a scenario where the 'rats win on this. They obviously never thought it through.

Maybe Trump set it all up for them to destroy themselves this way.
Click to expand...

This is why I call him the Corbomite president. Anyone that attacks him just destroy themselves.
 
Port Tack said:
Un fucking believable! We just went through 2 years of investigating this asshole for colluding with a foreign power to help himself get elected with no proof he didn't.
Click to expand...
Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. YOU have to show he did. If you can't, there is no crime. Attempting to force a negative proof by an argument of ignorance fallacy is itself a fallacy. Neither Trump nor anyone else has to prove their innocence.
Port Tack said:
Now he asks another foreign power if he would do him a favor and manufacture an investigation into the guy he may well be running against now.
Click to expand...
He didn't. He we merely asking if there was anything to Biden's boasting. The Ukraine can not initiate an investigation in the United States. China can't either.
Port Tack said:
If that isn't colluding with a foreign power to help yourself win an election what the fuck is?
Click to expand...
You seem to forget that Biden did this to himself. Trump is initiating an investigation into Biden. Biden does not get a pass merely because he is running for any office.
Port Tack said:
But before he makes the call he holds up that 400 million in aid they need to fight the Russians?
Click to expand...
He did not withhold anything.
Port Tack said:
Just get in touch with my personal attorney?
Click to expand...
Why not?
Port Tack said:
The whistleblower
Click to expand...
What 'whistleblower? How many have been manufactured now? Two? Three? Do I hear six?
Port Tack said:
who is dead on accurate to the text of the call
Click to expand...
The transcript has been released. Read it.
Port Tack said:
but he is a spy or traitor and should be dealt like we used to?
Click to expand...
Who? The so-called 'whistleblower'? How do you prosecute someone that is a fiction?
Port Tack said:
We executed them.
Click to expand...
No, we throw spies in prison.
Port Tack said:
It is downright comical how the trump supporter can still sit there and speak as though this corrupt shithead has done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
He hasn't. You have not yet specified a crime.
Port Tack said:
Yeah I think some more republican senators are going to come around.
Click to expand...
To what?
 
OK, I did a little research on John Thune, to try to place him in a column. I couldn't find much integrity there, so he looks like another one for the NO column:


I also tried to learn more about where Pat Toomey stands. He has been really quiet, which is somewhat encouraging. His office released a short cryptic message the day the inquiry was announced, but Toomey has remained silent since then:

“The memorandum released by the White House today reveals no quid pro quo. While the conversation reported in the memorandum relating to alleged Ukrainian corruption and Vice President Biden’s son was inappropriate, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”

Since he has not been full-on defensive of Trump, and works in a swing state, he goes in the MAYBE column.

Here's our new breakdown:


NO:
Rick Scott FL
Mike Braun IN
Roger Wicker MS
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
John Hoeven ND
Kevin Cramer ND
Marsha Blackburn TN
John Barrasso WY
Jim Risch ID
Rand Paul KY
Tom Cotton AR
John Thune SD


YES:
Mitt Romney UT
Richard Burr NC
Susan Collins ME
Mike Lee UT
Lisa Murkowski AK
Martha McSally AZ
Cory Gardner CO
Marco Rubio FL
Todd Young IN
Joni Ernst IA
Jerry Moran KA
Ben Sasse NE
Rob Portman OH


MAYBE:
Richard Shelby AL
Mike Crapo ID
Bill Cassidy LA
John Kennedy LA
Josh Hawley MO
Thom Tillis NC
Tim Scott SC
Lamar Alexander TN
Shelly Moore Capito WV
Mike Enzi WY
Dan Sullivan AK
Johnny Isakson GA
Pat Roberts KA
Steve Daines MT
Deb Fischer NE
Jim Inhofe OK
John Boozman AR
Mike Rounds SD
David Perdue GA
James Lankford OK
Ted Cruz TX
Chuck Grassley IA
Mitch McConnell KY
Ron Johnson WI
Lindsey Graham SC
Roy Blunt MO
John Cornyn TX
Pat Toomey PA



These are only guesses based on what I could learn about each one of these figures. Some of the placements are based on posts by participants in this thread. As new information becomes available, these column entries are all subject to being shifted around. If you believe any of these guesses are unlikely, please say why. Tell me what you think. Specific reasons will be given strong consideration. (Generalizations are not useful for this exercise.)
 
The YESs are at 13, 20 needed to convict, 7 votes shy.

The NOs are at 12, 34 needed to acquit, 22 votes shy.

There are 28 MAYBEs available to go either way.

I do not know if Pence would be able to vote on this.
 
Lamar Alexander better defined his view on impeachment.

"“It’s inappropriate for the president to be talking with foreign governments about investigating his political opponents, but impeachment would be a mistake,” Alexander said. “An election, which is just around the corner, is the right way to decide who should be president. Impeachment has never removed a president. It will only divide the country further.”"

Closely watched GOP senator calls impeachment a ‘mistake’

This would indicate it is prudent to move Alexander to the NO column.

Here's our new breakdown:


NO:
Rick Scott FL
Mike Braun IN
Roger Wicker MS
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
John Hoeven ND
Kevin Cramer ND
Marsha Blackburn TN
John Barrasso WY
Jim Risch ID
Rand Paul KY
Tom Cotton AR
John Thune SD
Lamar Alexander TN


YES:
Mitt Romney UT
Richard Burr NC
Susan Collins ME
Mike Lee UT
Lisa Murkowski AK
Martha McSally AZ
Cory Gardner CO
Marco Rubio FL
Todd Young IN
Joni Ernst IA
Jerry Moran KA
Ben Sasse NE
Rob Portman OH


MAYBE:
Richard Shelby AL
Mike Crapo ID
Bill Cassidy LA
John Kennedy LA
Josh Hawley MO
Thom Tillis NC
Tim Scott SC
Shelly Moore Capito WV
Mike Enzi WY
Dan Sullivan AK
Johnny Isakson GA
Pat Roberts KA
Steve Daines MT
Deb Fischer NE
Jim Inhofe OK
John Boozman AR
Mike Rounds SD
David Perdue GA
James Lankford OK
Ted Cruz TX
Chuck Grassley IA
Mitch McConnell KY
Ron Johnson WI
Lindsey Graham SC
Roy Blunt MO
John Cornyn TX
Pat Toomey PA



These are only guesses based on what I could learn about each one of these figures. Some of the placements are based on posts by participants in this thread. As new information becomes available, these column entries are all subject to being shifted around. If you believe any of these guesses are unlikely, please say why. Tell me what you think. Specific reasons will be given strong consideration. (Generalizations such as 'Republicans will never vote for impeachment' are not useful for this exercise.)
 
Steven VanderMolen said:
I believe it's evident that if the Dim Dems had ANYTHING to impeach President Trump, they WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW. ALL talk and NO action, SO typical of Dim Dems and Loony Libs!
Click to expand...
Notice how the Trump cultists can never refute any of the charges against him. All they can do is deny and attack his accusers. Just what you would expect when they know he's guilty.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
floridafan said:
Can you document your claim, or is it just more everyday bull shit?
Click to expand...
Of course, he's got it bass backwards. It's the GOP "that wants to burn down our house and make a mockery of our institutions." And it's the GOP that is on the verge of destruction.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
PoliTalker said:
OK, I'm figuring Lindsay Graham and Rick Scott would never convict.

No:
Lindsay Graham
Rick Scott

Possible Yes Vote to convict:
Yes:
Mitt Romney
Burr
Susan Collins
Click to expand...
It all depends on polling. Right now, Romney is the only one who could get away with it. Ninety something percent of Republican voters don't want to see trump impeached. We'll see what happens midway through next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top