Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

I want to see a poll done that asks the question, "If Trump is removed from office and disqualified from running in 2020, would you support a centrist/moderate Republican that is willing to compromise?" I worry that too many conservatives finally have someone pushing their agenda and won't support someone who works with the Democrats and would rather do what is best for the country instead of the conservative movement.

 

That is the disconnect between the moderate Republicans and the anti-Left wing conservatives. They like Trump because he doesn't negotiate or compromise with Democrats. And it doesn't matter what rules or laws have to be broken to ensure that they win and stay in power to prevent Democrats from enacting their culture and agenda onto them.

Here is one website I came across that outlines the Trump platform that they will be running on.
Donald J Trump 2020

They have dug in so far that I don't see how it will get better in the next decade. And this was my fear as to what was going to happen the day after the 2016 election. If Hillary would have won, then they would have been branded a fringe group that was loud, but ineffective. Now that they won and the moderates Romney and McCain lost, it isn't going to get better until there is a 70%-30% election against them.

 

It will be interesting to see if Pelosi holding off will cause the story to get buried and forgotten about, or if it is going to be kept in the news more and more as the press keeps asking about it.

But, I will say that having the TV show Survivor on right after the House vote was kind of strange. It seems like this is just another reality TV show event. Will the Senate find 18 Republicans who will vote to remove? What riots will happen if that occurs? Would any of the Democratic candidates be able to win against Pence, Cruz, or Haley?

 

She can keep adding things to the impeachment every time it looks like it will drop off the news cycle.
That way she can keep it going until the election.

 

Republicans for the Rule of Law released another new ad yesterday urging Americans to contact their senators and demand that Trump senior advisers (Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton) and personal attorney (Giuliani) be called to appear under oath at the Senate impeachment trial.



McConnell (R-Ky.) still wont allow it but the question remains if he has the votes to pass the "Rules and Procedures" for the Senate trial that he wants.

If three Republican Senators resist, he may have no choice and the pressure is building.

From the OpEd by former Senator Jeff Flake yesterday, two recent polls, including the only post-impeachment poll to-date that a wide majority of Americans want these Trump cronies to appear, and now this latest ad that will be aired in the home states of key Senators ( the above targeting Sen. Murkowski will be aired in Alaska) while they are home on recess.

Again, McConnell needs 51 votes to pass the formal Senate rules to conduct the trial. Senators like Romney, Collins, Murkowski and possibly one or two others appear uncomfortable with a sham trial and acting as little more than co-defense counsel for Trump.

This is not to suggest they would vote to convict but they might vote against a Senate rule that blocks these officials from testifying. There will be two weeks of pressure on these Senators during the holiday recess.

And Pelosi will just sit back and wait.

 

It is another mistake that is in the Constitution. The senate should be the jury, but they should have nothing to do with setting the rules. It should be the other 8 Supreme Court justices who should be the prosecutor and defense that figure out how to hold a trial to expose the facts to the public and argue what the Constitution says should be done in this situation.

 

I agree having the Supreme Court establish the "Rules of Procedure and Practice" for an impeachment trial would make sense but certainly wont happen in this case.

It is still unclear what role Chief Justice Roberts, as presiding officer at the Senate trial, will play. Will he be an activist and question the rules if those rules appear to put the Senate in the position of acting as little more than co-defense counsel for Trump or will he simply accept the rules as proposed by McConnell? Anything he might suggest or "impose" would still require a majority vote of the Senate.

But this is a good sign....

Murkowski ‘disturbed’ by McConnell’s vow for ‘total coordination’ with White House for impeachment trial

McConnell needs 51 votes (out of 53 Republicans) to adopt the "Rules of Procedure and Practice" for the impeachment trial and several - Romney, Collins and now Murkowski - have expressed concerns about a process where the Senate would be "hand in glove" with the defense.

 

I wish Lisa would stick to her guns on her morals but she tends to fold when pressured.
She has stood up a few times because she is an Alaskan but that also means she can be bought by things like ANWR and the funds for the ferry system.
She learned her craft at the knee of Uncle Ted Stevens so bending when it comes to getting things for the state comes with the territory.

 

Article I, section 3, paragraph 6 of the Constitution states...

The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation...​

Here is the "oath" currently in place in the "Rules of Procedure and Practice When Sitting on Impeachment Trials" (established for the impeachment trial of Clinton)

Rule XXV
Form of oath to be administered to the Members of the Senate and the Presiding Officer sitting in the trial of impeachments "I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ____ ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc2/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc2.pdf​

Havent Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and others already stated they have no intention of being impartial?

Will they change this section of the "Rules" so that they will not violate the oath?

Or will the oath remain in the "Rules" the Senate adopts? In which case, they would lie under oath if they maintain their stated intent of not being impartial.

More here, specifically on McConnell, from his hometown newspaper...
Opinion: Donald Trump has violated his oath. Mitch McConnell is about to violate 2