timschochet
Footballguy
I ended this thread in a question mark because I’m not sure about my thoughts on this and wanted some feedback. Based on the arguments below I’m leaning in this direction, but I haven’t fully committed to it. Here are my arguments:
Against impeachment:
1. It’s going to fail. 45 out of 50 Republican senators already voted to dismiss it. So that means that at least 12 of these same senators would then have to change their minds and vote to convict? That’s never going to happen. So Trump is going to be acquitted, again, and he and his supporters are going to take a victory lap, again. He might hold a rally to celebrate. He might end up, among Republicans, more popular than ever. Who wants to see that? I certainly don’t.
2. Doesn’t matter, the argument goes. Put the man on trial in the Senate and let the chips fall where they may. If these senators vote to acquit him, put them on record. This was my reasoning a year ago. Except that this time the Republicans have a legitimate out: namely that impeachment of a guy already out of office is unconstitutional. They will cling to this position without having to offer any opinion about Trump’s actions. Are they right? I have no clue, But it’s a legitimate argument. Furthermore I think it’s one that’s easy to understand by the public and they’re at least somewhat sympathetic to it. Even my daughter, who detests Trump, asked me the other day, “But can they impeach him if he’s already out?” I answered, “They say they can” which sounded pretty lame to me.
3. The desired punishment for impeachment is that Trump will be restricted from running for office again. I’m uncomfortable with this. I regard Donald Trump as by far the worst President we’ve ever had. But there are millions of Americans who disagree with me. There are apparently millions of Americans who, after the last four years, even after the events of January 6, would choose to vote for him again! Do we have the right to stop them if that is their desire? This seems undemocratic to me and I don’t like it much for the same reasons I’ve never liked term limits.
For Censure
1. it will pass.
2. If you’re looking to put Republicans on the spot (and I am; not for partisan reasons but because they need to confront the extremism in their midst before it completely corrupts their party IMO) then this vote would do it in a way that impeachment never would because they don’t have the unconstitutional out.
3. I think many Republicans will vote to censure and while that will anger the Republican base it will also diminish Trump’s power and influence. I always go back to the Joe McCarthy analogy: he was censured after the Army-McCarthy hearing and was never the same.
4. There is some talk that once impeachment fails THEN you censure him. And this is better than nothing. But an acquittal would weaken a censure vote, perhaps prevent it. Far less Republicans would be inclined to vote for it, and the public would be weary and probably indifferent by then. A censure now world be far more powerful.
Anyhow, that’s where my head is at presently. Thoughts?
Against impeachment:
1. It’s going to fail. 45 out of 50 Republican senators already voted to dismiss it. So that means that at least 12 of these same senators would then have to change their minds and vote to convict? That’s never going to happen. So Trump is going to be acquitted, again, and he and his supporters are going to take a victory lap, again. He might hold a rally to celebrate. He might end up, among Republicans, more popular than ever. Who wants to see that? I certainly don’t.
2. Doesn’t matter, the argument goes. Put the man on trial in the Senate and let the chips fall where they may. If these senators vote to acquit him, put them on record. This was my reasoning a year ago. Except that this time the Republicans have a legitimate out: namely that impeachment of a guy already out of office is unconstitutional. They will cling to this position without having to offer any opinion about Trump’s actions. Are they right? I have no clue, But it’s a legitimate argument. Furthermore I think it’s one that’s easy to understand by the public and they’re at least somewhat sympathetic to it. Even my daughter, who detests Trump, asked me the other day, “But can they impeach him if he’s already out?” I answered, “They say they can” which sounded pretty lame to me.
3. The desired punishment for impeachment is that Trump will be restricted from running for office again. I’m uncomfortable with this. I regard Donald Trump as by far the worst President we’ve ever had. But there are millions of Americans who disagree with me. There are apparently millions of Americans who, after the last four years, even after the events of January 6, would choose to vote for him again! Do we have the right to stop them if that is their desire? This seems undemocratic to me and I don’t like it much for the same reasons I’ve never liked term limits.
For Censure
1. it will pass.
2. If you’re looking to put Republicans on the spot (and I am; not for partisan reasons but because they need to confront the extremism in their midst before it completely corrupts their party IMO) then this vote would do it in a way that impeachment never would because they don’t have the unconstitutional out.
3. I think many Republicans will vote to censure and while that will anger the Republican base it will also diminish Trump’s power and influence. I always go back to the Joe McCarthy analogy: he was censured after the Army-McCarthy hearing and was never the same.
4. There is some talk that once impeachment fails THEN you censure him. And this is better than nothing. But an acquittal would weaken a censure vote, perhaps prevent it. Far less Republicans would be inclined to vote for it, and the public would be weary and probably indifferent by then. A censure now world be far more powerful.
Anyhow, that’s where my head is at presently. Thoughts?