What 20 (or more) GOP Senators will vote to remove Trump from office?

[Trumpocalypse]

In an impeachment, 67 votes are required in the Senate to find Trump guilty and remove him from office. Democrat only hold 47 seats in the new Senate. So who are the 20 GOP Senators that will break with their party and vote to convict Trump? Please provide a list of specific names. Thanks.

[OnDoutside]

1. Groan.

[Trumpocalypse]

2. Yes Reality makes some groan. nt

[OnDoutside]

3. How about you lead off with your list ? Y'know, pour encouragez les autres.

[jberryhill]

6. ...s'il vous plait.

Omelette du fromage Savoyard.

[OnDoutside]

8. Et apres, moelleaux au chocolat....yum

[Trumpocalypse]

7. That's the point.

I know of none. But some think that 20 will have a 'come to Jesus' moment and vote to convict. I'm wonder who those 20 are.

[jberryhill]

12. Not "who they are" but "who they will turn out to be"

There are a lot more shoes to drop, and hearings will bring that to light.

[Trumpocalypse]

14. And you really think there are 20 Republicans who

have the integrity to do the right thing?

[jberryhill]

15. When the time comes, it won't even require integrity

It will simply require fear.

Fear of the consequences of NOT doing the right thing.

Fear of the devil. Fear for their immortal souls.

Yes there will always be some for whom recognizing the practical necessity of their own moral redemption is like getting your dog to like Van Gogh. You can’t stop your dog from eating the crotch out of your underpants, but you still can make em feel guilty for doing it.

[Codeine]

22. Dude, you've got a fucked up dog! nt

[jberryhill]

27. Yeah, but...

It’ll train you not to leave your dirty underwear lying around, right quick.

[Trumpocalypse]

32. Fear?

Yes fear will play a role. Fear of pissing off the Trump base if they turn against him.

[alwaysinasnit]

4. I have no possible candidates but I imagine it would take ones who are intelligent enough to see the

writing on the wall and who have a smidgen of integrity left. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone who might fit that description.

[susanna]

120. This is my problem as well. Can't think of one GOPer that fits the bill, today.

The OP's original question reminded me of an SNL skit about a 'TBD' Republican who could change things...from back in early 2017(!).

https://www.thedailybeast.com/snl-trolls-spineless-republicans-who-wont-stand-up-to-trump-in-the-tbd-story

Scroll down a bit, the video is still there at last check (tonight).

This skit couldn't be truthier (props to Mr. Colbert).

[alwaysinasnit]

125. Thanks for posting the link. I will check it out.

[Voltaire2]

5. Zero of them.

But impeachment is an investigation that cannot be obstructed or pardoned away. Regardless of the outcome in the senate, the house is going to have to do this.

[Trumpocalypse]

9. With out 67 votes in the Senate it is a useless exercise

that will help re-elect Trump in 2020. What is more important, making the point or getting Trump out of office as soon as possible?

[Voltaire2]

47. No it would not be useless.

Unlike the justice department the administration has zero power to obstruct an impeachment. Assume the Mueller investigation is terminated. What then?

[Trumpocalypse]

48. With out a conviction

In the Senate it is useless. Worse Trump will be able to claim he was acquitted by the Senate.

[Voltaire2]

49. Nope. The evidence would be public.

[dansolo]

52. That doesn't require an impeachment

The House can have hearings, and they can release their findings.

[Voltaire2]

57. Regular hearings can be obstructed.

Trump can invoke executive privilege and take his chances with the court. He would have a much weaker case with an impeachment investigation. See the Nixon case.

[Trumpocalypse]

58. And a GOP majority in the Senate can

end an impeachment trial before it starts.

And Nixon lost when he claimed executive privilege.

[Voltaire2]

75. No - an impeachment investigation in the House

is immune to obstruction from the senate or the executive branch.

[Trumpocalypse]

82. Yes have hearings in the House for the next year

But no need to go for a trial in the Senate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

110. You're absolutely right on this. Impeachment should be the 1st order of business.

[treestar]

51. Why would he win?

Because of being impeached and acquitted? This is different from the Bill Clinton case.

[Trumpocalypse]

59. Yes

He’ll claim the acquittal proves he was innocent and the victim of a partisan witch-hunt.

[treestar]

71. but won't the Dems be called weak

for just giving in and allowing this criminal to continue in office because they don't have "the balls" and all that other stuff?

[Trumpocalypse]

74. By whom?

Better that they hold hearings for the next year to lay out all the evidence to the American people and then let them decide at the ballot box.

[Journeyman]

10. If it's to happen, it will involve at-risk Senators up for re-election . . .

If the perception of Trump support is seen as detrimental to their prospects, they'll lean towards solutions that may save their sorry asses. If he's not seen as a detriment, and vulnerable, gaining Republican support look difficult at best.

[Trumpocalypse]

13. There are only 21 GOP Senators up for re-election in 2020

and most are in deep red states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/2020-senate/?utm_term=.8a9aacac8771

[Journeyman]

20. And how many up in 2022, who will be looking beyond the 2020 election? . . .

Trump's venality will not be confined by time or space.

[Trumpocalypse]

34. By 22 it will be forgotten.

Especially if Trump wins re-election in 20.

[scheming daemons]

80. Get them on the record. Let them try to defend their acquittal votes.

At a minimum, Dems take Senate.

[Trumpocalypse]

83. And what good is that if Trump wins re-election

Better to spend the next year having hears to lay out the case against Trump but then leave it to the people in 20.

[XRubicon]

11. Totally clears the President. Thank you!

Very legal and very cool.

[Bleacher Creature]

16. Arlen Specter, Howard Baker, Pete Dominici, Jim Jeffords

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2018, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Did you mean current Senators?? If so, then ZERO.

[Polybius]

30. Metzenbaum was not a Republican

n/t

[Bleacher Creature]

31. Sorry, you're right. I was thinking Baker and wrote Metzenbaum.

No clue why I did that, but I fixed it. Thanks.

[Polybius]

33. No problem

How about Lincoln Chafee? He was another fairly liberal Republican who would vote to convict. In the end, he switched Parties.

[Bleacher Creature]

39. Good one.

His father, John Chafee, was also really moderate and was actually seen as a champion of environmental issues.

[dlk]

17. Let's Face It, There Aren't 20 Republican Senators with the Ethics to Vote for Impeachment

In their book, the rule of law is for the other guy--party comes first, last and always for them.

[Hoyt]

18. Almost all GOPers will encourage trump to resign when trump supporters

tell them to. Right now, most of those who voted for trump would vote for him today, even if they are ticked at trump for not deporting millions, not bombing Iran and NK, failing to completely abolish ACA, etc.

[FakeNoose]

100. Yes that's the key

They won't want to be on the record for having voted against Trump, but they will want him out of office. By now the majority of the GOP Senators have to know the scope of this, they know he's guilty and shouldn't be in the White House. They really don't want an impeachment hearing because it would drag so many others into it, like GOP Senators and Congressmen too. Trump's resignation would be SO convenient - it lets them off the hook.

Same thing happened in 1974 with Nixon. The GOP Senators, plus whoever was left on his staff, convinced Nixon he wouldn't survive the impeachment vote. By 1974 the GOP was the minority party and that made a big difference too.

[Sedona]

19. I'll start

Murkowski
Collins
Romney
Kyl
Rubio
Graham
Sasse
Alexander
Paul
Gardener

That's all I got-halfway there.



Flame away if you must

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Kennedy is another possibe vote. Even someone like Ernst. It really comes down to the evidence...

,,,and the public reaction to it. Then there are wild card variables. Signs of a coming recession could cost Trump some popularity and put him on thinner ice etc.

[enid602]

37. Joni

As I recall, Joni has plenty of eexperience castrating pigs. Maybe she could use a new pair of earrings.

[TheFarseer]

63. Not terribly familiar with Kennedy

No Ernst-no F’ing way

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Based on what?

Can you provide any proof to support that those you listed will turn on Trump?

[Sedona]

38. Just my hunch, nothing more.

[Quixote1818]

44. Just getting 10 Republicans will make Trump look bad and other Republicans look like they are puttin

party over country.

[Liberty Belle]

55. could pence cast a deciding vote to make himself president,

if he is not also impeached and removed?

[Sgent]

64. If there is real evidence of

Russian collusion -- not just campaign finance violations, I think you can add Wicker (MS) to that list.

[strongermessage]

21. Impeachment is not a useless exercise.

Others have said this over and over, but for the House NOT to initiate the proceedings against an illegitimate president who committed criminal actions would be a failure to perform their collective elected duty, regardless of who controls the Senate.

[lindysalsagal]

23. +1000. Plus, it allows for investigations, hearings, testimony, and unearthing 45's business secrets

That's why it's valuable, even if the other grifters side with him. The gop goes on the record allowing criminals to personally profit from taking money from Russian oligarchs, and the coverage might actually get through to the faus snooze losers.

Do it. Do it. Do it. Wait for Mueller and then do it.

[Xolodno]

106. It is....

...if you are impeached for lying about getting a blow job.

[0rganism]

24. if the evidence is tight enough the vote to remove will be in the 80s

i'd bet plenty that a majority of the GOP power players think Trump is pigshit wearing a gold robe, he's not really in their club, and he's making them all look bad while he pisses in the well. some may have racial constituencies they've been cultivating for years that this medieval dickweed alienated in months. they've played along so far, and they've got some payback for it, but when push comes to shove i don't expect them to have his back. the paper-thin qualities of their loyalty and reliability will be on proud display if the evidence convinces enough of their brainwashed voters of what has been obvious to the rest of us for the last two years.

i think the only thing that would keep them loyal is if they were equally complicit and hoping for a Trump/Pence pardon. there's probably a dozen or so GOP senators to whom this applies. the rest? they'll flipflop fast enough if their chances of re-election drop.

[Trumpocalypse]

36. You really think GOP Senators has that much integrity?

So far I haven’t seen any sign of that. Even if Mueller has a tape of Trump and Putin discussing the whole plan for the 16 election, most Republicans will just deny it.

[0rganism]

41. don't know if i'd call it "integrity", per se

i just think they're smart enough (barely) to know which side their bread is buttered on, and which side got burnt to charcoal in the toaster.

i think, initially, the denials will fly fast and furious. but as the hearings drag on and the evidence becomes increasingly irrefutable and public perceptions swing firmly into position, they'll fold like a cheap suit, they'll try to minimize damage. if that means throwing Hair Fuhrer under the bus, they'll do it, with less hesitation than many here suspect.

but the time must be right, we need a few months of truly sordid public hearings in the house for this to happen.

and when it does, as we realize the extent to which our nation has been thoroughly compromised at the highest levels, Americans will not be celebrating his removal so much as mourning the loss of the Cold War.

[Trumpocalypse]

42. The evidence about climate change is increasingly irrefutable

But they still deny it. Let’s not be naive about them or let wishful thinking cloud the reality of who they are.

[0rganism]

45. "they" are a fading minority segment of the population

a fanatical, well-armed segment, to be sure, but a segment nonetheless. whatever grim physical changes we face in the coming decades, the GOP will not survive the coming political changes as-is. those who cannibalize the dreams of misguided constituents to rise to high ranks within their vampiric organizational hierarchy see this clearly, they're going to plan ahead for a time in the not-too-distant future when only a small minority of the minority who voted for Orange Julius Caesar remain willing to admit doing so.

reality is change. they too will change. when they have to. and not a second before.

[Trumpocalypse]

46. They still control the Senate

and are not going to vote to impeach Trump. That is the reality of the next 2 years.

[beachbum bob]

25. Zero as of today. No sense to predict a what if scenario

[redstateblues]

26. Lamar Alexander- he's very old and likely not running- plus he's in Howard Baker's seat

[Algernon Moncrieff]

28. So here is how it could work.

None. But none may come at a price. If Trump looks to be hopelessly damaged goods, they will tell him not to run again - or else they vote.

I keep seeing rumors that the GOP PTB are preparing a "Run Nikki Haley" scenario.

[roamer65]

40. None of them.

They will get primaried and lose due to the MAGAt infestation of the Repuke criminal enterprise.

[COLGATE4]

43. Susan Collins - on twenty

separate occasions.

[treestar]

50. IMO this skips over the fact that by the end of the hearings

on the impeachment and the trial, they might just have to vote to convict. If the evidence is strong, there will be pressure on them.

[Trumpocalypse]

60. You're making the assumption

that 20 GOP Senators will put truth, integrity and the country before their party. Never going to happen.

[treestar]

69. why not?

It's a bit much to assume how they would vote after they hear all the evidence and after they know how their constituents feel about it. Republicans are awful people, but at least they want to be re-elected.

[Trumpocalypse]

73. If they had any integrity or honor

Merritt Garland would be on the Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaugh would not.

[Trumpocalypse]

113. Because if they did

Merritt Garland would be on the Supreme Court and Brett Kavanagh would not. And for the 21 who are up for re-election in 2020, most are in deep red states where they will be more hurt by voting against Trump.

[YessirAtsaFact]

109. This doesn't require any integrity

Just such damning evidence made public by televised hearings in the Democratic controlled House that the Republican base shrinks further and any hope of getting re-elected requires independent voters.

The GOP Senators will act out of fear, just like the last two years.

If the president is impeached, the Senators won’t have to worry about Trump backing primary challengers, but they will face an even more pissed off electorate in the general election if the evidence is there and they refuse to act.

BTW, I do expect that there is a “smocking” gun and Mueller already knows where it is.

[Sgent]

65. Your making the assumption that

McTurtle will hold a trial. I'm not convinced he would.

[Trumpocalypse]

68. Good point

He doesn’t have to or could shut it down before it can start.

[treestar]

70. Wouldn't there be tremendous pressure on him?

He'd have to hold out as a single person with most of the country against him. He'd have a constitutional duty to hold the trial. That would not be as easy as refusing to hold a hearing for a Supreme Court Justice. He could not claim that the next election is the only solution so easily. The Constitution does provide for the impeachment process.

[DDySiegs]

53. Maybe The OP Author's Question is Premature - Maybe There are More Important Questions to Start With

These more important questions are: After the new House is sworn sworn in in early January, (1) Will there be any R-members of the House who will vote for any of the actual articles that the democrats are likely to submit to the house for a vote? ; (2) How many such Rs might there be?: (3) Who might such Rs be?; and (4) What districts and states would they come from? With an informed and intelligent set of possible answers to these questions, the OP author's question will become much more interesting and informative to consider.

[Trumpocalypse]

61. You put too much faith in Republicans

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

54. Impeachment is a pointless exercise, no way the senate will convict.

It will be a waste of time and effort, like the Republican House and Senate voting to repeal Obamacare (ACA) during the Obama administration. No way he gets removed.

And, if by some chance, he is removed, then in 2020 we go up against an incumbent, and presumably more competent, President Pence.

[Trumpocalypse]

62. Exactly

Don’t understand why some are putting so.much faith in republicans doing the right thing.

[hueymahl]

89. Could not disagree with you more

See post my post 87: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211528215#post87

The impeachment process is critical to both getting the truth out and to exercising our constitutional duties to defend our nation against tyrants, traitors and those looking to corrupt democracy. It does not matter if the Senate votes to remove or not - that is on them and will be hung on them like a scarlet letter. Politics is well down the list of concerns at this point (though I think a detailed and exhaustive impeachment trial will pay massive benefits to Democrats).

[shraby]

56. How many will be indicted for their crimes? That's an unknown.

[Retrograde]

66. Susan Collins will express concern

Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul will get in front of cameras and deplore Trump's actions, but in the end all will vote as McConnell tells them to.

I'm changing my mind on impeachment: i'm coming to the conclusion that the House should start proceedings if only to get the evidence of Trump's crimes out in the open. And to dare the GOP senators to acquit him despite a mountain of evidence.

[Trumpocalypse]

67. They will take that dare

If GOP Senators had any sense of integrity or honesty or even shame, Merritt Garland would be on the Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaugh would not.

[Luciferous]

72. They won't remove him, I honestly think we'll be stuck with him until 2020.

[hueymahl]

76. Irrelevant, fatalistic question

Congress has a moral, constitutional duty to begin an investigation and impeachment proceedings. Individual 1's presidency has been an affront to our democratic system, appears to be run like a crime syndicate and violates our constitution, likely on a daily basis (see the emoluments clause).

If we fail to impeach, we will have failed ourselves, our country, our ancestors and our children.

Arguing that we should not do it just because the Republican led senate won't vote to remove is . . . words fail me.

[Trumpocalypse]

84. There will never be 20 GOP votes in the Senate.

Investigate yes, but a trial in the Senate is a useless exercise.

[hueymahl]

87. Doesn't matter

And it is not useless at all. It is a necessary part of our democracy under the constitution.

Personally, I think it also will be a huge benefit politically, to make the Republicans own their defense of this most corrupt, criminal president. But whether it is a political benefit or political harm, to not do it is shirking our duty under the constitution and telling future corrupt politicians that it is ok to do it.

I REALLY don't understand the point of your post. If it is to merely point out removal is highly unlikely, yeah, you are right. So what. But if it is to argue we should not even try? I hope that is not your point, because I find that to be dangerous, almost evil in its disregard for what is best for society and our country.

[Trumpocalypse]

90. The point is

Impeachment is a useless exercise. Trump will never be convicted in Senate. Acquittal in the Senate hands Trump a victory going in to the 2020 election. He can claim that he was the innocent victim of a partisan witch-hunt.

Better to have hearings for the next year to lay out the case against Trump to the public but then to let the people decide in 20.

The goal is to get Trump out of office and elect a Democratic President, not to give Trump an issue he can run for re-election on.

[hueymahl]

93. And that is where you and I disagree

Impeachment is not a useless exercise, it is a critical one that is necessary to protect our democracy.

As far as the political angle, I have a lot more confidence than you do about its benefits to Democrats, both at the presidential level and at the Senate level. Make those bastards own Trump.

Of course, a lot of this depends on the final Mueller report. I'm not advocating for impeachment unless there is a pretty iron-clad case. Or if they shut down the investigation before the report is issued. In a perverse way, this may be a great outcome. The house can hold hearings throughout next year and impeach in 2020. Toss that football to the Senate late in the summer and watch the carnage.

[Trumpocalypse]

95. It is useless

if there is no chance of getting 67 . It just hands Trump a victory going in to the election.

[hueymahl]

96. Like I said, that is where we disagree

I don't think it helps him politically. Quite the opposite, if we talk about it for two years but never do anything about it, that is a victory for him. A well documented case of criminality presented in impeachment articles after months of hearings? Followed by the Republicans voting to ignore the evidence and not remove him? Don't see how that is not a positive for the Democrats.

Regardless of the politics, if the evidence supports articles of impeachment, we must do it. It is our duty to the country.

[Trumpocalypse]

98. It will

It will give credibility to his claim the that it was a partisan witch-hunt and fire up his base. And if done so close to the election it will make Dems look like they are trying to pre-empt the will of the people.

A well documented case can still be made via House investigations and hearings but no need to take the useless step of impeachment.

Our duty is to get Trump out of office as quickly as possible not to engage in a useless exercise that will hand him a victory going in to the election.

[Qutzupalotl]

108. You seem to be stuck on the idea that impeachment means a Trump win.

That assumes facts not in evidence. You are probably basing this on Clinton’s impeachment, but he had the support of the public going in. That one actually was a witch hunt.

Trump has been denying everything about the investigation and his numbers are tanking. He’s now near 60% disapproval, and that’s likely to rise a lot more. For him to point to a Senate not convicting him after impeachment would only enrage the public.

The Mueller report will be entirely separate from Congressional investigations and presumably provide a basis for impeachment; it does not exist yet. We don’t know all the crimes that will be uncovered.

Mueller’s authority to prosecute includes any member of Congress. As just one example, we know that the Republican National Committee conspired to launder Russian money through the NRA into Republican campaigns. Anyone who did so knowingly is in trouble. Fewer Republicans left standing means a lower bar, and possibly even Democratic control of the Senate.

So it’s too early to say a) we won’t have the votes to convict next year, even though that is true today; and b) failure to convict will guarantee a Trump victory in 2020. The public will know a LOT more in 2020 than we know today.

[Trumpocalypse]

112. No I'm basing on the actions and additudes of GOP Senators

Read this: https://www.mediaite.com/online/orrin-hatch-reacts-to-trumps-suspected-campaign-finance-crimes-i-dont-care/

"For him to point to a Senate not convicting him after impeachment would only enrage the public."

No it will only enrage people on the left. We should not be so naïve to think they everyone will agree with us looking at the same facts. If that were true no one would have voted for him in 16.

So it’s too early to say a) we won’t have the votes to convict next year, even though that is true today; and b) failure to convict will guarantee a Trump victory in 2020. The public will know a LOT more in 2020 than we know today.

True things can change but I'm addressing those who want the Dems to vote for impeachment as soon as they take over in January.

[Qutzupalotl]

116. We should definitely wait for Mueller to report or finish

so we can see the totality of the criminal enterprises, then judge.

As to public opinion of a failure to convict, if it enrages the left and the middle, that’s enough for us to win.

[Trumpocalypse]

117. No it enrages the left

The middle can go either way.

[Qutzupalotl]

118. That depends on what Mueller finds, doesn't it?

[Trumpocalypse]

119. Maybe

But we can’t assume that everyone will react the same way we will. If that were so Trump never would’ve been elected in the first place.

[Qutzupalotl]

121. I didn't say everyone, and we don't need everyone.

[Trumpocalypse]

122. True

But we still can’t assume that anyone other than ourselves will react the same.

[Qutzupalotl]

123. True, and I'm not.

[PubliusEnigma]

77. Wait for the Mueller Report. They can avoid taking this seriously until then.

There are 22 Republican Senators up for reelection in 2020. That will give you a good start on who will turn on Trump once his crimes are presented in public.

[Ponietz]

78. The 1st 20 who don't want this jammed up their nose:

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=21|

[Trumpocalypse]

85. Do you really think they care?

[Ponietz]

99. Perhaps a couple but, on the whole, I think they are rats infected with greed and hate.

Even infected rats want to live, and I believe the next election cycle will make our ‘18 Blue Tsunami look like a ripple. But only if we throw down now with ‘em.

No more ‘wait and see’ about ‘smash and grab’. People are dying. The spirit that animates the Declaration of Independence animates our Party, and it is this spirit—The Resistance—that points the way forward.

I have a real can-do sense about all this. It seems to me that core DOJ, FBI, intelligence officials, even the military, have our backs. They want to know whether we can do this without ALL the embarrassing and compromising national secrets disclosed. I am not sure how long that will last. I believe we must go on offense, knowing the justice and urgency of our cause. If not, they will have had two further years to ensure that we never cast a meaningful vote again.

Sure, get the report first. In the meantime, let’s put those rats in a pressure cooker. Make them understand we will rain hellfire on their heads unless they take the path of least resistance.

Thank you for considering my reply.

[Trumpocalypse]

104. I agree

But there ways to keep the pressure on without going for impeachment.

[scheming daemons]

79. 22 Republican Senators are up or re-election in 2020. Get them on the record.

If they're going to vote to acquit Trump, get them on the record with those votes.


Let them try to defend those votes to the voters in their states.


Even if Trump doesn't get removed, make the GOPers have an uncomfortable vote.


Think Susan Collins can survive in Maine if she votes to acquit Trump? I'd like to find out.

[Trumpocalypse]

86. Most are in deep red states

where a vote against Trump will do them more damage. Better to have hearings but then leave it up to the people in 20.

[scheming daemons]

92. We thought Arizona was a deep red state a few short years ago.

Trump has changed the calculus.

Many of those states are more purple than they used to be.

[Trumpocalypse]

94. But not all

and without 19 votes impeachment is a useless exercise.

[LanternWaste]

81. What is the relevant point of asking for prophecy? Thanks.

"Please provide a list of specific names. Thanks."

What is the relevant point of asking for prophecy? Thanks.




On Edit: Oh, I get it... you think because prophecy is fallacious, you've made a relevant and insightful point, despite that point itself being predicated itself on fallacy: post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc.

[hueymahl]

88. LOL

Love the "On Edit"

Well done.

[Trumpocalypse]

91. The point is

there will never be 20 GOP votes in the Senate to convict Trump so impeachment is a useless exercise that will hand Trump a victory going in to the 2020 election.

[JCMach1]

97. The Ambitious, the Pontificant, or Both

Rubio, Paul, Graham, Collins, Cruz, Ernst, Hatch, Kennedy, Sasse... that list will also bring others along

[Trumpocalypse]

102. And the rationale

for this list? Especially Graham who’s had his lips implanted on Trump’s butt recently.

[JCMach1]

111. Ambition cleans even the brownest of noses

[Trumpocalypse]

114. Maybe

Really depends on what state they are from and if they are up for re-election in 2020.

[orangecrush]

101. 0%

[doc03]

103. You will need 21, Joe Manchin won't vote for it. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

105. Good point

Plus I’m not too sure about Tester either.

[aeromanKC]

107. It will be closer to +40

All we know so far is the tip of the iceberg. Once all the evidence against Trump is uncovered, the GOP will have no other choice but to throw Trump under the bus.

[Trumpocalypse]

115. In a perfect world yes

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world: https://www.mediaite.com/online/orrin-hatch-reacts-to-trumps-suspected-campaign-finance-crimes-i-dont-care/

[NewJeffCT]

124. It's not going to happen until more comes out during 2019

more from Mueller, more from SDNY, more from the Daniels suit, more from the Emoluments suit, and a lot more from public testimony before various House committees next year. None of it will be good for Team Trump.

If the economy does enter a downturn or recession, you will start to see Republicans defecting. Who? I have no idea. I'm guessing the ones in potentially tough races - Cory Gardner in CO; Tillis in NC, the guy in GA, Susan Collins (maybe), maybe John Kyl since he is going to retire?

[WeekiWater]

126. Currently, none.

Impeachment hinges on the Mueller report. I do believe Republicans will vote to impeach and convict under certain circumstances. The bar has been set by just about everyone when it comes to the vehicle(the Mueller report). That is unless an absolute bombshell comes out.