Art of the Dirty Deal: Now we know SPECIFICALLY why Trump WILL NOT BE convicted by the Senate.

[Miles Archer]

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump discussed with aides whether he should start a party for his own voters as an increasing number of Republicans spoke out against the Capitol insurrection.

"The president said he would want to call the new party the 'Patriot Party,' the people said," reported Andrew Restuccia. "Mr. Trump has feuded in recent days with several Republican leaders including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who on Tuesday said Mr. Trump deserved blame for provoking the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Polls show Mr. Trump retains strong support among rank-and-file GOP voters."

That is officially off the table, Haberman said after fearful Republicans talked the ex-president out of the idea.

The move wasn't an attempt to separate those who supported Trump and the insurrection from those who didn't. It was an effort to "keep Republicans in line" on defending Trump against impeachment, Haberman said.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-talked-out-starting-new-party/

[servermsh]

1. We don't know any of that. It's all Republicans trying to put out messages.

We'll know the final vote when they vote.

[Miles Archer]

7. Well, if they vote to convict AND prohibit him from running again, he can do NOTHING.

No third party run, and his threats to "primary" them will be overridden by his desire to play golf.

[SunSeeker]

12. Exactly! And his word is shit anyway. If they vote to acquit, he'd still run!

He has to run to stay afloat financially. Scamming Trumpers for campaign donations has been thr most lucrative grift of his life. He ain't letting that go.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. They are still terrified he will support opponents for their re-elections. Nt

[Dan]

26. So, wondering...

If he is convicted and then it is determined that he can no longer run for any public office, then why can’t this happen:

If convicted for promoting an insurgency against the U.S. government, why not also indicate that he can no longer be involved (insert definition here) with any political (movement, party, activities) efforts within the U.S. of A.?

[StarfishSaver]

28. Who would impose that punishment?

[Dan]

31. Well, if the Congress can decide that he can't have any public office,

In for a penny, in for a pound...

[StarfishSaver]

33. Congress isn't a criminal court and can't impose any penalties not set forth in the Constitution

The Constitution expressly says that the Senate's power to punish and impeached, convicted president is limited to removal and disqualification. They can't do anything more than that.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Hopefully too many idiots means that these efforts to create another new national party

will fail miserably...trump is too incompetent too, as well as not exactly the best of health, I suspect.

[Celerity]

6. a new batshit cray Rumpatriot Party would split the RW vote and allow us to grab so many seats

[Laelth]

3. Silly Republicans! You can't "talk Trump out of" anything.

He will tell you what you want to hear today (if it serves his interests), and then he will change his mind and stab you in the back tomorrow.

There WILL BE a Patriot Party. It seems that Trump has been obsessed with the idea for months. The idea isn’t going away. He may not launch it right now, but promises mean nothing to him. It’s coming, sooner or later.

-Laelth

[Alacritous Crier]

8. Exactly!

He's just as psycho as every other psychopath.

[Arne]

9. He's also dreaming of some kind of Media Empire.

Want's to be the next Murdoch.

[captain queeg]

11. This is exactly right. You'd have to be a real dumbass to think they changed his mind

[SunSeeker]

16. Totally agree. Trump needs the never ending campaign donations to stay out of bankruptcy.

Sucking up campaign donations has been the most lucrative grift of his life.

[FBaggins]

4. The real reason is much simpler

Like him or hate him... there are few (if any) republicans in the senate who stand to gain politically by voting to convict... and few who stand to lose much support if they say “we can’t try an impeachment for someone who cannot be removed because he isn’t in office - much as we might like to”

[SunSeeker]

17. I wonder if it can be a secret vote. That way they could deny they voted to convict.

[FBaggins]

22. Why would they?

It doesn’t gain them anything. If a bunch vote to convict (especially if it’s enough to get to 67) they’ll almost all be tainted in the eyes of their base

And why would we? What if they claim that some Democrats voted to acquit? Then our base gets ticked off

[SunSeeker]

32. They would have plausible deniability. That said, I'm not sure a secret vote is legal.

Various Sunshibe Act and Public Records Access laws would seem go prevent such a thing.

However, an anonymous vote has already been used twice -- not to remove a president, but to select one. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were both selected by secret ballots through the House contingency procedure in 1800 and 1824 when the presidential candidates were unable to win a majority in the electoral college. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/29/opinions/secret-ballot-trump-senate-impeachment-trial-alexander/index.html

[onenote]

35. Pretty much impossible to pull off a secret vote.

The Constitution states that "Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."

So all it would take to force the vote out into the open would be for 20 Republicans to vote to publish the yeas and nays.

In any event I don't see either side supporting a secret vote. The optics would be terrible.

[pecosbob]

5. With all due respect, f*ck Ms. Haberman and her propaganda

[c-rational]

13. +1

[VA_Jill]

19. +2

Cannot STAND her. If she comes on a show on MSNBC I flip to something else.

[dalton99a]

29. +1

[Native]

10. Patriot Party has filed docs Donald J. Trump for president, Inc. with the FEC

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214998895|

[soothsayer]

15. Just the latest grift

[gldstwmn]

14. If anything wouldn't it make them more likely to

convict?
Maybe the Times should consider getting rid of Maga Haberman.

[lame54]

18. That's not the reason...

It was never going to happen
Trump's so called chess move did nothing
Trump could have sent each Senator a pop-up card of the middle finger and they still won't convict him

[roamer65]

21. If they don't deliver 17 votes for removal, they can kiss most independents and RINO's goodbye.

If they do, then the Dumpist Party is formed and that bunch leaves.

Either way, they are FUCKED.

[Mr.Bill]

23. I think it was a move to

sell T-shirts and hats.

[Captain Zero]

30. Made in China

No doubt.

[colsohlibgal]

24. He Won't Be Convicted But....

I believe the vote to bar him from running again is doable, you don’t need 67 votes, you just need a simple majority which is almost a lock.

[onenote]

34. You still need 2/3 vote to convict before a vote can be taken to disqualify

The Constitution is unambiguous on this point: "No Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present." Even if the majority vote to impose the penalty of disqualification is constitutional, it can't be imposed unless the person has first been convicted -- and that takes a 2/3 vote. Think of it like the guilt and sentencing phases of a trial. Guilt takes 2/3. The penalty, arguably, can be imposed by majority vote.

[czarjak]

25. NEVER...

Forget Rushbo's strategy, "Draw the tent even tighter, and stand strong on our conservative principles."? Sean's Conservative Victory may also be used as reference for The Stupid Party.

[Bobstandard]

27. Trump will burn those Republicans

You know he’s going to go third party. He needs the money. And he simply can’t be trusted. Not by anybody. But Republicans have shown they’ll believe anything