Logically speaking, what would the impeachment/conviction debate in the Senate look like?

[kentuck]

What would be the Republican arguments against conviction?

What would be their argument against the obstruction charges?

What would be their argument against the 251 contacts with the Russians?

What would be their argument about defending our national security?

How could they ignore all the evidence that Democrats would present and still maintain political viability?

Of course, they understand that they only have to persuade their supporters to hang on to their seats. But how many can hang on to their seats with only the Trump base voting for them?

What would be the best argument that the Republicans could come up with in an impeachment trial?

[UniteFightBack]

1. Mitch fuck said he would not even bring it. He can just kill it. I find a lot wrong with this

system and improvements need to be made.

[Cosmocat]

6. This

Does anyone even believe he would allow it to come up?

[stopdiggin]

2. like attack dogs. you keep imagining shame and contrition. nope.

Even if Mitch didn't kill it outright .. Republicans control how it would be structured, play out and unfold. Not a winning hand I'm afraid.

[kentuck]

3. So you think they would simply ignore all the evidence uncovered in the impeachment?

..in the House. It could pretty devastating. But, Mitch would just close shop and not answer any of the charges? That doesn't sound logical.

[stopdiggin]

4. I'm not sure if Mitch can just ignore

But it's a certainty the other side of the aisle would be countering by bellowing witchhunt, spying, no conclusion, no collusion, Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, every time the mic came withing reach. And that doesn't even address their ability to "fix" (read manipulate) proceedings due to their majority status. They will hammer their agenda and their talking points like a drum beat. They are not going to unilaterally disarm and just lie down for this. Would they dare ignore unpleasant facts/evidence? Oh horrors! (Yes .. I think they're probably quite capable ..)

And in the end, they cover themselves with one simple statement: "In my opinion, I did not see or hear anything that rises to the level .." And turn and walk away.

[kentuck]

7. Yes, they would be bellowing....

But, do not discount the impact of evidence laid out, day after day, in an impeachment proceeding. I would not want to try and defend what Donald Trump has done.

"In closing, if you did not see or hear anything that rises to the level of impeachment, I would question your qualifications to be in this august body."

[stopdiggin]

8. most certainly

You and I agree on one thing at least (n' probably at lot more than that). The more light that is brought to bear on this man and his administration the better. Decent people cannot help but turn away in disgust. That will certainly help. What I can't see is any sudden conversions or spurt of conscience on the part of our opponents. I think they have thoroughly proven that they are beyond shame.

[ProudLib72]

5. We don't care about the Senate

We need this to play out till November 2020 in the House. More and more and more evidence. More and more and more testimony. Keep the scandal front and center. Bring up all the damning information on the R senators like Putin's Bitch Mitch. Investigate the living hell out of them. Just keep it up nonstop.

[loyalsister]

9. What aboutism for one thing

Obama knew. Speaking of surprising election results- what about 2008

They can't ignore it, but they can spin it. I think that it would inspire conspiracy theories challenging legitimacy of Democratic wins. There is no bottom to how disgusting their CTs will go. If we doubt their effectiveness, we should remember who promoted birtherism.

I can't blame Democrats for not wanting to go into those weeds. Especially in an election year.

[spanone]

10. Ignore the evidence and declare trump not guilty....hit gavel.

[lastlib]

11. They don't need any arguments. They just take a vote*, we lose, and it's done.

*Assuming (dubiously) that McTurdle would even bring it up--he won't. But no way does the Senate get 67 votes to convict; too many GOPhers on the Putin/tRump/oligarchs' payroll.

[kentuck]

12. Then we impeach again...

...if he wins re-election and we keep the House.

Fight to the end.

[lastlib]

13. Impeach ad infinitum (and I'll be with ya on every try)--

but how do we get 67 votes for a conviction in the Senate? That's my only qualm.

[kentuck]

14. When we get 67 Senators...

Preferably 67 Democrats.

[tritsofme]

15. McConnell would likely "decline" to hold a trial

[kentuck]

16. He would probably take a poll...

..to see how it might affect his Party in the next election?

[tritsofme]

19. Their fates are tied inextricably to Trump's.

What they are doing now is what they will do next,
demean and delegitimize the process.

[kentuck]

20. I'm sure most of them feel that way...

It's a shame that we have to depend on the next election, rather than obedience to law and order. Voters can be very fickle and unpredictable, as we already know.

[Iggo]

17. I don't know. Let's do it and see. (n/t)

[kentuck]

18. What is the worst fear?

about impeaching the dictator?