Expected Result
Feb. 13th, 2021 02:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kevin_standleeSo, as expected, most of the Republican members of the US Senate decided that it was more important to be loyal to Great Glorious Dear Leader in Exile Trump than to convict him for inciting a mob of traitors to kill the members of Congress, the Vice President, and to end the American Republic and set up a dictatorship under his Glorious Highness Donald Trump, i.e. King Donald I of Trumplandia.
Looking at the vote from a Nevada-like point of view, I set the "over/under" at 55 votes. (That means a bet for "under" meant you expected fewer than 55 votes to convict, a bet for "over" meant you expected more than 55 votes to convict, and exactly 55 votes would be a "push.") Lisa went for the "over" and was, well, not happy, but less disappointed when the final tally was 57-43 to convict, with of course a two-thirds vote needed to convict.
I said before the vote that Republicans who thought Trump was guilty but didn't want to vote for acquittal should have absented themselves from the chamber, which would have (as President pro tem Leahey reminded them when announcing the result) brought the threshold to convict down, as it only required two-thirds of those Senators present and voting to convict. But no, they're too frightened of Trump, or more accurately, of the "Trumpettes," those miserable traitors who want to replace the American Republic with rule by a Strong Man who gives them permission to kill and destroy anyone who doesn't swear oath to obey Dear Leader's orders without question or hesitation.
That seven Republicans voted to convict is remarkable. There have been four impeachment trials in American history, and this was the most bipartisan one. In the first one, the Republican party held more than two-thirds of the seats in the Senate and it was taken for granted that they thus had the votes to remove Andrew Johnson. Not one Democrat sided with the Republicans, and if a few Republicans hadn't decided to vote to acquit, Johnson would have been removed from office. (Which under the rules at that time would have made the Senate President pro tem the new President.)
As I understand it, Nixon resigned in part to avoid putting the Republicans in the position of having to vote for his removal, after being told that the jig was up and he didn't have the votes to win. Trump had the votes, and this result says that the Republican party doesn't really think anything is an impeachable offense by a Republican President.
This is not the end, although I'm sure that Trump and his surrogates will loudly proclaim that with the Senate having voted to acquit him, he's immune from any prosecution whatsoever. I do look forward to various state governments going after Trump for his many crimes, and possibly the Department of Justice for federal crimes that they had held off on prosecuting due to their policy (not law) of not indicting a sitting President.
Lisa suggested, and I agree, that the Republicans who voted for Trump need to be held to account. If I had the money, I would put up billboards in their states with their pictures and variations of "What did Trump promise them?" For example, put Lindsay Graham's face with a coronet on his head and ask, "Did Trump promise you the Dukedom of South Carolina?"
Speaking of payments, I wonder to Trump's attorneys were paid in advance, in cash. If not, I doubt they'll be paid, as Trump is infamous for never paying his bills, but in this case, I agree that they didn't earn their pay. They were awful. Their arguments were disjointed and absurd, and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to lose votes for Trump as a couple of the Republicans had just enough honor to say, "I can't support this nonsense." When the Senate started laughing at the lead attorney, both Democrats and Republicans alike, I bet Trump started shouting at his television, and not for the first time. Trump hates being laughed at. I suspect that Trump further hates that his attorneys admitted that the violent mob included Trump supporters (although they did try to spread the false claim that the traitors had lots of people "from the left") and that Trump did indeed lose the November election.
Again, this is not the end, and our republic is definitely still not safe for democracy. Free countries have fallen after initial attempts to destroy their governments. We have to remain vigilant, and we need to keep hammering on Republicans for their attempts to destroy the American republic. We need to get rid of the filibuster, pass a new expanded Voting Rights Act, give statehood to at least Puerto Rico (if they vote for it) and maybe DC, and certainly Uncap the House and increase its membership to where it should be if it hadn't been frozen at 435 a century ago. (I propose 690 based on the cube-root rule, but that's arguing details.) We really don't have that much time. The traitors who want to destroy the American Republic will be encouraged by Trump's acquittal in the Senate, and they will be back for another round of sedition.
Looking at the vote from a Nevada-like point of view, I set the "over/under" at 55 votes. (That means a bet for "under" meant you expected fewer than 55 votes to convict, a bet for "over" meant you expected more than 55 votes to convict, and exactly 55 votes would be a "push.") Lisa went for the "over" and was, well, not happy, but less disappointed when the final tally was 57-43 to convict, with of course a two-thirds vote needed to convict.
I said before the vote that Republicans who thought Trump was guilty but didn't want to vote for acquittal should have absented themselves from the chamber, which would have (as President pro tem Leahey reminded them when announcing the result) brought the threshold to convict down, as it only required two-thirds of those Senators present and voting to convict. But no, they're too frightened of Trump, or more accurately, of the "Trumpettes," those miserable traitors who want to replace the American Republic with rule by a Strong Man who gives them permission to kill and destroy anyone who doesn't swear oath to obey Dear Leader's orders without question or hesitation.
That seven Republicans voted to convict is remarkable. There have been four impeachment trials in American history, and this was the most bipartisan one. In the first one, the Republican party held more than two-thirds of the seats in the Senate and it was taken for granted that they thus had the votes to remove Andrew Johnson. Not one Democrat sided with the Republicans, and if a few Republicans hadn't decided to vote to acquit, Johnson would have been removed from office. (Which under the rules at that time would have made the Senate President pro tem the new President.)
As I understand it, Nixon resigned in part to avoid putting the Republicans in the position of having to vote for his removal, after being told that the jig was up and he didn't have the votes to win. Trump had the votes, and this result says that the Republican party doesn't really think anything is an impeachable offense by a Republican President.
This is not the end, although I'm sure that Trump and his surrogates will loudly proclaim that with the Senate having voted to acquit him, he's immune from any prosecution whatsoever. I do look forward to various state governments going after Trump for his many crimes, and possibly the Department of Justice for federal crimes that they had held off on prosecuting due to their policy (not law) of not indicting a sitting President.
Lisa suggested, and I agree, that the Republicans who voted for Trump need to be held to account. If I had the money, I would put up billboards in their states with their pictures and variations of "What did Trump promise them?" For example, put Lindsay Graham's face with a coronet on his head and ask, "Did Trump promise you the Dukedom of South Carolina?"
Speaking of payments, I wonder to Trump's attorneys were paid in advance, in cash. If not, I doubt they'll be paid, as Trump is infamous for never paying his bills, but in this case, I agree that they didn't earn their pay. They were awful. Their arguments were disjointed and absurd, and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to lose votes for Trump as a couple of the Republicans had just enough honor to say, "I can't support this nonsense." When the Senate started laughing at the lead attorney, both Democrats and Republicans alike, I bet Trump started shouting at his television, and not for the first time. Trump hates being laughed at. I suspect that Trump further hates that his attorneys admitted that the violent mob included Trump supporters (although they did try to spread the false claim that the traitors had lots of people "from the left") and that Trump did indeed lose the November election.
Again, this is not the end, and our republic is definitely still not safe for democracy. Free countries have fallen after initial attempts to destroy their governments. We have to remain vigilant, and we need to keep hammering on Republicans for their attempts to destroy the American republic. We need to get rid of the filibuster, pass a new expanded Voting Rights Act, give statehood to at least Puerto Rico (if they vote for it) and maybe DC, and certainly Uncap the House and increase its membership to where it should be if it hadn't been frozen at 435 a century ago. (I propose 690 based on the cube-root rule, but that's arguing details.) We really don't have that much time. The traitors who want to destroy the American Republic will be encouraged by Trump's acquittal in the Senate, and they will be back for another round of sedition.
no subject
Date: 2021-02-14 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-14 01:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-14 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-14 08:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-16 05:23 pm (UTC)I recall reading a fairly recent study which suggested a Europe-Africa fixed link in the form of a tunnel, somewhat to the west of Gibraltar, where the distance across is greater but the water is substantially shallower. There may also be geological advantages involved. (Of course, legend would have it that there is already a tunnel between Gibraltar & Ceuta, but it is known only to the Barbary Apes.) I have occasionally thought, however, that the better route would be across the Straits of Sicily, which are comparatively shallow & divide the Mediterranean into two major basins. It could possibly go via Cossyra (Pantelleria).
The bigger obstacle to crossing the Straits of Florida is, I think, just that the anticipated volume of traffic (even assuming Cuba being incorporated into the USA) would not be anything like that between, say, Britain & the Continent — which only reminds me that yet another of the projects set back (probably for a generation) by Brexit is a tunnel across St George's Channel to provide a "land route" between other European capitals & Dublin.
But what do I know? I've never even taken the Channel Tunnel or the Seikan. The best I can claim is one crossing of the Oresund Fixed Link.
no subject
Date: 2021-02-16 06:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-14 07:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-14 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-02-14 09:36 pm (UTC)People thoughtful enough to do the math on that one wouldn't be the target audience anyway.