NYT: McConnell is said to be pleased about impeachment, believing it will make it easier to purge Trump from the Republican Party.

[Vestal]

Legally, he did not incite violence, so any impeachment would be, once again, purely political.

He brought the crowd together, incited them with fiery rhetoric and lies, and then directed their anger in one direction. When all hell broke lose, he did not do a single thing to try and put a stop to the violence. It took 2hrs to hear a statement from the POTUS asking his supporters to go home, and over 24hrs for him to condemn the actions.

That is a failure of leadership, and a failure to discharge his duties as POTUS. The 25th amendment is more appropriate given these facts, but since Pence does not wish to do it then it is up to Congress to pick up the ball and go with it.

 

[Afro Republican]

Well maybe Mitch, you should have went down there with Trump more often to campaign. Perdue was ahead before the runoff, and you did no work during it.. Then you put pressure on people auditing the Michigan results for John James because "You don't like his type of character" whatever that means, so if that turned up anything you ruined that to.

 

[Kreen101]

I trust that the constitutional remedy was put in place for a reason and waiting around for the next election to settle things is the wrong move. It was the wrong move to wait until this election to have Trump removed as he showed in 2019 he was willing to commit impeachable offenses to win reelection. He showed it after election while throwing the whole electoral system under the bus. He showed it again when he committed a crime in trying to intimidate Georgia election officials into "finding more votes" or "recalculating" so that he won. He showed it again when he incited an insurrectionist mob to storm the capitol. If all of these things don't deserve impeachment, then why is impeachment even in the constitution and why would it specifically bar someone from holding office again?

You're basically asking why should we ever punish anyone for being a criminal when really people could just recognize they're a criminal and avoid them in the future. It doesn't work that way. Trump should be punished for his actions.

Those are partisan talking points, not an attempt to have an objective discussion that rises above partisan politics.

 

[Afro Republican]

BTW in case Mitch or anyone else missed it, Trump is still the face of the party, that's not me saying that btw, that's the RNC saying that. I don't really agree with it because well, I think someone else in 2016 actually deserved that spot and was screwed over, but RNC has decided, and they applauded reportedly.

Take that as you will.

 

[Punished Miku]

BTW in case Mitch or anyone else missed it, Trump is still the face of the party, that's not me saying that btw, that's the RNC saying that. I don't really agree with it because well, I think someone else in 2016 actually deserved that spot and was screwed over, but RNC has decided, and they applauded reportedly.

Take that as you will.

If Trump stays in the headlines for 4 years until 2024, and then wins the primary - the republicans are the party of domestic terror for at least another 4 years. If they cut out Trump now, then in 2024, they rebrand with new candidates and a new presentation.

I think the real question is if donors want Trump gone that badly. And they honestly might. Not sure he's good for business anymore. He already got their tax cut.

 

[BlueAlpaca]

 

[MrMephistoX]

If true this is a good thing. He would have had a lock on the 2024 nomination but all of his wounds as always from Nov 5th onward have been self inflicted.

 

[ZippyTheOtter]

Trump was always a pawn in the GOP strategy. People have been calling it out since 2016.

"Drain the swamp" - Doesn't happen when you hire swamp people and allow the "swamp" people to control things.

 

[IntentionalPun]

BTW in case Mitch or anyone else missed it, Trump is still the face of the party, that's not me saying that btw, that's the RNC saying that

Link?

 

[CrankyJay™]

Is McConnell the Varys or Little Finger of the US government?

 

[IntentionalPun]

Is McConnell the Varys or Little Finger of the US government?

Little Finger

Varys was principled; Little Finger only cared about one thing: becoming powerful. That's basically the life story of Mitch McConnel; all he's ever cared about was winning races and reaching higher and higher offices.

 

[Raven117]

Little Finger

Varys was principled; Little Finger only cared about one thing: becoming powerful. That's basically the life story of Mitch McConnel; all he's ever cared about was winning races and reaching higher and higher offices.

Considering he has never considered running for President....This is an insanely uninformed post.

McConnel became powerful for a number or reasons. He is an incredibly shrewd politician, understands the institutions, and is able to effectuate policy (and orchestrate an incredible run of SCOTUS nominees).

I don't always agree with his policies, but you cannot doubt his ability as Senator. (Not unlike Pelosi in the House).

 

[DanteFox]

Where are you even getting this?

From the definition of "incitement of violence."

 

[Sparhavoc]

Establishment and their sheep vs trump

 

[ryan13ts]

Is McConnell the Varys or Little Finger of the US government?

He's the worst of both.

 

[Patriots7]

Considering he has never considered running for President....This is an insanely uninformed post.

McConnel became powerful for a number or reasons. He is an incredibly shrewd politician, understands the institutions, and is able to effectuate policy (and orchestrate an incredible run of SCOTUS nominees).

I don't always agree with his policies, but you cannot doubt his ability as Senator. (Not unlike Pelosi in the House).

I think he gets a lot of credit when he doesn't actually seem to show much of an ability to effect legislation. He fumbled healthcare despite having the House and Senate to such an extent the Republican party has all but abandoned the "replace" part of their plans.

He has benefitted from the fact that there's not really much legislatively that the Republicans are trying to enact - they're far more comfortable obstructing (thus packing the courts was a key priority for him).

 

[DeepEnigma]

So quit talking shit with all of your money wasting theater and get on with it then, oh NYT, will wait for words out of his mouth or the actual action of.

 

[e&e]

In my opinion impeachment will only make him stronger. It was not just build the wall that got him elected. Drain the swamp was just as powerful of a message 4 years ago. I can't imagine a bigger claim to standing up to elites then getting impeached after you left office. Even if by some miracle he is barred from office, his endorsement of someone sharing his name or ethos will only get stronger if they go this route.

Eh...his name is tainted now so I don’t think so, guarantee you he won’t get any Democrats voting for anyone he endorses, so...

 

[Raven117]

I think he gets a lot of credit when he doesn't actually seem to show much of an ability to effect legislation. He fumbled healthcare despite having the House and Senate to such an extent the Republican party has all but abandoned the "replace" part of their plans.

He has benefitted from the fact that there's not really much legislatively that the Republicans are trying to enact - they're far more comfortable obstructing (thus packing the courts was a key priority for him).

True, but he also got taxes past. Healthcare has been difficult for all parties.

much of the Republican agenda was passed under the turtle. To say he Isgur gifted and talented is simply willfully blind.

 

[BeardGawd]

If Trump stays in the headlines for 4 years until 2024, and then wins the primary - the republicans are the party of domestic terror for at least another 4 years. If they cut out Trump now, then in 2024, they rebrand with new candidates and a new presentation.

I think the real question is if donors want Trump gone that badly. And they honestly might. Not sure he's good for business anymore. He already got their tax cut.

Interesting. So you feel it would be better to have a Trump endorsed candidate (thus keep the donations coming) but not Trump himself in 2024?

 

[JLB]

Will sound -and is- a bizarre thing to say, but I find over and over again parallelisms between Trumpism and Argentinian Peronism. Last years' of US politics for me was "hey, this thing is exactly this other thing that happened in Argentina" in the past.
US's 2021 is Argentina's 2015's, right after Macri's victory.

 

[Halo is Dead]

Trump was always a pawn in the GOP strategy. People have been calling it out since 2016.

"Drain the swamp" - Doesn't happen when you hire swamp people and allow the "swamp" people to control things.

Not really. They were on the ride with him. Many supported the contesting of the election and now the party is in chaos because of the Capitol riots and many want to jump ship to save what is left of their image. Even if he was an intended "pawn" he became a rabid dog that they could not control. What is exactly the "GOP strategy"? Because all I see is a political party that betted on the wrong horse, and now that horse wants to watch everything burn down with him.

 

[SF Kosmo]

BTW in case Mitch or anyone else missed it, Trump is still the face of the party, that's not me saying that btw, that's the RNC saying that. I don't really agree with it because well, I think someone else in 2016 actually deserved that spot and was screwed over, but RNC has decided, and they applauded reportedly.

Take that as you will.

You've correctly identified the problem, and Mitch has a solution.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Is McConnell the Varys or Little Finger of the US government?

Varys, he doesn't have Little Finger's hubris or ambition, he realizes that true power lies in control, not title.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

The effort toward this would be better spent to censure the insurrectionist senators. It was quite effective against McCarthy, the spiritual predecessor of these dangerous extremists.

And yet McCarthy was proven correct, posthumously.

 

[MastaKiiLA]

I'll believe it when I see it. Wouldn't be surprised if he voted against impeachment.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

 

[Sparhavoc]

I'll believe it when I see it. Wouldn't be surprised if he voted against impeachment.

Democrats and republicansa are one of the same. Just look at Bush. Both establishment. Trump was an outsider.

 

[Flame_alchemist]

Lord volde with the face turn

 

[Poop!]

McConnell got tax cuts and judges out of Trump. He has placated him enough. He got what he needed from Trump and now he's a liability. McConnell is still pissed Trump ruined the Georgia run off. Trump has no current political pull and won't in the future. The only Trump supporters left are the fringe.

 

[Elysion]

The whole situation is so bizarre. The rift between the establishment GOP, who just wants to return to the god ol' days of the Bush era, and Trump, isn't even really about policy or ideology – after all, Trump may have started out as an anti-establishment populist, but he quickly adopted the GOP's platform during his term. This is almost entirely about Trump as a person. So if McConnell wants to purge 'Trumpism', what exactly does he mean? At this point Trumpism is just Bush-era GOP wankery mixed with lots of bloviating and theater.

On the other hand, smart people on the right like Tucker, who were actually sympathetic to Trump's 2016 platform, but became critical of his governing style or this whole 'stop the steal' grift, were attacked by part of Trump's base for their disloyalty or as being controlled opposition, despite the fact that people like Tucker actually care about populist policies more than Trump himself ever did.

So where does this leave the GOP? If they openly reject Trump and 'Trumpism', they risk the permanent loss of a huge chunk of their voting base. But if they keep him as part of their coalition, then the anti-Trump coalition of liberals, leftist and moderates will stay together and remain energized against the spectre of Trump. And even if the GOP runs populists who reject Trump but embrace his 2016 platform, what if Trump decides to endorse candidates who are loyal to him, even if they advocate typical GOP policies?

I therefore expect that we'll see three distinct GOP factions emerge in the next few years:
-establishment Republicans (Romney, Graham, McConnell, Ben Shapiro etc)
-Trump loyalists (Pompeo, Mo Brooks, Hannity, Limbaugh etc)
-populists (I expect lots of new faces here, but possibly also people like Hawley, Cotton, and of course Tucker)

The things is, both the establishment and populist factions will be quite reluctant to be connected to Trump, while Trump's base only cares about Trump. Republicans won't be winning any national elections so long as this state of affairs persists. Which means, if Democrats were smart, they'd decide not to prosecute Trump and his family, and to leave him as a permanent Albatross around the neck of the GOP. But I doubt they'll be able to resist; after four years of hysteria they have to do something, their own base wouldn't allow anything less. So ironically, if Trump gets not only impeached, but has to face some kind of criminal prosecution after he leaves office, then the GOP's future prospects will look considerably brighter, since Trump won't be around to energize the left or to suck up all the populist energy.

 

[JORMBO]

 

[NickFire]

Senate won’t reconvene early to start impeachment trial before Trump leaves office: McConnell spokesman

With President Trump likely set on Wednesday to become the only president ever impeached twice, Democrats were pressuring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to invoke a 2004 resolution that could bring the Senate back quickly for what would essentially be an emergency session to...

www.foxnews.com

Is it even reasonable to hope the media might chill on the quest for clicks and focus on getting the story right the first time after all the distrust they garnered the past decade? I find it kind of hard to believe that Reuters was sourcing that story on someone close to the turtle if he had a spokesman deny it outright. Possible sure, just doesn't seem his style.

 

[Thaedolus]

 

[JORMBO]

He already declined. See above post by Nick.

 

[Thaedolus]

He already declined. See above post by Nick.

 

[CGiRanger]

WaPo reporter also seems to concur (on McConnell not holding special session):

 

[NickFire]

The Senate trial or lack thereof is going to be very interesting. I can easily believe the turtle is enraged at Trump and wants him gone, enough so to allow the needed number to side with the dems. He is the same guy who refused to pull the life support from the filibuster that is all but dead in a week. But on the other hand, we all know he wants that gavel back asap after he gives it up. if that's his motivation he has to decide what will remain of the party enthusiasm if Trump is convicted after leaving office anyway, and balance it against how many people will really switch political affiliation from R to D if they whip the caucus into voting in Trump's favor on the grounds of the trial being moot. IE, does the party lose more from apathy or disgust. I'm 50/50 on how he pushes the party to proceed here.

The one thing I believe with 90% confidence, is that he is happy for the Senate to be tied up on this once he gives up the post.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Are we even sure Mitch even said/feels this? The article just cites "associates". Did I miss the real citation maybe?

McConnell loved the attention and votes Trump brought.

He did not like Trump swaying them from their neocon path.

Wouldn't surprise me if he poisons the well and stonewalls Trump and MAGA for good.

 

[NickFire]

McConnell says he's undecided on whether to vote to convict Trump

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sent a note to Republican colleagues Wednesday afternoon informing them that he remains undecided on whether to convict President Trump on an article of impeachment expected to be passed by the H

thehill.com

Now I'm gonna toot my own horn for being 50/50 on whether Mitch supports conviction, and 90% sure he is happy to see the trial take place.

 

[CGiRanger]

Just to be sure, performing impeachment (or I suppose in this case conviction) to a President after he leaves office, so a former President, would be a totally new precedent?

 

[Maiden Voyage]

 

[SF Kosmo]

 

[DeafTourette]

Never trust McConnell on anything.