What the hell does a Republican senator gain if he refuses to show up for an impeachment vote? He's going to pay the same political price as he would if he simply voted to remove the President from office.
Reminds me of that dope on NBC during the 2000 election recount process who suggested that George W. Bush should concede to Al Gore "for the good of the country," regardless of how the recount turned out. It took about two seconds for the guy next to him to laugh in his face and point out (in so many words): "If he does that then Dick Cheney becomes the President of the United States, you jackass."
“This guy Sperry” was retweeted by Ratcliffe the other day. He seems to know what he is talking about.
Post 13-
DISAGREE - Sperry has been on target in his reporting.
If Bush had conceded to Gore in 2000, Gore would have become president, not Dick Cheney. So whoever responded by saying what you quoted didn’t know what they were talking about.
It won’t happen but Sperry is saying Dems in Senate are telling Republicans that.
Other times I'll come across a poster who I recognize as rational and insightful, but often restating and/or rephrasing in their own words areas of common agreement.
Then, there is the holy grail, where a good commenter posts a great post that adds an entirely new twist to an issue that makes perfect sense. Typically, my reaction is: why didn't I think of that? LOL
And so it comes to the point where I raise my glass, and say "well played sir". Whether a senator is "compelled to return back home for important state engagements", or actually goes on the Senate floor to cast an anti-American vote, the public perception (as well as outcome) is identical.
Two other observations: One, the entire deep state edifice is playing with fire; the House especially, but so too the Senate. This is a watershed event in American history, one that Trump supporters may feel there's no returning to the status quo of GOPe/uni-party control.
Two, are we to believe Trump has no ammunition, no effective counter? Isn't a prime doctrine in (military) conflict that the enemy also has a say? Well, the proglibs have been fully exposing their hands - do they have anything left? As for Trump, he hasn't even really begun to fight. Doesn't he get to have a say as all the military strategists will dutifully opine?