I’m glad I’m not the only one to realize that this horrible possibility might just come to pass.
What’s your view on getting seventeen republicans to convict? With Trump completely isolated now and unable to defend himself in the court of public opinion, and a hostile media universally aligned to purge him, I expect future “bombshells” alleging impeachable offenses. One hundred days is plenty to have US attorneys file criminal charges. I fear that the GOP will be happy to rid themselves of Orange Man Bad.
Not to mention all of the books that will be coming out in the next few months from people who worked for Trump who will be forced to make up lies in order to get published.
I would say unlikely-but-not-impossible. I think there probably would be enough votes if the trial was going to happen before Trump leaves office. Aside from his existing opponents among Senate Republicans like Murkowski and Romney, I think more than a few hold Trump responsible for what happened on 1/6.
But because it will be after Trump leaves office, I think it’s fairly unlikely. I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of Senate Republicans will actually take the position that post-term impeachment proceedings are unconstitutional and use that as the reason for their “not guilty” vote, in order to avoid taking a position on the merits.
Regardless of the result of the impeachment proceeding, I would be surprised if the DOJ doesn’t conduct a criminal investigation of Trump as well. If I had to bet, though, I’d bet cooler heads will prevail and it won’t actually proceed to an indictment. Merrick Garland is not as moderate as Democrats made him out to be, but he’s no Eric Holder, either, and I doubt he has any interest in setting the precedent of throwing a former President in jail for an essentially political crime.
An alternative, somewhat-more-outlandish possibility is a deal where the Senate votes to convict on the articles of impeachment and disqualify Trump from further office, but Biden pardons him to preclude any criminal prosecution (and also to preclude any possible vindication of Trump through any criminal proceeding). This would be a bit dramatic for a lot of the players who would have to be involved, but it would achieve the result a lot of Republicans and Democrats would find ideal: Trump can’t run in 2024, but they avoid the spectacle of a criminal trial and possible imprisonment of a former President.
Addendum: I hadn’t read Clyburn’s comments when I responded earlier, so I didn’t grasp the significance of the “one hundred days” comment.
Waiting 100 days would be a big mistake for proponents of impeachment for one reason, and for Democrats generally for another: First, I think there is a distinction to be made between impeaching a former officer and impeaching a current officer and then trying him after he leaves office. Waiting until after Trump leaves office gives opponents a stronger argument that the process is unconstitutional.
Second, and maybe I’m being contrarian here, but as a conservative, I would LOVE it if the Democrat Congress wastes a significant portion of the next term on impeaching Trump rather than their own legislative agenda. It will only serve to mitigate the damage Democrats can do in 2 years, and will help Republicans in 2022.
By the way, I don’t think “impeachment proponents” and “Democrats” are congruent. There are pro-impeachment Republicans, and while I think all Democrats will vote in favor of impeachment and removal, some at least privately would rather not.
That’s why I think this 100-days plan may be an attempt by the Democrat leadership to bury impeachment. I think the smarter Democrats realize impeachment is not a good move, and want to chart a course that placates their base while avoiding shooting themselves in the foot with an impeachment. 100 days is a long time, and the 1/6 fiasco will be old news by then.