45 will lose all benefits ?

[DinerDave]

Don C wrote:
It sure would benefit the R's looking to run in '24 if he were declared ineligible. Wonder if they will take the stand or hope somebody else does it for them (like they did this week).

Well, OK, I guess I know the answer.

They will only do what benefits THEM, not the general public

Dave

[abevilac]

rgG wrote:
[quote=graylocks]
[quote=rgG]
[quote=space-time]
Only if convicted

yep and virtually no chance of that happening
actually, I think it's possible. i just read an article saying one of the stipulations Congress can make upon conviction is to make him ineligible to hold elected office. Though it might antagonize 45 diehards, I can think of a number of republicans who would benefit from 45 not being able to run in 2024.

oh, and this can all be done after the 20th with the new Senate.
I don’t think you will get enough republicans to sign on. They are too beholden to those Trumpers and dare not antagonize them. They need/want their votes next election. They will say, let’s move forward, he is gone, blah, blah, blah.
If it were just a majority, yes, but a 2/3 majority, I can’t see it happening.

Please, please let me be wrong like I was about Biden taking GA
Have you heard that Maddow says that it’s 2/3 of the senators who are present. So, maybe be a possibility, if some stay away. Also, Toomey and Murkowski are probably in the Yes column. Who knows?

[rgG]

abevilac wrote:
[quote=rgG]
[quote=graylocks]
[quote=rgG]
[quote=space-time]
Only if convicted

yep and virtually no chance of that happening
actually, I think it's possible. i just read an article saying one of the stipulations Congress can make upon conviction is to make him ineligible to hold elected office. Though it might antagonize 45 diehards, I can think of a number of republicans who would benefit from 45 not being able to run in 2024.

oh, and this can all be done after the 20th with the new Senate.
I don’t think you will get enough republicans to sign on. They are too beholden to those Trumpers and dare not antagonize them. They need/want their votes next election. They will say, let’s move forward, he is gone, blah, blah, blah.
If it were just a majority, yes, but a 2/3 majority, I can’t see it happening.

Please, please let me be wrong like I was about Biden taking GA
Have you heard that Maddow says that it’s 2/3 of the senators who are present. So, maybe be a possibility, if some stay away. Also, Toomey and Murkowski are probably in the Yes column. Who knows?
Well, if it’s just 2/3 of the people there, then there is a chance they could talk the Republicans into staying home. I had not heard this though. Might be a thought.

[samintx]

2/3 of the bodies in the room, not 2/3 of the Senate. The rules don't say how many have to be in the room.

[rgG]

samintx wrote:
2/3 of the bodies in the room, not 2/3 of the Senate. The rules don't say how many have to be in the room.

Pity it isn’t that way with the cabinet and the 25th.

[deckeda]

If Mitch has said the Senate would not handle any impeachment trial until the 19th? Then he’s saying either they’d vote immediately in the hopes of exoneration. Or possibly that he’d hand it over to the Dems so that Republicans wouldn’t have to be the bad guys.

I don’t understand why they would care about alienating Trump’s supporters. What would they do, suddenly become Democrats out of spite?

[rgG]

I didn't realize the ex-presidents got a 1million dollar a year travel allowance. miley-shocked003: