mudshark wrote:Can McConnell not let it get to a vote without defending the president's recent actions? And would such a move not look like a defence, and thereby as some sort of approval of those actions? I find him a masterful politician but this will be a tough nut to crack, even for him. An impeachment will be largely symbolic of course, but I think voting for it will be a way for many Republican senators to salvage their careers because voting against will haunt them in future elections for decades to come.
The Senate will be forced to try him, but no Senator is obliged to defend him. If the House delivers the articles of impeachment (or whatever the technical term is once they've voted) after the new Senators are sworn in, then McConnell plays no role except as the Minority Leader and someone who must vote to convict or acquit. McConnell was just re-elected, and I can't imagine that if he runs again in 6 years, this would be a deciding issue (and he may not care by that time, he's gotten almost everything he wants). As Rayge has said, conviction on impeachment means he can't run again (which would clarify certain politicians' 2024 prospects), but it also means (I think) that he is stripped of the perks of the office that other ex-presidents enjoy, though I'm a little fuzzy on those details.
mudshark wrote:And will Trump want to go down as the only president that got fired? Not even tricky Dick was willing to do so. I think resigning makes him look better in the eyes of his fanbase.
He can paint the whole process as crooked and argue that this vindicates his argument that everyone has been out to get him from day 1. I think he'd rather suffer what he can portray as an illegitimate process that allows him to claim victimhood than to quit. His fanbase will buy whatever he sells but I think in his mind, a quitter is a loser. And that's one thing he can't tolerate being.