Impeachment Vs. Censure

The US Senate during
Trump's first impeachment trial 
(I didn't want to put an picture of
Trump here. He's had enough 
publicity.)

The trial of Donald Trump on charges of inciting an insurrection is scheduled to be held in a little over a week. In a recent procedural vote only five Republican Senators voted to go ahead with the trial, indicating there is very little likelihood the event will result in a conviction which requires 17 Republican ayes. Mr. Congeniality Rand Paul who brought the motion and other GOP toadies contend the trial is unconstitutional since Trump is out of office. "Let's just forget that he brought an angry mob to our Capitol and almost got us all killed," seems to be his message and the majority of his GOP colleagues are fine with that. But there is precedent for impeachment after a federal official has left office (US Grant's corrupt Secy. of War William Bellknap, see the previous blog post) and there are several reasons for going ahead with the trial. 

1) The nation needs to see and hear all the evidence indicting Trumpy for lying to the American public about his loss to Joe Biden.

2) There has to be some consequences for his rabble-rousing and lying.

3) There needs to be a public record of Republicans approving or condemning a leader who puts his own personal political fortunes above the good of the country by scheming and plotting to vacate a free and fair election with spurious and fabricated evidence.

4) If convicted, there can be a vote to bar Trump from ever holding office again. (That's the main reason.)

Andrew Jackson

With conviction a remote possibility, there is some movement for censure rather than an impeachment conviction. Tim Kaine of Virginia and reportedly Susan Collins of Maine are working on a censure resolution. Censure is not as extreme as impeachment. In essence it's a statement of condemnation. Probably the most famous Senate censure was of Joseph McCarthy, the rabid anti-Communist witch-hunter. Only one president has ever been censured--Andrew Jackson, probably the only president Trump has admired because of his populist stances. In 1834, the Whig-controlled Senate voted to censure Jackson, a member of the opposing Democratic Party, for withholding documents pertaining to his closing down the Bank of the United States. The censure was later reversed. It's not clear if such a censure of Trump would also contain language to forbid from running again. A Google search turned up several headlines with conflicts statements. Some said a censure would prevent a future Trump presidency and some said not.

So I called Tim Kaine's Senate office and actually got a live staff member on the phone. I asked her would the Senator's censure resolution stop Trump from regaining the White House or would it just be a slap on the wrist for being a naughty boy. The staffer told me the resolution was not public yet and that she couldn't say. But she did say that it would require only 60 votes as opposed to the 67 needed for conviction in impeachment. The staffer went on to say Kaine was focused on COVID relief and she couldn't give me any more information.

(BTW, several Internet people seem to confuse "censure" with "censor" and believe Kaine and Collins want to censor Trump. There were several comments on a YouTube video about censuring Trump stating censorship was evil. Duh!) 

Further research showed that the censure measure could include citing Trump for violating the 14th amendment which states "No person shall be a senator, or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability." The amendment was added in 1868 to prevent those who served in the Confederacy from serving in the reunited federal government.

This can be interpreted to mean that since Trump incited an insurrection or at the very least gave "aid or comfort" to those who stormed the capitol with the aim to take over the government, he should never be in power again. The "aid or comfort" would be his video were he called the rioters "special people" and that "we love you." Also that he did nothing to stop the riot for several hours.

It's not clear if a censure with the provision to bar a 2024 Trump presidency could be enforced and if there is enough bipartisan support for it. In addition to the five GOPers who voted with Dems for the trial to proceed (Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, and Toomey), you would need another five. Maybe Rob Portman who has announced his intention not to run for re-election from Ohio. Who would the other four be?

For while it seemed McConnell (I will try to reframe from calling him nasty names like Granny

Separated at birth:
Mitch McConnell and Irene Ryan

Clampett, Senator Pruneface, or TurtleBoy), was open to convicting Trump. In the immediate aftermath of the riot, he leaked to the NY Times that he was pleased the House had impeached Trump and that his party would soon be rid of him. Ah, but what a difference a few days makes. McConnell joined with Paul's vote and now fears backlash from Trump supporters.

The Trump-QAnon-batshit crazy wing of the GOP has grown and, like an insidious cancer, has taken over the host body. McConnell, House Minority Leader McCarthy and their minions are so scared Trump will take his wingnut radical followers and start his own party, they are shutting up about crazy people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and going after House GOP members who voted for impeachment like Liz Cheney. (Greene has been embolded and even brags on Twitter today that she got a call of support from the Jabba the Hut, I mean Trump.) How will this all play out? 

Kaine and Collins will probably not garner enough GOP support for their censure resolution. There will be a trial and Trump will get away with it again. Flush with exoneration in his mind, Trump probably won't form a third party, but will seek revenge on moderates like Cheney by primarying them in 2022. In safe red districts, his nutbag candidates might win and we'll have more Marjorie Taylor Greenes, but in swing districts, GOPers could lose to Blue Dog Dems, thus maintaining a Dem majority in the House at least. Can the GOP survive this current civil war between reality and social-media-inspired insanity? They have snatched defeat and chaos from the jaws of victory after strong showings in November before Trump went even more whacka-doodle.

Then what happens in 2024? Trump will be 78 and Biden will be 82. Biden says he intends to run again, but he's already our oldest president ever. Trump's father did live to be 93, but he developed dementia. Would America finally be ready to accept a woman president if Kamala Harris is the candidate? Or a gay one if it's Mayor Pete? Or someone totally unknown could emerge from the rubble. We'll have to take it one crisis at a time.