Who will Republicans nominate now that Trump will either resign or be impeached?

[eric82oslo]

Now that Michael Cohen under oath has pleaded guilty that he twice broke the law [on behalf of Trump that is] including once broke federal campaign laws, both at the direct order from Trump, in order to, in his own words, influence the outcome of the election, I think it is pretty safe to say with 100% certainty that Trump will either resign from the presidency, or he will get impeached, either this year by the current Republican house or next year after Democrats win the house this November. It's really hard to see for me at least that less than 3/4 of the Senate will not want him removed, now that every single Senator with their conscience in mind knows that he is a serious criminal. If less than 3/4 would indict him, it would mean that a majority of GOP Senators would still support his presidency despite all this. That would practically be the death strike to the entire Republican party as we've known it for 160 years.

So who will win the Republican nomination in 2020? Personally I'm pretty sure it won't be vice president Mike Pence. Feel 98% sure about that.

[FalloutBoy97]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

[eric82oslo]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

What makes it a bold assumption?

[TML]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

What makes it a bold assumption?

Virtually no Republican Senator has publicly indicated any willingness to remove Trump.

(Don't get me wrong - I support the idea of Trump being impeached. I currently don't see evidence that such an effort will succeed in the foreseeable future.)

[FalloutBoy97]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

What makes it a bold assumption?

The fact that congressional republicans have thus far marched in lockstep with President Trump? He has been under an ethical cloud since before he was elected and yet no Republican congressperson has called for his impeachment, let alone removal from office. What's so different about this one?

[eric82oslo]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

What makes it a bold assumption?

The fact that congressional republicans have thus far marched in lockstep with President Trump? He has been under an ethical cloud since before he was elected and yet no Republican congressperson has called for his impeachment, let alone removal from office. What's so different about this one?

The fact that it has been proven that he has violated an actual federal law. That's the difference. Being unethical, immoral, even a racist and misogynist, is not criminal. Breaking laws which a majority of both the house and the Senate have agreed upon should be a federal crime, is. For me and for most of the media, that is a huge difference. It should be for the Republican party too, if they want to preserve their party for the future.

[IceSpear]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

[tosk]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

What makes it a bold assumption?

you said when not if.

chances probably spiked today, sure, but it's a farcry from knowing that impeachment will absolutely happen.

[oraclebones]

Wow, after all we've been through in the past few years, you still are naive enough to think that Republicans will suddenly turn against Trump over a campaign finance violation. And I don't mean "naive" as an insult; it's just a plain observation.

Maybe something could, in theory, cause a meaningful number of Congressional Republicans to turn against Trump, but I really doubt this is it.

[FalloutBoy97]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

What makes it a bold assumption?

The fact that congressional republicans have thus far marched in lockstep with President Trump? He has been under an ethical cloud since before he was elected and yet no Republican congressperson has called for his impeachment, let alone removal from office. What's so different about this one?

The fact that it has been proven that he has violated an actual federal law. That's the difference. Being unethical, immoral, even a racist and misogynist, is not criminal. Breaking laws which a majority of both the house and the Senate have agreed upon should be a federal crime, is. For me and for most of the media, that is a huge difference. It should be for the Republican party too, if they want to preserve their party for the future.

Cohen implied that Trump directed him to break the law. Trump will proceed to throw him under the bus over the next few weeks and claim Cohen is dishonest and not credible. Unfortunately that will be enough for most Republican officeholders.

[BlueSwan]

So is this one of those threads where you make a bold assumption followed by a mundane question but what you really want to discuss is the assumption?

What makes it a bold assumption?

The fact that congressional republicans have thus far marched in lockstep with President Trump? He has been under an ethical cloud since before he was elected and yet no Republican congressperson has called for his impeachment, let alone removal from office. What's so different about this one?

The fact that it has been proven that he has violated an actual federal law. That's the difference. Being unethical, immoral, even a racist and misogynist, is not criminal. Breaking laws which a majority of both the house and the Senate have agreed upon should be a federal crime, is. For me and for most of the media, that is a huge difference. It should be for the Republican party too, if they want to preserve their party for the future.

As I wrote in the other thread, nothing will happen. People knew it already. No congress republican did not know that Trump obviously ordered Cohen to pay off those women. Nobody. They just do not care or do not dare. Regardless, nothing will happen. They might stick to a story about Cohen being a liar or they might not. What we know for sure is that they won't impeach him. Furthermore we can almost be certain that the Trump voters do not care.

[Sir Mohamed]

Donald Trump

[Grassroots]

Highly doubt that impeachment will ever happen, but if it does, Pence vs. Kasich primary.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Donald Trump. He will not resign, he will not be convicted and removed. He may be impeached by a Democratic House, but that is the first step to the latter, which I must emphasize-won't happen!

In the unlikely scenario that Trump isn't running for re-election, for whatever reason, Pence would be the obvious choice.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump will likely be indicted after 2021

[SN2903]

Trump will never be impeached.

[Proto]

Trump will never be impeached, Trump will live forever to participate in all elections

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

He may be impeached, but he won't be convicted and removed. There is a big difference.

I have a quick question for anyone more knowledgeable then me, is Mueller investigating this? Would he be able to suggest impeachment for directing the Daniels Payoff as well as Obst. of Justice/Russia/Campaign Conspiracy? Theoretically the charge would be Conspiracy to Defraud the United States right?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They don't have anyone, other than the McConnells, Pences, Pat Roberts, and Donald Trumps who are elder men who have been tarred by scandal and hopefully all of them loses in 2020

[eric82oslo]

So where are we exactly after Hiroshima (on Tuesday)?

Enlighten and update me please.

Personally I think this has gone from a 5.5 earth quake (Omarosa last week) to a 6.5 earth quake (Cohen&Manafort) to a 7.5 earth quake (Trump saying that the practice of flipping in order to get to the bottom of serious organized crime should be illegal) to an 8.5 earth quake (David Pecker cooperating) to a 9.5 earth quake today when it was clear even the longest serving servant of the entire Trump Organisation, who's been in charge of almost all financial accounting and transactions since way before Donald took over the business from his father, hit.

[Progressive Pessimist]

So where are we exactly after Hiroshima (on Tuesday)?

Enlighten and update me please.

Personally I think this has gone from a 5.5 earth quake (Omarosa last week) to a 6.5 earth quake (Cohen&Manafort) to a 7.5 earth quake (Trump saying that the practice of flipping in order to get to the bottom of serious organized crime should be illegal) to an 8.5 earth quake (David Pecker cooperating) to a 9.5 earth quake today when it was clear even the longest serving servant of the entire Trump Organisation, who's been in charge of almost all financial accounting and transactions since way before Donald took over the business from his father, hit.

Trump is paranoid but knows that as long as he remains the head of the GOP, his party and Congress (regardless of the Democrats taking over or not) will do nothing to act on any of the corruption that he knows he is guilty of. That's where we are. We're not too far off from January 20, 2017. 

[Arkansas Yankee]

So paying off hookers is worse than proven lying under oath leading to a fine and disbarment.

Trump claims the payments were from his own funds.  If so, the funding source is not a violation.   The failure to disclose the payment and source are at most technical violations.

The only remaining question is whether the payment was illegal.  I see no evidence that the payments were illegal.

For the answer to the to second part of the question: Pence/Haley

[Arkansas Yankee]

Another thing

I am pretty sure Trump did not violate the tax laws.  I am sure they have all been gone over with several fine tooth combs.  What I wonder is why he did not disclose them.

[Arkansas Yankee]

One more question.  If Mueller thought he had Trump on these campaign finance violations, why did he pass off the persecution to the Southern District of New York?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

So paying off hookers is worse than proven lying under oath leading to a fine and disbarment.

Trump claims the payments were from his own funds.  If so, the funding source is not a violation.   The failure to disclose the payment and source are at most technical violations.

The only remaining question is whether the payment was illegal.  I see no evidence that the payments were illegal.

For the answer to the to second part of the question: Pence/Haley

It was an illegal contribution to his campaign. You've made the same mistake that your leader did, or you're just parroting his lines.