Really? If he killed McConnell, Pelosi and Spence he might have had a stronger re-election bid.

One of the eyewitnesses was so disturbed by what he saw that he could only describe the event by handing this card to the investigator:



*Too soon?

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

A real lesson would have been learned had the mob hung Pence on J6. Perhaps, it would have reduced the torrential downpour of bull$h@it we have had to listen to regarding how benign that felonious mob was.
Trump, for sure, would have pardoned Pence's neck extenders, and probably awarded them the Medal of Freedom.

---

That day, I remember thinking that Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence should've come out, arm in arm, to greet and talk with the "peaceful protesters", making sure that the cameras were rolling. If they were killed, well at least they would've ended up with 73 virgins... each!

---

You joke.
But if Kevin McCarthy had done so, he'd be President right now.

Any one of them (Republicans) could have done so. Instead, everyone ran away.

---

No, I was being serious. Well, not about the virgins, as I am not Islamic. Realistically, of course, this was never going to happen, but if they had come out to face the crowd and the rioters had killed the three of them, on camera, Trump would not be President today. Sadly, it would have taken something that drastic.

---

It would have taken FAR LESS!!!
McConnell could have voted to impeach him, and encouraged everyone else too.

I think it would have been a slam dunk.

AI response:

In Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, held in February 2021, the U.S. Senate voted 5743 in favor of conviction on the charge of incitement of insurrection. This included all 50 Democrats and 7 Republican senators. However, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority (67 votes) in the Senate to convict, so the effort fell 10 votes short, and Trump was acquitted.


you're asking: which 10 Republican senators might have joined the 7 who voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial if Mitch McConnell had supported conviction and actively led a party effort?

While we can't say with certainty, there are strong indicators based on public statements, prior criticism of Trump, and general posture toward accountability that help identify likely candidates.



First, a reminder of the 7 GOP senators who did vote to convict:
1. Richard Burr (NC)
2. Bill Cassidy (LA)
3. Susan Collins (ME)
4. Lisa Murkowski (AK)
5. Mitt Romney (UT)
6. Ben Sasse (NE)
7. Pat Toomey (PA)



The Next 10 Possible Conviction Votes If McConnell Had Led:

These senators criticized Trump to varying degrees and could potentially have followed McConnell's lead:
1. Mitch McConnell (KY) Said Trump was "morally responsible" but voted to acquit on technical grounds. Had he led, he may have swayed others and even voted "guilty" himself.
2. Rob Portman (OH) Moderate, retiring in 2022; criticized Trump post-Jan. 6 but ultimately voted to acquit.
3. John Thune (SD) Senate GOP Whip; criticized Trump's election lies and signaled discomfort with Jan. 6 actions.
4. Shelley Moore Capito (WV) Moderate voice in the caucus; condemned Jan. 6, could have been persuaded.
5. Todd Young (IN) Declined to support overturning the election; open to facts during trial.
6. Roy Blunt (MO) Criticized Trump's role in the riot; retiring in 2022; more institutionally minded.
7. Richard Shelby (AL) Retiring, old-school conservative; potentially persuadable with McConnell's leadership.
8. Jerry Moran (KS) Expressed serious concerns about Trump's conduct but defaulted to acquittal.
9. Chuck Grassley (IA) Longtime institutionalist; walked a careful line but might have followed McConnell.
10. Lindsey Graham (SC) Unlikely now, but immediately after Jan. 6, he said, "Count me out" on Trump; his loyalty wavered and may have been temporarily movable with pressure.



Summary:

These 10 senators did not vote to convict, but many of them:
Expressed disapproval of Trump's actions
Were retiring, freeing them from electoral pressure
Might have followed McConnell's lead if he had strongly endorsed conviction

Had these 10 joined the original 7, the total would have been 17 Republicans + 50 Democrats = 67, which is the exact number needed to convict.

I knew this at the time, but does being convicted after impeachment prevent somebody from being elected again? And what if said convict has 6-3 control over the SCOTUS?

Ask AI. I'm resistant to change and prefer to rely on MI (such as it is).

Big C said:

---

I knew this at the time, but does being convicted (BY THE SENATE) after impeachment (BY THE HOUSE) prevent somebody from being elected again? And what if said convict has 6-3 control over the SCOTUS?

Ask AI. I'm resistant to change and prefer to rely on MI (such as it is).

---

My understanding was the key thing about impeachment at that time was not about removing him from office (already done) but about barring him from any future elections. So, yes, he could not have run again, they said many times back then.
10 more republican senators would have done the trick.

SCOTUS would not have been able to overturn the Senate vote.

concordtom said:

---

Big C said:

---

I knew this at the time, but does being convicted (BY THE SENATE) after impeachment (BY THE HOUSE) prevent somebody from being elected again? And what if said convict has 6-3 control over the SCOTUS?

Ask AI. I'm resistant to change and prefer to rely on MI (such as it is).

---

My understanding was the key thing about impeachment at that time was not about removing him from office (already done) but about barring him from any future elections. So, yes, he could not have run again, they said many times back then.
10 more republican senators would have done the trick.

SCOTUS would not have been able to overturn the Senate vote.

---

Yes, I remember that, though I'm a little hazy on the details. Where does it say that an impeached-and-convicted President cannot run for or hold the office again? Asking out of ignorance... actually forgetfulness.

SCOTUS cannot nullify the impeachment or conviction, but they can possibly interpret what a former President is eligible to do after that.

EDIT: Okay, I researched it. After conviction, the Senate can additionally bar the President from holding future federal office. However, certain aspects of that are not 100% clear, as I understand it.

I thought it odd why McConnell et al did not convict him. Especially after he gave that speech after the vote essentially convicting him in his mind. McCarthy and Lindsay Graham basically said the same things. Like, the entire establishment was disgusted by him.

I think for McConnell, he did not want to be associated with something so historically negative against his party. Further, he went along with Trump for 4 years and this would be a rebuke on his own choice, therefore a stain on him.

I think there is the possibility of excess/unreasonable ambitions (McCarthy) and compromat (gay Lindsay, or financially compromised others/all), but for everyone, they just can't go against the party or their own record. Like, even if people are wrong, they often double down to defend themselves. Even to the point of irrationality.

It's such a sad chapter.
One day I suppose it will get proper analysis treatment, not emotion, and the takeaways will blow future populations' minds. Not unlike how we look at the insanity of the Nazis though that's always a gross compare for obvious reasons. "How could they have thought/done that?"
He will go down in history as, and I can't wait for him to BE history so that process can begin.