I think they will, as a matter of principle as well as the unsuitability of the choices because the Senate is supposed to have a role double checking the president's choices to make sure they are suitable. They won't like the idea of a president tyring to do an end run around the checks and balances in the US Constitution.
It's a case of standing up to the president or seeing the Senate reduced in its power and no longer very effective.
Yeah I hear ya. I think people are just not trusting them because you know we've seen countless times over here where the republicans especially senate republicans had the chance to finally rid us of Trump like his two impeachment trials and they've never come through and I think a lot of people are under the impression that when Trump says jump they all ask "how high" when I've come yo see it as a little more complicated than that.
Yes. Convicting a president of impeachment is a very high bar. Those 7 were the first time ANY senator had voted to convict a president of their own party.
And though to many including judges on Trump's Jan 06 case it is clear he was instigating an insurrection, the US freedom of speech is extraordinarily broad and they could feel this was something that needs a proper trial.
If it was the UK it is just a vote of confidence. Similarly to the speaker in the House in the USA and it is as easy to oust a UK prime minister as a US speaker.
But the US president is indepently elected by the people. He or she can only be removed for misconduct or for the 14th amendment incapacity to serve. And the level of misconduct needed to remove him needs to be high.
It's very different from just not approving a Trump appointee.
Why would Susan Collins capitulate? Has she said anything to suggest this? Do say if you know of something I need to account for in the list.
Also have you heard Mark Gaetz has withdrawn his name.e He would only do that if he thought that he was likely to be rejected by the Senate. Though of course he gives other reasons.
This is not meant to be original or controversial. I just compiled the list from other lists by Politico and TheHill after double checking them to help scared people.
The Senate did rebel when Trump tried to get them to stop the Ukraine bill after they capitulated on the border security bill. The Ukraine bill was a step too far and it got through. Trump specifically asked them to vote against it. But 22 Republicans rebelled. Tehy were:
QUOTE The 22 Senate Republicans who voted to pass the aid are: John Boozman, Shelley Moore Capito, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Kevin Cramer, Mike Crapo, Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley, John Hoeven, John Kennedy, Mitch McConnell, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Risch, Mitt Romney, Mike Rounds, Dan Sullivan, John Thune, Thom Tillis, Roger Wicker, Todd Young.
Oh the Supreme Court have OFTEN ruled against Trump. He has the worst record of ANY president since at least 1937. The only president to lose more than half his cases at the Supreme Court.
This may help:
BLOG: Why the US constitution and legal system makes it impossible for a president to become a dictator
People have this mistaken idea thta they favour him because of the immuniuty decision But Trump did NOT get what he wanted. It took time, to decide. But he did NOT get full immunity. Justice Chutkan got as far as the pre-trial investigation and she ordered release of a redacted version of Jack Smith's reasoning for why Trump shjoud be prosecuted AND theappendices.
It is very clear he WOULD have been prosecuted if not elected president by the people.
This evidence is his case for prosecuting Trump and it is veyr clear that Judge Chutkan would have ruled that he can be prosecuted which puts some restraint on him in this second term.
QUOTE STARTS
The nearly 1,900 pages of documents collected by special counsel Jack Smith’s team were initially filed under seal to help U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan decide what allegations can proceed to trial following the Supreme Court opinion in July that conferred broad immunity on former presidents for official acts they take in office.
The overwhelming majority of the pages released Friday were whited-out. The redacted files are believed to include things like transcripts of grand jury testimony, which remain under wraps because of grand jury secrecy rules.
Other information visible to the public includes passages from former Vice President Mike Pence’s book, excerpts of testimony provided by several witnesses to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 riot and a transcript of Trump’s phone call pressuring Georgia election officials to “find” enough votes to reverse his election loss in the state to Democrat Joe Biden.
Other documents include fundraising emails from Trump’s 2020 campaign and Pence’s letter telling Congress on Jan. 6 that he could not claim “unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.”
The filing was submitted as a series of appendices to a 165-page brief unsealed this month in which prosecutors disclosed new evidence against Trump to support their argument that the former president is not entitled to immunity from prosecution.
Trump’s lawyers objected to the unsealing of the filing so close to next month’s presidential election, but Chutkan on Thursday rejected their bid to postpone the material from becoming public until after the election. She said it would be inappropriate to take the political calendar into account.
And as for the Senators, then Mark Gaetz has withdrawn his submission which is pretty clear evidence that Trump knows he won't be able to do recess appointments and that the Senate would reject him, that at least 4 Senators would say no.
I expect others to withdraw as it gets closer to the date of confirmation hearings.
Here’s to hoping that you are correct. I believe that rump might not even be thinking it through… He just wants to shock and outrage. Much like a child swinging out at everyone who mocked him. Or… He’s playing the long game and wanting to see which Republicans he can bring to heel by primarying them or forcing other senators to make a choice. Whatever… We are in for a rough time people.
Any list that has “slave who stayed” Tim Scott on it to vote against anything that Trump proposes or does cannot be taken seriously and should have been edited before made public. The guy will be changing Trumps diapers upon demand if he isn’t already. C’mon Man!!!
EXACTLY. I agree , Tim Scott is one shuck & jive 2 sambo shuffle steps away from “Mo tea Suh” and will do nothing but what Trump expects of him. Fkn sad
I have removed Tim Scott. Also in the intro I have explained where I got the Robert Kennedy names from - it sounded like they were my own names the way it was written but it was based on their list.
BTW Mark Gaetz has withdrawn now. Probably means Trump knows he can’t get him through which likely also means he has given up on recess appointments since he was really keen on him.
Okay, I got Tim Scott from Politico. Checking it up some more I should remove him.
They just put it weakly:
QUOTE STARTS
Tim Scott, South Carolina: A spokesperson for Scott declined to comment. But before the election, Scott deflected when asked by CNN's Dana Bash about Kennedy's plans to remove fluoride from public water. He said then that he doesn’t have a personal relationship with Kennedy but is confident that the administration will choose “competent” and “qualified” nominees.
Scott introduced legislation with fellow Finance Committee member Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in 2018 backing water fluoridation.
Hey Robert. You may want to edit a part of this because you refer to Matt Gaetz as Mark Gaetz and in restocking this I've gotten some sarcastic comments about it.
It definitely seems like there are more senate Republicans willing to stand up to Trump than I thought. I hope they follow their conscious.
I think they will, as a matter of principle as well as the unsuitability of the choices because the Senate is supposed to have a role double checking the president's choices to make sure they are suitable. They won't like the idea of a president tyring to do an end run around the checks and balances in the US Constitution.
It's a case of standing up to the president or seeing the Senate reduced in its power and no longer very effective.
Yeah I hear ya. I think people are just not trusting them because you know we've seen countless times over here where the republicans especially senate republicans had the chance to finally rid us of Trump like his two impeachment trials and they've never come through and I think a lot of people are under the impression that when Trump says jump they all ask "how high" when I've come yo see it as a little more complicated than that.
Yes. Convicting a president of impeachment is a very high bar. Those 7 were the first time ANY senator had voted to convict a president of their own party.
And though to many including judges on Trump's Jan 06 case it is clear he was instigating an insurrection, the US freedom of speech is extraordinarily broad and they could feel this was something that needs a proper trial.
If it was the UK it is just a vote of confidence. Similarly to the speaker in the House in the USA and it is as easy to oust a UK prime minister as a US speaker.
But the US president is indepently elected by the people. He or she can only be removed for misconduct or for the 14th amendment incapacity to serve. And the level of misconduct needed to remove him needs to be high.
It's very different from just not approving a Trump appointee.
I hear ya. Just a lot if people have trouble seeing the difference.
They will all capitulate. Especially Susan Collins
Why would Susan Collins capitulate? Has she said anything to suggest this? Do say if you know of something I need to account for in the list.
Also have you heard Mark Gaetz has withdrawn his name.e He would only do that if he thought that he was likely to be rejected by the Senate. Though of course he gives other reasons.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/11/21/trump-ag-pick-matt-gaetz-says-hes-withdrawing.html
This is not meant to be original or controversial. I just compiled the list from other lists by Politico and TheHill after double checking them to help scared people.
Patriotism to the United States of America or cultist fidelity to trump? The last 8+ years do not make me feal optimistic.
The Senate did rebel when Trump tried to get them to stop the Ukraine bill after they capitulated on the border security bill. The Ukraine bill was a step too far and it got through. Trump specifically asked them to vote against it. But 22 Republicans rebelled. Tehy were:
QUOTE The 22 Senate Republicans who voted to pass the aid are: John Boozman, Shelley Moore Capito, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Kevin Cramer, Mike Crapo, Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley, John Hoeven, John Kennedy, Mitch McConnell, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Risch, Mitt Romney, Mike Rounds, Dan Sullivan, John Thune, Thom Tillis, Roger Wicker, Todd Young.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/22-senate-republicans-defied-trump-voted-aid-ukraine/story?id=107193651
Sorry, still not convinced that all three branches of government aren't going to be subservient to trump and his extremist tendencies.
Oh the Supreme Court have OFTEN ruled against Trump. He has the worst record of ANY president since at least 1937. The only president to lose more than half his cases at the Supreme Court.
This may help:
BLOG: Why the US constitution and legal system makes it impossible for a president to become a dictator
- and justices often rule against Trump
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/why-the-us-constitution-and-legal
People have this mistaken idea thta they favour him because of the immuniuty decision But Trump did NOT get what he wanted. It took time, to decide. But he did NOT get full immunity. Justice Chutkan got as far as the pre-trial investigation and she ordered release of a redacted version of Jack Smith's reasoning for why Trump shjoud be prosecuted AND theappendices.
It is very clear he WOULD have been prosecuted if not elected president by the people.
This evidence is his case for prosecuting Trump and it is veyr clear that Judge Chutkan would have ruled that he can be prosecuted which puts some restraint on him in this second term.
QUOTE STARTS
The nearly 1,900 pages of documents collected by special counsel Jack Smith’s team were initially filed under seal to help U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan decide what allegations can proceed to trial following the Supreme Court opinion in July that conferred broad immunity on former presidents for official acts they take in office.
The overwhelming majority of the pages released Friday were whited-out. The redacted files are believed to include things like transcripts of grand jury testimony, which remain under wraps because of grand jury secrecy rules.
Other information visible to the public includes passages from former Vice President Mike Pence’s book, excerpts of testimony provided by several witnesses to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 riot and a transcript of Trump’s phone call pressuring Georgia election officials to “find” enough votes to reverse his election loss in the state to Democrat Joe Biden.
Other documents include fundraising emails from Trump’s 2020 campaign and Pence’s letter telling Congress on Jan. 6 that he could not claim “unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.”
The filing was submitted as a series of appendices to a 165-page brief unsealed this month in which prosecutors disclosed new evidence against Trump to support their argument that the former president is not entitled to immunity from prosecution.
Trump’s lawyers objected to the unsealing of the filing so close to next month’s presidential election, but Chutkan on Thursday rejected their bid to postpone the material from becoming public until after the election. She said it would be inappropriate to take the political calendar into account.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-releases-trove-of-evidence-in-trumps-2020-election-interference-case
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-releases-trove-of-evidence-in-trumps-2020-election-interference-case
And as for the Senators, then Mark Gaetz has withdrawn his submission which is pretty clear evidence that Trump knows he won't be able to do recess appointments and that the Senate would reject him, that at least 4 Senators would say no.
I expect others to withdraw as it gets closer to the date of confirmation hearings.
Here’s to hoping that you are correct. I believe that rump might not even be thinking it through… He just wants to shock and outrage. Much like a child swinging out at everyone who mocked him. Or… He’s playing the long game and wanting to see which Republicans he can bring to heel by primarying them or forcing other senators to make a choice. Whatever… We are in for a rough time people.
Any list that has “slave who stayed” Tim Scott on it to vote against anything that Trump proposes or does cannot be taken seriously and should have been edited before made public. The guy will be changing Trumps diapers upon demand if he isn’t already. C’mon Man!!!
EXACTLY. I agree , Tim Scott is one shuck & jive 2 sambo shuffle steps away from “Mo tea Suh” and will do nothing but what Trump expects of him. Fkn sad
I have removed Tim Scott. Also in the intro I have explained where I got the Robert Kennedy names from - it sounded like they were my own names the way it was written but it was based on their list.
BTW Mark Gaetz has withdrawn now. Probably means Trump knows he can’t get him through which likely also means he has given up on recess appointments since he was really keen on him.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/11/21/trump-ag-pick-matt-gaetz-says-hes-withdrawing.html
Okay, I got Tim Scott from Politico. Checking it up some more I should remove him.
They just put it weakly:
QUOTE STARTS
Tim Scott, South Carolina: A spokesperson for Scott declined to comment. But before the election, Scott deflected when asked by CNN's Dana Bash about Kennedy's plans to remove fluoride from public water. He said then that he doesn’t have a personal relationship with Kennedy but is confident that the administration will choose “competent” and “qualified” nominees.
Scott introduced legislation with fellow Finance Committee member Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in 2018 backing water fluoridation.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/15/congress/robert-f-kennedy-jr-hhs-confirmation-00189833
And in anotehr interview, on fluorine in water despite his previous bill:
QUOTE Trump expressed tentative support for the idea Sunday, saying he hasn’t talked to Kennedy about the issue yet, but “it sounds OK to me.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4969523-tim-scott-rfk-trump-fluoride/
So I think you are right there and will remove him.
Hey Robert. You may want to edit a part of this because you refer to Matt Gaetz as Mark Gaetz and in restocking this I've gotten some sarcastic comments about it.
Oh sorry I often do things like that will fix.
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Fixed :)
Thank you.
I hope you are correct and they will vote their conscience😃