Another Republican Senator Says Trump Is Obviously Guilty But Nothing Should Be Done About It
I assume that Marco Rubio will be endorsing William Weld, Joe Walsh, or some other candidate to be the Republican nominee for president. And/or he will vote for the Democratic candidate, or some other candidate for president , other than Trump, in November.
After all, Rubio has said that Trump is guilty as charged of abuse of power.
"my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true."
Absorb that for a second, in his "threshold analysis" Rubio willingly concedes that the abuse of power allegations against Trump are true. He says this in such a matter of fact way that one wonders if every member of the Senate doesnt secretly concede this truth.
Rubio of course, goes on to say that nevertheless Trump should not receive any punishment because "at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état?"
Rubio also stresses that the impeachment was "partisan".
This brings up a stark incongruity in his thinking.
I'll put it like this - if Trump is obviously guilty, as Rubio attests
"my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true."
is it that the Congresspeople who impeached Trump are the irrationally partisan ones, or are the Congresspeople who voted against impeachment, and the GOP senators like Rubio, who voted against witnesses on Friday and will vote against conviction in the next few days, the actual partisan ones? Using logic and the facts, it would seem to be the latter.
He's guilty, and is obviously guilty at that, but the partisanship came with the impeachment, not the lockstep acquital ? This makes no sense.
Rubio's statement is below.
Tags
Who is online
33 visitors
AZCentral ? The one who dotes on Jeff Flakes? That's your source???
Thankfully, we are a nation of laws with certain inalienable rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Among those rights are the presumption of innocence and due process, with the right to be tried by a jury of our peers. We do not have a Soviet style of justice in the US, although some seem to prefer a kangaroo court, trial by partisan mobs, and instant punishment. Since Trump has never been charged or convicted of an actual crime or misdemeanor, high or otherwise, means the system is working as the Founders envisioned.
The idea he should be punished because some radical leftists don't like him is simply and plainly ludicrous and stupid.
Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren have much to gain by thwarting Trump. Their voting had the potential to alter a USA election. They allowed their personal ambitions to interfere with the will of the electorate.
See how it works.
V oting to find the President guilty would not just be a condemnation of his action. If I vote guilty, I will be voting to remove a President from office for the first time in the 243-year history of our Republic.
When they decided to include impeachment in the Constitution, the Framers understood how disruptive and traumatic it would be. As Alexander Hamilton warned, impeachment will “agitate the passions of the whole community.”
This is why they decided to require the support of two thirds of the Senate to remove a President — we serve as a guardrail against partisan impeachment and against removal of a President without broad public support.
Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public support. In fact, as recently as March of last year, Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) said there would be “little to be gained by putting the country through” the “wrenching experience” of a partisan impeachment.
And yet, only a few months later, a partisan impeachment is exactly what the House produced.
This meant two Articles of Impeachment whose true purpose was not to protect the nation but rather to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, stain the President’s record because “he has been impeached forever” and “they can never erase that.”
It now falls upon this Senate to take up what the House produced and faithfully execute our duties under the Constitution of the United States.
Why does impeachment exist?
As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for.
The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”
The two are not the same. Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.
To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.
It was not difficult to answer that question on the charge of “Obstruction of Congress.” The President availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal counsel. That is not an impeachable offense, much less a removable one.
Negotiations with Congress and enforcement in the courts, not impeachment, should be the front-line recourse when Congress and the President disagree on the separation of powers. But here, the House failed to go to court because, as Manager Schiff admitted, they did not want to go through a yearlong exercise to get the information they wanted. Ironically, they now demand that the Senate go through this very long exercise they themselves decided to avoid.
On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument that “Abuse of Power” can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.
However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. And then I sought to answer the question of whether under these assumptions it would be in the interest of the nation to remove the President.
Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation.
I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.
I also considered removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces. The removal of the President — especially one based on a narrowly voted impeachment, supported by one political party and opposed by another, and without broad public support — would, as Manager Nadler warned over two decades ago, “produce divisiveness and bitterness” that will threaten our nation for decades.
Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would.
I also reject the argument that unless we call new witnesses this is not a fair trial. They cannot argue that fairness demands we seek witnesses they did little to pursue.
Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.
This high bar I have set is not new for me. In 2014, I rejected calls to pursue impeachment of President Obama, noting that he “has two years left in his term,” and, instead of pursuing impeachment, we should use existing tools at our disposal to “limit the amount of damage he’s doing to our economy and our national security.”
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the President Pro Tempore Emeritus, once warned, “[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.”
His words are more true today than when he said them two decades ago. We should heed his advice. I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.
Certainly not to exact revenge on political enemies.
Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations
The allegations are "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress". Asking a foreign leader being granted US aid to look into corruption simply doesn't measure up to a crime. Thus, the obtuse wording of the allegations. The House case is not only flimsy...it's frivolous!
The POTUS asking a foreign president to frivolously investigate his political opponent is obvious abuse of power.
So, because Joe Biden is a possible Trump opponent (he hasn't won the primary yet), neither he, his son or Burisma can be investigated. I see, how about CrowdStrike? Didn't Trump mention that?
Maybe you could first tell everyone what "CrowdStrike" is?
Trump should be grateful that no one is investigating his kids.
Didn't his son-in-law count?
When did Hunter Biden become a political opponent? Exactly when did he say he would run for President?
What you failing to do is look at the whole point of his opinion, instead of worrying about the meaning of one word.
I read his entire statement, and have described it quite accurately, thank you.
Still waiting for that to happen.
These weasels see no personal gain in going against Trump, so they don't go.
Rubio has to endorse another candidate for president other than Trump. If he endorses Trump, which everyone fully expects, he will just be proving that he is the sack of shit many perceive him to be.
Trump has extremely high approval with Republicans resistance is futile.
Thanks, Captain.
[deleted]
Either comment on the seed or your next comment will be reported as off topic and removed.
How is this hard to understand?
Bill Clinton obviously committed felonies in office. Democrats didn't think it was worthy of removal. No one who voted to acquit Clinton thought he was "innocent."
Rubio's point is that even if you believe Trump did everything the impeachment managers allege, it's not a removable offense, which is what the Senators are voting on.
It's a perfectly reasonable position, particularly given the precedent of recent presidential impeachments.
Sean, Rubio agrees that Trump committed impeachable offenses.
Is it partisan to impeach someone who committed impeachable offenses, or is it partisan to acquit someone who committed impeachable offenses?
No....he didn't !
"That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable. The two are not the same."
"It was not difficult to answer that question on the charge of “Obstruction of Congress.” The President availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal counsel. That is not an impeachable offense, much less a removable one."
"As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for."
No, he's saying there's a difference between an impeachable offense, and a removable offense. He didn't say Trump committed an impeachable offense.
You don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "assume," in Rubio's analysis. He's clear that he's assuming, for the sake of argument, that the allegations are true. That is not the same as saying the allegations are true.
Someone else up the thread said I was taking Rubios words out of context and he didnt mean the bolded part here to apply to Trump.
That is nonsense. The comments before , and after, the bolded part refer to Trump. So does the bolded part.
He explicitly acknowledges that the presidents actions were impeachable.
He can also decide, if he chooses, that he will ignore the impeachable actions and acquit anyway, which he has done.
What we see here is that the partisanship is on the part of the Republicans, not the House democrats.
You keep ignoring that he said, "assuming the allegations are true" and in turn distort his words to claim that he said the allegations are true.
Rubio never said Trump committed an impeachable offense. To claim he did, is simply wrong.
When you assume something is true, you are agreeing that it is true.
No, it’s the opposite. That’s why you add the word “assume.” It creates a hypothetical situation.
Sean, show us ONE SENTENCE in that long statement by Rubio that implies that Trump is innocent. one word even.
That goes against the laws of logic and argument. Do your homework.
If I assume that a package weighs five pounds, am I agreeing that it weighs five pounds, am I disagreeing that it weighs five pounds, or do I have no opinion?
Obviously the first. If I assume the package on the table weighs five pounds, I am agreeing that it weighs five pounds. It may not, but I have agreed that it does by accepting the assumption.
You're trying awfully hard to put some green between impeachable and removable. Way back when, the battle cry was 'gonna impeach the mothafucka'. Are we to now believe the intent was just to slap Trump's hand for something, (at the time undetermined) and leave him in office?
When you accept an assumption, you are agreeing with it. Sorry.
So you are trolling this article because you assume it is a good idea.
Why dont you try commenting on the seeded articles for once instead of playing from the peanut gallery all the time?
How many articles have you seeded or written on this forum? I doubt if it is even five.
Comment on the articles and stop trying to provoke the people who do write and seed.
Quit using that accusation of trolling excuse every time shows you to be wrong or disagrees with you.
To many, your comments lack substance and are often defensive and dismissive.
“It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,”
“I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater and partisan politics”
Chuck Schumer Jan. 27, 1999.
My how times can change people.
Sen. Chuck Schumer has been been repeating running the press during the impeachment trial which, BTW, is not a demonstration of impartiality by Schumer or the the press. Following the Senate vote to hear witnesses (on Jan. 31, 2020) Sen. Schumer again ran to the press and spoke these words, “It’s a grand tragedy, one of the worst tragedies that the Senate has ever overcome.”
Yes it is, Sen. Schumer. Yes it is.
Schumer should get an honorary Oscar for bad acting.
What the republican senators have done will be a dark stain on America's history.
For those who love America, they need to focus on the Senate races and vote out the trump republicans. The presidential election is secondary in my mind. The bigger prize and power lie with taking back the Senate.
Wanting the House to do their "JOB" before they bring something before them ?
As opposed to a white stain.
It can be a white stain if that's the color you prefer........
A stain is a stain.
Trump and his worshipers are a shit stain on American history.
Maybe, but if you tell them the stain is white they seem more accepting of it for some reason. (shrug)
For some of them, white is their favorite color.
I say it's more then "some". hahahahahaha
There goes the race card....again.
Go back and read WHO made color a focus in the conversation. It was your team. I simply deferred to using whatever color the member preferred.
You guys are projecting.
I like blue, too. Blue dresses and white stains - for the more obtuse.
It seems they are obsessed with the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress from 25 years ago.
Weird.
That's all they have. It's pathetic. Nothing a little soap and water won't handle. But let's extort our allies for personal gain and that's okay. Let's grab women by the pussy and that's just boys being boys. Let's invite Russia into the Oval Office and reveal secrets that put our allies at risk and that's just trump being trump. No harm, no foul.
If you like your stain, you can keep your stain.
The Republican Senators upheld the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because of their love of America and its values.
The Democrats seem to favor Russia and its Soviet style tactics of governing.
Why so the next show impeachment can succeed? If you remove Trump you get Pence- how is that better for the left. Unless they impeach both at once and put the supposed Democrat Speaker of the House in the White House.
The country will tear itself apart, there will be revolts, riots, and maybe even a civil war. A military coup might be needed to save the country from itself.
Sounds like fun. When do we start?
What are you talking about. lol
I don't give two shits about trump. let him finish his next 1 - 5 years. When true Americans win back the Senate we can write new laws that will never allow this shit to happen again. Enjoy the remainder of your twisted win. It won't last forever.
So you're saying that "Democrats/Liberals" are the only "true Americans" and only THEIR laws should be followed?
Wow PJ - really into fixing the problems, eh?
Who specified a party. You did not me. Don't hang your hang ups on me dude. But I do find it curious that you think it can only be fixed by the democrats.
"true Americans win back the Senate" "we can write new laws "
Nice try PJ.
Yeah, I'm a true American. Are you? or are you a trump american which is an oxymoron in my opinion.
Your silence speaks volumes. Just what I thought. You still support trump which means you support EVERYTHING he does and says.
No. That's not what it means to assume that the allegations are true.
When your child comes home in trouble for lying, don't punish them. Lies are now perfectly acceptable even if they get caught. That is the lesson. No consequences for lying. - OR - We now can teach our children that only white men who are billionaires and live in a golden tower with a golden toilet in NYC who are celebrity reality show hosts, and make it to the office of President get to lie and go without consequences.