Nearly all GOP senators vote against impeachment trial for Trump, signaling likely acquittal
Category: News & Politics
Via: texan1211 • 3 years ago • 145 commentsBy: Mike DeBonis, Seung Min Kim (MSN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
All but five Republican senators backed former president Donald Trump on Tuesday in a key test vote ahead of his impeachment trial, signaling that the proceedings are likely to end with Trump's acquittal on the charge that he incited the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
The vote also demonstrated the continued sway Trump holds over GOP officeholders, even after his exit from the White House under a historic cloud caused by his refusal to concede the November election and his unprecedented efforts to challenge the result.
Trump's trial is not scheduled to begin until Feb. 9, but senators were sworn in for the proceedings Tuesday, and they immediately voted on an objection raised by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioning the constitutional basis for the impeachment and removal of a former president.
"Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office," he argued, adding that the trial would "drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been seen in our nation's history."
But Democrats argue that Trump must be held accountable for the riot, which saw the Capitol overrun and claimed the lives of one police officer and four rioters. Paul's argument, they said, suggests that presidents can act with impunity late in their terms.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that the Republican argument is "flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis — constitutional context, historical practice, precedent and basic common sense."
The final vote was 55 to 45 to kill Paul's objection, with GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) joining all 50 Democrats.
The largely partisan vote indicated that, nearly three weeks after the Capitol attack, much of the GOP anger over Trump's actions immediately before and during the siege has faded. Notably, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who previously said Trump had "provoked" the Capitol mob — voted to back Paul and Trump, who has reached out to senators directly and through intermediaries to marshal support for his defense.
Convicting Trump would require support from 67 members of the 100-member body. The Democratic-led House has already impeached Trump a historic second time. If convicted in the Senate, the former president could be barred from holding future office with a subsequent majority vote.
Paul had sought to muster at least 34 votes in support of his objection to signal that there were enough senators with constitutional misgivings to secure an acquittal. After the vote, Paul declared that "the impeachment trial is dead on arrival."
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has been advising Trump on his defense, said Tuesday that he considered 45 votes to be "a floor, not a ceiling" for an acquittal vote.
"He just needs to keep doing what he's doing, and the trial will be over in a couple of weeks," he told reporters.
A few senators who voted with Paul disputed that Tuesday's vote was a foolproof indication of the trial's outcome. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), for instance, told reporters he wanted to hear further debate on the constitutionality question but had not yet decided whether to convict Trump.
But several other Republicans, including Collins, drew the conclusion that a Trump acquittal was now fait accompli. "I think it's pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted," she said. "Just do the math."
Before the vote, Republican senators met for a private lunch where they heard from Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has argued that a former president cannot be tried for impeachment.
Exiting the lunch, Turley said he had presented a nuanced argument: that the benefits of condemning a now-departed president were "outweighed by the cost" of setting a precedent for Congress to retroactively impeach and remove former presidents, creating a new political weapon.
The theory has gained traction among Republicans as a way to side with Trump while sidestepping the question of whether he "incited" the violence at the Capitol — the allegation at the heart of the impeachment effort.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he hoped that Tuesday's vote would prompt Democrats to reassess whether it is worth having a trial.
"I hope my colleagues . . . look at it from the standpoint, is it wise to do this?" he said. "I would hope we would end this now. It's just not wise. It's not healing. It's divisive."
Democrats and many legal scholars have balked at the argument that a former president — or any former official — cannot be convicted in an impeachment trial.
"The theory that the Senate can't try former officials would amount to a constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card for any president who commits an impeachable offense," Schumer said.
"It makes no sense whatsoever that a president, or any official, could commit a heinous crime against our country and then defeat Congress's impeachment powers by simply resigning, so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disqualify them from future office."
Schumer and others have cited the precedent set in 1876, when Secretary of War William Belknap resigned moments before the House was set to vote on his impeachment on corruption charges. The House impeached Belknap anyway, and the Senate proceeded with a trial in which he was acquitted.
[The Founding Father who was impeached after leaving the Senate in shame]
McConnell did not speak before Tuesday's vote or release any statement squaring his vote with his previous statements critical of Trump's behavior. In the immediate aftermath of the Capitol attack and the House impeachment, McConnell communicated to his GOP colleagues that he was open to supporting a conviction.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the minority whip, said Tuesday's vote indicated that many Republicans consider the trial to be on "a very shaky foundation" but have not necessarily ruled out voting to convict.
"I, as a juror, am going to wait until the trial commences and hear the arguments on both sides," he said. "And I think that's where the leader is."
The former president's aides also have started putting GOP senators on notice about the impending trial vote, asserting that Trump will continue to be in a force within the Republican Party. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said Brian Jack, a political aide to Trump, called him over the weekend to stress that Trump had no interest in starting a third party and that his political activity post-presidency would be with the GOP.
"I would say it wasn't out of the blue," Cramer said of the call, first reported by Politico. "I think it was strategic."
Among the other key Republicans who aired constitutional concerns Tuesday was Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving GOP senator. He had qualms about the fact that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is constitutionally mandated to preside over the impeachment trial of a sitting president, has opted not to appear at Trump's second trial.
"That would send a pretty clear signal to me what Roberts thinks of the whole thing," Grassley said. Roberts, through a Supreme Court spokeswoman, has declined to comment.
Rather than Roberts, presiding over the trial will be Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) — the Senate president pro tempore and longest-serving senator. While Leahy pledged Monday to act fairly in the role, the image of a Democrat presiding over the trial of a GOP former president led several Republicans to cry foul.
"Brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country," Paul said Tuesday. "No, unity is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness."
A few Republicans, however, said they believed that the trial of a former president is constitutional. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) told reporters Tuesday that, in her view, "impeachment is not solely about removing a president, it is also a matter of political consequence."
Despite the broad constitutional concerns among Republicans, it appeared Democrats had little intention of canceling or curtailing the trial. Some, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), said the vote Tuesday suggested that House impeachment managers needed to make an even more detailed case against Trump — calling witnesses and presenting evidence attesting to the depravity of his behavior leading up to and during the events of Jan. 6.
Blumenthal said he believed that the trial would rekindle the anger many Republicans felt in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol assault. "They were in a different frame of mind than today when they were voting on the motion to dismiss," he said. "And I want to bring back the feelings of revulsion and terror that were caused on that day."
Other Democrats suggested that Republicans were simply trying to avoid contending with the political consequences of rendering a judgment on Trump's conduct.
"They don't want to argue the merits," said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.). "We have a president who incited a violent attack on the United States Capitol, and on our very democracy, so it's absolutely critical that we call that out and make sure that future presidents understand that this is completely unacceptable behavior and will never be tolerated by the American people."
Schumer on Tuesday said Trump's behavior — which included spreading baseless theories about the November election being stolen, pressuring state officials to change vote tallies, encouraging supporters to rally in Washington as Congress certified the electoral college vote on Jan. 6, and then calling that day for ralliers to march to the Capitol — amounted to "the most despicable thing any president has ever done."
"I believe he should be convicted," he said.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
464 visitors
Circus begins in February.
REMEMBER OFFICER SICKNICK!
Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick
He died due to injuries placed upon him, simply coming to work at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and holding to an easy expectation his fellow so-called "patriots" would put decency and, law and order on display as a means of protest. It did not happen that way. It just did not happen that way.
Above all, this makes it not a circus!
Of course.
But no one here suggested we not remember him.
at Capitol on January 6, 2021
Remember!
She did not deserve to die over a long-lasting lie.
Above all, this makes it not a circus!
Yes.
No one I know of has suggested otherwise.
Remember: If salt loses its flavor - it is good for nothing!
I am sure that meant something, but writing cryptically is poor communication.
It’s a shot at our evangelical Christianity from a mainline Protestant perspective assuming our worthlessness as Christian witnesses to the world from the social gospel point of view.
We're done, Texan. All for now.
Uh, okay?
'Christian whispering?' I don't know that that one is such a one. As for your social gospel reference, Jesus loves you too and you PAY nothing at all for that love. Now, tell me how you EARN IT. Go ahead and try.
Finally, it is not a "shot" at anything, other than a reference to stand for something and let that something be good for all. And not just for one's own chosen 'tribe.'
Got news for you. 'evangelical' [so-called] 'Christianity' IS the world.
See @ 1.1.2 from 2 days ago! I remembered the woman who gave her life in the service of a liar, cheater, and thief - for a big lie!
Was anyone surprised by the outcome?
Wrote Barry Grey :
Rather than a strong Republican Party, Biden should be declaring for strong working class organizations.
The petty-bourgeoisie / Democratic Party tendency does not begin to imagine the gathering storm. Its breaking will remove that party's place in society. It is coming. Only a united working class can stop it. And in its folly, the petty-bourgeoisie is dedicated on controlling or breaking that proletarian class.
It's no surprise that all but 5 of the Republican senators are spineless cowards. In fact, what happened was pretty much predicted.
That's alright, after the impeachment managers make their case , anyone who votes against impeachment will look like a borderline traitor themselves, and the idea that this impeachment should have been shut down on a "process" technicality will look ridiculous.
Oh, that's right, you prefer Senators to vote without any evidence, right?
I mean, only so long as they vote to convict!
Yay, democracy!!
Just tell us why all the Republican senators want Trump to get off on a technicality. It's astonishing.
Trump committed the greatest offense against his own country that any US president ever has - and the Republicans in the senate want to let him off on a technicality. How does anyone defend that?
Come on, dude, I know you read at least part of the article.
In fact, you gave a quote in post #3 that explains precisely why.
This means fuck-all to you?
I would add his negligence causing the death of more that 400,000 Americans, self-admittd (to Woodward) delay in competently containing the first signs of the virus THAT HE THEN KNEW ABOUT.
Huh? Without any evidence? The impeachment is for inciting insurrection, right? They were friggin' WITNESSES! The Senate had to be evacuated while insurrectionists were trashing the Capitol and chanting "Hang Mike Pence."
Excluding a very tiny handful of exceptions, today's anti-republic Republican Party is a sad, sickening joke — held almost entirely captive by an unprincipled and mentally ill fool, liar, and con man. It's pathetic.
I have never said it did.
Please argue what I say, not what you wish I said.
Oh, sorry, you MEANT that the Senators needed to know that evidence. I misunderstood. Happy to see that you need them to know the facts before they vote.
With the help of online enablers and real-time enablers in the Senate, the conscienceless, stand for nothing good, some conservatives are primed to let Donald Trump drive past the bones in the graveyard of those he has literally, negligently, and deliberately put there!
A very sad state of affairs.
You're talking about baseless accusations.
Most Americans would prefer juries to hear evidence presented at trial before juries hand down sentences.
Deflecting from the CCCP lying about and failing to contain the virus before it became a pandemic? Hold your own damn government accountable first! Trump is a great deflection magnet; but Trump didn't allow the virus to become a pandemic! That falls solely on the CCCP!
The fact that the CCCP stonewalled WHO for so long before allowing in their experts in to study how the disease started says everything the rest of the world needs to know.
As for your worrying about Trump; I will hold him accountable when the Democratic Governors and Mayors that put people that tested positive for Covid 19 into old age, retirement, and nursing homes. They exposed the most vulnerable to Covid 19.
But Trump, pathetic. Why not look at the damn numbers? Those Democratic Governors and Mayors that were the most draconian in their response to Covid 19 had the highest death rates.
Want further proof that Democrats were culpable?
If the Democrats want to take down Trump for incitement- then they had better be willing to let their Governors and Mayors (not to mention Pelosi and crew) for aiding and abetting in Oregon, Washington, Washington DC, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and anywhere else the enablers and appeasers allowed their leftist Brown Shirts BLM and Antifa to destroy federal property, and get away with assault, murder, arson, and looting. Of course the hypocrites will never allow themselves to face the music.
Because an event planned days or weeks ahead of time was incited by a President speaking to a different crowd over a mile away when the riot began.
It's news to me that Canada should be accountable for the virus.
But I'm sure you're proud that YOUR former and favoured government holds the world's records concerning the virus.
We should probably just march them all outside and borderline hang them, eh?
I would just imagine that would be the preferred "final solution" to many on the left.
Godwins's law, nice.
Glad you liked it!
That will ultimately be their bottom line and the only way they can prevail over us.
Is it them or the horse whipped democrats who do as they're told?
the idea that this impeachment should have been shut down on a "process" technicality will look ridiculous.
It is a national disgrace based on a lie.
The former 'president' is a national disgrace based on a lie.
Something like 20% of this country is completely unpatriotic based on their devotion to Trump, EVEN WHEN HE IS CRIMINAL. Another 10-15 % is semi-devoted to Trump. Our country will be in complete turmoil as long as Trumpism exists. Period.
That would be the same percentage of people who are brainwashed progressives. Interesting.
Here's a thought for the vacant, buffoonish, traitorous Trump ass kisser Sen Johnson - go fuck yourself. Nobody decent wants "unity" with you.
You think this is a sufficient reason to let Trump off on a technicality? My god.
Divisive? You ain't SEEN divisive yet, now that Trump has opened his office in Florida to maintain his base and start his campaign to run again in 2024.
Notice how "Presidential" the seal is - has any other POTUS ever done this? I doubt it.
It's all about money. He will milk his trumpers dry.
First, there is no law stopping Trump from running again (which is the reason TDS driven Democats are still trying to impeach) ;so opening a campaign office is part of the process.
Secondly; he isn't using the Presidential seal.
From the article you failed to give credit too:
Of all the damn things to pearl clench about these days; this has got to be the lamest.
Trump is done. Most of his base has turned against him. He will make whatever money he can from the ones that refuse to let go. Just like Obama is with his PACs; and the Clinton did with the Clinton Foundation; and now their PACs. Don't worry; I am sure Trump will open a PAC just as soon as he lets his Presidential dream go- after he drains all of the remaining money from his die hard supporters.
Wow, we actually agree.
Never said there was a law. It's a historical precedent concerning a previous government official. If the Senate were to convict, he's done with Trump24, but the Republicans don't have the balls to convict that criminal, if not for fear of their families' safety, then for the reasons outlined here:
I did NOT take the image from the Daily Mail so I never saw that quotation, but the bit you quoted, in my opinion, proves his intention to be the American Hero POTUS for the sake of encouraging his re-election by maintaining the fiction that the 2020 election was stolen from him. I don't give a shit if he is prevented from returning by means of a Senate vote or a jury vote - it's the success of it that counts.
The symbol he created creates a "prsidential" image. In my opinion, THIS is the image that he created for himself, which is the OPPOSITE of appearing "presidential".
Seriously--THAT is what you wish to complain about?
THAT?!?!?!?!
Oh, boy.
Yes, I complain about a pig disguising himself as a human being who will use every trick in the book to try to spend another four years demolishing the USA and its reputation. And what is more, it is conceivable that I may have a lot more reason to be turned off by and find fault with a person who is so insensitive, even cruel, that he makes fun of others with disabilities.
Wow, that sure seems like a far, far cry from this:
which is exactly what I responded to.
And THAT is the "trick in the book" I referred to.
no damn trick, just a simple observation and question.
you can go right ahead and spin it however you want.
well, yes, actually better.
This is irrelevant. The objective conditions which gave rise to Trump and the fascist movement he inspired isn't going anywhere. Count on it regrouping, planning and perfecting plans, and attempting to implement those plans with or without the consent of the United States population.
To think or to promote the notion that this is somehow 'over' is a colossal error which will visit catastrophic consequences on the US working class.
Bush did not impose the Presidential shield on his symbol - but Trump did, which is what I meant by "trick" (obviously misinterpreted by Texan to think I meant what he said).
Divisive was the leader of the executive branch inciting a mob to attack a co-equal branch of our republic.
Let's be honest, privileged 'Paul' is this all impeachment is good for? To leave office and aspire to return to office another 'day'? You see, this is the problem with allowing power to fall into the clutches of insincere and partisan characters who can not keep to an vow of service to the truth. Everything melts down to unprincipled men and women simply doing what is in their best interest and facts be damned.
A man, a woman, and several more on the grounds died that day; say their names Rand Paul, you weasel, as you 'F-over" their memories from mere weeks ago in the very building you are asserting personal privilege in to diss them!
How many Democratic politicians should be made to say the names of people who have died in protests and riots supporting left wing causes? Or do you naively imagine that there aren't any?
You can blow whataboutisms all you can muster. This is an impeachment; in the Capitol building where death and destruction took place! Now you can talk smack and mock decency and civility, but it just goes to show a lack of conscience and 'heart' from the usual 'suspect' who claims to be non-partisan and a straightshooter.
Vapid statements signifying nothing can't land this one properly. Say their names - express some humanity- Tacos! Or just ignore my comments on this thread.
That's the argument of someone who endorses double standards.
You say their names. Say the names of the people killed in riots over the summer. And then apologize for every time you encouraged them, or discouraged having police or Guard reestablish peace and order. Express some humanity! Or admit that your condemnation only goes one way, and is based in partisanship, not justice.
And don't get the idea this is all of them. It's just 13 from a list published way back in June.
David Dorn (77): Died protecting Lee's Pawn Jewelry from looters. He was a retired St. Louis Police officer who served the force for 38 years. He was shot in the torso by suspected rioters and died in the middle of the street.
Barry Perkins (29): Died after he was run over by a FedEx tractor-trailer in St. Louis. After being stopped by two men with guns, the driver feared for his life, honked the horn and sped away, unaware that Perkins was stuck on the converter dolly between the two trailers.
David McAtee (53): Died from a gunshot wound while serving food at his restaurant, Yaya's BBQ Shack, in Louisville. Someone in the crowd allegedly shot at National Guard officers during a protest. They returned fire, leaving McAtee dead shortly after midnight.
Dorian Murrell (18): Was shot and killed by Tyler Newby, 29, in Indianapolis. Newby was approached by Murrell and nine other men after Newby found a gas canister. The group asked him what he had found and pushed Newby to the ground. He pulled out his gun and shot Murrell, who was standing over him. Newby immediately turned himself in.
Italia Kelly (22): Was shot and killed during a protest in Iowa. Her family said she was protesting peacefully before the demonstrations devolved to violence. The shooter has not been identified.
Marquis M. Tousant (23): Was shot and killed in Iowa. Police found a semi-automatic handgun underneath Tousant's body. He was also seen in a video standing outside a jewelry store with a gun the same night he was killed.
Calvin L. Horton Jr . (43): Was fatally shot near the police department's Third Precinct in Minneapolis. He is believed to be the first death since the protests began.
James Scurlock (22): Was fatally shot by a bar owner during a physical altercation in Omaha. The shooter, Jake Gardner, was determined to have acted in self-defense.
Victor Cazares (27): Was shot and killed in Chicago during a riot. A town spokesperson said the shootings were a result of "outside agitators who were driving through Cicero seeking to cause trouble."
Patrick Underwood (53): Was gunned down by drive-by shooters reportedly targeting uniformed officers. Underwood was an officer in the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Protective Service. He was standing guard outside the U.S. Courthouse in Oakland.
Jorge Gomez (25): Was shot and killed by Las Vegas police during riots near the state's federal courthouse. Gomez, wearing body armor and armed with three weapons, raised his gun toward officers before being fatally shot.
Chris Beaty (38): Was reportedly shot and killed near his apartment building in Indianapolis, according to local media reports. Beaty was a former offensive lineman for Indiana University and a prominent businessman who owned several nightclubs.
Marvin Francois (50): Was shot and killed in Kansas City by three black men who were trying to steal his Jeep. Francois was a photographer who was documenting the protests. He was shot three times and died at the scene.
Double standards - all republicans have. . .
The left has cornered the market on hypocrisy.
Thanks, Yoda.
I am going to ignore you. And yes, it is fine with me too!
Really... And just how many years of republican led efforts were there to get to "some accountability" for Benghazi? Yet.... 45 of them want to "move on" from looking at accountability of Trump's hand in the insurrection of 6JAN21......
I suggest you start pulling on your ears..... HARD!!!!
Which republican said the January 6th riot shouldn't be investigated? How many different investigations are going on right now?
Imagine conflating the argument that a private citizen shouldn't be impeached with a claim the riot shouldn't be investigated.
Trump carried on about Obama's birth certificate from 2011 until 2015. We should investigate his attempt to overthrow the US government at least as long.
Guess what...He wasn't a private citizen when he was impeached...
Good to know though that some think if I embezzled a million dollars from a company, I should not go to trial because the company fired me.
Moot point doncha know.
Your usual projection.
Go ahead. Don't be surprised if the arguments you've used to object to any investigation of your party are used against you though.
No surprise, defenses of the modern Republican Party are entirely based on whataboutism, and trying to equate things that are not equivalent.
He is now though, so using a political process to remove an office holder seems silly to many.
If Trump committed a crime, charge him criminally.
Do you not understand that impeachment is a political proceeding and not a criminal one? To equate the two is idiotic.
defenses of the modern Republican Party are entirely based on whataboutism, and trying to equate things that are not equivalent.
Investigate away John. I'm sure there are dozens of investigations proceeding as we speak. But it's clear you don't really care about anything other their perceived political benefit to Democrats. Don't pretend it's about anything else.
Do you really believe that impeachment is done just for political purpose? Do you actually think that they would do it if they didn't think there was something criminally done?
When one cannot charge a sitting president with a crime, one can impeach....
I am really getting sick of you all acting like donald is some saint and pure as the driven snow. He is a piece of shit that has lied to you all for years. And for some reason you say, Thank You Sir, may I have another...
why hasn't Trump been arrested and charged with incitement now that he isn't the President?
Yes of course. That's all impeachment is. It's a political process dressed up as a legal proceeding. In reality, it has zero effect on any criminal liability.
hen one cannot charge a sitting president with a crime, one can impeach..
Trump is not a sitting President. He can be charged with any crime you imagine. In fact, I've been promised for years that he would be arrested on January 21. What happened? Clinton effectively signed a plea agreement to avoid prosecution as he left the white house. Still waiting on Trump.
am really getting sick of you all acting like donald is some saint and pure as the driven snow.
That's what called a straw man argument.
So an impeachment is not a legal proceeding? Ok...
And again, he was impeached while still in office. And if done in the senate would come with consequences. Having consequences is not a zero sum game.
.
That is what I call the truth, that some will not accept...
So why again has Trump not been arrested and charged with incitement?
Was Donald Trump a private citizen on January 6th? No, he was not. We all see him at the lectern speaking to throngs of soon to be insurrectionists. You can't gaslight us-Sean. Donald Trump is guilty of conduct and expressing words unbecoming of a president of the United States. He is right to be charged and convicted and never allowed to hold office in this country again.
Subsequently, he can stay a private citizen or go the "H" anywhere else he chooses.
That isn't in the interest of any section of the ruling class. Barry Grey, whose piece I referenced [emphasis added] supports your idea .
Biden and his Democratic Party leadership is terrified by thoughts of a rising working class.
As I see it, the whole ruling class becomes increasingly nervous. Whatever events/spats are staged for public consumption, expect the Democratic Party to 'hold the GOP back' more than ever.
Remember: we need 'a strong Republican Party;' strong working class organizations are the last thing the Democratic Party section of the ruling class wants.
Cut the bull patty! It is clear that for you all Donald Trump can not be invalidated based on customary rules, regulations, and values. Therefore, the impeachment clause is considered null and void. I guess we can say that Trump supporters have "Canceled" impeachment from the CULTURE.
Now rave against the so-called, "cancel culture" again and nobody should give you all the time of day when y'all do!
Do you know who Secoriea Turner is? How many time should Kamala "Keep the protests going and don't let up" Harris say her name since she was killed after Harris urged the violent protests to continue?
You can throw up redirection all you wish. This is about the House, Senate, Capitol building. Do you need directions to the conversation? To the impeachment? To the GOP letting Donald off the hook for his incitement to violence? Trump supporters maybe like you - listened to Donald's lie and went and ransacked the "people's house"! And, you dare to try to redirect? Tacky, Sean Treacy. Real tacky.
VP Pence and Rand Paul and the assorted lot of republicans were in the Capitol, ducked down and cramped under seats not knowing what the "H" was coming through the 'front' door blaring and blasting. And you want to talk to me about externals?
This is the disaster, du jour!
LOL. He did continue on with his bull patty, he did with me. Guess that's all he's got.
Sad you don't want to hold the instigators of a little girl's death to account.
What little girl?
Sad you are tossing out bull patty on this thread and vainly trying to defend Donald, the super Creep , who directed his 'forces' to attack our mutually shared capitol building and cause death and destruction. It plainly shows us you care more about Donald than you do about Rule of Law or right and wrong.
Because Sean, you are wrong-headed on this one.
The quote of that bearded 'dude' says, "Trust The Plan - Where We Go One We Go All" It's a Q-Anon reference.
Maybe you know it?
A child he uses for 'fodder' and
tears of caring about. Remember Sandy Hook and the 'do-nothing' to help and heal anybody there gun-lubbers .
Save your meme for when Trump shoots someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and needs to get off on a technicality.
Well, once the House sat on it for three weeks, it was pretty much a done deal that it wasn't going to fly. A sense of urgency to remove him from office is the only possible way to have generated the necessary momentum to make removal possible. At this point, it's pointless.
I believe you are correct.
No conscience. Unprincipled. Forsaken 'tombs' it would seem some conservatives are.
[deleted]
Seems like an apt description of many Democrats in Congress.
Good job there!
Anybody that thinks trump caused, incited, encouraged, whatever, the riot, is an idiot. Good for these senators for standing up to liberal lunacy.
[deleted]
So you really have no use for the rule of law do you.....?
Trump supporters have no morals, nor ethics, so it stand to fit laws and rules shouldn't apply either eh.
Using the rule of law I think you would be very hard pressed to convict Trump in a court of law for this. SCOTUS has set precedents for inflammatory speech by politicians. If I remember correctly, the prosecution would basically have to prove intent in order to convict. As Trump also said in his speech
it will be very difficult to prove that Trump intended for the crowd to invade the Capital Building.
If you are going to hold all politicians responsible for using inflammatory speech like "you have to fight like hell" then I think the Capital Building would be mostly empty.
I highly suspect that the use of such logic will be completely missed by some here.
It just makes too much sense to fit into the thinking of some liberals.
Too calm, too reasoned, too logical.
Sounds to me like letting people with power get away with things that the peons cannot.
Do you think rudy calling for 'trial by combat' is not trying to incite the crowd?
Stop acting like 'inflammatory speech' has no consequences.
Get real. donald has been feeding his crowd conspiracy theories, lies and hateful rhetoric for years.
He has been encouraging his followers to fight. Fight at all costs against fellow countrymen. Edging them on for years at rallies, through twitter, and yet when the shit hits the fan, you all say, you can't blame him for what his followers did.
Bullshit.
Yep. I still say that if Obama was inciting crowds or even said one fifth of what donald has they would be screaming for his head on a spike.
I can't believe they willfully cannot see their compete double standards.
This has nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that the prosecution would have a very difficult time getting a guilty conviction against Trump in a court of law and I gave my reasoning. Trump has had consequences due to his speech on Jan 6th, it's very unlikely that he would ever get back to the office of the president. I can understand if that's not the consequences you would prefer, but we seldom get everything we want in life.
The trial in the Senate is going to move forward so there will be more activity around Jan 6th. But Trump probably won't be convicted there so it is what it is.
But I do stand with my last sentence. If you are going to try to hold politicians accountable for using inflammatory speech the Capital building is going to be mostly empty.
Oh I know the senate republicans will not vote to convict.
And yes, we should hold all politicians accountable for their rhetoric.
Whether it is having crosshairs on opponents or espousing conspiracy theories.
Yet for some reason they seem to get rewarded.
I used the peon comparison because I truly believe that if it was me or you that incited crowds to attack, yes, they would find a way to prosecute us.
For far too long we have let politicians themselves be above the law. When caught they usually get a slap on the wrist and maybe a censure in chambers.
If feels like you are not understanding what I am trying to say so let me try it another way.
The upcoming trial in the Senate is not a legal proceeding in a court of law. If Trump is convicted in the Senate trial, what is the outcome. He is removed from office which is a moot point because he's already out of office. If convicted the Senate can then hold a second vote to determine if he should ever be allowed to run for public office again. And that's it. No fines, no prison time.
In a court of law, if found guilty there are much heavier punishments that can be levied including fines and prison time. But it's much harder to get a conviction in a court of law. This goes back to the SCOTUS case Brandenburg v Ohio. To convict Trump in a court of law the prosecution would need to prove that Trump intended to provoke violence. But his words were vague enough and he did use the phrase about peacefully protesting so it's highly unlikely any such conviction could occur. It's unlikely there would be any prosecution as most prosecutors would be hesitant to take such a case.
We would also be protected under the Brandenburg v Ohio case. Ohio had prosecuted Clarence Brandenburg, an Ohio Klan leader under a state law for making a speech in which he advocated violence against African Americans and Jews. The case was appealed up to SCOTUS, in which the ACLU represented Brandenburg, set a high bar for criminal prosecutions of inflammatory speech. To make the case a prosecutor would have to show that we intended to provoke violence.
In reality the only way we can hold politicians accountable is at the ballot box.
I suppose you've been crapping gold bars for four years?
They refuse to acknowledge that most politicians use inflammatory speech without being held accountable.
Well why didn't you say so in the first place! That makes the whole thing a little slice of heaven!
No credibility whatsoever left! Trump conservatives are now deluding themselves by staring into the "crystal orbs" of each other's eyes!
Anyone who thinks he doesn't is an idiot.
PERFIDIOUS = you can trust a Republican no farther than you can throw him/her. Or else the lawmakers are so afraid for the safety of their families that they are cowed by the theats from the Trumpster Army. So who's in control in the USA? Those who have the guns - so THAT'S what American "democracy" is - rule by the ones with the guns.
My, that is quite melodramatic!
Yes, I'm quite good at it. It's a technique that makes a point more compelling, especially when having to penetrate lead-lined thick skulls.
I do find the Chicken Little-like comments amusing.
Yes, thank you, most small-minded people do.
As does at least one other.
Some countries are ruled by those with the tanks. Ever see the pictures from Tiananmen Square when the 38th Army went to war with unarmed protesters?
You can refer to history as much as you want, but I'm not talking about the American Civil War. IMO 20 days ago isn't history. I'm talking about the threats to the lives of the lawmakers and their families that have happened in the last couple of weeks. There have been a lot of changes around the world since more than three decades ago.
You can refer to history as much as you want, but I'm not talking about the American Civil War.
I'm not either. I'm pointing out what an actual country ruled by guns looks like. Are you even allowed to talk about the massacre at Tiananmen Square? You can go to jail for teaching kids about it, so tread carefully. Sometimes I forget I'm lucky enough to live in a country where I can criticize the government and discuss its shortcomings while others can go to jail for exercising that freedom.
Imagine living in a country where it's illegal to teach kids about important historical events. I
here have been a lot of changes around the world since more than three decades ago.
And much hasn't. [Deleted]
I have travelled to and through about 17 countries in my lifetime, and never got into trouble in any of them because I didn't criticize them while I was there or demand that the locals bend to my beliefs and desires but as long as it was of no consequence to me I "did as the Romans did", and I got along just fine with everyone. In China I have been entirely apolitical, which has been no problem to anyone here, whether it be police or government officials or anyone else. So I will return your "holier than thou" comment as follows:
Sometimes I forget I'm lucky enough to live in a country where I know I'm not going to get shot by a terrorist or just anyone with a gun, because they don't have them here. Imagine living in a country where even a lawmaker can mock the fact that children in schools have been massacred, causing pain and suffering to their parents, and get away with it. Imagine living in a country where a candidate for POTUS had inhumanely publicly mocked and mimicked a disabled human being, and still got elected by a majority of Americans.
Different strokes for different folks, Sean. I'm happy. Are you?
So now Washington, D.C. has fallen to its own stupid gamesmanship. Even the constitutional check on the second branch of the U.S. system of government is out of reach of the people. There is no rule of law for the Republicans under Donald Trump, each man and woman does what is right in Donald's skewed eyes. Liberals! The handwriting is expressed clearly now: you can not work with Trump republicans. Secularists, you can not work with them either. There is no Rule of Law or Logic to Trump conservatives. They are going to lie and cheat you every as they show up to stare you down to your faces!
More importantly this begins establishing a precedent that Presidents cannot be impeached after they leave office.
The impeachment of William Blount established the precedent that Senators cannot be impeached. The impeachment of William Belknap established the precedent that government officials will not be impeached after they resign (which was the justification for not pursuing impeachment of Richard Nixon).
The second impeachment of Trump isn't about conviction or acquittal. The trial is now a matter of establishing a Constitutional precedent.
Actually, this establishes not a damn thing of itself. It simply points out this:
Painfully obviously false.
Also false, and rather silly.
0-for-3!
And a perfect day---0-for-4!
The trial is now a matter of establishing a Constitutional precedent.
Isn't the former 'president' trying to overthrow his own government a 'Constitutional precedent'?
but he didn't try that, so there is that fact to consider
Yes, he did.
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
No wonder at all that the party is referred to as the GOP, the same exact way it has been for well over 100 years.
Maybe we can dig up some old Democrats and ask them how often they referred to the GOP as the Party of Lincoln way, way, way, way back in the 1800's.
LOL!
I have it on good authority that the GOP's name is now mud.
"Good authority".
AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Harris?
LOL!