Takeaways from day 3 of Trump's second impeachment trial in the Senate - The Washington Post
While the gop talks about day two and Mike Lee Democrats moved on to Day Three of Donald Trump's Second Impeachment Trial.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Day three of former president Donald Trump's impeachment trial featured the remainder of Democratic House impeachment managers' case against Trump.
Below, some takeaways.
Support our journalism. Subscribe today.arrow-right
1. A novel appeal to GOP senators about the consequences of acquittal
If there is one quote that summed up the Democrats' argument for conviction of Trump, it came Thursday from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.).
The fact that Trump is no longer in office renders the biggest punishment of the impeachment process — removal from office — moot. Beyond that, it's about sanctioning him and preventing Trump from being able to hold high office again.
But Lieu suggested that this wasn't just about preventing Trump from running (and potentially winning) again; he said it was instead about avoiding another situation such as this.
"You know, I'm not afraid of Donald Trump running again in four years," Lieu said. "I'm afraid he's going to run again and lose, because he can do this again."
The comment was clearly intended for Republican senators who might be on the fence. The party establishment has flirted with a break from Trump in an attempt to phase him out, but that's no easy process. And of late, Republicans appear to have rallied behind the former president.
It's also logical that Democrats wouldn't be terribly concerned about Trump running again, given that he just lost and was one of the most unpopular presidents in history (despite actually coming closer than most recognize to winning reelection). Lieu tried to drive home that this was bigger than just an attempted political disqualification.
Another impeachment manager, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), also got at this idea.
"All of these people who have been arrested and charged, they're being accountable, held accountable for their actions," she said. "Their leader, the man who incited them, must be held accountable as well."
DeGette added later: "Impeachment is not to punish, but to prevent. We are not here to punish Donald Trump. We are here to prevent the seeds of hatred that he planted from bearing any more fruit."
The concerted message on the final day of the Democrats' arguments was to warn Republicans about what they might have to account for if they let Trump slide.
But it didn't sway at least one key Republican who has suggested Trump carries blame, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).
"I think that was a very powerful statement on his part," Rounds said of Lieu's quote. "And I know I wrote that down. I know a number of my colleagues did. But once again, the issue for most of us is are you asking us to do something that we simply don't have the capability of doing because the Constitution does not give us that tool with regard to a private citizen."
2. Driving home Trump's history of violent rhetoric
A big question going into the trial was how much Democrats would keep focused on Jan. 6 and Trump's effort to overturn the election, and how much they would address his past rhetoric encouraging or excusing political violence.
Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), the lead impeachment manager, briefly made his team's offering on the latter Thursday.
This is hardly the first time people have tied Trump's comments to real or potential violence. It happened throughout his presidency. It happened to the point where even many Republicans now allied with Trump — who are playing down the need for his impeachment — warned about a situation similar to this, including former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.).
Raskin referred to many of these instances, including Trump jokingly praising a Montana politician for assaulting a reporter, suggesting that there were good people on "both sides" of the racist rally in Charlottesville in 2017, and his repeated suggestions both at his 2016 rallies and since that his supporters might get violent. Trump also endorsed a clip from a supporter saying "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" — before that supporter was arrested for his part in the Capitol riot.
Videos shown by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) on Feb. 11 during the impeachment trial of former president Donald J. Trump. (House Impeachment Managers)
Perhaps most compellingly, Raskin noted Trump's tweet to "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" in April. It came two weeks before armed protesters flooded the state Capitol there. Trump suggested approval for their show of force and, in response, urged Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) to negotiate with them on the coronavirus restrictions Trump had criticized. Two weeks later, protesters returned with more violent rhetoric. Then an alleged plot to kidnap Whitmer surfaced — a plot in which the alleged perpetrators echoed Trump's rhetoric.
"This Trump-inspired mob may indeed look familiar to you," Raskin said of the initial scenes at the state Capitol. "Confederate battle flags, MAGA hats, weapons, camo Army gear — just like the insurrectionists who showed up and invaded this chamber on Jan. 6. The siege of the Michigan Capitol was effectively a state-level dress rehearsal for the siege of the U.S. Capitol that Trump incited on January 6th."
Trump's defenders have focused narrowly on his speech Jan. 6, which they argue was unremarkable, and which they note included one line that those marching to the Capitol should "peacefully" protest. They have even argued that revelations about planning by some Capitol rioters suggest that they couldn't have been incited.
That ignores everything that preceded Jan. 6, and Trump's efforts to overturn the election. The fact is that there had been all kinds of suggestions that Trump's rhetoric could lead to what we saw. Trump often did far less than his critics said he should to prevent or condemn such scenes.
That might be the most significant evidence Democrats have — even if Raskin's presentation gave it short shrift, in the grand scheme of things.
3. A prebuttal to Trump's free-speech defense
Democrats offered a prebuttal to an argument the Trump legal team's is expected to make Friday, that this is a matter of free speech.
Trump's team, in its briefs, hasn't actually delved into the well-established limits on free speech, which include things like incitement and defamation.
Democrats argued that even those limits are beside the point. They said Trump, as president and commander in chief, is held to a higher standard.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) cited a letter from legal experts on free speech, including many conservatives, who rebuked the idea that such a defense applies in this case.
"That [defense] has no basis in the evidence," Neguse said. "To hear his lawyers tell it, he was just some guy at a rally, expressing unpopular opinions. They would have you believe that this whole impeachment is because he said things that one may disagree with."
Raskin said that a president's speech carries inordinate weight when it comes to things like incitement, by virtue of his oath of office.
"Nobody made Donald Trump run for president and swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution on Jan. 20, 2017," Raskin said. "But when he did, by virtue of swearing that oath and entering this high office, he took upon himself a duty to affirmatively take care that our laws would be faithfully executed under his leadership."
Raskin also went further, noting that constitutional experts generally agree that impeachment doesn't require a statutory crime. "High crimes and misdemeanors," despite the claims of Trump's legal team both this week and in his first impeachment, doesn't actually mean felonies or what the legal code today calls misdemeanors.
"Incitement to violent insurrection is not protected by free speech," Raskin said. "There is no First Amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The idea itself is absurd. And the whole First Amendment smokescreen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a president who has violated his oath of office."
4. The participants who cited Trump
The early focus Thursday was on driving home the incitement argument by pointing to rioters who said they had been incited.
Multiple rioters who have been charged with crimes have cited perceived invitations from Trump as part of their defense. That could be convenient for them, legally speaking. But DeGette focused more on people who said these things in real time.
Among them:
- One man who wrote on the day of the siege, "Trump just needs to fire the bat signal … deputize patriots … and then the pain comes."
- Another man said on a live stream from inside the Capitol: "Our president wants us here. We wait and take orders from our president."
- One man told a police officer who stood in his way: "There's a f------ million of us out there, and we're listening to Trump — your boss."
- Another woman responded to now-President Biden's calls for peace by saying, "Does he not realize President Trump called us to siege the place?"
- Another talked about calling Trump from inside the Capitol and said, "He'll be happy. … We're fighting for Trump."
"Have you noticed throughout this presentation the uncanny similarity, over and over and over again, of what all these people are saying?" DeGette said. "They said what Donald Trump said and they echoed each other. 'Stand back and stand by.' 'Stop the steal.' 'Fight like hell.' 'Trump sent us.' 'We are listening to Trump.' "
It's possible to cherry-pick anecdotes in a prosecution. It's also possible that people perceived a message that Trump didn't technically send. The combination of these comments and those citing Trump's invitation as part of their legal defense, though, suggests that this is something many truly believed was done at Trump's behest — or at least that it would meet with his approval.
Tags
Who is online
422 visitors
Today was Day Three of Trump's Impeachment Trial!
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
The ONLY wonder is why you choose to use an archaic term when no one in your entire lifetime has referred to it as the Party of Lincoln and have for well over 125 years.
GOP-------as it has been since the 1870's.
Here, read and enjoy!
Why Is the Republican Party Known as the GOP? - HISTORY
Is it any wonder to you why the original grand old party is now known merely as the Democratic Party?
ouch.....
Don't be silly and don't encourage impertinence
silly? not being silly , the republican party wasnt really called the GOP until grant was president before that the Old party of the nation was actually the oldest party in existance , the democrats . that might be a rather stinging unwelcome fact to some.
if i wanted to encourage him , i would have liked his comment , not simply said "ouch"
impertinence? i will take that with a grain of salt considering the source.
SO telling you the truth is being silly and impertinent?
Hoo Boy!!!
[Deleted]
So, why again don't you refer to the Democrats as the grand old party anymore?
No, the only gop in history was Republicans!
Republican Party (United States)
The Republican Party , sometimes also referred to as the GOP (" Grand Old Party "), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States , along with its main, historic rival, the Democratic Party .
Free Soil Party Liberty Party Anti-Nebraska Party North American Party
Washington, D.C. 20003
• Conservatism [2] • Fiscal conservatism [3] • Social conservatism [4] [5] [6] Factions :
• Centrism [7] • Neoconservatism [8] • Right-libertarianism [8] • Right-wing populism [9] [10]
The GOP was founded in 1854 by opponents of the Kansas–Nebraska Act , [15] which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories. The party supported classical liberalism , opposed the expansion of chattel slavery, and supported economic reform . [16] [17] Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. Under the leadership of Lincoln and a Republican Congress, chattel slavery was banned in the United States in 1865. The Party was generally dominant during the Third Party System and the Fourth Party System . After 1912, the Party underwent an ideological shift to the right. [18] Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 , the party's core base shifted, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics. [19] The GOP was strongly committed to protectionism and tariffs at its founding but grew more supportive of free trade in the 20th century.
The 21st-century Republican Party ideology is American conservatism , which incorporates both economic policies and social values . The GOP supports lower taxes, free market capitalism , restrictions on immigration , increased military spending , gun rights , restrictions on abortion , deregulation , and restrictions on labor unions . [20] The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas , men , the Silent Generation , and white evangelical Christians . [21] [22] [23] [24]
There have been 19 Republican presidents, the most from any one political party. As of early 2021, the GOP controls 27 state governorships, 30 state legislatures, and 23 state government trifectas (governorship and both legislative chambers). Six of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican presidents.
Here, read this and start weeping:
Why Is the Republican Party Known as the GOP? - HISTORY
The “grand old party” moniker was actually first adopted by the Republicans’ elder rival—the Democratic Party—which traced its roots back to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. In his 1859 inaugural address, Kentucky’s Democratic Governor Beriah Magoffin proclaimed, “The grand old party has never changed its name, its purposes, or its principles, nor has it ever broken its pledges.” The following year a Democratic newspaper in New Haven, Connecticut, looked ahead to the presidential election of 1860 and warned that “this grand old party is divided and in danger of defeat.”
I thought it was now known as the GQP.
Q? As in Quack?
No. Q as in QAnon.
i didnt see the votes to convict when the articles were drawn up and i still dont see the votes convict even after what has been shown .
I am still convinced though that impeachment has become a joke and political tool far removed from its real intended purpose . even the very first presidential impeachment started it down the road its on.
the court of public opinion means diddly its easy to get a conviction there , what does mean something , is what 100 members of the senate think and the need for a 2/3rds vote to convict, i dont see any senator missing this vote so 67 votes to convict are whats needed , and i dont see the votes there.
You think it good only 55 Senators vote to convict?
Trump will still go down in history most ignobaly with half of all the Presidential impeachments ever and as the only President ever impeached twice...
Anywhere else at any other time in history anyone trying what Trump attempted would be executed!
That is what happened to traitors of failed coups...
The gop is made of spineless Trumpian bootlickers
and it will be pointed out of the 4 presidential impeachments only 1 was a republican , impeached twice(2)
the other 2 were democrats .
democrats lead the score , 2 to 1 individually.
I will say I sure am glad i didnt vote for any of them.
No President was convicted by the Senate, butt only Trump was impeached twice...
No Speaker had ever impeached a President twice and failed to remove him, either.
History is not going to berate Pelosi for failing to convict trump, it will berate the Republicans in the senate for twice failing to vote for conviction even though the evidence against Trump was overwhelming both times.
I never claimed that.
Doesn't change the facts though.
well i figure every senator with a D after their name will vote to convict and there is 50 of them ( VP Harris doesnt get a vote in this since there will be no tie to break).
I CAN see 3 rep senators voting to convict from whats already been said before the trial started Collins ,Romney , Murkowski . that brings it up to 53 . i dont know where your getting the other 2 .
Are there 14 other senators that will vote to convict? I really dont see it , and it can all be blamed on politics.
Donald Trump lied about the election for months on end, every day, sometimes many multiple times a day, tried to coerce a Georgia state elections official into "finding" the exact number of votes Trump needed, tried to coerce the vice president into illegally declaring the election uncertified, told tens of thousands to come to the Capitol Building at the exact time on Jan 6th the Congress was meeting to certify the election , to "stop the steal" , leading quite predictably to a riot, then failed for hours to do anything to end the riot, before finally after the riot had been ongoing for 4 plus hours, telling his followers to "remember this day forever", and you think that conduct, most of which is undisputed, does not meet the level of meriting impeachment. Amazing. Our country is in freefall.
It's hard at this point to take any conservative or libertarian seriously.
feeling is mutual john , its hard after the last 6 years of listening to your braying like a fencepost stuck jackass to take you seriously either.
I will admit it is nice to see you recognize i have not only conservative views or libertarian views dependent on the issues , i guess thats a step up from you calling me an extremist to others , maybe you might also look to see what liberal views i might posess dependent on the issue....
Sorry , people who don't recognize that Trump is not further fit for office, and thus should be convicted of the impeachment article of which he is obviously completely guilty, are not worth giving the time of day.
Its sad that people on the right have brought this country to this low point.
all i can say is , sure is a good thing i didnt vote for him huh?
Who you voted for is completely irrelevant to Trump's guilt or innocence.
The only relevance it does have is i knew better than to vote for a crook. as for his guilt or innocence , on that i have made up my mind anyway not that thats going to matter , and it still stands , i wouldnt vote for him if he ran again.
And Nancy Pelosi will go down in history as the only Speaker to impeach a President twice, with the same results as all the others--the President was not removed from office by her actions.
SO glad to see you admit Nancy failed--TWICE!!!
Only if by fail you mean, "Impeached his ass!"
Yes, he was impeached twice.
What exactly do you think the goal of impeachment IS, anyways?
Here's a clue:
The purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting President.
No.... republicans failed to defend the constitution ....TWICE!
Exactly what part of the following are you disputing?
Not quite.
the goal of impeachment is to bring specific charges against an individual . they are basically the prosecuting attys , they in the house make the charges and present the evidence and the case .
The senate is the judge and jury and dole out an aquittal or conviction and in the case of the conviction the sentence. and is where the actual trial is held.
Well, I look at it this way:
If the goal is to bring specific charges, it must be because the impeaching party must want a conviction.
And we all know what a conviction means.
100 years from now most people won't really remember the name Nancy Pelosi but they will remember that Trump was impeached twice.
There is simply no way in HELL that Democrats won't be bragging about Pelosi 100 years from now. After ll, she is the only female Speaker, so I would JUST imagine THAT little tidbit of information MIGHT actually make it into a history book or tow.
And definitely will have to be mentioned on Women's Studies Classes!
History will show Trump was impeached twice--and never removed from office. Isn't THAT really the sole goal of impeachment?
Nancy "0-2" Pelosi!
I wouldnt let her hear that , she holds the distinction of being the first and so far only woman to be speaker of the house .
Do you have any idea, without looking it up, who the speaker of the house was when Nixon was facing the Watergate impeachment hearings and then resigned? that was 46 years ago. You do remember Nixon though.
watergate was a little different with what happened there. the articles of impeachment was bi partisan and agreed to by both parties .
but hey with the presedent of impeaching someone no longer in office , he might yet be impeached and convicted .
wait , what? he is dead? we have a presedent for that as well . the vatican tried and convicted a pope in the past.
from snopes
there was a fairly frequent use of the early medieval equivalent of impeachment. This was a church synod held in Rome, at which the holder of the highest office in Christendom could be tried for transgressions against the traditions and customs of their office. One such synod took place in January 897 and heard charges against the most recent former pontiff, Formosus (pope from 891 to 896).
The only problem was that Formosus had been dead for seven months by the time the trial started. But the new pope, Stephen VI, was of the firm opinion that even when a leader had left office they could still be punished for their transgressions.
Long story short:
Stephen VI predictably pronounced Formosus guilty on the grounds that he could not legally have received the papal title since he was the bishop of another see and he had gone back on his oath not to celebrate mass. All his measures, acts and legal decisions were annulled, and all the priestly orders conferred by him were declared invalid. His papal vestments were torn from his body. The three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were cut off his right hand and the corpse was buried in a grave in the cemetery for strangers, only to be removed after a few days and thrown into the river Tiber.
#diguptrickydickandconvict
Oh wait he got a presidential pardon ....oh well.
Interesting story.
How did the Catholics balance that with their belief in the infallibility of the Pope?
The impeachment on going now is bipartisan. There were more votes to impeach Trump in the House by the minority party than in any other impeachment.
11 Republicans voted for impeachment in the House, which is a very strong indication of his guilt. If he were no brainer innocent or "not guilty" none of the Republicans would have wanted their name on the affirmative side of an impeachment vote.
there were at the time 2 different holy sees( popes) , one in rome where this happened , and one in constantinople and both seperate from the other, back then the clergy from one could not mingle and get promoted in the other.
thanks!
Back in the day when republicans actually put the country before their party Mark......
Trump cost the lives of Americans...... While endangering the republic by inciting his followers to attack an equal branch of government. If this isn't grounds for a bi-partisan vote in support of impeachment, then what is Mark?
had to go back and look up some watergate facts as well as a couple other things so here goes
trumps second impeachment is going down in history as the most bipartisan of the 4 held so far .
It appears that the articles of impeachment , for nixon which never made it to the floor for a vote , got 7 republican committee seats to vote in the affirmative for impeachment out of 11 ., but no floor vote , no impeachment .
the comittee votes were used IMHO to convince nixon to resign , and they likely would have at that time in history been far more republicans on the floor of the house to vote to impeach than voted for trumps 2nd impeachment .
If it had gone to trial in the senate , I think over half the republican senators would have voted to convict , as for a floor vote in the house , i am of the opinion that half the republicans would have voted for impeachment , the fat lady had politically sang , it was just a matter of resignation or removal after conviction..
Without looking up the number of seats that were held by which party back then , i have to think that it would have been a lot more than just 10.
as it stands right now to be considered bipartisan all it takes is one person to cross over and vote in the affirmative , thats how its been used , in reality , bipartisan would require a 3rd to a half crossing the isle to vote in the affirmative .
If i had the answer to that , i would go get a lottery ticket and share my numbers with everyone .
i dont so i sit back wait and watch how it all settles out , and that is about what my pay grade is.
If Trump , or whoever, were obviously innocent you wouldn't have any of the impeached persons party crossing over, would you? Yet we have to listen to the utter drivel from "Republicans" claiming that this impeachment is frivolous or a waste of time.
Donald Trump is obviously guilty. The evidence and facts against him are overwhelming. That is why someone like Liz Cheney, hardly a friend of the left , broke with the vast majority of her party and put the rest of her political career in jeopardy by voting for impeachment. She wants to sleep at night with a clear conscience, one presumes.
On a site like Newstalkers, and other sites like it to be fair, we are forced to be "polite" to total nonsense, or else I guess not participate. We have to listen to preposterous comments like "Trump is a great leader" or "Trump is a great man" spewed out by one certain person here every day. It is like being in a prison for the mentally insane . Another one writes every day on Trump's behalf like someone who has never read an American newspaper and knows nothing about what has been going on for the last 4 or 5 months, let alone 5 years. It is bizarro world.
Like I said, it's not just Newstalkers, it's everywhere. The day after the riot at the Capitol, all sorts of Republicans spoke out against Trump, now just a month later, they have lost all their nerve to hold him accountable. America is laid low.
Thing is, for most of them (maybe the singular person you mentioned is the exception), they understand that Trump is guilty. But they feel compelled to defend him or try to lessen the severity of the acts.
I wonder if they have considered how this is advantageous for the R party. How is supporting Trump anything other than a continued negative for the R party?
Ordinary citizens are not running for reelection (unlike Senators) so there is no 'vote to keep my job' bias. So what is it? Trump is a major parasite attached to the party. They should rip off the parasite and start the healing process.
He will never be elected PotUS again. All he can do is divide the R party against itself.
What are they thinking?
Now to be "fair" i will ask these questions .
The day after the capitol riots all sorts of republicans spoke out against trump , or did they speak out against the attack on the capitol? Or are you equating speaking out against the attack itself , as being speaking out against trump himself because of your belief in his involvement and guilt?
I was one that spoke out the day of the attack on this site against the attack on the capitol and i am not a republican or democrat, and stated anyone that crossed the thresh hold into the building or caused damage to the outside needed to be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allowed . and as far as i can see , thats happening.
yep and voted 93% of the time with trump policies , I will expand on one point you mentioned about her political career , its not in jeopardy , she can run anywhere, including Wyoming , she just has to set up residency somewhere she plans to run , like she did when she ran in Wyo., and her career in wyo isnt in jeopardy , it went straight down the crapper and its unlikely the voters will vote for her again if every thing i am hearing comes to fruitation.
What i am hearing in her defense is coming from self identified liberals and democrats , funny thing is she never lost my vote due to how she voted on impeachment , mainly because she never had my vote anyway.
The impeachment managers laid out an extensive case for Trump inciting the "riot" at the Capitol over the course of months. He tweeted on the need for his followers to save the election (aka him) dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times, between Nov 4 and January 6. He said the same in speeches. Bear in mind this was an election that Trump clearly lost. The election was on a Tuesday and on Saturday Nov 7th the Associated Press, the gold standard for calling elections in the United States for a century, or more, announced that Joe Biden was president -elect. At that point Trump should have gotten his bearings and plotted out a reasonable course, perhaps including some challenges in places where he thought there might be a case that they got the vote totals wrong. Instead Trump went batshit over the top claiming that tens of millions of votes had been stolen from him, essentially coast to coast. He delved into the depths of right wing conspiracy fantasies and started lying about anecdotal instances of voting irregularities as if to make it seem fraud was widespread and a plot against him. When his scatterbrained legal challenges failed he kept up with the accusations and began to more and more suggest that his followers needed to act.
On January 6th the Congress was called for what is always a formal affirmation of the states electoral votes. Trump is the one who turned the day into a final battle between his good and the Democrats and Republican establishments evil. His followers, believing in him much the way Jim Jones followers believed in him in their jungle "utopia", ignored reality and massed at the capitol to "stop the steal". The steal wasnt going to be stopped with hand holding and Bob Dylan protest songs, they were going to do whatever it took, which is exactly what Trump wanted them to do.
"extensive" cases being made that show "with out doubt ", dont seem to be working to well in getting convictions .
The Republican senators fear Trump's brainwashed voters. Its that simple.
so john who are you trying to convince to vote the way you want them to? because i have no vote in the aquittal or conviction. or are you trying to get me to contact senators? because that wont work either because i trust them just as i trusted Cheney ( whom i stated i didnt vote for) to vote as her job discription dictates .
OR are you slowly setting up your excuses as to why the prosecuting party(s) yet again failed to met the objective that seemed to be such a slam dunk conviction?
either way it is out of normal voters hands now.
and Ithink sorta like TG if for different reasons , trumps done and even if not convicted , doesnt stand a chance really of being elected again if he ran .
so the trump baba yaga dont hunt for me.
Not off the top of my head, but I KNOW it was an old white guy, which wouldn't make him a history maker like Nancy "0-2" Pelosi!
Saying she won't be noted in history and remembered is like saying that Jackie Robinson wouldn't have been remembered.
And you DO know why HE is remembered, right?
I really don't understand why we are all wasting our time at all with this impeachment trial when most of the Republican Senators have already made up their minds to allow the monster to continue its rampage, those Senators with eyes and ears closed to the irrefutable evidence of guilt, notwithstanding their laughable outright lies that they are keeping an open mind. You all know what the result is going to be. Ask any conservative on this site if they think AND DO THEY WANT for the monster to be found guilty, and you will get the same answer as you can expect from the Republican Senators. After all, the Republican Senators know that their re-election when the time comes will rely of the continued ignorance of the voters, so why would they even expect that doing the right thing, doing the righteous thing, doing the principled thing, acting with actual integrity, would be respected by their electorate.
I will offer my apologies for being wrong to all on this site ONLY if at least 17 Republican Senators vote to convict. Otherwise, I will have been proven to be correct in my estimation.
Because theatrics are important to Democrats.
This isn't a waste of time Tex...... This is about accountability of the president to his oath to the constitution, and determining if senate republicans still support that same constitution.
People died Tex..... Trump supporters attacked police defending the lives of the members of congress. With republican members ignoring the sacrifice of those that gave their lives. You are too far down the Trump rabbit hole to care I guess.
I didn't say it was, I quoted Buzz stating that.
You know, if I guessed as poorly as you do, I would just stop.
I didn't say the trial shouldn't happen. My point is that it is a waste of time to expect that the Republicans would do the right thing. so watching the trial in anticipation that the result could be anything different even posting comments about it are a waste of OUR time.
I see your point there.
welcome to american partisan politics 101, where no one ever gets it right.
LMFAO
With that response..... you're implying that the impeachment is a waste of time...
It isn't difficult to understand the choice of sides in this matter Tex...... All of your responses indicate that you still support Trump, and are all in on ignoring the danger to our republic he represents and how he should be held accountable. That puts you firmly in bed with white supremacist's (again), and those that don't care about the will of the people. You are clearly against what the US Constitution is all about.
But we should continue to keep trying to get it right, because while absolutely being terrible way to run a country, it is 20 times better than the next closest alternative. Right Mark?
That is true, which is why I never stated you did.
Not really interested in whatever little box you attempt to put me in.
You don't have a clue what I am for and against.
Please stop pretending you do.
100% agreement, and no arguments from me on that statement.
they could also be looking at the numbers buzz. How many governorships are held by reps? how many statehouse , both upper and lower house seats are held by reps? how many seats are held in congress by reps ? they are likely looking at all that all the while keeping in the back of their minds , they dont want to lose their jobs to voters who can even if they are in a "safe " state , can toss them like a used condom in a cat house .
JBB was nice enough to post this up above , its worth looking at the numbers to see how things play out .
2.2.7