Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate enters its second day today. Six GOP Senators voted yesterday to proceed with the trial as a constitutional matter, rejecting the judgment by the rest of the caucus that it is unconstitutional to continue with a trial of an ex-president who is no longer an “officer” of the U.S. in the impeachment clause’s language. John Yoo and Robert Delahunty make a
One last question - where was/is all of this emotion when cities across the country were being, and some are still being, burned and destroyed by leftist forces. ANTIFA is not a dream Mr Biden. BLM leaders attack people sitting outside to have a quiet dinner, they light businesses on fire and break windows to loot stores. As they point out white privilege, they apparently have their own privilege - and the left bails them out of jail after they commit crimes of all type. In the midst of this, we reduce our police forces. What could possibly go wrongwronwr?
The only "evidence" shown for two days is false rhetoric and videos of the horrible event - which both sides abhor. They have not shown what our then President actually said to the people. By their own standards, it was nowhere near incitement. Not compared to what Biden, Waters, Pelosi, Schiff and Harris have said. Dems are using the old truism, "If you repeat a lie often enough (and show lots of gruesome but not relevant images), people will believe it is true." They have lived by this mantra for the past 4 years and now it is difficult to tell what the truth is and if it really matters anymore.
"Imprudence of convicting Trump?" Shouldn't it be the other way around? Failing to convict Trump is the end of conservatism. It shows that not only are today's conservatives as left wing as worst progressives but they are also far, far, well, crazier too.
There's no coming back from the Trump's years of leftist policies like tariffs, immigration regulations and all record breaking spending. And that was before he rejected a presidential election, launched a half baked coup attempt and incited a deadly terrorist attack on the capitol as part of this.
What would conservatives ever criticize dems about again now that they've failed to impeach Trump? It's game over.
The whole question of "incitement" is indicative of the farce of this. These people have relegated those who are not in their political or social class to the position of children. They have done this in order to convince themselves of their superiority and the rightness of their views and more terribly their absolute racism, classism and oikophobia. In reality, we are out here working, living and voting for people to "represent us". The whole fabric of these awful people assumes that 74 million of us or even lets say 100 crazy anarchists were mesmerized by one man and driven to craziness. This is bizarre and the fact that it only goes one way (read Scalise) tells you that the view is an amalgam of political motives, evil greed, stupidity and emotionality rather than logical thinking that continues to irk me on more than one level.
I think that rolling forward with impeachments forever has been the plan of the Democrats since Nixon was shown the door. Think of the Iran/Contra kerfuffle. The nonstop harassment of Bush 43. The plotting against Trump that began in the FBI before Trump was elected. The Republicans rose to the bait with Clinton and were happy to return the favor, but Team Democrat showed their colors by impeaching Trump twice.
This is stupid banana republic stuff. Our parties need to focus on winning the next election rather than undoing the last one.
I realize this may not be popular. I don't have all the answers and I certainly cannot predict the future. But it seems we have several questions to consider; mixing them up in a jumble doesn't provide much clarity.
1. There is the "dry/legal" Constitutional question of impeachment (which occurred while Trump was President) and the ability of the Senate to hold a trial (when Mr. Trump is no longer President). From my understanding, there are qualified Constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue. One can listen to/read both sides and decide which is more persuasive. We can honestly disagree one way or the other.
2. If you are convinced (regardless of anything Mr. Trump did/said or didn't do/say) the side which says this trial is unconstitutional is correct, you (as a Senator) vote to dismiss. If you are convinced that proceeding with the trial is constitutional, you (as a Senator) vote to proceed. In a perfect world, I think it would be best to decide this question before any consideration of the details of the events, whether Democrat, Republican, independent, whatever. Yes, I understand this is a political trial and not a criminal trial. And yes, I recognize all the complicating issues concerning the Presiding Officer of the trial also being a voting Senator and an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump. And the haste of the House to proceed with the article of impeachment. And the treatment Mr. Trump has received at the hands of his many critics. And the scorn of many accorded to those who were in favor of Mr. Trump and/or his policies. And on and on........
3. Then we come to the actual article's "charge", that of "incitement". As a Senator, you are required to listen to the presentations and the evidence; and then make a decision on whether the charge is supported convincingly or not. And you cast your vote accordingly.
4. This is where it becomes murky. If you believe this trial is unconstitutional, what do you do? Vote to acquit? Walk out? Refuse to attend the session? Resign your position? What if you believe the trial is unconstitutional, yet the details of the event would support conviction?
5. I believe that making the "consequences" a major point of consideration of one's vote is mistaken. Comparing this to a criminal trial with a jury (yes, I understand this is a political trial and not a criminal trial), in a perfect world (how I wish!) a juror wouldn't vote to acquit an otherwise guilty defendant just because juror is afraid defendant might be mistreated in prison. I am not advocating mistreatment of prisoners. Just making a comparison. In the same way, both sides seem to be arguing that either Mr. Trump must be made an example of and convicted or we will have more riots to interfere with elections in the future (whether or not the facts support his innocence or guilt), or if we don't acquit (whether or not the facts support his innocence or guilt), the country will be torn apart and the Republican Party will not survive.
6. I do not envy any of the Senators sitting in judgment in this case. Not only do you represent your district/state, you believe you have a mission to be a part of this government for the good of the country (I hope). You also must remain in office to accomplish this mission. And you likely have some sense of what is right and what is wrong.
7. Somewhat related but not to be confused with the current vote coming up (likely next week), should the state of Georgia find Mr. Trump guilty of an election-related crime, Republican Senators voting to acquit will end up with some egg on their faces. Surely election-related conviction qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Thank you for your patience in reading this; my apologies if it was too wordy for this comment section.
Going to lose more than already lost and cement a percentage of supporters to never vote Republican again. Maybe they think this a feature not a flaw?
Are the Republicans who are going on with this dumb or part of it? Both? A mix? Do they think cuckoldry earns favor? Do they realize none of this is actually about Trump?
The Democrats are still just following Dick Lamm’s plan to destroy America with our tax dollars and foreign enemy backing.
The new aristocracy of a tyrannical non-elite who only value cunning, despise honor, and only good at abuse. They think normals are barbarians...
Trump the self claimed non-politician runs on a real political platform attacked by reps who call themselves politicians, who don’t have or write policy but just work in self interest paid for by invisible lobbyists.
I bet some Republicans and pundits think this will all pass lol. It’s just now getting warmed up.
So true and excellently stated.
One last question - where was/is all of this emotion when cities across the country were being, and some are still being, burned and destroyed by leftist forces. ANTIFA is not a dream Mr Biden. BLM leaders attack people sitting outside to have a quiet dinner, they light businesses on fire and break windows to loot stores. As they point out white privilege, they apparently have their own privilege - and the left bails them out of jail after they commit crimes of all type. In the midst of this, we reduce our police forces. What could possibly go wrongwronwr?
The only "evidence" shown for two days is false rhetoric and videos of the horrible event - which both sides abhor. They have not shown what our then President actually said to the people. By their own standards, it was nowhere near incitement. Not compared to what Biden, Waters, Pelosi, Schiff and Harris have said. Dems are using the old truism, "If you repeat a lie often enough (and show lots of gruesome but not relevant images), people will believe it is true." They have lived by this mantra for the past 4 years and now it is difficult to tell what the truth is and if it really matters anymore.
"Imprudence of convicting Trump?" Shouldn't it be the other way around? Failing to convict Trump is the end of conservatism. It shows that not only are today's conservatives as left wing as worst progressives but they are also far, far, well, crazier too.
There's no coming back from the Trump's years of leftist policies like tariffs, immigration regulations and all record breaking spending. And that was before he rejected a presidential election, launched a half baked coup attempt and incited a deadly terrorist attack on the capitol as part of this.
What would conservatives ever criticize dems about again now that they've failed to impeach Trump? It's game over.
The whole question of "incitement" is indicative of the farce of this. These people have relegated those who are not in their political or social class to the position of children. They have done this in order to convince themselves of their superiority and the rightness of their views and more terribly their absolute racism, classism and oikophobia. In reality, we are out here working, living and voting for people to "represent us". The whole fabric of these awful people assumes that 74 million of us or even lets say 100 crazy anarchists were mesmerized by one man and driven to craziness. This is bizarre and the fact that it only goes one way (read Scalise) tells you that the view is an amalgam of political motives, evil greed, stupidity and emotionality rather than logical thinking that continues to irk me on more than one level.
I think that rolling forward with impeachments forever has been the plan of the Democrats since Nixon was shown the door. Think of the Iran/Contra kerfuffle. The nonstop harassment of Bush 43. The plotting against Trump that began in the FBI before Trump was elected. The Republicans rose to the bait with Clinton and were happy to return the favor, but Team Democrat showed their colors by impeaching Trump twice.
This is stupid banana republic stuff. Our parties need to focus on winning the next election rather than undoing the last one.
The least educated, if in possession of their faculties can smell the odor of ordure. Indeed, credibility and trust once lost and not easily regained.
I realize this may not be popular. I don't have all the answers and I certainly cannot predict the future. But it seems we have several questions to consider; mixing them up in a jumble doesn't provide much clarity.
1. There is the "dry/legal" Constitutional question of impeachment (which occurred while Trump was President) and the ability of the Senate to hold a trial (when Mr. Trump is no longer President). From my understanding, there are qualified Constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue. One can listen to/read both sides and decide which is more persuasive. We can honestly disagree one way or the other.
2. If you are convinced (regardless of anything Mr. Trump did/said or didn't do/say) the side which says this trial is unconstitutional is correct, you (as a Senator) vote to dismiss. If you are convinced that proceeding with the trial is constitutional, you (as a Senator) vote to proceed. In a perfect world, I think it would be best to decide this question before any consideration of the details of the events, whether Democrat, Republican, independent, whatever. Yes, I understand this is a political trial and not a criminal trial. And yes, I recognize all the complicating issues concerning the Presiding Officer of the trial also being a voting Senator and an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump. And the haste of the House to proceed with the article of impeachment. And the treatment Mr. Trump has received at the hands of his many critics. And the scorn of many accorded to those who were in favor of Mr. Trump and/or his policies. And on and on........
3. Then we come to the actual article's "charge", that of "incitement". As a Senator, you are required to listen to the presentations and the evidence; and then make a decision on whether the charge is supported convincingly or not. And you cast your vote accordingly.
4. This is where it becomes murky. If you believe this trial is unconstitutional, what do you do? Vote to acquit? Walk out? Refuse to attend the session? Resign your position? What if you believe the trial is unconstitutional, yet the details of the event would support conviction?
5. I believe that making the "consequences" a major point of consideration of one's vote is mistaken. Comparing this to a criminal trial with a jury (yes, I understand this is a political trial and not a criminal trial), in a perfect world (how I wish!) a juror wouldn't vote to acquit an otherwise guilty defendant just because juror is afraid defendant might be mistreated in prison. I am not advocating mistreatment of prisoners. Just making a comparison. In the same way, both sides seem to be arguing that either Mr. Trump must be made an example of and convicted or we will have more riots to interfere with elections in the future (whether or not the facts support his innocence or guilt), or if we don't acquit (whether or not the facts support his innocence or guilt), the country will be torn apart and the Republican Party will not survive.
6. I do not envy any of the Senators sitting in judgment in this case. Not only do you represent your district/state, you believe you have a mission to be a part of this government for the good of the country (I hope). You also must remain in office to accomplish this mission. And you likely have some sense of what is right and what is wrong.
7. Somewhat related but not to be confused with the current vote coming up (likely next week), should the state of Georgia find Mr. Trump guilty of an election-related crime, Republican Senators voting to acquit will end up with some egg on their faces. Surely election-related conviction qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Thank you for your patience in reading this; my apologies if it was too wordy for this comment section.
You’re right.
Going to lose more than already lost and cement a percentage of supporters to never vote Republican again. Maybe they think this a feature not a flaw?
Are the Republicans who are going on with this dumb or part of it? Both? A mix? Do they think cuckoldry earns favor? Do they realize none of this is actually about Trump?
The Democrats are still just following Dick Lamm’s plan to destroy America with our tax dollars and foreign enemy backing.
The new aristocracy of a tyrannical non-elite who only value cunning, despise honor, and only good at abuse. They think normals are barbarians...
Trump the self claimed non-politician runs on a real political platform attacked by reps who call themselves politicians, who don’t have or write policy but just work in self interest paid for by invisible lobbyists.
I bet some Republicans and pundits think this will all pass lol. It’s just now getting warmed up.
Never give up. Never give in.