TGHusker Posted January 26, 2021 Author Share Posted January 26, 2021 14 minutes ago, knapplc said: So much for people trying to claim holding a former White House resident accountable for things they do during their term is unconstitutional. With 45 votes - the GOP appears to be standing with Trump. Only 5 GOP Senators were willing to stand with the constitution and against Trump. If this holds, there will be no conviction. Sad day, when you have a insurrection inspiring president who gets away with it and a lap dog party refusing to stand up for the Constitution. I guess the GOP is not the law and order party after all. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 Just now, TGHusker said: With 45 votes - the GOP appears to be standing with Trump. Only 5 GOP Senators were willing to stand with the constitution and against Trump. If this holds, there will be no conviction. Sad day, when you have a insurrection inspiring president who gets away with it and a lap dog party refusing to stand up for the Constitution. It is emblematic of today's Republican party. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 26, 2021 Author Share Posted January 26, 2021 6 minutes ago, knapplc said: It is emblematic of today's Republican party. Unfortunately there is enough small state representatives in both houses of Congress that fall for this. The GOPs strong hold of so many midwest and western states means the Senate will be disproportionately represented by trump supporters. Since the Dems did not clean house up and down the ballot in Nov, this stalemate will remain for some time and it delays the GOP's own reckoning - which needs to happen so that it can be purged of trumpism. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 26, 2021 Author Share Posted January 26, 2021 Here are the 5 that sided with the Dems. Glad to see Ben Sasse followed through. It will be interesting to see if any senators change their mind after the evidence is presented. (Hint: doubtful) https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/535925-senate-rejects-paul-effort-to-declare-trump-impeachment-trial Quote The Senate sent a strong signal Tuesday that there are not nearly enough votes to convict President Trump in an impeachment trial when only five GOP senators rejected an effort by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to declare the looming trial unconstitutional. The Senate voted 55-45 to set aside Paul's motion, with all but five GOP senators siding with Paul. GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) voted with Democrats to table Paul's point of order. The vote is the clearest sign yet that Trump is heading toward a second acquittal and offers an early insight into which Republicans are lining up behind an argument that his second impeachment trial isn't constitutional. Quote Paul, speaking ahead of the vote, warned that he wanted to force his colleagues to go on the record. "If we are going to put every politician in jail, are we going to impeach every politician who has used the words 'fight' figuratively in a speech? Shame," he said, accusing Democrats of being "deranged by their hatred" of Trump. "I want this body on record. Every last person here," Paul added. Several GOP senators said heading into the vote that they hadn't made a decision on how they would vote, hadn't talked to Paul or, until they saw Tuesday's Senate floor schedule, didn't know he would force the vote. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 35 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Unfortunately there is enough small state representatives in both houses of Congress that fall for this. Can I respectively ask what you mean by small state representatives as it relates to Republicans 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 Just now, Archy1221 said: Can I respectively ask what you mean by small state representatives as it relates to Republicans ‘Respectfully’ 1 Link to comment
commando Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 my hopes for the republican party to regain it's senses.....are fading. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 26, 2021 Author Share Posted January 26, 2021 8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Can I respectively ask what you mean by small state representatives as it relates to Republicans I live in Oklahoma - that is one and pretty much every state north of here - throw in some of the western states and a few smaller southern states. It is our states that are the most radical trump supporters. Every Oklahoma county voted for Trump in 2016 and all but one in 2020. You can find some similar trends in the states I mentioned. With that type of political group think, change will be slow in coming. As a result, since each state has 2 senators, our smaller red states have an over representation based on population in the Senate. This will keep the Senate from moving forward and removing the Trump stain from the GOP. A conviction by the senate would at least force the GOP to look a realistic at who they have become Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 6 hours ago, ZRod said: How is Leahy presiding really that much different than the VP presiding over regular proceedings? Not touching this one 6 hours ago, knapplc said: And it's all a moo point anyway. \ or that 6 hours ago, Archy1221 said: A) it’s a Presidential Impeachment so a little different than regular order one would think. B) There is no ‘tie’ outcome here on the verdict. It’s a threshold vote To convict. C) I’m not a lawyer, but I’m guessing judges don’t get to vote to acquit/convict along with the jury in a criminal trial. Possible I’m missing something there. so a little A, a little B, Let’s C It is not a judicial determination if a judge didn't sign off. So it is not even semi-legally-binding. Even if the entire Senate voted 'guilty' on former President Trump it would not mean that it was Constitutional or legally binding on the Courts. If DJT wanted to run again in 2024, the Ds would sue in Court to keep him off the ballot and the Rs would defend that that it was a sham impeachment. Then the Supreme Court would be forced to answer the question Can a former President be impeached and barred from appearing on a future ballot? But as of now they don't have to answer. That also holds true for all of the fake precedents from the 19th Century that Ds sometimes cite in support of the sham impeachement. None of them had a judicial determination either. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 3 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Not touching this one or that It is not a judicial determination if a judge didn't sign off. So it is not even semi-legally-binding. Even if the entire Senate voted 'guilty' on former President Trump it would not mean that it was Constitutional or legally binding on the Courts. If DJT wanted to run again in 2024, the Ds would sue in Court to keep him off the ballot and the Rs would defend that that it was a sham impeachment. Then the Supreme Court would be forced to answer the question Can a former President be impeached and barred from appearing on a future ballot? But as of now they don't have to answer. That also holds true for all of the fake precedents from the 19th Century that Ds sometimes cite in support of the sham impeachement. None of them had a judicial determination either. are you a q-anon lawyer? 2 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 26, 2021 Author Share Posted January 26, 2021 41 minutes ago, commando said: my hopes for the republican party to regain it's senses.....are fading. Yeah I know the feeling Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 1 hour ago, TGHusker said: Here are the 5 that sided with the Dems. Glad to see Ben Sasse followed through. It will be interesting to see if any senators change their mind after the evidence is presented. (Hint: doubtful) https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/535925-senate-rejects-paul-effort-to-declare-trump-impeachment-trial The thought of the day is you have to cut the RINOs in blue state some slack. They should know how to two-step on inconsequential show-off votes and that is better than them becoming Ds. But that doesn't apply to the Romneys of the world. He seems to have delusions that he could lead the R party when he has twice taken sides against the family. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Notre Dame Joe said: The thought of the day is you have to cut the RINOs in blue state some slack. They should know how to two-step on inconsequential show-off votes and that is better than them becoming Ds. But that doesn't apply to the Romneys of the world. He seems to have delusions that he could lead the R party when he has twice taken sides against the family. who are you? michael corleone settling family business? 3 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 26, 2021 Author Share Posted January 26, 2021 Just now, Notre Dame Joe said: The thought of the day is you have to cut the RINOs in blue state some slack. They should know how to two-step on inconsequential show-off votes and that is better than them becoming Ds. But that doesn't apply to the Romneys of the world. He seems to have delusions that he could lead the R party when he has twice taken sides against the family. If Romney had won in 2012 - we probably wouldn't be dealing with all of this Trump mess. In retrospect, it was a lost opportunity. By the way Sasse, Romney, Murkowski are from red states. Toomey from a purple state, Collins perhaps blue maybe slightly purple. 1 hour ago, TGHusker said: GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 14 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Reason #10 you're impeachment is fake: The Chief Justice is not going to show up. Can you open up and tell us what urs like to be in a cult? Link to comment
Recommended Posts