3 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

and yet he voted no....and sure the senate can convict an impeached former president, there was a vote and senate voted yes to go ahead.... McConnel is a disgrace on the same line as Cruz, Graham, Hawley

They voted to go ahead ..but that doesn't mean he cannot have an opinion that it is not correct.

I am probably repeating myself a bit but I concur that it was likely a cynical decision.. he just did a bit better than those other guys by making that speech and sending a message about the future of the party ..

Compare that to the others who are 100 per cent part of the Trump cult

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Trump -2 haters- 0 just can't keep a good man down !

So you think Trump comes out of this whole process looking like a winner.

To most he looks like a sore loser who put himself before country and even his colleagues and whose remaining reputation is in tatters.

You may be part of his base

 

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

So you think Trump comes out of this whole process looking like a winner.

To most he looks like a sore loser who put himself before country and even his colleagues and whose remaining reputation is in tatters.

You may be part of his base

 

Maybe a good man cannot be kept down, but 45 is down and out. Hardly anything good about him. In fact, nothing.

 

Odds favor him passing while in jail.

 

Georgia's up now and the NY AG is on deck.

1 hour ago, animalmagic said:

Meritless?  57% of your democratically elected Senate disagree with you.

If 57% of those votes were truly based on merit that would be one thing, but all of those votes were partisan and/or based on self-serving biases, which is very clear to see by any objective observer.

19 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

So you think Trump comes out of this whole process looking like a winner.

To most he looks like a sore loser who put himself before country and even his colleagues and whose remaining reputation is in tatters.

You may be part of his base

 

Reality Television at it's finest.  That will be the way I always see his presidency, and is the way he did treat it.  The whole country divided thing started way before Trump, in fact it has been that way since Bush and all of the wars we started.

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

I thought Trump was going to jail, what happened.

Be patient. After all, we waited 4 years for a beautiful health plan to be revealed and  it never was.

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

If 57% of those votes were truly based on merit that would be one thing, but all of those votes were partisan and/or based on self-serving biases, which is very clear to see by any objective observer.

And the other 43% were NOT partisan and/or based on self-serving biases, which is very clear to see by any objective observer?

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

And the other 43% were NOT partisan and/or based on self-serving biases, which is very clear to see by any objective observer?

You may have to look up the definition of partisan.

 

ALL the Senators who cowardly voted to acquit are (R).

 

The vote to convict, a majority, albeit not a supermajority, were both (D) and (R), as well as (I).

 

The vote to CONVICT was bipartisan. The vote to acquit was partisan.

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Yes...It is really pretty simple.  In this impeachment attempt, time and resources were sacrificed from dealing with the important and vital issues facing the country right now, in favor of a political, partisan and frivolous actions.  In the end, it achieved nothing positive for the country...nothing at all.  There are people right now in America who's lives literally hang in the balance, and depend on what their political leaders do RIGHT NOW with respect to the pandemic and the economy.  THAT is where 100% of the focus should be...not playing petty political games.

 

A deadly insurrection took place perpetrated by murderous and treasonous cretins egged on by trump. Holding the then "president" accountable is not playing games, it's acting according to the articles of the Constitution. 

Those spineless GOP reps voting against impeachment are all traitors to the oath they too when they promised to uphold the Constitution. There hasn't been a point in history where impeaching a sitting or former president has been more appropriate than now. History will not be kind to those who voted against it and they will be dipped in tar, rolled in feathers and dragged through the mud when the books about this disgusting chapter in US history are written.

 

PS. Interesting to see how is base supporters suddenly are so focused on the pandemic when earlier they were all thumbs up when trump was busy ignoring it...

 

PPS. I sometimes like to play a game of "What If" and one version has a Dem president firing up a bunch of extreme leftist loonies that do the same as the right wing murderous traitors just did. Imagine the GOP's reaction if blacks and browns stormed the Capitol, not to mention the reaction of the trump base!

But, hey, I'm sure WaveHunter would have written the same post calling for calm and focusing on the future!

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And the other 43% were NOT partisan and/or based on self-serving biases, which is very clear to see by any objective observer?

Well, you're kind of making my original point for me...the whole thing was a waste of time and resources, and worse, deflected focus from the issues that are currently of paramount importance: the pandemic and the economy, and the immediate crisis facing the American public.  All for the sake of playing an un-winnable and frivolous political game.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

...A deadly insurrection took place perpetrated by murderous and treasonous cretins egged on by trump. ...

Are you saying that no other politicians on the other side of the aisle have ever made incredibly inflammatory comments in the last year that were far more explicit and incited their followers to EXTREME violence?  C'mon! 

 

Shouldn't actions be taken against these politicians, especially since the violence that resulted was far more devastating in terms of burned buildings, destroyed businesses, and loss of life?

 

Here's a just a few examples I can remember, in case you had your rose-colored glasses on:

• Nancy Pelosi: “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.”

• Maxine Waters: “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store… you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them.”

• Ayanna Pressley: “There needs to be unrest in the streets.”

4 hours ago, J Town said:

McConnell is an insipid bottom feeder but he's NOT stupid. That closing statement he made will last forever.

 

After Jan. 6 a number of corporations and wealthy Republican sponsors announced that they would no longer contribute to the Republican Party.  McConnell's speech blaming Trump right after he voted to acquit is just a cynical attempt to lure those donors back into the fold.  

A sitting president commits sedition and republican senators let him get away with it.

 

Horrible politicians.

5 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

This case should have never been prosecuted. We all knew Trump would be acquitted and it further divided the country contrary to what biden SAYS he wants.  Shame AGAIN on Nancy for bringing this meritless case.

You are 100% right! What a waste of money and time. The magnificent 7 Republicans who turned their backs on Trump should be watching theirs now. So remember Trump's last words [I'll be back]. It won't be long before all Americans want him back as the country is now circling the drain and hope for a better life is fading fast.

54 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Be patient. After all, we waited 4 years for a beautiful health plan to be revealed and  it never was.

I'm still waiting for his tax returns!

3 hours ago, J Town said:

Fortunately, they're a dying breed. The US is soon to have the largest MINORITY being whites

I wouldn't be surprised if you support Black lives matter and the casting of Bridgerton ???? 

15 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

I'm still waiting for his tax returns!

And his health care plan.  And the check from Mexico.  And the trade deficit to be eliminated.  And so on...

5 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

This case should have never been prosecuted. We all knew Trump would be acquitted and it further divided the country contrary to what biden SAYS he wants.  Shame AGAIN on Nancy for bringing this meritless case.

I asked you before and I'll ask you again:  Who do you think was responsible for the riot at the Capitol?  Who do you think should be held responsible?  Of do you  think this is just one of those things that just happen and can't be helped?

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The whole thing was a farce from start to finish.

 

Very stupid of the Democrats to do this. They've just united his base behind him. Congratulations, you've united your enemy and made yourself look stupid, petty and vindictive at the same time. Brilliant. 

Do you think Congress should have done nothing about the riot and insurrection?  Even though it threatened the lives of all those in the Capitol doing their Constitutional duty that day?

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

What a waste of time and resources this impeachment has been!  Technically, it violated the terms of impeachment as set forth in the Constitution and was therefore un-winnable, irregardless of whether one believes Trump was guilty of inciting the riot or not.  There is no precedent for impeaching a President who is no longer in office!  It was a purely political and partisan maneuver, and all that it really achieved was to further divide the country, and to weaken the power of impeachment for the future.  There are FAR MORE IMPORTANT things that should be focused on right now in America than attacking an ex-President.

Technically nothing in the Constitution precludes impeaching and trying a former President after he left office.  Since this President was impeached by the House while he was still in office and for his actions while he was in office, it was clearly legal. 

 

At this time, nothing is more important for the US government than ensuring those responsible for the insurrection and riot at the Capitol on January 6 are held accountable.

31 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Are you saying that no other politicians on the other side of the aisle have ever made incredibly inflammatory comments in the last year that were far more explicit and incited their followers to EXTREME violence?  C'mon! 

 

Shouldn't actions be taken against these politicians, especially since the violence that resulted was far more devastating in terms of burned buildings, destroyed businesses, and loss of life?

 

Here's a just a few examples I can remember, in case you had your rose-colored glasses on:

• Nancy Pelosi: “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.”

• Maxine Waters: “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store… you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them.”

• Ayanna Pressley: “There needs to be unrest in the streets.”

Oh yeah, being rude to someone in a restaurant is exactly the same as violent insurrection. 

 

You know what is notable about your short list of Democrats?  None of them are the President.

 

You know what is different about the context of their statements?  They weren't feeding lies about election fraud to an angry mob and pointing that mob towards the US Capitol building.

35 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

You are 100% right! What a waste of money and time. The magnificent 7 Republicans who turned their backs on Trump should be watching theirs now. So remember Trump's last words [I'll be back]. It won't be long before all Americans want him back as the country is now circling the drain and hope for a better life is fading fast.

Talk about out of touch with reality. Wow....

31 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I wouldn't be surprised if you support Black lives matter and the casting of Bridgerton ???? 

What's wrong with supporting a movement that calls for racial justice? Are you against that?

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Technically nothing in the Constitution precludes impeaching and trying a former President after he left office.  Since this President was impeached by the House while he was still in office and for his actions while he was in office, it was clearly legal. 

 

 

Except that the Impeachment Clause clearly refers to office-holders with nothing to indicate that former office-holders are included:

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

 

Probably your claim will be that since disqualification from future office-holding could be applied to former office-holders then the scope of the Clause applies to them as well.  But think about what that would mean?  Could Obama and Bush now be impeached?  While it's true that Obama can not run for president against because of the Twenty-Second Amendment, he could be appointed to the Supreme Court or as an ambassador, if he wanted.  But if the Republicans were to get sufficient control of Congress again, it must follow from your view of the Constitution is that they could impeach and disqualify him.

 

If that's the case then what is to stop Mitt Romney from being impeached and disqualified from running for president?  By your logic since it is not a requirement that a person actually hold high office to be impeached and tried where in the Constitution does it say that he must have held high office?  

 

These reductios ad absurdum show that the reading you and others are giving the Impeachment Clause is unsustainable.  It is clear from the language that impeachment and removal are intended only for office-holders and that removal of such an office-holder can be extended by disqualification.  Any other reading is fanciful.

11 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Except that the Impeachment Clause clearly refers to office-holders with nothing to indicate that former office-holders are included:

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

 

Probably your claim will be that since disqualification from future office-holding could be applied to former office-holders then the scope of the Clause applies to them as well.  But think about what that would mean?  Could Obama and Bush now be impeached?  While it's true that Obama can not run for president against because of the Twenty-Second Amendment, he could be appointed to the Supreme Court or as an ambassador, if he wanted.  But if the Republicans were to get sufficient control of Congress again, it must follow from your view of the Constitution is that they could impeach and disqualify him.

 

If that's the case then what is to stop Mitt Romney from being impeached and disqualified from running for president?  By your logic since it is not a requirement that a person actually hold high office to be impeached and tried where in the Constitution does it say that he must have held high office?  

 

These reductios ad absurdum show that the reading you and others are giving the Impeachment Clause is unsustainable.  It is clear from the language that impeachment and removal are intended only for office-holders and that removal of such an office-holder can be extended by disqualification.  Any other reading is fanciful.

That is not my claim.  The Constitution makes it clear that if someone is impeached while in office that person shall be removed from office.  The Constitution does not preclude impeachment after someone has left office.

 

Remember the US Constitution was not written to be a detailed instruction manual covering all eventualities.  It assumed that elected officials would create laws and precedents in a responsible manner.  That assumption was somewhat optimistic.

6 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

This case should have never been prosecuted. We all knew Trump would be acquitted and it further divided the country contrary to what biden SAYS he wants.  Shame AGAIN on Nancy for bringing this meritless case.

I saw a group of Democrats on Al Jazira after the acquittal. Not sure who said it but they were blaming McConnell for the loss, as if! They obviously didn't bring enough to the trial to ever convince enough GOP senators to get a conviction, and enough GOP senators already said it was unconstitutional so doomed from the outset.

I'm guessing they will be still talking about this and how he should have been convicted if only, if only, if only, for ages. There was a woman after them absolutely ranting about it. How does the saying go that we heard all the time after Trump lost the election- oh yes  "they lost so get over it".

Another sham. Dems will, one day, reap what they sow. Obviously Trump was wrong and he's gone but to try and cover up the incompetence of the security issues that allowed the mob to get inside the building? sack the security chief for a start!

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I saw a group of Democrats on Al Jazira after the acquittal. Not sure who said it but they were blaming McConnell for the loss, as if! They obviously didn't bring enough to the trial to ever convince enough GOP senators to get a conviction, and enough GOP senators already said it was unconstitutional so doomed from the outset.

I'm guessing they will be still talking about this and how he should have been convicted if only, if only, if only, for ages. There was a woman after them absolutely ranting about it. How does the saying go that we heard all the time after Trump lost the election- oh yes  "they lost so get over it".

 

What I remember Trump supporters' saying time after time is that the other side did not accept the election results. So far, you guys seem to be doing just this. With a vengeance.

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That is not my claim.  The Constitution makes it clear that if someone is impeached while in office that person shall be removed from office.  The Constitution does not preclude impeachment after someone has left office.

 

Remember the US Constitution was not written to be a detailed instruction manual covering all eventualities.  It assumed that elected officials would create laws and precedents in a responsible manner.  That assumption was somewhat optimistic.

 

I did not say it was your claim.  What I said was that it is logically inescapable from what you did say, whether you realize that or not.  The Constitution does preclude impeachment and trial after the official has left office, because the Impeachment Clause specifically applies only to office-holders.  If you believe it applies to former office holders, because they are not excluded then what is the textual basis for deciding that it only includes officials whose have only just completed their terms of office, but not those who have been out of offices for years now.  And if disqualification is severed from removal, then where does it say that the private citizen must ever have been president, for example.

 

That is how the law works and what distinguishes a well-reasoned interpretation from wishful thinking, which is what I think characterizes those legal scholars who have been arguing lately that private citizens are now subject to impeachment.

Just now, BobBKK said:

Another sham. Dems will, one day, reap what they sow. Obviously Trump was wrong and he's gone but to try and cover up the incompetence of the security issues that allowed the mob to get inside the building? sack the security chief for a start!

Didn't he resign already?

Agree about reaping what they sow.

They must be panicking now, IMO, that Trump will be back in 2024. Twice acquitted only makes him stronger and encourages his base.

Once he finds another social media platform he's going to be a thorn in Biden's side, IMO.