See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil
-
Burr
Cassidy
Collins
Murkowski
Romney
Sasse
ToomeyVoted to convict.
Every Democrat did as well.
-
Sasse is the only surprise to me.
-
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
And that’s not a wrong position to take.
The Brad
-
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
And that’s not a wrong position to take.
@lufins-dad said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
And that’s not a wrong position to take.
Yeah - I get that and the plain text reading is more in line with that interpretation.
The interesting part of that is that - McConnell pretty much agreed that Trump deserved to be impeached. It just became unnecessary once he left office.
A solid impeachment, as Jon mentioned. It’ll stand the test of time when you look back on the notes and what the senate said after it was said and done.
-
-
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
And that’s not a wrong position to take.
@lufins-dad said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
And that’s not a wrong position to take.
McConnell’s vote does not faithfully reflect that position. If McConnell truly believes the impeach is unconstitutional, he should have abstained from voting. Abstention from voting as a deliberate action would be consistent with the belief that the impeachment trial is illegitimate
-
@lufins-dad said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
And that’s not a wrong position to take.
Yeah - I get that and the plain text reading is more in line with that interpretation.
The interesting part of that is that - McConnell pretty much agreed that Trump deserved to be impeached. It just became unnecessary once he left office.
A solid impeachment, as Jon mentioned. It’ll stand the test of time when you look back on the notes and what the senate said after it was said and done.
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@lufins-dad said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@george-k McConnell is putting blame for Jan 6 squarely at Trump’s feet - but is arguing the constitutional point that the Senate has no jurisdiction to impeach former Presidents.
And that’s not a wrong position to take.
Yeah - I get that and the plain text reading is more in line with that interpretation.
The interesting part of that is that - McConnell pretty much agreed that Trump deserved to be impeached. It just became unnecessary once he left office.
A solid impeachment, as Jon mentioned. It’ll stand the test of time when you look back on the notes and what the senate said after it was said and done.
It'll stand about as long as the last one.
Hope you got your $3,000,000 worth.
-
@axtremus said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
Another record for Trump: the most bipartisan vote on impeachment ever!
There is a silver lining in every loss.
MSM is filled with upsetmemt over a foregone conclusion. Get a grip folks, move on and follow your leader around UNIFYING the country.
Love the parsing of the loss. It’s like saying we scored the most points in the second half of the first quarter.
-
@jolly said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
He is going to be acquitted, he is going on his Revenge Tour in about three weeks and he will be eligible to run in 2024.
You seem hopeful that this disgrace runs again. This is the best Republican for the job?
@xenon said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@jolly said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
He is going to be acquitted, he is going on his Revenge Tour in about three weeks and he will be eligible to run in 2024.
You seem hopeful that this disgrace runs again. This is the best Republican for the job?
Maybe not.
But he has been the most conservative governing President since Reagan.
After Biden tanks the economy, anything could happen.
-
Trump wont be the candidate in 2024. But he might be the kingmaker.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@mik said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
Trump wont be the candidate in 2024. But he might be the kingmaker.
I figure the Dems can't help themselves and will shoot their last arrow...
-
@mik said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
Trump wont be the candidate in 2024. But he might be the kingmaker.
I figure the Dems can't help themselves and will shoot their last arrow...
@jolly said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@mik said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
Trump wont be the candidate in 2024. But he might be the kingmaker.
I figure the Dems can't help themselves and will shoot their last arrow...
That would be a seriously bad tactical move and would end up in the courts if Congress voted on it where a mountain of evidence would have to be produced that Trump had a direct hand in the insurrection. In a courtroom rules of evidence would apply.
It might be the one scenario that would tempt Trump to run again.
-
@jolly said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@mik said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
Trump wont be the candidate in 2024. But he might be the kingmaker.
I figure the Dems can't help themselves and will shoot their last arrow...
That would be a seriously bad tactical move and would end up in the courts if Congress voted on it where a mountain of evidence would have to be produced that Trump had a direct hand in the insurrection. In a courtroom rules of evidence would apply.
It might be the one scenario that would tempt Trump to run again.
@loki said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
a mountain of evidence
And this, I assume, is why the Democrats ran back from their goal of having witnesses.
-
@loki said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
a mountain of evidence
And this, I assume, is why the Democrats ran back from their goal of having witnesses.
@george-k said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
@loki said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
a mountain of evidence
And this, I assume, is why the Democrats ran back from their goal of having witnesses.
Absolutely.
Graham came out the other day and flat told the Dems, he would love witnesses. And then he called their bluff by voting for them.
Rumor is that Nancy Pelosi would be the first witness the Republicans wanted to call...
-
