See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil
-
It seems unfortunate that most (or all) Senators were going to vote the way there were going to vote even before hearing the evidence, both positive and negative.
An alternate to George's headline would be:
Senators declare President Trump guilty/innocent before the trial is even over.
A couple of random thoughts:
I dont think there should have been an impeachment this time. I do think President Trump acted quite badly, but I think Xenon mentioned earlier, he really did not realize what he was saying and exhibited poor judgement (again).
I think the worse thing for the Republic party is if they keep President Trump as the "face". The Republics have lost ground all across the US since he has been President. There is no reason to think that continuing to use him as the "face" is going to change that.
-
@loki said in See no evil, hear no evil, set to acquit evil:
Looks like they managed to extend this and yet the result will be unchanged.
No unity just war.
Remember who chose war knowing it would not change the outcome.
Oh, I think this will be fun.
-
Each witness is voted on. The Republicans are salivating over their witness list. If they get their witnesses, it's going to be a ball. If the Dems vote them down, it's a huge political negative. Can't say that Graham didn't warn the Dems...
-
While all this is going on, much of Biden's agenda hits a brick wall. Especially, when they start deposing folks like Pelosi.
Maybe, this could take months...
-
-
-
@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?
-
Just saw that the lawyers were going to subpoena Mayor Bowser who tweeted that she wanted no national guard presence. Maybe that sunk the witness ask, as it effectively killed the narrative.
Pelosi too but that would have been just fun watching her squirm. Maybe she called the third down punt.
-
-
Sasse is the only surprise to me.
-
@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.
-
-
@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
