Senate Acquits Trump

 

The Senate voted to acquit President Trump on both articles of impeachment Wednesday.  On the first impeachment charge of abuse of power, the tally was 48-52, far short of the two-thirds requirement. All Democrats voted for removal; Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) was the only Republican voting for removal.

On the second impeachment charge, obstruction of Congress, it was 47-53 on a party-line vote. Romney voted with the majority on this one.

Published in Law, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 43 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    It was never a matter of evidence anyway. It was always a matter of characterizations. Characterizing the nature of Hunter Biden’s windfall; characterizing Joe Biden’s threat to withhold aid unless the prosecutor (who claims he was investigating the payor of Hunter’s windfall); characterizing President Trump’s words to Zelensky; characterizing who is really in charge of the state department; characterizing an unknowable motive or set of motives for something that was entirely within President Trump’s authority and even responsibility to do; characterizing the process; characterizing Zelensky’s assurances that he didn’t feel any pressure to do anything; characterizing normal separation of powers and procedural wrangling. 

    • #31
  2. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Willard is going to have to explain something to me. Last week he needed more evidence to decide. This week he voted to convict. What exactly did he learn between then and now?

    That he wasn’t going to get more evidence because his colleagues voted not to hear it.

    Schiff and Nadler claimed their case was overwhelming as is. Why should the rest of us care more than they do? It’s their accusation to prove and they say they proved it. Why does anyone need more evidence? Either they haven’t been paying attention, or it doesn’t really matter to them anyway and they are only gaming this already knowing how they will ultimately vote.

    Is Romney somehow obligated to agree with Schiff and Nadler?

    • #32
  3. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Willard is going to have to explain something to me. Last week he needed more evidence to decide. This week he voted to convict. What exactly did he learn between then and now?

    That he wasn’t going to get more evidence because his colleagues voted not to hear it.

    Schiff and Nadler claimed their case was overwhelming as is. Why should the rest of us care more than they do? It’s their accusation to prove and they say they proved it. Why does anyone need more evidence? Either they haven’t been paying attention, or it doesn’t really matter to them anyway and they are only gaming this already knowing how they will ultimately vote.

    Is Romney somehow obligated to agree with Schiff and Nadler?

    No, but doesn’t a vote to convict indicate that he does? If the prosecution rests its case (as they did when they prematurely voted to impeach in the house without pursuing this supposedly crucial testimony) while jurors have questions still – isn’t that juror obligated to acquit since there is considerable doubt?

    • #33
  4. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    “Senate acquits Trump”

     

    And then immediately confirmed 10 judges?

     

    I wasn’t far off. Cocaine Mitch filed cloture on several judicial  nominees today after the trial ended. 

    • #34
  5. Norm McDonald Inactive
    Norm McDonald
    @Pseudodionysius

    Mitt Romney – who believed he could win because his last name rhymes with Nominee – will drive through the Capital with the articles of impeachment strapped to the roof of his car.

    • #35
  6. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Percival: If you don’t like Romney’s principles now, just wait. A new set will be by shortly.

    And remember how he treated Richard Grenell.

    As the late Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes once said of Mitt’s father, George, (and I paraphrase) “Watching him is like watching a duck (make love to) a football!”

    • #36
  7. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Willard is going to have to explain something to me. Last week he needed more evidence to decide. This week he voted to convict. What exactly did he learn between then and now?

    That he wasn’t going to get more evidence because his colleagues voted not to hear it.

    Schiff and Nadler claimed their case was overwhelming as is. Why should the rest of us care more than they do? It’s their accusation to prove and they say they proved it. Why does anyone need more evidence? Either they haven’t been paying attention, or it doesn’t really matter to them anyway and they are only gaming this already knowing how they will ultimately vote.

    Is Romney somehow obligated to agree with Schiff and Nadler?

    No, but doesn’t a vote to convict indicate that he does? If the prosecution rests its case (as they did when they prematurely voted to impeach in the house without pursuing this supposedly crucial testimony) while jurors have questions still – isn’t that juror obligated to acquit since there is considerable doubt?

    You’re assuming there was considerable doubt in his mind.  I think he’d tell you he was looking for some reason to doubt what he considered (and I consider) pretty clear evidence of guilt.

    • #37
  8. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I think that we should consider what Mitt Romney said to The Atlantic:

    You do understand that Romney is the reason we have Trump, right?

    • #38
  9. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Willard is going to have to explain something to me. Last week he needed more evidence to decide. This week he voted to convict. What exactly did he learn between then and now?

    That he wasn’t going to get more evidence because his colleagues voted not to hear it.

    Schiff and Nadler claimed their case was overwhelming as is. Why should the rest of us care more than they do? It’s their accusation to prove and they say they proved it. Why does anyone need more evidence? Either they haven’t been paying attention, or it doesn’t really matter to them anyway and they are only gaming this already knowing how they will ultimately vote.

    Is Romney somehow obligated to agree with Schiff and Nadler?

    No, but doesn’t a vote to convict indicate that he does? If the prosecution rests its case (as they did when they prematurely voted to impeach in the house without pursuing this supposedly crucial testimony) while jurors have questions still – isn’t that juror obligated to acquit since there is considerable doubt?

    You’re assuming there was considerable doubt in his mind. I think he’d tell you he was looking for some reason to doubt what he considered (and I consider) pretty clear evidence of guilt.

    Actually, I’m assuming that the evidence didn’t matter to Romney; if it was close then he was going to vote for conviction. I don’t think it was close, but he had sufficient cover I guess. 

    Forget about Romney, though, I’m interested in you and I give you credit for sincerity. What is the clear evidence of “abuse of power”? Was asking about Hunter Biden illegitimate even though asking wasn’t illegal and even though the executive is authorized and maybe even ethically responsible to ask?

    • #39
  10. Eeyore Member
    Eeyore
    @Eeyore

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Now it’s time to put this nonsense in the rear view and focus on kicking Democrat behind in November.

    Don’t keep your eye on the rear view too long, Doc. Eyes front, or you might not be prepared when the new schiffstorm hits. It may have been hyperbole, but IIRC, Rep. Al Green said said that if Trump was acquitted, he would immediately file new impeachment charges. Don’t know what Nancy would say about that, but she’s gone from a way reluctant to a pretty durn enthusiastic point of the sword.

    • #40
  11. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Trump’s July 25, 2019 call happened the day after Mueller’s weak testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2019.

    I anticipate that Trump is feeling pretty cocky right now. Hopefully, he has learned his lesson about trying to pressure an ally to get dirt on an opponent. However, I would not be surprised if Trump immediately tries to cheat again in the 2020 election like he did on July 25, 2019, which several Republican Senators have said was wrongful.

    For the eight millionth time….Zelensky denied that this happened, Sondland admitted it did not happen and looking into the corruption of the previous administration was Trump doing what cowed Republicans in Congress had refused to do in spite of volumes of evidence readily available to them. That you refuse to see this speaks very ill of you. 

    • #41
  12. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    The Republicans missed an opportunity to have their caucus be unanimous.

    Remembering the scene from Godfather II, when Frank Pentangeles is about to testify against the family and Pentangeles’ bigger badder brother is brought into the hearing, all the way from Sicily to intimidate and shame him. Mitch McConnel could have,  in similar fashion, brought in ….Candy Crowley. 

    • #42
  13. Norm McDonald Inactive
    Norm McDonald
    @Pseudodionysius

    Mitt “Orca” Romney

    arctic-orcas-killer-whales-1 - Skarnsundet Fjordsenter

    • #43
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.