Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
45 of 50 Senate Republicans Oppose Trump Trial
The Hill is reporting that 45 of 50 Republicans in the US Senate voted in favor of a motion made by Sen. Rand Paul contending that the proposed impeachment trial of former President Trump is unconstitutional. Story here. All 50 Senate Democrats voted against the motion.
The five dissenting Republicans are:
- Mitt Romney (UT)
- Ben Sasse (NE)
- Susan Collins (ME)
- Lisa Murkowski (AK)
- Pat Toomey (PA)
This is a very strong indication that there are insufficient votes in the Senate to convict the former President.
Note that the vote on this issue does not indicate that the five Senators listed above will necessarily vote to convict, if the Senate leadership proceeds with the trial.
Published in Politics
I am really disappointed about Sasse, who is otherwise extremely solid. I have a very difficult time understanding his reasoning. Paul’s speech was the best thing I’ve read in a very long time. You should consider pasting it into your post in its entirety.
You don’t have to support Trump, you don’t have to like Trump, you don’t need to have voted for Trump in order to wholeheartedly agree with every word spoken by Rand Paul, here. This should have received a standing ovation, including a great number of democrats.
This is a de facto vote on whether one has an originalist view of the Constitution.
John Roberts catches some deserved grief, but I think I’ll credit him on this. He voted with his feet.
I could go for some impeachment on the grounds that T jumped on every photo of a beach ball in the ocean that someone said was a Kraken sighting. Or for careless talk about what could still be done to stop the very real and extensive (and non-Krakeny) fraud. Or just for being associated with the riot.
Of course, I’m also for impeaching various Democrats on the same kind of standards.
This impeachment has no standard. It is not based in fact.
I’m not sure whether the various Senators evaluated the textual argument carefully. It is not completely clear, in my view, though I ultimately come down on the side holding that the impeachment and conviction of an ex-official is unconstitutional.
I found Richard Epstein’s textual argument on this point to be particularly convincing (here). If called upon to actually decide the issue, I’d like to read some opposing opinions.
I believe McCarthy at NRO has an originalist argument in favor of constitutionality.
I’m less convinced that Sen. Sasse is extremely solid, at least on rhetoric. I haven’t checked his voting record.
And I bet Epstein wins. I believe McCarthy was talking about what idea of impeachment would have been in the Founders’ heads. But originalism is supposed to be a textualism, not an intentionalism.
Just been going over that in the Pit. Sasse looks good.
I also appreciated Epstein’s argument. But I side with Rand on this one; although he does give his opinion on the legality, the bulk of his argument is with regards to the sheer idiocy of actually pursuing this sort of unprecedented action, and on what the political ramifications are. Suppose Republicans won the house and senate back in 2022 and decided to impeach both Biden and Harris (and everyone else mentioned – which, quite frankly, could include virtually all democrats) on exactly the same grounds? Is this really what we want our politics to devolve into? I am astonished even that the democrats voted as a block; I am more astonished that 5 republicans (especially the very intelligent and articulate Sasse) played along; and I am just as astonished that there are intelligent conservatives who cannot recognize the very obvious truths that Paul presented so clearly.
The article I read was more oriented to his claim that there have been out-of office impeachments conducted in the past, but I’ll go back and look. It’s very hard to get around the “removal” language in the Constitution.
I have already sent in a campaign contribution today to Senators Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, and Toomey, I know that Toomey is not running again, and that Collins and Sasse were just re-elected. I wanted to make a point. I also contributed to the Brave 10 members of the House today.
LOL.
I believe his point was that those there had been in the past were such as to ensure that such a concept of impeachment was in their heads when they wrote the Constitution.
Fine and dandy.
They still have to put it in the text for it to be law. It looks like they didn’t.
On what grounds do you support impeachment, Gary?
And can you beat Epstein’s argument?
delete
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My client is charged with murder. But the victim is already dead. What purpose will it serve to have a trial. Shouldn’t we come together?
The Democrats appointed the President Pro Tem of the Senate to preside. The President Pro Tem is the member of the majority party with the most seniority, in this case Patrick Leahy.
Trump is no longer the sitting President.
There are two remedies for impeachment. First is removal from office. Second is disqualification to seek office again.
I would say that the events of January 6, 2021 already dragged us down into the gutter.
Well, I am not a Democrat. But I will point out that the 2020 election is over, and Biden was elected by 7 million votes and 37 Electoral College votes.
Because no prior President ever tried to spark an insurrections?
I think that Trump threw in the word “peacefully” only once in his hour or so long speech.
Whataboutism.
Whataboutism.
I am pleased that Rand Paul’s neighbor is being prosecuted. More must be done to protect members of Congress.
Whataboutism.
Whataboutism.
A needed restorative to address any President in the future who tries to conduct a coup.
The impeachment trial will be in the afternoon. Legislate in the morning and on the weekends.
You are free to contribute to anyone you wish. This is a battle over the soul of the Republic and the Republican Party.
This thread started out so well.
Gary, will you start contributing to me, if I start trash-talking President Trump? I’d kinda like to get on your gravy train.
On a different post, there was the point that in 1974 the Democrats did not try to impeach/try Nixon after he resigned. He was hated by the Democrats of that time just as much as Trump is hated in our time. That seems to be a much more recent and appropriate precedent, especially since in 1974 the Senate had the votes to convict Nixon.
It’s not as simple as this. Context is often necessary to determine what the specific words used are supposed to mean. Language is not always precise.
Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money.
My suggestion: give a lot more to Liz Cheney. Her constituents are so cheesed off at her that she has become a fit receptacle for creamed chipped beef. She needs your money. And supporting her will fit your philosophy of losing nobly.
Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig.
Is there any relevant imprecision in the bits of language Epstein is quoting?