There are 162 comments.

1. Inactive
   Hammer, The

   @RyanM

   2:23 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   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.

   This impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country. Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity. Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country.

   No, unity is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness. If we are about to try to impeach a president, where’s the Chief Justice? If the accused is no longer president, where’s the constitutional power to impeach him? Private citizens don’t get impeached; impeachment is for removal from office. And the accused here has already left office. Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history.

   Instead of doing the nation’s work with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office.  It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their bogeyman, they might have to legislate and actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.

   Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting senator has ever stooped to: Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election. This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why? Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved.

   This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the President incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6 when he said, “I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. “Peacefully” and “patriotically.” Hardly words of violence. But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence? No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre. I was there. Because he fervently believed the false inflammatory rhetoric spurred by Bernie and other Democrats such as “The Republican healthcare plan for the uninsured is that you die.”

   As this avowed Bernie Sanders supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed, “This is for healthcare!”

    

2. Inactive
   Hammer, The

   @RyanM

   2:24 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   Ask me or anyone if that’s incitement. No Democrat will ask whether Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to “get up in their face” of Congresspeople, a very visual and specific incitement.  No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters, and I quote, “that if you see a member of the Trump administration at a restaurant, at a department store, at a gas station or any place, you create a crowd and you push back on them.” Is that not incitement?

   My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by the same time of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It’s terrifying to have a swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing you and literally holding you hostage until police come to your rescue.  That night we were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn’t sure we would survive even with the police protection.

   But no Democrat has ever considered impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric; in fact, Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to formally censure or impeach these Democrats. No Republican has sought to use the government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over a billion dollars of destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said, “Oh, let’s impeach the Democrats who are inciting this” because it would be ridiculous.

   Many on the Democrats’ side of the aisle cheered them on; Kamala Harris famously offered to “pay the bill” for those who were arrested. I wonder if she’ll be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she’s vice-president. Should Kamala Harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who’ve been burning our cities down?

   No. And no Republican has offered that. Because we’re not going the road that Democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech. Should Republicans impeach the Democrat mayor of Seattle, who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city a “summer of love.” Any Republicans try to impeach her?

   On June 8, the New York Post, citing U.S Justice Department statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were injured during the Antifa/Black Lives matter riots. There were at least 19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement top a Republican that they refuse to apply to themselves.

    

3. Inactive
   Hammer, The

   @RyanM

   2:25 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   I want the Democrats to raise their hand if they have ever given a speech that says, “Take. Back. Fight for your country.” Who hasn’t used the word “fight” figuratively, and are we going to put every politician in jail” Are we going to impeach every politician who has used the word “fight” figuratively in a speech?

   Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are outing forth this sham impeachment deranged by their hatred of the former president. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so.

   I want this body on record, every last person here, is this how you think politics should be?

   Look, we’ve now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censure and remove two of the Republican senators for their political positions. Now look, I disagreed: I don’t think Congress should overturn the Electoral College. But impeaching or censuring or expelling a member of Congress you disagree with? Is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth? We now have the media on your side saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can only interpret it this way. Now we have seven senators on the other side trying to expel, censor or impugn two senators on this side. And I defend them, not because I defend their position; I disagreed with their position, but you can’t impeach, censure, expel people you disagree with. What’s this coming to?

   In a few minutes I will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional; that impeachment of a private citizen n is illegal and essentially a bill of attainder, and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge of the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already in favor of the impeachment.

   A sham, this is. A travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day.

4. Inactive
   Hammer, The

   @RyanM

   2:26 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   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.

5. Member
   Hoyacon

   @Hoyacon

   2:33 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   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.

6. Member
   Saint Augustine

   @SaintAugustine

   2:55 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   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.

   

7. Member
   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…

   @ArizonaPatriot

   Post author

   3:00 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   Hoyacon (View Comment):

   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’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.

8. Member
   Saint Augustine

   @SaintAugustine

   3:01 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

   Hoyacon (View Comment):

   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’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.

9. Member
   Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…

   @ArizonaPatriot

   Post author

   3:04 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

   Hammer, The (View Comment):

   I am really disappointed about Sasse, who is otherwise extremely solid. I have a very difficult time understanding his reasoning.

   I’m less convinced that Sen. Sasse is extremely solid, at least on rhetoric.  I haven’t checked his voting record.  

    

10. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    3:04 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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’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.

    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.

11. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    3:06 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    I am really disappointed about Sasse, who is otherwise extremely solid. I have a very difficult time understanding his reasoning.

    I’m less convinced that Sen. Sasse is extremely solid, at least on rhetoric. I haven’t checked his voting record.

    Just been going over that in the Pit. Sasse looks good.

12. Inactive
    Hammer, The

    @RyanM

    3:07 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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’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 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.

13. Member
    Hoyacon

    @Hoyacon

    3:08 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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’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.

    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. 

14. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    3:11 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    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.   

15. Member
    Hoyacon

    @Hoyacon

    3:12 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    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.

16. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    3:14 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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’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.

    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 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.

17. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    3:17 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    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.

    On what grounds do you support impeachment, Gary?

    And can you beat Epstein’s argument?

18. Coolidge
    Richard Easton

    @RichardEaston

    3:19 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    delete

19. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    3:19 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    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.

    This impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country. Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity.

    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?

    Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country.

    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.  

    No, unity is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness. If we are about to try to impeach a president, where’s the Chief Justice?

    Trump is no longer the sitting President.

    If the accused is no longer president, where’s the constitutional power to impeach him?

    There are two remedies for impeachment.  First is removal from office.  Second is disqualification to seek office again.

    Private citizens don’t get impeached; impeachment is for removal from office. And the accused here has already left office. Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history.

    I would say that the events of January 6, 2021 already dragged us down into the gutter.

    Instead of doing the nation’s work with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their bogeyman, they might have to legislate and actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.

    Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting senator has ever stooped to: Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election.

    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.

    This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why?

    Because no prior President ever tried to spark an insurrections?

    Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved.

    This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the President incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6 when he said, “I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. “Peacefully” and “patriotically.”

    I think that Trump threw in the word “peacefully” only once in his hour or so long speech.  

    Hardly words of violence. But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence? No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre. I was there. Because he fervently believed the false inflammatory rhetoric spurred by Bernie and other Democrats such as “The Republican healthcare plan for the uninsured is that you die.”

    As this avowed Bernie Sanders supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed, “This is for healthcare!”

    Whataboutism.

     

     

20. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    3:22 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    Ask me or anyone if that’s incitement. No Democrat will ask whether Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to “get up in their face” of Congresspeople, a very visual and specific incitement. No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters, and I quote, “that if you see a member of the Trump administration at a restaurant, at a department store, at a gas station or any place, you create a crowd and you push back on them.” Is that not incitement?

    Whataboutism.

    My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by the same time of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It’s terrifying to have a swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing you and literally holding you hostage until police come to your rescue. That night we were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn’t sure we would survive even with the police protection.

    I am pleased that Rand Paul’s neighbor is being prosecuted.  More must be done to protect members of Congress.

    But no Democrat has ever considered impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric; in fact, Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to formally censure or impeach these Democrats. No Republican has sought to use the government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over a billion dollars of destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said, “Oh, let’s impeach the Democrats who are inciting this” because it would be ridiculous.

    Whataboutism.

    Many on the Democrats’ side of the aisle cheered them on; Kamala Harris famously offered to “pay the bill” for those who were arrested. I wonder if she’ll be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she’s vice-president. Should Kamala Harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who’ve been burning our cities down?

    No. And no Republican has offered that. Because we’re not going the road that Democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech. Should Republicans impeach the Democrat mayor of Seattle, who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city a “summer of love.” Any Republicans try to impeach her?

    On June 8, the New York Post, citing U.S Justice Department statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were injured during the Antifa/Black Lives matter riots. There were at least 19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement top a Republican that they refuse to apply to themselves.

    Whataboutism.

21. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    3:23 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    I want the Democrats to raise their hand if they have ever given a speech that says, “Take. Back. Fight for your country.” Who hasn’t used the word “fight” figuratively, and are we going to put every politician in jail” Are we going to impeach every politician who has used the word “fight” figuratively in a speech?

    Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are outing forth this sham impeachment deranged by their hatred of the former president. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so.

    I want this body on record, every last person here, is this how you think politics should be?

    Look, we’ve now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censure and remove two of the Republican senators for their political positions. Now look, I disagreed: I don’t think Congress should overturn the Electoral College. But impeaching or censuring or expelling a member of Congress you disagree with? Is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth? We now have the media on your side saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can only interpret it this way. Now we have seven senators on the other side trying to expel, censor or impugn two senators on this side. And I defend them, not because I defend their position; I disagreed with their position, but you can’t impeach, censure, expel people you disagree with. What’s this coming to?

    In a few minutes I will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional; that impeachment of a private citizen n is illegal and essentially a bill of attainder, and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge of the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already in favor of the impeachment.

    A sham, this is. A travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country.

    A needed restorative to address any President in the future who tries to conduct a coup.

    I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day.

    The impeachment trial will be in the afternoon.  Legislate in the morning and on the weekends.

     

22. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    3:25 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    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.

    You are free to contribute to anyone you wish.  This is a battle over the soul of the Republic and the Republican Party.

23. Member
    Hoyacon

    @Hoyacon

    3:27 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    This thread started out so well.

24. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    3:28 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    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.

    On what grounds do you support impeachment, Gary?

    1.  Obstruction of Justice for the Muller Investigation
    2. Attempted bribery of Ukraine’s President to open a bogus investigation.
    3. Trump’s request that the Georgia Secretary of State “find” 10,780 votes.
    4. Trump’s incitement of the riot. 
    5. Trump’s failure to immediately do everything he could do to stop the riot.
25. Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…

    @ArizonaPatriot

    Post author

    3:28 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    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.

    You are free to contribute to anyone you wish. This is a battle over the soul of the Republic and the Republican Party.

    Gary, will you start contributing to me, if I start trash-talking President Trump?  I’d kinda like to get on your gravy train.

26. Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"

    @danok1

    3:29 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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’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.

    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.

    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.

27. Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…

    @ArizonaPatriot

    Post author

    3:30 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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’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.

    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.

    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.

28. Contributor
    Seawriter

    @Seawriter

    3:32 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

29. Member
    Hoyacon

    @Hoyacon

    3:34 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig.

30. Member
    Saint Augustine

    @SaintAugustine

    3:37 PM EST ⋅ Jan 26, 2021

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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’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.

    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.

    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.

    Is there any relevant imprecision in the bits of language Epstein is quoting?