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 have given Liz Cheney the most money of the Brave 10. Thanks.
OK, I have a question for y’all. I just have a seriously devious mind.
Would it be unethical for me to post false information about Republican Senators and Representatives, incorrectly representing that pro-Trump guys voted in an anti-Trump way, in order to trick Gary into making contributions to their campaign?
I would likely check it out first. I gave only to the Senators after confirming that they had voted against Rand Paul’s motion.
Maybe you didn’t understand the question. On what grounds do you support this particular impeachment? Numbers 4 and 5?
Good. She needs more. Send her some more.
Ok, but is the argument solid? If so, then we should impeach those Dems too. Do you support impeachment of Kamala?
Yes 4 & 5. But I also think that #3 is part of the Trump Big Lie that lead to the insurrection.
You didn’t really.
A made-up word deployed to deflect from the very accurate charges of hypocrisy.
As of now, you have 5 out of 50 and 10 out of 200+. You could make a third party run with that.
Well, thanks for answering the question. Maybe you should go back and answer the other one now–can you beat Epstein’s argument?
But as for this question, I don’t know what else we can do. I know no facts relevant to # 5, other than vague recollections that Trump called out the National Guard that day, that he asked everyone to go home quietly, and that the Democrats had prevented an adequate police presence.
On # 4, it appears that you do not know the relevant facts. I presume you agree with War Machine. I, again, cite Hulk on the subject. Please consider following the example of Ant Man and being willing to learn something.
I reiterate that I’d be ok with an impeachment based on facts and consistent standards–assuming it’s also legal.
I reiterate that in my view Trump may well burn in hell for his adulteries, lies, Twitter barbarism, and irresponsibility on the national debt. I just prefer to criticize fairly, that’s all.
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.Next Monday 2/8 at 1PM PT, Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson (also known as “my other job”) will be hosting a debate with Richard, John Yoo, and Andy McCarthy (as noted above, Andy is pro-impeachment) and for the first time, you can watch us record the show live on Zoom (not sure about a Q&A session yet, but we’ll try).
We’ll be posting details about the show tomorrow. Should be fun.
Which of those five will be the Republican nominee in 2024? Or will it be Jeb?
All will be primaried.
There is Romney spawn running the Republican National Committee. This is not a good thing.
My feeling is Liz Cheney hopes to be the Kamala Harris of 2024. You know – run for President, be the first one to drop out of the primary race, not win a single delegate and get the VEEP slot because she punches woke points and not because of her capabilities (or rather lack of them).
Moderator Note:
Can we please try to stick with the facts and avoid personal attacks?[redacted]
I think it’s fine to give them all a primary challenge except Collins
Snow. She’s a swing seat and is always straddling the fence, and should have more leeway. A right winger won’t keep Collins’Snow’sseat in Maine. If the others survive their primary challenge, fine. Sasse is wrong here, but he’s got one of the most conservative voting records. But it’s a safe seat, so if he goes down to someone further right I’m fine with it. Same with Romney. I’ll be happy if Toomey and murkowski are gone.Sasse is a D-bag and a blowhard. His votes are generally OK, but his words support the Corporate Fascist takeover of America. I am sure his
bloviationslectures are a hit on the D.C. cocktail party circuit.I’m fine in general with Cheney but she’s wrong here. It’s an important issue, so she needs to be removed from her leadership position based on that vote- it’s not a minor disagreement. She should also take a primary challenge, and if she survives because her voters like her then fine, either way it’s a safe seat so I won’t be sad if a more conservative person gets it.
I think there is something to be said for voting your conscience though. I don’t think lawmakers should be bound to simply what their voters want, always voting whichever way the wind blows. I prefer voting for someone who is going to make a hard choice and say no occasionally. And if I don’t like the way they voted, I’ll vote for someone else next time. If Liz survives her challenge fine. If not, fine.
I assume you mean Susan Collins, not Snow. Collins won re-election this past year. Assuming she stays healthy, she won’t have to run until 2026. Who knows how things will have shaken out by then?
His speech during the ACB hearings was fantastic. As far as politicians go, he’s pretty good.
Yes, and charges of hypocrisy have worked so well in the past.
More seriously, Gary misses Rand’s point: that the Democrats have set the standard to be used by their past actions. They never believed (nor should they have) that Bernie incited the shooter at the baseball practice. They never believed (nor should they have) that Maxine incited Paul’s neighbor. This is the standard they set. Rand Paul’s objection is in different standard for Republicans.
I’m sorry, yes. I’m on my phone at work and half distracted.
That is an interesting take, Gary. I’m not sure that voting with the majority can be considered “brave.” Did you read Rand Paul’s speech? I am genuinely interested in what you think about that.
It kind of worries me that you’re a lawyer.
How about “my client is charged with conspiracy, but my client died last week?”
Perhaps you are – again, as a lawyer who actually passed a bar examination – also familiar with precedent and how important that is for the rule of law? Perhaps you are also aware of the concept of “equal protection,” another legal concept. If your client was convicted by a judge who didn’t like that client’s politics or religion or some other belief, after just having acquitted another individual on the exact same facts (said individual being a member of the Judge’s religion, let’s say), you might rightly raise some concern about the legitimacy of the law in question, and of the Judge in particular.
The rule of law requires consistent application of that law. It is “whataboutism” to say that X behavior is justified by someone else having done it first. Anyone who extends that basic principle of “two wrongs don’t make a right” into a legal setting knows absolutely nothing about how our legal system works. Any lawyer who makes those sorts of arguments has no business practicing law.
As Rand Paul so eloquently pointed out, you therefore support the impeachment of virtually every sitting democrat and a large number of governors and judges nationwide. I look forward to hearing about all of the money you plan to donate to those causes, I also look forward to your many articles demanding that we take these steps in order to preserve the very soul of our democracy. It will be comforting to know that your positions are based on principle, rather than an irrational hatred for one specific individual. We need more people who are willing to stand on principle, and equally willing to apply their principles across the board. It may be you, Gary, who saves the soul of this republic – or, in the very least, who provides an example to others.
Unless I’m wrong about all that, and you’re just a deranged fool who has beclowned yourself and destroyed decades of potential goodwill by embracing flatly contradictory positions out of an irrational hatred. That’s how people go mad – and those stories generally end in tragedy.
Clearly you don’t listen to Charlie Sykes on the Daily Bulwark.
I have passed four bar exams, in Arizona in 1976, and thereafter in New Mexico, New Jersey and Washington State.