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
He just admires his own speeches a little too much.
Trump has said that he could shot someone on Fifth Avenue, and his supporters would still support him.
Setting aside that Trump is facing only disqualification, and not removal, is there anything that he could have done to merit impeachment and conviction? Is there anything that any President has ever done which would have merited impeachment and conviction?
Dummying up a bogus charge that a rival candidate is a foreign agent and then setting the CIA and FBI to spy on that candidate would count in my book. So would hiring someone to create false evidence that your rival for President was an agent of a foreign government, however in that case the candidate who did that did not win and, as a private citizen, cannot be impeached.
And that was only five years back.
A black guy goes in front of a judge, is found guilty, and sentenced to 10 years in prison. His lawyer objects, pointing out that 10 men were guilty, in the same court, of the exact same crime, and released with no penalty. Their histories were all identical, the facts were all identical. The only difference was that they were white and this man was black.
Gary Robbins: “Whataboutism!”
No, Gary, it’s not “whataboutism.” It is the rule of law. Without it, our laws are absolutely arbitrary and meaningless. Trump is annoying. The rule of law, on the other hand, is absolutely crucial for the existence of this country as we know it. You are happy to sacrifice the one in order to score some sort of vindictive feel-good revenge on someone you don’t like. That is disgusting; but beyond that, it is dangerous.
How, then, do you maintain such ignorance? That is amazing!
Perhaps it’s time to retire.
Is it possible to disagree, without being disagreeable?
Of course it is. When do you plan to start?
It was reported that immediately after the vote, Romney and Sasse got a room…
One thing that’s being under-discussed is the manner in which the House arrived at impeachment–no witnesses, no discussion of consequences, no nothing. But they line up in support..
The explanation: revenge and bile directed to Trump. That’s all you need to know why the hardcore support this.
Of course there are things that Trump could have done to merit impeachment and conviction, at least while he was in office. I don’t think that he did any such thing.
Murder would qualify, as would bribery. It would depend on the circumstances, though. For example, I’m not sure that it would be worthwhile to impeach a President on the basis of a petty bribe.
I think that the Trump impeachments were very weak.
I think that the Clinton impeachment was viable, but politically unwise, in hindsight. He did commit perjury, but it was a rather petty perjury.
I’m less certain about Nixon, as I don’t know the facts of the Watergate situation very well. As I understand it, the charge was something like conspiracy to cover up a crime, which is akin to being an accessory after the fact. I don’t think that he knew of the break-in in advance. It’s a borderline case, in my view.
This is quasi-OT, and perhaps a disservice to the thread. I recognize your disclaimer on knowledge, but Nixon, on tape, would have been appropriately charged with a cover-up. I don’t think there’s a reasonable question about that.
I’ve already listed three things I could support impeachment over.
Or if he and his administration had done, for example, some of them things Obama and his administration did. I could go for that.
Or, indeed, shooting someone.
Indeed.
It wasn’t petty for his victim(s).
I would rather that Trump create his own Patriot Party.
That would be a Bill of Attainder. It’s unconstitutional unless Chief Justice Roberts decides to call it a tax, in which case it’s OK.
In that case I think we should hire Daniel Webster to represent the defendant.
Or running guns to Mexico, drone-striking American citizens etc.
This is a very interesting subject.
There is nothing wrong with RINOs as long as they don’t do very much damage. I wish they would have been more thoughtful about the ACA.
I can’t stand Ben Sasse. I suppose he nets out someway.
Also, the Founders did not intend for impeachment to be used without strong bipartisan support. Look at what happened to Clinton. It was a very clear legal violation and bad example for the justice system
I’m not an expert on this but I think the point was, they didn’t want it to turn into a vote of no confidence.
The track record on this type of discussion with Gary is not good.
My personal opinion is Gary is more into being tactical than principled.
I know at some point he’s going to write about public policy and economics a lot more.
I don’t know. Have you listened to the tape, or read the transcript?
I just read it (here), and it seems a bit sleazy, but minor. It’s not like he’s putting a hit on witnesses. As I said, it may have technically been a crime, but I question whether it is sufficiently serious to warrant removing a President from office.
What victims?
As I understand it, the Clinton impeachment was about his perjury in denying that he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. She did not make any charges against him, and seems to have been a willing (even eager) participant. The perjury occurred in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
According to Wikipedia (here), the judge in the Jones case ruled that the information about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky was immaterial (which sounds correct to me). So we have perjury on a sexual issue that is inadmissible in the underlying lawsuit in which the perjury occurred.
Thus, I find it to have been petty.
In fact, it may not have been perjury, now that I think about it. The general elements of perjury are: (1) a statement made under oath, which (2) is false, (3) the speaker’s intent to make a false statement, and (4) materiality to the proceeding.
The inadmissibility of Clinton’s perjured testimony may undermine the materiality element.
I thought is was really good.
Using the IRS to squash your political opponents.
They are on my “Do not vote for” list, along with the House Republicans who voted to impeach . . .