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
It would help, though, if lawyers didn’t lie under oath, regardless of the question. Granted, a question around his affair, but he lied. And was disbarred for it.
Nor do the politicians.
They’d have to read it to find out what’s in it.
Well they think they know, but as Reagan pointed out, what they know, isn’t so.
He did preside over impeachment last year. He just didn’t enjoy doing so. His strength is on the appellate court, not a trial court. Chief Justice Rehnquist on the other hand wrote a book about impeachment.
Maybe Toomey will run for President. He is a strong principled conservative. The contribution to Toomey was to send him a message of support. He will forward the money to likeminded conservatives if he doesn’t run for President.
You asked for confirmation, here it is:
$25
Your donation will benefit Ben Sasse for U.S. Senate, Inc.
$25
Your donation will benefit Collins for Senator
$25
Your donation will benefit Romney for Utah Inc.
To maintain my own privacy, and to save bankwidth, I did not copy and paste the entire receipts which have my address.
Pfft. Let me tell you a story about a Microsoft Word document from 1973.
Well, you will have to answer to Max for this use of bandwidth.
Recipient: Collins for Senator
Amount: $25
Name: Gary Robbins
Address:
Date: 2021-01-26 20:41:54 UTC
Donation ID: rv_ch_01ex06wmtpkrs2zs07wqy073wy
Recipient: Ben Sasse for U.S. Senate, Inc.
Amount: $25
Name: Gary Robbins
Address:
Date: 2021-01-26 20:41:17 UTC
Recipient: Romney for Utah Inc.
Amount: $25
Name: Gary Robbins
Address:
Date: 2021-01-26 20:40:45 UTC
Donation ID: rv_ch_01ex06tfmzhtfyj82jmww5d76d
Recipient: Sweet Meteor O’ Death for America, Inc.
Amount: $100,000,000,000
Name: DrewInWisconsin
Address:
Date: 2021-01-27 14:40:23 UTC
Donation ID: 8675309etaoin_shrdlu
So now an unnecessary, trollish post at #14 having nothing to do with the constitutionality of this impeachment has subsumed the thread. Gee, that never happens.
Our hero
Collins followed the vote by admitting there’s no chance for conviction as shown by this vote. What about it Gary?
hahahaha. What an idiot. But I suppose it’s nice to have these sorts of trolls around… just as a reminder. I’ve defended Gary in the past. But now he is doubling and tripling down, trying to out-stupid himself. Probably best to just roll your eyes and move on.
It started off so nice, didn’t it?
But to be honest with you, I think it is valuable. As I said, Rand Paul spoke some of the most eloquent common sense that I have heard over the past year. It is the kind of thing that shouldn’t need to be said. Do we really need these reminders about the rule of law? Do we really need to be convinced that this one-sided vindictiveness leads to such destruction? It’s easy to get complacent. But it does help when folks like Gary step in to prove the point beyond any reasonable doubt.
That’s okay. It is good that she took a stand. Collins is meeting with Tim Kaine to see if there is willingness for the Senate to censure Trump.
You have made your point. I am tempted to do a copy and paste of the more complete email with the “WinRed” logo, see below, but it appears that you would do the artwork for “Sweet Meteor O’Death for America, Inc.” (SMODFA). Have a great day.
Powered by
[Edit.: The WinRed logo did not take.]
They’re better than Dems. Make it a primary-only rule.
I used to live in New England, and I believe that if someone significantly to the right of Collins won the primary they would lose the general election. Collins is as good as you’re going to get out of that state.
Those other states, on the other hand…..
I wish Romney had stayed in New England and many others join me. Utah voters didn’t really know him. Sad.
That part made me giggle.
Beyond that, with all due respect, you show great ignorance of the case. I would direct you to Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment by David Schippers.
Confirmed. Senator Patrick Leahy will preside.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/535977-why-john-robertss-absence-from-senate-trial-isnt-a-surprise
And now senators are looking into pivoting to a censure resolution.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/536210-trump-censure-faces-tough-odds-in-senate
I guess the whacks with the clue bat finally gave them a clue.
I’ll check that out. Ken Starr’s book is a good read if one is interested in Whitewater.
A warning: If you still possess even the tiniest bit of respect for the term “U.S. Senator,” it likely will not survive Schippers.
There is another path to bring Trump to Justice and to disqualify him in the future, namely Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I have posted on that issue. It does not require a 2/3’s vote. See my post:
Plan B: Censure Trump, and under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, disqualify him from future office
at https://ricochet.com/879485/plan-b-censure-trump-and-under-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment-disqualify-him-from-future-office/.
I clicked “Like” for the censure option. Depending on what the text of the censuring says, I could conceivably support it. (But whom are we kidding? Democrats will write it! It’ll probably be ridiculous.)
Now about the rest: We talking about this?
I guess “any office” covers the President, and it looks like Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact this. Ok, you have a Constitutional means.
I still don’t see any reason to accuse Trump of supporting an insurrection. Do I need to cite the Avengers again?
I would think that Trump’s lawyer will argue that. But this is no a criminal law, it is civil in nature, and thus does not need to be so exacting. In fact, Trump calling the Georgia Secretary of State, and then asking people to come to Washington, D.C. (“it will be wild”) are both acts that come before the incursion into the Capitol. Also, there is the issue of Trump, according to Senator Sasse, getting joy over the assault and delaying an appropriate reaction to defend the Capitol.
Do you think that Senators might be a little upset about being pushed off of the Senate Floor, and running for their lives?
There’s a whole post about this now. I’m not going to fight a two-front war. Take your pick.
That would require proving this:
“…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”
which of course is nonsense. If Trump is guilty of that, you are guilty of it a thousand times over.