45 senators vote against impeachment trial
- Thread starter Ucfmikes
- Start date
Trump's hold on Republican Party voters remains strong enough to have Senators fearful of the personal backlash they believe they'd experience.
The trouble is, this is one of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situations, unless you've just been reelected like Ben Sasse, one of Nebraska's Senators.
Short-term, defying Trump would require some moral backbone, but protecting him from a Senate conviction is likely to mean the Republican Party is going to lose any chance of regaining the House, the Senate, or the White House in the next decade.
You heard it here first.
The trouble is, this is one of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situations, unless you've just been reelected like Ben Sasse, one of Nebraska's Senators.
Short-term, defying Trump would require some moral backbone, but protecting him from a Senate conviction is likely to mean the Republican Party is going to lose any chance of regaining the House, the Senate, or the White House in the next decade.
You heard it here first.
Lol. There will be a dozen other huge stories between now and then. This will have no impact on future elections as much as you want there to be.
As long as Trump has a tight hold on the GOP, they'll continue to lose steam.
With more minorities taking advantage of their voting rights than ever before (i.e. "massive voter fraud") and with the image of Trump's MAGA storming of the Capitol becoming our new 9/11, the Republican Party is destined to become more and more a minority party that's only viable in Midwestern and Southern states where, ahem, 'Real Americans' remain in the majority.
I can’t believe every Democrat voted for this stupidity. That doesn’t look good for the separation of powers going forward. If you can get everyone to vote for a waste of time, money and energy during a “pandemic” and economic uncertainty, then there is no telling how instep this regime will be. Susan Rice is going to roll over all of us.
The vote was on the constitutionality of trying a president after leaving office. Not on the impeachable offenses.
3-5 GOP votes max on conviction but history won’t be kind. all of them are in short term survival mode politically and some of them will have major regrets in 30 years
Well if you have 45 senators voting to say its unconstitutional, it stands to reason that they will also vote against removal. Its more likely that more than 45 will vote against the merits of the case.
I wouldn't put any stock in any of the squishy R senators voting against impeachment. Romney is going to vote anti-Trump at this point and the rest are going to play the middle because they know there won't be near enough R's persuaded by any case to comprise 2/3rds. The final vote will look just like the vote now.
For anyone that thinks that there is a chance of 2/3rds voting to impeach, what new information would make that case? Do you think the case is weakened by the news that this was preplanned by a group not affiliated with Trump long before Trump called everybody to peacefully rally?
How can they vote against removal? The guy is already gone. Imagine getting a letter, from a company you no longer work for, that tells you that you are fired. They can’t fire you. Just like they can’t impeach a former president, I can’t break up with ex-girlfriends and you can’t uncrazy that hole.
Hey, last fall I had a girl break up with me that I wasn't even dating, so anything is possible. It was a good reminder of why not to date.
I expect there are plenty of the 45 that want Trump out of the picture, but that doesn't answer the question whether the trial is constitutional. The only purpose of the impeachment is throwing the person out of office, he is not in that office. Add to that the constitution requires the Chief Justice of the supreme court to be in charge, he is not willing to sit in, likely because impeaching a private citizen is not constitutional.
That’s not true. There are consequences of impeachment beyond removal from office. Presidential perks are lost, he couldn’t run for federal office again, etc. If all consequences were able to be avoided simply by resigning then that is what every politician in office would do facing an impeachment vote where it looks like they would be convicted. This has actually happened in the past where the guy tried to resign before the impeachment and they went ahead and had the trial after he left office.
Read up on it. 23 senators voted against removal because they felt they didn't have the constitutional authority, and they were probably right.
Of course it isnt, which is why the whole thing is still an open question.
Fine, I’ll change my hypothetical. Imagine if a place you used to work called you and said that they had a meeting for a few weeks and decided to put a warning letter in your file.
Also, Trump didn’t resign. The results of the electoral college had him leave. Further, they will have a hell of a time proving that he incited anything. The capital was calling for help and the breach began before he finished his speech.
The only thing this ridiculousness will show is that our government is full of useless parasites that will do anything for power. The current regime started with a career insider getting put into office through the shadiest election in our history, followed by him making 37 unilateral decrees. Next we get to see the senate embarrass themselves and our country by again fabricating charges against Jeffrey Epstein’s former best friend. Government is shite.
Personally, I wish they'd just censure him and be done with it. It's clear that the gutless Republicans in the Senate aren't going to convict even when their leader clearly instigated a f*king insurrection for crying out loud!
Hell, I was talking about the 'Trump coup' attempt here WEEKS before the Capitol was stormed. My legitimate concern that Trump was going to use any means necessary to stay in office was met with eyerolls and cries of "TDS" by our usual board suspects.
The most laughable part of the 'don't convict Trump' sentiment is because "it doesn't help 'unify' the country." Funny how the same people have no qualms with moving to censure colleagues like Liz Cheney for simply having the courage to stand up for our democracy. I guess unity is a one-way street for those Republicans.
Hell, I was talking about the 'Trump coup' attempt here WEEKS before the Capitol was stormed. My legitimate concern that Trump was going to use any means necessary to stay in office was met with eyerolls and cries of "TDS" by our usual board suspects.
The most laughable part of the 'don't convict Trump' sentiment is because "it doesn't help 'unify' the country." Funny how the same people have no qualms with moving to censure colleagues like Liz Cheney for simply having the courage to stand up for our democracy. I guess unity is a one-way street for those Republicans.
Most of the media was wet dreaming about a coup attempt since, at least, early summer. Again, I will point to the Transition Integrity Project and how they “game planned” what Trump would do. Not only did it signal to media groups what they should do, it was conspiracy theory gold. You have Soros, Clinton and who knows who else involved. It was probably my favorite conspiracy of 2020 and that’s with the Great Reset, Covid and Election Fraud. What a year for tin foil stock!
I don’t get the Liz Cheney thing. A politician had a moral belief and stuck with it. That’s rare. Obviously from what I wrote above, I think the impeachment is one of the dumber things this government is doing currently, but let her have her thing. We may never see a conscious in government again.
Wet dreaming? You would have had to have had your head buried in the sand to not expect a coup attempt from Trump.
That's why this impeachment trail is a no brainer. OF COURSE Trump caused the insurrection!!!! I don't know how much clearer the facts could be!!! But the fact that Republican Senators STILL refuse to convict the guy despite everything is a testament to the power of personality politics.
But now that Trump is out of office, I could give a damn what they do -- or don't do. I stand by my belief that by allowing Trump to remain unshackled, the GOP is cutting their own throat.
The thing we have to all be mindful of is that the Trumpets within the Republican Party don't believe in democracy and will resort to anything to regain power. That's downright dangerous.
Despite how the media covered it - this was a vote to table Paul's issue. It wasn't a vote on "do you think this is Constitutional". Rob Portman said he voted with the minority because he felt it was worthy of debate, not because he necessarily agreed or would have supported it. So this was a pretty easy vote for most of the R's to align on the side of debating it.
The media constantly talked about Trump staging a coup with no actual support for the idea, only the continuation of their narrative. The idea that he would use the military to keep himself in power was absurd, but it helped further the idea that Trump was dangerous and needed to be removed. We aren’t dealing with an objective or even honest media. They hid Biden through the campaigning months and then treat him with kid gloves and worship when he gets into the White House. There was a lot wrong with Trump and his supporters, but the real danger lies within a media/big tech/government alliance. When government can hide what it is doing and voices of dissent are stifled, you have a recipe for disaster.
I guess I would be more inclined to say what Trump supporters did was a coup or insurrection, if they had weapons or even an objective. They just ran in, took selfies, said dumb stuff and then left. It’s best comparable to the few protesters that broke into the Kavanaugh hearings. At least those protesters had a plan in place.
The MEDIA's narrative? You strike me as a pretty level-headed guy, HH, but you're parroting the kind of nonsense that's become mainstream Republican talking points.
Tell me, was it the MSM or was it Trump who...
- refused to concede the presidential election?
- used every opportunity to tell the American people that the election was rigged?
- fired his director of cyber-security after he said this was the most secure election in American history?
- parted ways with his Attorney General after he said that the DOJ didn't find any evidence of massive voter fraud?
- had his lawyers file 60-plus court cases disputing the election results?
- tried to get GOP state legislatures to submit their own electors in States Trump lost?
- tried to pressure the GOP governors in Georgia and Arizona to overturn the will of the people in their States?
- tried to pressure the Georgia Secretary of State to overturn the election results?
- tried to pressure the VEEP to illegally throw out the electoral votes in Congress?
- encouraged his supporters to come to Washington DC on January 6th to protest Congress' approval of the electoral college results?
- encouraged his supporters to 'join him' at the Capitol to show Congress that they are complicit in 'stealing' the election from him?
The ironic thing is that this "our voices of dissent are being stifled" talking point is being broadcast over the radio, on TV, and across social media.
Gee, what an evil media/big tech/government alliance, huh?
Hillary was put on trial as a citizen for Bengazi. Why are people not held accountable for their actions?
The Constitution requires the President to be in office for an impeachment. Article II, section 4 defines the purpose of impeachment as removal from office. The predicate being that the person is in office for there to be removal. I’ll link some more analysis for you.
Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it's complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
legalinsurrection.com
Impeachment Problem? Chief Justice Roberts May Not Have Constitutional Authority To Preside At Trial Of FORMER President
The Constitution says 'hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside' -- but Trump will not be 'the President' during the upcoming trial. If Roberts refuses to preside at upcoming Senate trial as beyond his constitutional authority -- as
legalinsurrection.com
Last edited:
I can’t stand Donald but oppose this 100%. There is zero chance of getting the proper amount of votes in the senate and it’s overkill from the left.
If the purpose of this is to keep him from running again: Trump will be 78 in 2024 and knee deep in litigation from what’s ahead. Plus, I do t think he wants to lose again.
If the purpose of this is to keep him from running again: Trump will be 78 in 2024 and knee deep in litigation from what’s ahead. Plus, I do t think he wants to lose again.
If we didn't live in such a Bizzaro World, this would be an open-and-shut conviction. As it is, I agree it's a waste of time. Just censure the guy and move on. There's too many pressing items on the Senate's docket to spend time on Trump.
Similar threads
