Trump acquitted in second impeachment trial on charge of inciting Jan. 6 Capitol riot

None of us who are awake and and aware had any doubts that there will not be enough true Americans in the Senate to convict the guy who unleashed terrorists upon the Capitol.

 

You can find a graph here (towards the bottom).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

 

Lol...we warned you that everything trump touches turns to ****.

 

Oh stop crying about the Donnie supporters they have showed their support for their leader by acting out the terrorism that he commanded them to perform.

 

And Biden got 7 million more than that.......so what?

 

Had it been bipartisan he would have been convicted. It got a handful of people who were anti Trump from the start. I'd be glad it's over if I thought it really was. It would be nice to see our Legislators actually working on something productive. Hate shouldn't be the only thing they produce.

 

That's not the way it happened. First off, Trump's lawyers get NO VOTE, as far as witnesses go. The Senate would have to vote on any proposal for witnesses. They could have done it on a witness by witness basis. Or they could have proposed that each side could call X-number of witnesses, whoever they wanted, etc.

Though the witness issue was scheduled to be decided today, the impeachment managers only became interested in the idea because of a story that apparently only got national coverage, last night. Republican Representative Jaimie Herrera-Butler shared her story of what she'd been told by House Minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, right after his phone conversation with President Trump during the Capitol riot, appealing to the President for assistance. McCarthy told Butler that when McCarthy explained to the President that they were his supporters, and that they were posing a danger to those in the Capitol, the President responded, "Well, Kevin, I guess that means they're more upset about the election than you are."

The House Managers wanted to get her statement under oath, as opposed to just from news stories, which the defense could then just say was, "hearsay." The competing motivation for the Democrats was the desire not to drag out this trial, because they have so much work to get to, finalizing the Covid Bill, as well as needing to approve many more of Biden's nominees (note to @Modus Ponens, exactly the kind of problem they could have avoided, had they waited a couple of more months, as I'd
advocated).

So a compromise was worked out that the defense agreed to accept Rep. Butler's statement as if it were given under oath, so that no prolonged witness rigamarole would be necessary.

 

Why?
None of the 3 impeached presidents were convicted.

 

Makes it a very partisan and useless tool then, just like the Framers predicted(7 members of the opposite party isn't exactly a 'most' thing ever, and I think you know that.).

 

Revising Isaiah 6.10-11 and making the Old Testament new again.

Make the minds of the senators dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds . . . Then I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said: “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is utterly desolate . . .”

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
LOL, a Repubs worst nightmare a FEMALE President !!!

LOL, tell me about that when she is elected President...…


"Promoting" by a few people in a chat room hardly makes her a contender

 

No, see, here the Senate HAD a choice. It could have chosen to save its dignity(where either vote would have caused damage to the body). But no, we wanted to "hold Trump accountable" by "having the trial" and Biden thought it would look farcial if we didn't. It's farcical BECAUSE of it.

What this body needs to do, is to *let it go*. Precisely because it turns to that, let it go. Let it go, and move on to the nation's business.

 

What I find hypocritical about the whole thing is that Dems wanted to get the impeachment trial done to prevent Trump from running for President again. And some of suggested using the 14th Amendment to do it also. Essentially disenfranchising millions of people that would vote for Trump. Yet they're always hollering about Republican's disenfranchising voters. But...this is different....

 

When she runs I'm sure you'll remember this. Just an FYI, lots of Republican women have been elected this year.

 

Still you are posting the same old anti media nonsense and dribbleclaiming that the media is so anti Trump. Furthermore you note that the Yrumpocoty got 75 mil . vote somwhat last I heard Biden got over 80 million ad on top of that Biden obviously got a lot more EC votes that the Trumpocity got. So big deal that your Trumpocity got 75 mil votes he is still a loser.

 

Next time, instead of the most liberal senator in the government, why don't you run Tulsi Gabbard in the VP slot and see how "allergic" a LOT of us on the Right are....

Tulsi would probably make a very good president. But the "Jamaican Voodoo Queen"? Not so much!

 

I would have supported Trump's impeachment in years 2 and 3 of his presidency if it had been done on gross incompetence. I would have even played along with gross incompetence and criminal negligence being the same for constitutional purposes. Problem is that the dems struck out twice using these elaborate conspiracy theories. Trump doesn't have the attention span of a few hours, let alone the ability to construct elaborate schemes proactively. He is a bully and a reactionary with ADD.

 

I think it's pretty clear what I think about it so maybe those other two should not have faced charges either. I saw Clinton as revenge for Nixon but I see Trump as something that frightens me much more. The "fundamental change" Obama put in motion was threatened and the power it could being to bear was outside my comprehension. So no, I don't think this was bipartisan. I think it was a charade, a kangaroo court, the culmination of the hate filled opposition that began 30 minutes after it was announced Trump won. It was like watching Bunraku puppet theater because we pretended we couldn't see the manipulation.

I'm sure views will differ.

 

None of them were impeached WHILE president. Trump was impeached while president.

Either way - McConnell said, quite clearly, that the managers made their case, and there is no doubt whatsoever that Trump caused this. He offered up that this belongs in criminal court, and the reason he voted no, was because the Senate has no authority over private citizens.

So, during his confirmation hearings, will The Senate be asking Garland if he plans to go after Trump?

Not a huge win for Trump, here. A win, but not a big win.

 

Yeah, I would have voted for her. I had planned to in fact. But Democratic Politicians portrayed her as a Russian asset and the media wouldn't give her the time of day, except Fox. Dems betrayed one of their own. And then elected an old confirmed racist white guy.

 

NONE ever ran for VP and one.....it was a Democrat who first had a woman VP.

But please...with the POS Trump's attitude towards women don't tell me Repubs respect what they call PU%%Y....they follow their leader...



Hey, who is still President and who is not

 

Huh? The dems did not convict. The prosecution lost, the party line voting intellectually dishonest hypocrites were embarrassed and humiliated by Trump lawyers, exposed as fraud, liars and scum and laughed out of the Senate.

Trump was found innocent and was acquitted of all their phony charges....again. LOL

PS that the libs always meekly fall into line and vote unanimously is yet another evidence of their totalitarian Stalinist/fascist tendencies.