In Major News: Republican Party-Leader McConnell says "I will Support Garland for AG"

[beagle9]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

IOW he tried to play it both ways ?? Save Trump, and then save himself once Trump was in the clear by disenfranchising himself with that speech ?? Hmmmm. Was that the cards he was dealt, and so that's the way he was reading them, and therefore he was forced to play them ?? If so, are you angry because he allowed Trump to get away ?? Go on and show your bias and hatred towards Trump through McConnel, because at the end of the day the left has been revealed to the world as to who it is, and the games that it plays (the world is either sick to it's stomach or rejoicing that it has finally infiltrated the United States of America without ever firing a shot).... It ain't a purdy picture for whom the left is or for what it stands for. You probably know it, but for some reason you are ok with it. I guess you are a leftist.

 

[wamose]

Time to recall the turtle. He's embarrassing Kentucky and the Republican party. Next thing you know he'll be leaving his wife for Sotomayor.

 

[Crepitus]

The most powerful GOP member has said he will fight to get Garland nominated. Thank you McConnell. He is not wanting to talk much about it though, as he is still a bit nervous about his voting base. This comes after nominee Garland vowed he would "hunt" Insurrectionists, right-wing militias, and supporters of the January 6th riot.

McConnell to support Garland for attorney general


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will support Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general, five years after blocking the judge's path to the Supreme Court.

“I do,” McConnell told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon when asked if he plans to back Garland. The Kentucky Republican did not elaborate when asked about his decision.

In before he's a RINO!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The most powerful GOP member has said he will fight to get Garland nominated. Thank you McConnell. He is not wanting to talk much about it though, as he is still a bit nervous about his voting base. This comes after nominee Garland vowed he would "hunt" Insurrectionists, right-wing militias, and supporters of the January 6th riot.

McConnell to support Garland for attorney general


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will support Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general, five years after blocking the judge's path to the Supreme Court.

“I do,” McConnell told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon when asked if he plans to back Garland. The Kentucky Republican did not elaborate when asked about his decision.

So McConnell is going to support someone who might be the AG, TOP LAW DOG WHO CAN'T DECIDE IF THOSE ANTIFA RIOTS WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED AT DARK?

 

[OldLady]

McConnell kisses the ass of whoever is in the WH. This is just more of him trying to cozy up to Biden. I mean....................he voted not to impeach Trump, but then went and gave a speech about how bad Trump's actions were. If Trump had been re-elected, McConnell would have never made that speech.

McConnell talks out both sides of his mouth.

Was he kissing Obama's ass when he refused to have a hearing on Garland for the Supreme Court?

He didnt have to kiss obamas ass at that point

He doesn't have to now either. Garland get confirmed without him. As I said, I think this is directed at Trump.

Sure it is. Mitch said he wants Trump prosecuted. Garland says he's got the insurrection on the top of his to do list.

 

[beagle9]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Trump wasn't a private citizen when he incited the riot, he was the president. He was being held accountable for his actions as president, not his actions as a private citizen. Do YOU understand now? Besides, if that was true, then why did so many Democrats vote to impeach?

Why lie and say he incited when he didn't incite ?

 

[beagle9]

Time to recall the turtle. He's embarrassing Kentucky and the Republican party. Next thing you know he'll be leaving his wife for Sotomayor.

I don't know, maybe he's playing it just like he has too. Otherwise if he doesn't, the left will take aim at the weakend down Republican's if they find that McConnell is their adversary instead of their Allie against anything Trump. He is in one hell of a spot. To say that Trump didn't leave the Republicans in one hell of a spot would be putting it lightly. Trump/McArthur is hopefully gearing up for a triumphant return to the Philippines/presidency of the USA. That's if he's still young and healthy enough to do it. We shall see.

It's like threading a needle right now, but it goes back to what they didn't learn that Trump was trying to teach them (QUIT APOLOGISING, AND START FIGHTING FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN). By the actions of McConnell, he is being a good ole politician like we've seen for years and years, ask for forgiveness now so you can live to fight another day, otherwise when you feel that you've been beaten.

 

[OldLady]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

 

[OldLady]

The most powerful GOP member has said he will fight to get Garland nominated. Thank you McConnell. He is not wanting to talk much about it though, as he is still a bit nervous about his voting base. This comes after nominee Garland vowed he would "hunt" Insurrectionists, right-wing militias, and supporters of the January 6th riot.

McConnell to support Garland for attorney general


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will support Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general, five years after blocking the judge's path to the Supreme Court.

“I do,” McConnell told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon when asked if he plans to back Garland. The Kentucky Republican did not elaborate when asked about his decision.

So McConnell is going to support someone who might be the AG, TOP LAW DOG WHO CAN'T DECIDE IF THOSE ANTIFA RIOTS WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED AT DARK?

Don't talk like a moron. Because there was no business going on inside is what he said.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

Not for nothing Old Lady, but these are two totally different scenarios. Belknap had been a citizen (if only for a short time) when the House tried to impeach him. Trump had been impeached by the House before he left office, meaning the impeachment needed to continue.

And, if Trump can't be tried for impeachment because he's a citizen now, that's not the point, he's being held to account for actions he did WHILE president. The Senate held a vote, missed the 2/3rds majority required, so Trump continues to skate free. And yeah, if it's unconstitutional, then why in the hell did McConnell hold a vote for impeachment? If it was unconstitutional, McConnell could have told the House that it was, and dropped the charges right there. But, he didn't because it WAS constitutional, which is why the vote was held in the Senate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Trumpsters will be attacking him, of course

Funny part: they don't even know why. They know less than nothing about Garland. All they know is that a Democrat nominated him for something, and Mitch broke the cult rules by agreeing to confirm him. Nevermind that we do this every single time a President takes office.

They are like amoeba: stimulus/response

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why lie and say he incited when he didn't incite ?

He did, and nobody on the planet outside the Trump cult thinks otherwise.

 

[OldLady]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

Not for nothing Old Lady, but these are two totally different scenarios. Belknap had been a citizen (if only for a short time) when the House tried to impeach him. Trump had been impeached by the House before he left office, meaning the impeachment needed to continue.

And, if Trump can't be tried for impeachment because he's a citizen now, that's not the point, he's being held to account for actions he did WHILE president. The Senate held a vote, missed the 2/3rds majority required, so Trump continues to skate free. And yeah, if it's unconstitutional, then why in the hell did McConnell hold a vote for impeachment? If it was unconstitutional, McConnell could have told the House that it was, and dropped the charges right there. But, he didn't because it WAS constitutional, which is why the vote was held in the Senate.

I agree with you.

 

[Leo123]

I watched Garland being questioned...He did not seem to know anything about current events. A typical DC denizen....Just like Ol' Mitch, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of Democrat leadership. They all need to go....Just retire....Leave all of US alone.

 

[San Souci]

the guy is a wuss......he is another who should have been retired years ago.....

RINO for sure. Part of the Swamp.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The most powerful GOP member has said he will fight to get Garland nominated. Thank you McConnell. He is not wanting to talk much about it though, as he is still a bit nervous about his voting base. This comes after nominee Garland vowed he would "hunt" Insurrectionists, right-wing militias, and supporters of the January 6th riot.

McConnell to support Garland for attorney general


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will support Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general, five years after blocking the judge's path to the Supreme Court.

“I do,” McConnell told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon when asked if he plans to back Garland. The Kentucky Republican did not elaborate when asked about his decision.

So McConnell is going to support someone who might be the AG, TOP LAW DOG WHO CAN'T DECIDE IF THOSE ANTIFA RIOTS WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED AT DARK?

Don't talk like a moron. Because there was no business going on inside is what he said.

and it doesn't matter a terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack regardless if people are around or not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

Not for nothing Old Lady, but these are two totally different scenarios. Belknap had been a citizen (if only for a short time) when the House tried to impeach him. Trump had been impeached by the House before he left office, meaning the impeachment needed to continue.

And, if Trump can't be tried for impeachment because he's a citizen now, that's not the point, he's being held to account for actions he did WHILE president. The Senate held a vote, missed the 2/3rds majority required, so Trump continues to skate free. And yeah, if it's unconstitutional, then why in the hell did McConnell hold a vote for impeachment? If it was unconstitutional, McConnell could have told the House that it was, and dropped the charges right there. But, he didn't because it WAS constitutional, which is why the vote was held in the Senate.

I agree with you.

so you'll have no objection when harris and biden get impeached for their handling of rioters before they were appointed to the executive branch of the government?

 

[TNHarley]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

Wrong.
The defense also brought up language in Article I requiring that “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside[.]” U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 6. Carpenter argued that this text, like the removal clause, demonstrated a presumption that only current officeholders could be impeached.

Belknap’s defense also relied on the latter half of the Article II removal clause, which states that an officer “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Based on this text, Blair maintained that the Senate could only “entertain articles of impeachment” against a person “who can ‘be removed from office on impeachment and conviction of treason,’ &c.

 

[Flash]

RINOs be RINOs.

Democrats would vote against Trump's nominees along party lines but Republicans kiss the ass of the Democrats every chance they get.

 

[TNHarley]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

Not for nothing Old Lady, but these are two totally different scenarios. Belknap had been a citizen (if only for a short time) when the House tried to impeach him. Trump had been impeached by the House before he left office, meaning the impeachment needed to continue.

And, if Trump can't be tried for impeachment because he's a citizen now, that's not the point, he's being held to account for actions he did WHILE president. The Senate held a vote, missed the 2/3rds majority required, so Trump continues to skate free. And yeah, if it's unconstitutional, then why in the hell did McConnell hold a vote for impeachment? If it was unconstitutional, McConnell could have told the House that it was, and dropped the charges right there. But, he didn't because it WAS constitutional, which is why the vote was held in the Senate.

Hey genius, what party was in power when the articles got introduced to the senate?
Hint: It wasnt Republicans.