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

[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.

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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

 

[San Souci]

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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

All of it. Proof that all Democrats are traitors.

 

[AFrench2]

The vote is Monday, FYI.

 

[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.

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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

All of it. Proof that all Democrats are traitors.

What an effort!

 

[beautress]

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.

Senator McConnell is doing the best he can to do right by the Constitution of the USA. I am likely more conservative than anyone here, and the way I see Senator McConnell's duties force him to represent all the Senators' constituents in every state so long as we are the United States. Kentucky has a long history of trying to keep the peace with a population that has to be represented as Democrats or Republican, and they held it together from the time only a handful more of their people wished to remain in the Union, and those who favored the Confederacy had to comply. Of all the states, none of them were as divided as Kentucky. McConnell I'm sure loves his own party the most, but he has to have peace with both sides to fulfill his leadership duties. My heart goes out to the plight Senator McConnell feels as his opposition behaves unfairly, and he is required to consider both parties as he performs his tasks as Senate leader.

If you dump Mitch, a guy named Chuck wants to take up the slack and you will lose your freedom if you encourage that. Let him walk softly, as annoying as you may find that, but keep in mind, Mitch carries a big stick. Just sayin.'

 

[beautress]

This may have bad implications if Trump sees that McConnell wants to support Joe's nominations. Trump may turn on McConnell.

Trump is wiser than that. His misfortune of being betrayed by Democrats fixing the election has made him into a better man. He has learned leadership requires more facets and taking more cuts than a good sized diamond. IOW, he is even a better man than he was before, and without much help from anyone who suffered more indignities, and the only man I can think of who has is Dubya who had morons on him for 8 consecutive years. The Donald only had the acerbic Schumers of the world on him for 4 years so far. True story.

 

[Rye Catcher]

This may have bad implications if Trump sees that McConnell wants to support Joe's nominations. Trump may turn on McConnell.

trump turns on everyone who does not kiss his obese ass. When will his supporters come to their senses and see what trump is, a man-child in an empty suit.

 

[San Souci]

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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

All of it. Proof that all Democrats are traitors.

What an effort!

Yes. Only takes a few words to expose the depravity of Democrats. All ya have to do is look at PRICES. Like for Gas. Or the locust swarms of uneducated illegals pouring over the border spreading disease and killing Americans. Or BLM and Antifa. Anything else? These things I mentioned are PROVEN.

 

[Pogo]

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.

If it is directed at Trump, that only PROVES that McConnell is a spineless coward. But, we already knew that when he voted to not impeach but then followed up his vote with a blistering speech about Trump (knowing he wasn't going to come back to the WH).

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

That's utter bullshit. If he thought the Senate didn't have the authority, THEN HE CAN'T CAST A VOTE AT ALL.
If you don't have the authority to vote "Guilty", then you also don't have the authority to vote "Not Guilty".

 

[Pogo]

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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

All of it. Proof that all Democrats are traitors.

What an effort!

Yes. Only takes a few words to expose the depravity of Democrats. All ya have to do is look at PRICES. Like for Gas. Or the locust swarms of uneducated illegals pouring over the border spreading disease and killing Americans. Or BLM and Antifa. Anything else? These things I mentioned are PROVEN.

MORE bullshit. Neither a POTUS nor politicians in general have anything to do with the price of gas.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

You still run with the lie about incitement, it is one of the reason why I despise the democrat party, they lie a lot about Trump.

 

[Meathead]

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.

Garland goes through. It's a no-brainer. Supreme Court no, life-long appointment no. McConnell was brilliant.

 

[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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

But you were wrong
It isnt obscure. It was a textual argument. Which is the only proper argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

You still run with the lie about incitement, it is one of the reason why I despise the democrat party, they lie a lot about Trump.

They lie about everything.

 

[schmidlap]

You still run with the lie about incitement, it is one of the reason why I despise the democrat party, they lie a lot about Trump.

You may be confused. It was not the Democratic Party that falsely claimed that the former guy had won "in a landslide!", a blatant lie that provoked the deadly goon attack on Congress that AG Garland will investigate and expose the complicit crackpots.

Conservatives, resistant to the cult of trumpery, support such a defense of American values:

"There is no question, none, that President Trump
is practically and morally responsible for provoking
the events of the day... A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name...
These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags
and screaming their loyalty to him."

"There's no question the president formed the mob,
the president incited the mob,
the president addressed the mob.
He lit the flame."​

 

[PoliticalChic]

You still run with the lie about incitement, it is one of the reason why I despise the democrat party, they lie a lot about Trump.

You may be confused. It was not the Democratic Party that falsely claimed that the former guy had won "in a landslide!", a blatant lie that provoked the deadly goon attack on Congress that AG Garland will investigate and expose the complicit crackpots.

Conservatives, resistant to the cult of trumpery, support such a defense of American values:

View attachment 461508
"There is no question, none, that President Trump
is practically and morally responsible for provoking
the events of the day... A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name...
These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags
and screaming their loyalty to him."


View attachment 461509
"There's no question the president formed the mob,
the president incited the mob,
the president addressed the mob.
He lit the flame."​

An actual eyewitness account form a man who was at the Capitol can be found here: I Saw Provocateurs At The Capitol Riot On Jan. 6

J. Michael Waller is Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy. His areas of concentration are propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion. He is the former Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington, DC. A former instructor with the Naval Postgraduate School, he is an instructor/lecturer at the John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg.

J. Michael Waller, Author at Center for Security Policy




“I Saw Provocateurs At The Capitol Riot On Jan. 6

The deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol bore the markings of an organized operation planned well in advance of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress.​

Agents-provocateurs. Scattered groups of men exhorting the marchers to gather closely and tightly toward the center of the outside of the Capitol building and prevent them from leaving; Fake Trump protesters. A few young men wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards and who did not fit in with the rest of the crowd in terms of their actions and demeanor, whom I presumed to be Antifa or other leftist agitators; and



Disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. A column of organized, disciplined men, wearing similar but not identical camouflage uniforms and black gear, some with helmets and GoPro cameras or wearing subdued Punisher skull patches.



All of these cells or groups stood out from the very large crowd by their behavior and overall demeanor.’


Never forget Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


They lie about everything.

And they have lap-dogs to carry the lies.....especially schmidlap-dogs.

 

[San Souci]

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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

All of it. Proof that all Democrats are traitors.

What an effort!

Yes. Only takes a few words to expose the depravity of Democrats. All ya have to do is look at PRICES. Like for Gas. Or the locust swarms of uneducated illegals pouring over the border spreading disease and killing Americans. Or BLM and Antifa. Anything else? These things I mentioned are PROVEN.

MORE bullshit. Neither a POTUS nor politicians in general have anything to do with the price of gas.

But their ACTIONS do.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You still run with the lie about incitement, it is one of the reason why I despise the democrat party, they lie a lot about Trump.

You may be confused. It was not the Democratic Party that falsely claimed that the former guy had won "in a landslide!", a blatant lie that provoked the deadly goon attack on Congress that AG Garland will investigate and expose the complicit crackpots.

Conservatives, resistant to the cult of trumpery, support such a defense of American values:

View attachment 461508
"There is no question, none, that President Trump
is practically and morally responsible for provoking
the events of the day... A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name...
These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags
and screaming their loyalty to him."


View attachment 461509
"There's no question the president formed the mob,
the president incited the mob,
the president addressed the mob.
He lit the flame."​

Ha ha, your deflection is noted for what it is, you can't support your insurrection lie.

Thank you.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

All of it. Proof that all Democrats are traitors.

What an effort!

Yes. Only takes a few words to expose the depravity of Democrats. All ya have to do is look at PRICES. Like for Gas. Or the locust swarms of uneducated illegals pouring over the border spreading disease and killing Americans. Or BLM and Antifa. Anything else? These things I mentioned are PROVEN.

I don't mean to be mean, but you've been totally brainwashed and you are the problem. You, and others like you demean all Democrats using hate posts, which are never a solution; thus what is already a problem is exacerbated. With your echoing of hate and fear propaganda your ignorance leads to discord and violence.

 

[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.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.

Which part, lazy ass?

All of it. Proof that all Democrats are traitors.

What an effort!

Yes. Only takes a few words to expose the depravity of Democrats. All ya have to do is look at PRICES. Like for Gas. Or the locust swarms of uneducated illegals pouring over the border spreading disease and killing Americans. Or BLM and Antifa. Anything else? These things I mentioned are PROVEN.

I don't mean to be mean, but you've been totally brainwashed and you are the problem. You, and others like you demean all Democrats using hate posts, which are never a solution; thus what is already a problem is exacerbated. With your echoing of hate and fear propaganda your ignorance leads to discord and violence.

Your entire political ideology is built on fear and hate, boomer.