Murkowski: ‘I Cannot Vote to Convict’ Trump
“The response to the president’s behavior is not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced she will vote not to convict President Donald Trump.
BREAKING: Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski announces that she will vote to acquit President Trump: “The response to the president’s behavior is not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot … I cannot vote to convict.” https://t.co/PQQjWnkiI8 pic.twitter.com/xjkfQBBkY7
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) February 3, 2020
BREAKING: Sen. Lisa Murkowski on her vote in impeachment trial: “I cannot vote to convict. The Constitution provides for impeachment but does not demand it in all instances.” https://t.co/lCrIAfTgkR pic.twitter.com/H2ajgeSD00
— ABC News (@ABC) February 3, 2020
Sen. Lisa Murkowski: “The structure we built should have been sufficient, but the foundation upon which it rested was rotted.”
“The House failed in its responsibilities … the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display.” https://t.co/l3gIEDPZzi pic.twitter.com/H40jyhCOvz
— ABC News (@ABC) February 3, 2020
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Question: Just how does the Senate voting to remove him from office remove him from the ballot for 2020?
Impeachment not only removes, but disqualifies from holding office.
That is not correct. IF there is a Senate vote to convict a person on one or more Articles of Impeachment, the person is removed from whatever office held. But in order to prevent the person from again holding office, there must be a separate vote on a motion to preclude the person from ever again holding office. Example: Alcee Hastings was a Federal District Court Judge who was found to have accepted bribes for decisions. He was Impeached by the House and Convicted by the Senate, but no motion to prevent his ever holding Federal public office was made. And I’m sure you know that some voters in Florida like having a US Representative who was convicted of taking bribes.
Even if the senate had banned him from “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”, that would not include elected office. The senate can’t forbid the public from electing whomever they like.
That’s what I’ve been led to believe too but what is the legal basis establishing that? Impeachment is so rare and there doesn’t seem to be anything in the Constitution addressing this. So even if the Senate were to vote to ban him from ever holding public office again, what would be the defense?
Doesn’t matter. Not going to happen anyway.
Well then, if that’s the case why have any impeachment powers at all written into the Constitution. Seems rather pointless if the House impeaches you, and the Senate finds you guilty of the crimes and you can still be elected to “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” such as the Presidency, or Senate or House. What’s the point to it all.
The legal basis is the definition of “Office under the United States”. That term is used several times in the constitution, and every time it means an office that is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. It never includes elected office. Elected offices are not “under the United States”.
That’s why the Foreign Emoluments clause doesn’t apply to the president. It applies only to a “person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States]”.
The point of impeachment and removal is to get rid of the offender immediately, and to prevent the president from appointing him to some office. If the people choose to reelect him, that’s their right.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
It has been argued that while removal from office is mandatory upon conviction, that disqualification to hols office is not.
Rep. Alcee Hastings was impeached as a judge and convicted by the Senate, who nonetheless, ran for Congress and was elected to the House.
The disqualification does not apply to ELECTED office. Hastings couldn’t be nominated as a judge again, or appointed to any office (Cabinet, Ambassador, etc.) in the Executive Branch, but he could hold office as an elected Congresscritter.
You are correct that it doesn’t apply to elected office, but it is also only an option that the senate has. When it removed Hastings from the bench it could have banned him from all federal appointive offices, but it chose not to, so he’s still eligible for those should a Dem president one day want to appoint him to one.
F U Senator Murkowski!
Who is going to step forward to primary her? I want to send that person some money!
Why not you, WW?
What’s your problem, genius? I mean, other than reading comprehension?
She sucks, let’s face it.
She needs to go.
Ms Mighty Mitt Romney will be the only Republican Senator to vote to convict Trump. Collins is smart enough to vote present. So Mittens will become the first United States Senator in the history of the Republic to vote to convict a President from his own Party. Worse he will do it on bogus charges.
He needs to be tossed from the Republican Caucus.
Mittens needs to bunk with new Democrat: Bill Kristol; ex Senator Jeff the Flake (who gave up his seat to hate Trump) ; ex Governor John Kasich and soon to be ex-husband George Conway.
WE don’t have a sufficient advantage in number of Senators to toss anyone, even Mittens, from the caucus. It takes 51 Senators caucusing to form the majority in the Senate and we only have a margin of 2 and Pierre Delecto knows it.
Seems Mitten’s daddy had a history of reneging and backstabbing too.
Thousands and thousands of auto workers and the auto suppliers were put out of work do to his daddy’s recalcitrance.
May candy crowley haunt him forever.
what difference does it make, if he keeps voting with the democrats they can say they have bipartisanship, if they force him to be a democrat that’s not an option
He doesn’t generally vote with the Democrats. 99% of the time he votes with the Republicans. But if he’s forced out of the party that’s unlikely to remain the case.
The President did nothing wrong.
I am more worried about those who keep covering for Joe Biden’s obvious corruption.
A quote for our great President Trump.
“But I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble.” – Psalm 59:16 KJV
it’s called projection, they blame Trump for biden’s corruption.
A.K.A Lisa Murkowski announces she will run for re-election!
Why is she wearing a carpet?
Talking past the sale. Trump didn’t do anything wrong in the first place. He’s after what went on with the 2016 hoaxes.
If Murkowski didn’t have a Republican Party to hold hostage, she would be powerless.