Image 01 Image 03

House Votes to Impeach Trump, again

House Votes to Impeach Trump, again

One Article of Impeachment: “Incitement of Insurrection”

The House has voted in favor of House Resolution 24. The final count is 232 in favor, including 10 Republicans, 197 against.

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted Yes:

Liz Cheney, WY
Tony Gonzalez, OH
Jaime Herrera-Beutler, WA
John Katko, NY
Adam Kinzinger, Ill.
Peter Meijer, MI
Dan Newhouse, WA
Tom Rice, SC
Fred Upton, MI
David Valadao, CA

Here is the key portion of the text of the Resolution 24:


The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office … under the United States”. In his conduct while President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide”. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.

President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

It’s unclear what happens from here. As mentioned earlier, unless the Senate trial takes place before trump leaves office, I don’t think the Senate has constitutional jurisdiction, Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office. That said, as a reader pointed out to me, the likelihood SCOTUS would issue an injunction halting a Senate trial is significantly less than SCOTUS making a ruling once Trump has been convicted (if that happens) and suffers some concrete harm. So the Senate could have its trial, but whether the result stands would be the issue.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released this statement:

The House of Representatives has voted to impeach the President. The Senate process will now begin at our first regular meeting following receipt of the article from the House.

“Given the rules, procedures, and Senate precedents that govern presidential impeachment trials, there is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week. The Senate has held three presidential impeachment trials. They have lasted 83 days, 37 days, and 21 days respectively.

“Even if the Senate process were to begin this week and move promptly, no final verdict would be reached until after President Trump had left office. This is not a decision I am making; it is a fact. The President-elect himself stated last week that his inauguration on January 20 is the ‘quickest’ path for any change in the occupant of the presidency.

“In light of this reality, I believe it will best serve our nation if Congress and the executive branch spend the next seven days completely focused on facilitating a safe inauguration and an orderly transfer of power to the incoming Biden Administration. I am grateful to the offices and institutions within the Capitol that are working around the clock, alongside federal and local law enforcement, to prepare for a safe and successful inauguration at the Capitol next Wednesday.”

House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said they will hold a trial.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It will be helpful to know who the Republicans are.

2smartforlibs | January 13, 2021 at 4:34 pm

Since the Senate will never act because of time. This is more waste of resources by the knuckle-dragging left at will now never lose power again.

Colonel Travis | January 13, 2021 at 4:34 pm

I’m ready for separation. Don’t really care how it happens.

10 Republicans who are bent on destroying the Party.

Connivin Caniff | January 13, 2021 at 4:38 pm

They may have a hard time, a very hard time, arguing that Trump incited this mob, now that all the facts are coming out. This whole fiasco was pre-planned, and the mob came to DC with all their equipment and vicious intent before the President uttered a single word. Why aren’t the Republicans and Fox explaining this in defense of the President? Maybe they should read John Sullivan: Even I could win this impeachment case for The Donald.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 13, 2021 at 4:39 pm

Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office … under the United States”.

That disqualifies the whole of the democrat party.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 13, 2021 at 4:40 pm

And Liz Cheney has shown herself to be a despicable lowlife idiot. It’s a real shame, but she is one of the worst dirtbags on the Hill – putrid in every sense – which is no easy feat.

    I don’t see how she gets away with this as 69% of her state voted for Trump in 2020

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to MarkS. | January 13, 2021 at 4:53 pm

      Hopefully, she will disappear from public view and never be heard of again.

      It’s unreal. I was a strong supporter of her father, who was a great man and the strength in Bush’s White House (my 2000 vote for the GOP was for Cheney, not Bush). Liz started out okay but she has really lost it. If I never hear from her again it will be too soon.

        A lot of us come to regret our children’s transgressions, even as our parents had to deal with ours, but they’re still our kids. I’m sure Cheney has had his moments. Not McCain, though. That apple fell into the same swamp from which it arose.

        Me too. I ended up not voting for Bush the first time, even with Cheney on the ticket, but only because NY wasn’t going to go R anyway. If I had been in a swing state I would have voted for Bush/Cheney, because of Cheney. In 2004 I did vote for them, because Bush had turned out a lot better than his father.

The Democrats (and DC Rinos) remind me of the woman who plugged up her tea pot spout because she was annoyed by the whistling.

That did not end well

Incitement to insurrection? That’s going to be extremely difficult to prove, if the law is followed.

When the Party burns your neighborhood to the ground, that is justice.

When they disenfranchise you, that is democracy.

When you don’t play along with their games, that is treason.

So after all their lies, gaslighting, bullshit, and projection, only TEN Republicans voted yes.

Twitter is not the American People.

I thanked him for his service.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 13, 2021 at 4:50 pm

And the people who are claiming that they can impeach and try someone who is not in office, that is ridiculous. If that were true then the Congress could pick any people they wanted to and impeach them and bar them from seeking any office in the future, which is just totally insane. But, then, most of what Congress has been doing under dems has nothing short of totally insane (and un-AMerican … to be charitable).

    From Wikipedia, so take the source for what it’s worth. “…Starting on April 5, 1876, (William W.) Belknap (former Sec’y of War) was tried by the Senate. For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March. Belknap’s defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did. Belknap was charged with five articles of impeachment, and the Senate listened to over 40 witnesses. With 40 votes needed for conviction, the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap of all charges by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority. All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money from Marsh, but 23 who voted for acquittal believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction.”

    Also taking MSM for what it’s worth, McConnell thinks he can proscribe a former POTUS, block Mr. Trump forevermore from public office . The questions for him & the other hostile R senators are, do they dare to do it & can they get away with it?

That better be 10 Republicans looking for work in 2 years.

Ferfuggs eggs | January 13, 2021 at 5:00 pm

They had no problem fast tracking this. Where was their sense of urgency for the virus relief bill? Seems to me that they have some real rears about something and it isn’t an angry mob at Xoe’s coronation.

Spending the next two years constantly looking over their shoulders is going to be a rough way to live. Their value to Dems as useful idiots has already expired.

Trump has exceeded my expectations. Two impeachments. It’s remarkable how he triggered so many Democrats with America First policies.

When the GOP takes the house, they should impeach the Dem President daily. I mean make it as regular as saying the pledge of allegiance.

    MarkS in reply to Andy. | January 13, 2021 at 5:50 pm

    After DOJ and SCOTUS sanctified election fraud, the Repubs will never take the House or anything else

      NYBruin in reply to MarkS. | January 13, 2021 at 6:54 pm

      You don’t have to believe in widespread election fraud (I don’t) to be utterly pessimistic. Democratic policies will enshrine voting by mail with the most liberal standards imaginable (you can forget about showing an ID to vote as well), besides importing hordes of “refugees” and others from the 3rd World, who will consistently vote “D”. Had enough yet? They’re just getting started: statehood for Puerto Rico and DC (and maybe Guam), and possibly packing the Supreme Court.

      The days of calls for a smaller, less intrusive Federal government will soon be be a quaint notion from days gone by.. .

Why do they not play the one sentence where Trump said PEACEFUL?

I am so surprised.
Not really.

I mean, with thee outcome of the investigation and all…

The favor needs to be returned in kind if the Republicans take the House in 2022.

    MarkSmith in reply to kelly_3406. | January 13, 2021 at 5:31 pm

    The Republican will never take the house again. It is over for them “if” there is ever a real election.

      “The Republican will never take the house again. It is over for them “if” there is ever a real election.”

      I would agree with this in the short-term because the Party will either split or lose a huge proportion of its voters.

      The only way the Republicans could win, I would think, is if the Trump supporters take over, otherwise it may be left to another “Tea Party” movement.

      But then, I expect the Democrats to split too.

    Once the Dems have gotten rid of the Electoral College, and taken all of the other action they’ve threatened, there will never be another Republican majority again.

      Paul in reply to rochf. | January 13, 2021 at 6:02 pm

      If they start pursuing their threats of DC/PR statehood and/or packing the courts, I imagine we’ll see some rapid movement towards secession by quite a few states, Texas among them.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to kelly_3406. | January 13, 2021 at 10:27 pm

    I’m never voting for any of those Republicans ever again. Portman and Gonzalez can kiss my ass. I’ll support their opponent in the primary or run myself. And if that doesn’t work, I’ll vote for the Dem in the general.

I can’t wait for 2023 when we regain the majority in Congress. I hope whoever is speaker makes it the first order of business to IMPEACH Harris. China joe* will be long gone by then.

Perhaps Pelosi can be expelled as well.

2smartforlibs | January 13, 2021 at 5:28 pm

PMSDNC is gleeful that the trial will start after he’s out of office. That’s not the way it works.

I’m not American but aren’t you supposed to present evidence and establish guilt in an impeachment.

By the way, what’s the current thinking on whether impeachment is subject to judicial review?

    Paul in reply to Brit. | January 13, 2021 at 5:44 pm

    The impeachment by the House is akin to an indictment. He must be convicted by a 2/3 vote of the Senate in order to be removed from office. But the Senate doesn’t reconvene until after Biden is inaugurated, so this is all just more Kabuki theatre.

    daniel_ream in reply to Brit. | January 13, 2021 at 6:23 pm

    Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. There’s no relevant law, and no definition of “high crimes and misdemeanours”. The houses deliberate, and then they vote. If they were so inclined, they could impeach and remove the President for eating a ham sandwich.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Brit. | January 13, 2021 at 7:40 pm

    Impeachment is a purely political act here and is not subject to legal standards or porcedures. Nor is it subject to judicial review. If it was in any way now, it would be by the contemporary equivalent of Peoples’ Court Judge Roland Freisler.

    Subotai Bahadur

    mark311 in reply to Brit. | January 14, 2021 at 3:58 am

    In respect to your first point their a long time line of speeches that claim that the vote will be rigged and was rigged this consequently whipped up a crowd and caused the events. Now thats clearly disputed by many here on LI but that’s the basic synopsis of the democrat argument.

    On your other point I think the answer is no, as far as I’m aware the process is a political one and therefore nonjusticiable ie not open to review. The constitution makes impeachment the ‘sole power’ reside within Congress to impeach and the senate to try. Which leads to an interesting point on whether the impeachment can be challenged or not even if it deviates from the constitutional framework. In other words it’s a significant grey area.

Assuming they can’t get to a trial before the 20th, how do you remove someone from office after they’ve left office? Pelosi really carries a grudge.

    Paul in reply to rochf. | January 13, 2021 at 5:46 pm

    And now she gets to carry around the label of “two time loser” who got Trumps nuts slapped across her face so many times she’s starting to like it.

    I heard Ben & Jerry’s is going to make a special “Trump Nuts” ice cream flavor just for Nancy.

    BEdwards in reply to rochf. | January 13, 2021 at 5:53 pm

    She’s a Sicilian and they carry their grudges to the grave. Did you see the recent news article about her father having been investigated by the FBI for ties to the mob? Not surprising. Vito Corleone would have been proud to call Nancy his daughter.

    mark311 in reply to rochf. | January 14, 2021 at 3:59 am


    Because one of the potential remedies if he loses is permanent barring from office. It’s not just about removing him.

      Obie1 in reply to mark311. | January 14, 2021 at 10:23 am

      It bars him from HOLDING office, not running for one. Think about it.

        mark311 in reply to Obie1. | January 14, 2021 at 12:31 pm

        No the wording is as follows

        “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.”

        So disqualification from holding office at any time is in the plain wording of the text

          That’s the penalty part and not automatic. If convicted by two-thirds of the Senate, a simple majority is needed for penalty that cannot exceed removal from office and etc. With Democrats holding a simple majority by that point, Republicans will not vote to convict in the first place.

“In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.”

That’s an allegation that claims of fraud were false. Surely this means that the claims should be thoroughly investigated by an independent body to establish the falsehood?

    nordic_prince in reply to Brit. | January 13, 2021 at 5:49 pm

    Perhaps in a sane world, but don’t forget – we are talking about CONgress here.

    Paul in reply to Brit. | January 13, 2021 at 5:53 pm

    You raise a very interesting point… by tying their impeachment charge to his claims of voter fraud, it seems they’ve opened the door to a thorough airing-out of the vast trove of fraud allegations that have thus-far been virtually ignored by the courts and the press and censored by big-tech. IF Schumer is crazy enough to actually pursue this after Gropey Joe* takes office, that is.

      NYBruin in reply to Paul. | January 13, 2021 at 6:58 pm

      The allegations have already been aired in numerous courts – including before Trump-appointed judges – and thrown out.

        txvet2 in reply to NYBruin. | January 13, 2021 at 7:25 pm

        I wish you guys would think up a new lie. That one’s getting old.

        Paul in reply to NYBruin. | January 13, 2021 at 7:52 pm

        Really? Specifically which allegations and which courts? Please elucidate.

          mark311 in reply to Paul. | January 14, 2021 at 4:06 am


          He is correct, the County Antrim lawsuit is still ongoing but we already know a lot from it. Some of the expert reports have been rebutted in public on that case. Additionally the Brann judgement did originally have allegations of fraud contained within it but this was taken out by the Trump team if memory serves. This is where there is a major issue. Trumps legal team have publically alleged fraud but when it comes to many of the cases this aspect is left out. Primarily because there is so little evidence of worth that supports there case. Why do you think there are so many bi-partisan decisions.

          Paul in reply to Paul. | January 14, 2021 at 10:51 am

          No, there have been virtually zero courts that have actually heard any of the allegations. There have been a bunch of courts that have refused to hear cases, a lot of suits dismissed for lack of standing, didn’t file timely, etc.

          But there has been no discovery and actual airing of the issues in a court of law.

          That is what is so infuriating, especially when progressives smugly rejoin “that’s debunked, the courts shot that down”

          Utter bullshit.

          mark311 in reply to Paul. | January 14, 2021 at 12:37 pm

          @Paul I’ve mentioned specific cases where the evidence as it is has been airs. So saying no doesn’t really cut it as a rebuttal. It’s a matter of public record given the release of a number of those expert reports. Those reports underpinned a substantial part of the Trump case as they have been adopted elsewhere in other court proceedings. And as I’ve mentioned a number of times the Trump teams public case hasn’t matched the one actually presented to court. The simple reason why being that they don’t have evidence. Hand counts, signature audits, export report rebuttals, analysis of avidavits all point to the same thing. No fraud. There may well be fraud in deeper investigation and others make an argument that the electoral controls make it easy to carry out (I don’t agree) thus it wouldn’t be detectable. That argument has some validity but in terms of actual evidence the case is pretty limited.

          Mac45 in reply to Paul. | January 14, 2021 at 12:57 pm

          You keep citing the opinion of Matthew Brann. In the case before his court, the Trump campaign presented evidence showing that the State of Pennsylvania had allowed Democrat dominated counties and precincts the opportunity to cure ballots, following thee election, while denying the same to Republican dominated counties. Brann actually acknowledged that the evidence supported this. But, he went far out on the legalistic limb and claimed that stopping the certification of the vote tally, until such time as the offending ballots had been culled, somehow disenfranchised all 7 million voter in the state. And, he further “reasoned” that not a single voter can be allowed to be disenfranchised. What was so interesting about this “logic” is that it ignores the fact that every improper or illegal vote, which is counted, disenfranchises a voter who voted legally and properly. In other words, it was disingenuous, at best, or insane, at worst.

    mark311 in reply to Brit. | January 14, 2021 at 4:03 am

    Depends if there is an evidence trail. Many of the allegations were really just conspiracy theories so what was there to investigate exactly. There wasn’t much of a federal level investigation but at state level there have been some , although I think it gets messy because those states are defendants in many cases as well so the presentation of findings is limited to the court docket. You won’t find a systematic report on all the allegations from a gov body. The best that can be done so far is read the various judgements and piece your own conclusion together.

    Mac45 in reply to Brit. | January 14, 2021 at 12:40 pm

    The charge that Trump made false claims that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen through election fraud has to be put into the record by the Dems. The reason is simple. There is ample evidence that extensive election law violations and irregularities occurred in that election. The number of ballots affected comprise several times the margin of victory for Biden, in each state. And, comprehensive evidence of actual fraudulent activities increases daily.

    While the fraud and irregularities are bad enough, in and of themselves, the real scandal is that NO government organ, which has the authority and duty to police the election system, refuses to do so. They have all turned a blind eye to the evidence and are ignoring the problem. This is analogous to a drag racer pouring sugar into the fuel tank of his opponent, so that the opponent loses. When claimed, it is investigated and, if proven, the winner is stripped of his title and it is awarded to the opponent, by default.

    Now, the political establishment finds themselves in a Catch-22. If they take action to remove the fraudulent, illegal and improper votes, Trump will win. This will result in widespread civil unrest from the liberal activist, who have already shown themselves more than ready to resort to violence to achieve heir goals. OOn the other hand, if they refuse too address the situation, they face a potential of similar action from the Trump supporters. They felt that they had little to fear from that direction. However, pressure is building among Trump supporters to force appropriate action be taken to redress the situation. What to do? Even with nearly the entire news media, including the “conservative” and alternative media now ignoring the election fraud issue, it is still percolating among Trump supporters. There is likely to be a time of reckoning in the future.

    What to do?

Gotta laugh at some of these “We’ll get ’em next time!” posts. We “got ’em” this time. Bigly.

How you gonna fix our system by voting when we have rampant and systemic fraud? If we are allowed to vote some people out, then it isn’t a win for us because the Uniparty are the ones that decided it would happen.

Nigel Farage wrote on the implications of this

The Telegraph, a supposedly right-wing paper which has allowed no comments on the American election since it discovered that most of its readers supported the idea of a fraudulent election opened this comments by mistake before rapidly preventing them.

Usually it deletes the comments but it appears to have forgotten this time.

    mark311 in reply to Brit. | January 14, 2021 at 12:39 pm

    The Telegraph is right wing, it maybe that the comment section was full of bad actors and as such they were covering themselves.

The Dems and the 10 Republicans demonstrate they are more focused on spanking and humiliating Trump than getting money in the hands of people who have lost jobs because of the Covid lockdown.

Assuming our government exists in any form resembling what the Founders intended, in a few years history will record this as the moment the U.S.’ descent to Third World status accelerated precipitously.

    WestRock in reply to zennyfan. | January 13, 2021 at 7:26 pm

    You are also assuming that records will be disappeared and history rewritten. We have witnessed the end of the Republic. And I get the feeling we have been a protectorate of China for a few decades now.

This E.O. thing came up again on Election Interfereance, so I dug it up, and this link claims it was activated.
So, this is a Pompeao press release, and it says that the Treasury Department is looking at the foreign interfereance.

What it doesn’t say is if the E.O. is fully in effect?
I am wondering what is cooking.

Here’s the link:

Well, now you have a starter list of who to primary in the next cycle, if you still consider yourself a republican. The only reason I haven’t re-registered is because we have closed primaries and I can help hasten their demise by helping to sabotage their primaries.

Do you remember how willfully negligent Pelosi and her choir of eunuchs gleefully passed ObamaCare, around Christmas Eve, without it even having been written?

Yep, the pass a law that no one wants, no one has read and that doesn’t even exist, just because they knew they could not do it if a majority of Americans prevailed in the House.

Has anyone committed a more reprehensible act of willful fiduciary malfeasance than a Pelosi legislature? Well, at least in the formerly United StateS?

    If I had my druthers, we would have an amendment requiring (among other things) 1 day for every 5 pages of legislation, between the time it’s produced for the general chamber and the time any vote can be held on it (and it has to be within the numbered Congress during which it’s introduced).

    (And, yes, I’m aware that you literally couldn’t get things like that last “budget” act through. Nor 0bamaCare. That’s actually sorta the point.)

NotSoFriendlyGrizzly | January 13, 2021 at 7:35 pm

I would argue that the actions of the Democrats are the actual “incitement to violenceinsurrection” that is being claimed. Oh, I’m not referring to the various “peaceful protests” that occurred in the past year, but rather their (and various Republican partners-in-crime) actions in 1) refusing to follow the legal process, 2) refusing to allow multiple lawsuits due to “no injury before the fact”, 3) refusal to listen to multiple lawsuits to do “sorry-you-waited-to-long” (even though less than 24 hours had elapsed), 4) refusal to investigate (even if, in the end, it turned out there was no “there” there (something I personally do not believe) the “alleged” irregularities in the election, 5) by calling for the usurpation of the legally and lawfully elected President of the United States via the 25th Amendment, 6) by attempted to convince our Professional Military to enact a Military Coup against the legally and lawfully elected President of the United States (which she admitted to and did in full public view of We the People), and 7) impeaching, for the second time, the legally and lawfully elected President of the United States with absolutely no grounds (which many constitutional attorneys, even those who hate President Trump, have said is absolute BS). If there is any further violence, it is 100% on the heads of Democrats and all but a handful of Republicans.

These are unserious people, doing unserious things, in order to do only one thing serious: gain power over you and me.

Rule By Man is now in full flower. They won’t be constrained by good sense, the law, the Constitution, or the facts.

That leaves only one thing left to constrain them – you guess what it is and where you can buy it.

Less than 5% of House Republicans voted to impeachment.

But Mitch and Schmucky think they might be able to get over a third of Republican Senators to vote to convict?

Not likely.

It’s like the left doesn’t even know what “impeach” means. Accused, not convicted, morons. And who give a rat’s behind if the clearly partisan, petty, treasonous dems “accuse” POTUS of anything? Ooooooh… you’ve been accused twice by the same partisan scumbags. What a stain that must be…

Around half a million assembled to back the President, and hundreds, perhaps, who may or may not be “Trump supporters” protesting. Go peacefully to your homes, leave the place cleaner than when you first arrived, and thank you for your support.

    mark311 in reply to n.n. | January 14, 2021 at 4:11 am

    They didn’t leave it cleaner that’s for sure , don’t remember videos of a Viking with mop ?

75 million. That’s why they are afraid.

Another historical record for Trump:
First President to ever be Impeached twice.

Just another feather in his hat…
And a badge of honor for the rest of us.

Those silly Dems don’t understand that we like it.

And the harder they push, the dumber they look.

Don’t be fooled by this guy, Crenshaw, he’s a RINO through amd through


Dan Crenshaw
Let’s get some truth on the record:
has a hell of a lot more backbone than most, & is a principled leader with a fierce intellect. She will continue to be a much needed leader in the conference, with my full support.

We can disagree without tearing eachother apart.
Quote Tweet

PoliticsAddict | January 14, 2021 at 7:37 am

Hi to all of you in the US. I don‘t know if this has been mentioned or discussed previously, but wanted to pose a question/alternative view, that in fact Trump can‘t lose from impeachment.

The argument would run like this:

– If the Senate is held up by unanimous consent, will be a PR battle as to who is stopping stimulus etc. But given he will have already left office, wouldn‘t bet the public won‘t see it as an irrelevant circus that backfires on the Democrats.

– If Senate hearings start and Trump is denied the ability to call all his witnesses, he will say they are scared of the truth and it will look like a kangaroo court.

– If he can call all witnesses, won‘t part of his defence involve showing lots of nice videos of Democrats saying far worse things? Also, most importantly, this will be prime time TV and won‘t he take that opportunity to present a bunch of evidence about election fraud. Because if he is accused of inciting things by spreading false rumours, surely a defence is that they were in fact true. This is THE big platform to show what they have, given courts have denied standing to showcase in various cases. All of this is aside from a bunch of eminent lawyers that will say his statements don‘t reach the standard of incitement.

– If he is acquitted, he wins.

– If he is convicted but shows decent arguments about fraud, hypocrisy and fraud, he becomes a martyr and fires up the base for his successor.

In fact, isn‘t the most likely case that he gets to dominate the start of the Biden presidency, gets to present a bunch of evidence that many on the left will not have seen due to lack of coverage, gets to highlight Democrat real incitement and then is finally acquitted?

Arguably this process could be the thing that undoes the damage to him of the last few weeks.

What would the US view of this be?

    The President won’t be allowed to present any of that evidence. The Senate will rule it irrelevant (by a simple majority vote).

    His (accurate) claims that this makes it a kangaroo court will be believed by everyone who already suspects election fraud and disbelieved by everyone else.

    No one will be persuaded either way, the political division in the country will just be made worse.

    Your first point, about Dems getting the blame for wasting time on this, is more likely. But the electorate’s opinion of Congress really couldn’t get much lower. Only child molesters have a worse reputation, at this point.

      PoliticsAddict in reply to clintack. | January 14, 2021 at 8:16 am

      Aha sorry I was mistaken. I thought in impeachment last time, the Chief Justice presides (not the VP), so the Dems don‘t have a majority and he might be more amenable. Is that wrong?

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to PoliticsAddict. | January 14, 2021 at 11:35 am

        You’re not mistaken. Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over any impeachment trial that takes place in the Senate.

        But that’s the problem. Roberts is a hopelessly compromised justice and no longer acts/makes decisions in an impartial manner nor according to any reading of existing law (up to and including the Constitution). He simply makes his decisions based upon whichever way the political wind is blowing. And that’s blowing towards the democrats a this point. And Roberts knows that full well.

With all that’s known about Hunter Biden’s treachery and the fact that Sleepy knew of or was part of these activities, why in the name of God has Joseph Biden not been placed under investigation that should lead up to his impeachment. On the down side it would leave comrade Kamala in charge.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to charlesw04. | January 14, 2021 at 11:40 am

    Because the democrats in power know they don’t need to impeach Biden. They simply have to wait a bit after the inauguration before Biden has a “medical issue” and/or “accident” (and yes, I wouldn’t put it past Harris to push Biden down the stairs when fake Dr. Jill wasn’t watching) and then Harris simply uses the 25th amendment to remove Biden and install herself as president. The democrats would easily go along with it as they want Harris running the country. Not Biden.

    Either way the democrats get what they want. Harris as president. That’s what it’s been all about since day one of the election campaign. A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris. It wasn’t and isn’t a secret.

      That argument doesn’t really make much sense, Trump is a similar age and no one has suggested the same if him

      Harris is ambitious. She wants to be first woman president. Of course she has a plan to get there. She knows she can never get elected as president as no one will elect a marxist. So her best shot is to knock Biden out of the way. She and her fellow marxist will find a way. 25th Amend or Impeach or something. Just wait. She will get him out within 9 months. Probably sooner b/c she wants time to push her agenda while Congress is uniparty.

    mark311 in reply to charlesw04. | January 14, 2021 at 1:12 pm

    Because most of what we know is hear say and conspiracy theory shite

    Joe knew?
    Well, he was actually running the game with an iron-fist.

    And one example is enough…

    You recall Joe’s Son Bo died of cancer.

    Well, Joe was using Bo the same way he is using Hunter, as a front. Taking 1/2 the rake back under the table.

    After Bo passed, there was a threat of losing control of that money.

    So, he had Hunter Marry Bo’s Widow to maintain control.
    … and you know how good Hunter is with kids.

    It’s just awful.

Those ten aisle-crossers have declared themselves to be members of the Swamp Party. Refer to them accordingly.

In light of new evidence, these 10 Republican House members must withdraw their impeachment vote or resign NOW.
> > Tell them. Tweet them, call them, turn on some heat.

Gonzalez (OH)
Rice (SC)
Newhouse (WA)
Meijer (MI)
Kinzinger (IL)
Katko (NY)
Cheney (WY)
Herrera Beutler (WA)
Upton (MI)
Valadao (CA)

Congress, consisting of our up-standing Representatives who created a slush fund to pay hush money to their sexual victims, voted to impeach our President. And the money they used was OURS, not their personal funds. And the public is NOT allowed to know who used those funds. There is no better example of what they think of their constituents.

All of them, including those who voted to create this scheme, need to GO and they need to repay any money paid out!