Image 01 Image 03

Mitt Romney on board with post-departure impeachment trial of Trump

Mitt Romney on board with post-departure impeachment trial of Trump

The text of the Constitution is clear to the contrary, but Romney says “the preponderance of opinion is that yes, an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office.”

A post-departure Senate impeachment trial of a former President is unconstitutional. Just read the plain text of the constitution, which talks of a trial of the president, not a former president. None of the opinion to the contrary explains the absense of the word “former” (or similar) in the text of the constituational impeachment provisions.

For legal analysis, see my prior posts:

As mentioned in that last linked post above:

The arguments in favor of a post-departure Senate trial are convoluted, whereas the argument against simply looks at the text of the Constitution. There are arguments that in a small number of non-presidential cases the Senate attempted a post-departure impeachment trial, but those instances are not really on point, and in any event, because the Senate on a small number of prior occasions may have unconstitutionally grabbed power does not justify doing again here.

Add to it, Jonathan Turley’s response to those who claim that a very small number of non-presidential impeachment trial attempts are precedent – Turley concludes they are not. Moreover, the notion of “precedent” as we normally use it for court cases does not apply. How the Senate acted in a non-presidential case in the 1800s is not binding on the current Senate — what is binding is the text of the Constitution.

There are reports that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside, because he can only preside at the trial of “the President,” and Trump no longer is the President, but I’ve not seen anything directly from Roberts or SCOTUS on that.

Enter one Mitt Romney, who just announced that he considers the trial to be constitutional based on the “preponderence” of opinion.

Romney endorses “the preponderance” of opinion that “an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office.”

Trump’s conduct “calls for a trial,” he says. “If we’re going to have unity … it’s important to recognize the need for accountability, for truth and justice.”

Romney repeated this assertion on Fox News:

Fox’s Chris Wallace asked Romney if he agreed with Republicans calling to throw out the article on procedural grounds, arguing it is unconstitutional to convict a former official.

“The Democrats have the majority in the Senate and I doubt they’re going to go along with that move,” Romney, the Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee, answered. “At the same time, if you look at the preponderance of the legal opinion by scholars over the years … the preponderance of opinion is that yes, an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office.”

Wallace went on to ask the Utah senator his opinion about President Biden’s appeals to unity at his inauguration.

“I think it’s appropriate for us to have unity of purpose, unity of heart,” Romney said. “At the same time I think there are some actions that the president is taking that are going to lead to some anger and division.”

He specifically cited Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline and termination of new leases for oil, gas and coal extraction on federal land.

In other news, Romney announced that Chris Christie, Larry Hogan, Tom Cotton, and Ben Sasse are the future of the Republican Party:

Sen. Mitt Romney on GOP future: “There’ll be new faces and new voices, perhaps some from the past, like Gov. Chris Christie. Larry Hogan is a new face on the front, Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse. I think those individuals will help define the Republican Party as we go forward.”

I think Cotton will be a leading voice, but not the others.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Hey Mitt, our rights are not subject to “the preponderance of opinion”

    Concise in reply to MarkS. | January 24, 2021 at 12:37 pm

    Whatever happened to vote your conscience? Something especially repulsive about a juror who defers to the opinions of other people regardless of the law or the facts.

      BD1957 in reply to Concise. | January 24, 2021 at 4:11 pm

      Mitt’s voting his conscience – after whetting his finger & sticking it in the air.

        FOTin1943 in reply to BD1957. | January 25, 2021 at 10:40 am

        The voters of Utah should (continue) to be ashamed of their voting for Romney. He has yet to “get over” the fact that USA voters elected DJTrump — but not Romney! His pandering to the never-Trumpers is sickening. If enough Utah voters have had enough .. recall Romney, impeach him, etc.

          Edward in reply to FOTin1943. | January 25, 2021 at 3:32 pm

          There is no provision in the Constitution for recall elections of US Representatives or Senators. Congress has given the boot to some Representatives (e.g. Southern members during the last great unpleasantness), but the constituents can’t do so. Some states do have recall laws for state elected positions (e.g. CA), but not Federal elected members.

          felixrigidus in reply to FOTin1943. | January 26, 2021 at 3:12 am

          You cannot impeach a former president either. So your comment is just pointing out a technicality. All votes must count, whether valid or not, as we have learned, and surely, if the preponderance of opinion says “recall”, Pierre Delecto would certainly not want to harp on the constitutionality of things, now would he? /sarc

      audax in reply to Concise. | January 25, 2021 at 7:55 am

      You can always do something about it and call The Utah Republican Party TODAY and ask when they are going to CENSURE Mitt?

      (801) 533-9777

      15 W. South Temple, Ste 250, SLC 84041

    irv in reply to MarkS. | January 24, 2021 at 1:14 pm

    What he really means is his own personal opinion, right at this moment. Never take Mitt at his word.

    Mittins is the poster boy for why we need to abandon and destroy the sewer callling itself the Republican party.

    The GOP, like America, is done with. It exists solely to serve the democrat party and the swamp. It serves the democrat party and the swamp by pretending to be the opposition party.

    Mike Lindel (the MyPillow king) should sell dartboards with Romney’s face on them. They’d sell out in a day.

    henrybowman in reply to MarkS. | January 24, 2021 at 5:21 pm

    Preponderance of opinion says that what Mitt Romney needs to get on board with is a helicopter with faulty floor bracing.

    FiftycalTX2 in reply to MarkS. | January 24, 2021 at 5:42 pm

    Great. If the communists can “impeach” someone that is not in office, so can we. Let’s start with osama obama, China joe* as VP and Clintoon. That should occupy the Senate for 2 years until we can get control back.

      Why start with the latest Presidents? Why not start impeachment at the beginning and impeach President George Washington for his role in the then ongoing slave trade in the new USA? If not being a President is no obstacle, then not being alive is similarly likely not an obstacle.

      Then we can systematically go through each US President throughout history and impeach each one, just to be sure, using the same standards of evidence used against President Donald Trump to ensure impeachment for each and every President.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to FiftycalTX2. | January 26, 2021 at 11:04 am

      That should occupy the Senate for 2 years until we can get control back.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . . sorry, you’re funny. The republicans worked hard to lose it all in 2020. And they’ll lose in 2022. And again in 2024. Republicans simply don’t have the balls to do what is necessary to regain control. So they won’t. (And hell, some don’t even seem to care they are the minority party now. They kiss democrat ass and give democrats everything they demand.)

    JusticeDelivered in reply to MarkS. | January 25, 2021 at 12:58 pm

    Mitt Romney knows that he does not measure up to Trump, what Romney does not understand is that even when Trump is gone, that he will only have moved one tiny notch from being 10th rate.

Romney is too ignorant to know the law. Thanks again Utah

    Milwaukee in reply to 2smartforlibs. | January 24, 2021 at 3:47 pm

    No. Romney is many things and ignorant isn’t one of them. Proud and arrogant, yes.
    This is far worse than ignorance of the law. This is willful disregard with full knowledge and consent. This is Clinton evil territory. What a vile and petty fellow he has become.

    Both parties want to exclude Trump from ever again holding public office (knowing they can’t defeat him in a honest election). The don’t care what the Constitution allows.

    If they can arrange rules that keep Trump from presenting his case to the public and get seventeen Republicans on board, they’ll do it. An honest court would probably rule that they have no such power, but is there still any likelihood of bringing it before an honest court? The rejection of multiple cases challenging the election on questionable procedural grounds would say no.

Who cares what he says anyway.

Keep saying I predict they will do it
Who judges it is the only sticking point.
16 Republicans is no stretch to reach.

Who will rid Utah of this willard the rat?

Mittens can vote for impeachment; it will not change my view of the GOPe. My only regret is that I don’t live in his state to help vote him out. I will have to be satisfied with voting against my GOPe governor and US Senator.

    CountMontyC in reply to technerd. | January 24, 2021 at 3:20 pm

    Donate to whoever attempts to primary him. If enough people do that it will allow his primary opponent to build a big warchest to take him out.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to technerd. | January 25, 2021 at 1:06 pm

    You do not have to live in a state to help bring a politician down. We organized people within a state to take down politicians we want out.

He is wrong. The politicians need to be reminded the Constitution is the law that the elected officials must follow.

    Edward in reply to Tsquared. | January 25, 2021 at 3:39 pm


    Not that I would disagree with the proposition that politicians should be reminded, and actually agree, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But reminding the Socialist/Communist Party members, and a significant number of the GOPe, of that is pretty much a fool’s errand and a waste of breath.

    But I guess we should try. And then promote Primary opponents for those GOPe members who go along with this travesty.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?

17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

The funny this is, Romney has not changed. He has always been like this. He has made a valiant effort to present himself as something he was not for all of his adult life.

“The preponderance of opinion” Is there a more flaccid, spineless, gutless, morally phony POS than Mitt? Harry Reid says Mitt didn’t pay taxes for ten years and that clown now calls Reid “friend” but he wants to impeach a private citizen. Mitt is the poster child as to why Republicans lose and will continue to lose. Democrats are lockstep in protecting their party above all but Mitt wants us to think he’s some sort of paragon of virtue.

There will likely be some kind of trial. The Dems want one and there are enough ant-Trump Republicans to go along with that. This “trial” will be used to bash Trump one more time.

However, it is a stretch to expect a conviction. In the first place, historically, no such case has resulted in conviction. In the second, a conviction could well throw the case into the SCOTUS, as the wording of the Constitution makes it pretty clear that removal from office is necessary for any penalty to be imposed and Trump can no longer be removed from office. Also, as the Constitution implies that normal criminal charges. for the crimes charged, may be sought ONLY following conviction, this would almost guarantee the case went to the SCOTUS, as well.

This is all political theater. All that remains to be seen is whether the elected members of the Senate are foolish enough to convict Trump of anything, in this case.

    TheOldZombie in reply to Mac45. | January 24, 2021 at 1:02 pm

    I also do not see a conviction because the case is pretty simple.

    You can see that Trump didn’t incite the crowd to attack the Capital Building. You can see that the incident started before Trump was even finished speaking and that the crowd at his rally could not have made it to the Capital building in time to participate. There is footage of police opening the doors and letting people in. Lastly there is footage out there of people who are clearly Antifa and BLM agitating. I’ve seen footage of people changing into MAGA gear. If I’ve seen it I’m sure the FBI has seen it.

    Note I’m not saying what happened was all Antifa/BLM. Yes MAGA people were foolishly there making trouble as well but I believe that Antifa/BLM who have experience at agitating crowds were there and were pushing people to act.

    The GOP is flirting with disaster by not fighting against the trial. Mitch has switched from cocaine to some other drug because he’s lost the ability to see how close he is leading the GOP to disaster.

    For 17 GOP to vote with the Democrats to convict Trump would pretty much mean the end of the GOP.

    And if any Republican was to vote to convict that person might as well resign on the spot. They won’t win another election. I could see efforts to convince Trump supporters to vote for a Democrat in the general just to spite the Republican in the event the Republican Senator still won their primary.

      What makes you think the facts have any bearing on this case?

      Valerie in reply to TheOldZombie. | January 24, 2021 at 2:52 pm

      The Senate makes up its own rules, just like the House. The House voted to impeach without witnesses or evidence or any opportunity for defense. The Senate could do the same, and Chuck Schumer will be in the driver’s seat.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Valerie. | January 26, 2021 at 11:28 am

        You don’t get any “defense” in the House impeachment proceedings. The president is allowed to present his defense during the Senate trial.

          Care to deal at all with the lack of evidence and witnesses? The ordinary standards of due process where wholly missing, this time, and were greatly inhibited, last time.

          This is injustice, and you pretend otherwise. Shame on you.

    Carl in reply to Mac45. | January 25, 2021 at 5:46 pm

    With respect, I don’t think any decision by 2/3 of the Senate can be, or will be, appealed to SCOTUS. It is FINAL.

For my part I cannot understand why Mittens continues to add, piece of evidence after piece of evidence, proving that he is, par excellence, one of the largest POS presently in Congress.

    He might be the biggest POS in Congress, but the second, third, fourth, fifth etc in line are so close, he doens’t seem that different.

    Except for a HANDFUL of Republicans, Congress is a building of human garbage.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to fscarn. | January 25, 2021 at 1:19 pm

    Competition for worst POS is stiff, Waters, Omar and many other low IQ POS.

Who lives in Utah who can tell us who the right person would be to take out Mr. Romney in the next primary?

    henrybowman in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 24, 2021 at 5:59 pm

    Mittens just has to find two, then he splits the vote and wins again. Old, old story.

    There was a conservative doctor who sounded very good leading in the polls prior to Romney getting in. Then the party organization and an avalanche of party money buried all opposition to their anointed one.

lol. “Opinion.” Well, opinions are like assholes which fits Romney to a tee as he’s a vindictive little shit.

but Romney says “the preponderance of opinion is that yes, an impeachment trial is appropriate…

Well, the preponderance of mail-in opinion, anyway.

What a bitter, bitter man.

    Gunner75 in reply to lc. | January 24, 2021 at 1:46 pm

    Fact. And that’s it right there. He couldn’t stand Trump and how Trump called him out for being a weak kneed RINO and then to top it off for some reason Willard thought he was going to be appointed to some position in the Trump admin and when it didn’t happen, well, here we are.

The 2020 election has ripped off the mask of legitimacy of the Left and the integrity of many on the Right. Romney sees this as “unity” and it is but for all the wrong reasons. Dems are the Party of Hate and Repubs becoming the Party of Deceit.The

Mother Teresa… “When you become famous you gain true enemies and false friends”.

Okay, so here’s the logical puzzle: The impeachment process with House investigation and Senate trial was written into the Constitution because the President is the head of the Justice department, and therefore in the case that he commits a crime worthy of being removed from office, he cannot be expected to investigate and prosecute himself. (because we all know how that would end up from the various Obama/Clinton administration investigations.)

Now, the *former* President is no longer head of the Justice department, and is just as subordinate to the US DOJ as the rest of us.

So what basis does the House and Senate have for a trial? I mean if the Republicans regain both, could they impeach Bill Clinton or Obama? Or Millard Fillmore? The Senate is *explicitly* forbidden from ‘convicting’ private citizens. If they have a crime they suspect him of committing, they have *a* role in investigating, but the actual trial (or decision on if to try) rests with the DOJ.

Purely academic question, I know. The frothing leftists who run the Dem party now will tolerate no deviance from ‘Orange man bad’ and the whole show trial will be nothing more than a frantic attempt to flog more than a token number of Republicans into committing political suicide and voting for conviction.

    DaveGinOly in reply to georgfelis. | January 24, 2021 at 3:09 pm

    I am unaware of the proposal in your first paragraph. Impeachment isn’t a substitute for prosecution by the DOJ, and it doesn’t just apply to federal crimes. Impeached officials are explicitly still subject to prosecution by the appropriate (jurisdiction-wise) authorities after removal from office. In the case of a president removed from office, he’s replaced by the vice-president, who today runs on the same ticket. Any prosecution for a federal crime would most likely be conducted by the very same appointees of the recently-removed president (although he would no longer be in charge of them). (And being on different tickets did not necessarily prevent this from being the case even in an earlier impeachment.)

    The Senate is explicitly prohibited from convicting private citizens for crimes. But this is a bar to criminal prosecution, not impeachment and removal, a non-judicial (administrative) punishment for crimes, crimes (that if actual violations of statutes) which are still actionable.

If the Chief Justice presides over the Senate when it tries a president for impeachment, and Trump is no longer president, it does not follow that this indicates a post-term impeachment trial is impossible. It indicates that the Chief Justice does not preside over such a trial.

Just because “removal from office” is a punishment that can’t be applied to a person who has already left office, it does not logically follow that this is a bar to impeachment, it means only that the particular punishment is not applicable. However, impeachment also carries a punishment (bar from future office) that is applicable in the situation. If conviction for an offense carries two punishments and only one can apply in a particular case, does that form an argument for a bar to prosecution? I see it only as a bar to the application of one of the punishments.

Even if neither punishment was applicable (say, in a situation in which the former official had died), this would only admit that that a trial for impeachment would be moot and therefore not worth the expense or time. It would not indicate a legal bar to the procedure. Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process (as you all certainly know). It is a show of political will, not justice. And it may be the political will of Congress to prevent Trump from holding office in the future.

I’m not saying post-term impeachment is a good idea (or at least, not a good idea in this situation – I promoted the idea of Hillary being subject to a post-term impeachment for crimes committed while SoS). I’m just saying, in spite of what I’ve read here (which I usually find very convincing) I haven’t been convinced of the contrary (as much as I would like to see DJT in office again four years hence).

I find the argument as illogical and unpersuasive as those that misinterpret the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment.

    First of all, Trump was already impeached, in this case. Impeachment is the Congressional equivalent of an indictment. And, if the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate, the Senate has to deal with those articles. It can not simply ignore them. However, It can dismiss them, even without discussion, if it feels like it. It is free to discuss the evidence and the charges, ad nauseum, even if the official impeached has left office. What it can not do is impose any penalty upon the former official.

    No penalty can be imposed, even if a conviction is reached, because of the wording of Article I Section 3. It stipulates that the only penalty, which can be imposed, is removal from office and, if desired, disqualification for holding future office. The comma, makes the second penalty optional, not mandatory and the word AND means that it can onlly be imposed in conjunction with removal from office. So, logically, if the former official can not be removed from office, by virtue of having left office already, disqualification can not be imposed.

    One further quirk to impeachment and conviction is double jeopardy. Art I Sec 3 seems to require conviction on the charges in order for any normal criminal legal action, such as indictment and trial on the specified charges, to be pursued. So, if the Senate actually conducts a trial and convicts, it is likely to end up in the SCOTUS.

    By the way, impeachment is NOT a political process. It is a quasi-judicial process incorporating “indictment” in the House [impeachment], trial by jury in the Senate and the imposition of binding penalties.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | January 24, 2021 at 5:00 pm

      Art I Sec 3
      “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.”

      I certainly don’t read the section as you do, with the requirement that both forms of punishment must be imposed together. I see the express use of a limiting phrase. The section limits the punishments available upon conviction in the Senate. The Senate may chuse (as might have been written then) to remove an office holder from office, bar an office holder from future office-holding, or both. If the authors wanted impeachment to apply only to current office holders, they would have plainly stated same. Seeing that they did not, interpreting the clause such that impeachment is completely inoperative against someone who has already left office seems not warranted. (It is my understanding that English law did not contemplate the idea that departure from an office precluded impeachment, so if the authors of Art 1 had wanted to impose such a scheme they would have made it clear that they were departing from the English model.)

      The second clause neither requires the impeachment to be successful (removal from office) before a criminal process may proceed, nor does it prevent criminal prosecution following failure of the impeachment process. It merely states that a successful impeachment does not protect a former office holder from being charged criminally for the same offenses that precipitated the impeachment.

      A “quasi-judicial” processes is not a judicial process. The House does not “indict,” it performs a function that is analogous to the judicial process’s indictment. The Senate “convicts,” but because it doesn’t convict (or sentence) under the actual statutes the office holder may have transgressed (it operates under its own rules) it is not performing a judicial function. Impeachment is a process conducted by politicians of the legislative branch by rules of their own making for a political purpose – the benefit of the Republic. It is inescapably a political process. It is quasi-judicial insofar as it has some of the trappings of a judicial process, but it is at the direction of politicians, not judges. Its object isn’t justice, it’s the removal of a dangerous or otherwise unworthy person from the reins of power. In its essence, it is about nothing but power – who has it, who doesn’t have it, and who will be kept from it. This is thoroughly unlike the purpose of the judicial system, which we call “corrupt” when it is bent towards such objectives.

        This is all open to interpretation, because there is no judicial decision as to how the clause should be interpreted.

        You are correct that both penalties need not automatically be imposed. The limiting phrase is the comma. However, after the comma comes the word AND. This implies that the disqualification penalty can only be imposed in conjunction with removal from office. If it could be imposed, without imposition of the removal penalty, then we should see the word AND and OR. WE do not see this, however. And, as impeachment is mainly for the purpose of removing an officer from office, the disqualification clause appears to be more of an after thought, to keep an official who has been removed from being appointed to another office. Also, as Felix notes, Art.II Sec 4 requires removal of the convicted official. Read together, it is apparent that the purpose of impeachment ws removal of the sitting official.

        As for the second clause, I think that it actually addresses double jeopardy. The Framers recognized the fact that impeachment and conviction was, in fact, not wholly political by judicial in nature as well. It follows the judicial criminal model of indicting an official for violation of the law, trying the official for said violation and then imposing a binding judicial penalty. AS it is being done outside of the judicial branch of the government, it is quasi-judicial. However, double jeopardy would apply. Except, that the Constitution says it does not apply, in a case where an impeached official is convicted. However it does not state that double jeopardy is waived if the official is not convicted.

      felixrigidus in reply to Mac45. | January 24, 2021 at 6:03 pm

      I don’t believe the argument is complete if one exclusively looks to Article I section 3. Article II section 4 is unambiguous “Impeachment for and Conviction of” must result in “removal” from office. Article I section 3 restricts the jurisdiction of the Senate – and hence the maximum possible “sentence” – to “removal” and “disqualification.” The former is a necessary consequence the latter isn’t and therefore the Senate may add it or not, as it thinks appropriate.

      Read together these norms show that conviction without removal is not possible. An Impeachment process is rendered moot when the term of the impeached officeholder ends.

      As far as I can tell there is no case where the Senate has convicted a former officer (and even if there was, it is not exactly “precedent” because – as those wanting to justify the shampeachments against Trump repeat ad nauseam – these are not legal proceedings but “it is political.”

    BD1957 in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 24, 2021 at 4:19 pm

    Good slight of hand …

    Now make “and” disappear … in terms of the sanction (oh yeah, you’ve already done that).

    The whole framework of the Presidential impeachment language tells you the framers expected it would be limited to a current occupant. That’s why the Chief Justice presides, that’s why the penalty is removal from office “and,” that’s why the conviction standard is set so high – if a President’s term of service is going to be cut short, if that sort of upheaval is going to be visited upon the country, it should only be if there’s widespread agreement that it should be.

    NONE OF WHICH applies when dealing with a “Former President.”

    Concise in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 24, 2021 at 7:15 pm

    You have obviously put some effort into your comment DaveGinOly so perhaps you should make an effort to understand what parties are actually subject to the Impeachment clause. Those parties would be the President, Vice-president, and civil officers. Donald Trump is not the President, Vice-President or an officer. On what constitutional basis is there jurisdiction for a senate trial? There is none based on the constitutional text. That is something you apparently have overlooked or don’t understand.

Mitt must hate Cotton because he just ruined his political career.

I don’t think anything in the world would keep Roberts away from this opportunity to once again preside over a Trump impeachment trial. If there is a conviction, I predict that since Trump is no longer president, he would not have standing to bring a case to SCOTUS.

    DaveGinOly in reply to james h. | January 24, 2021 at 5:06 pm

    There’s an interesting thought. Could the victim of a post-term impeachment (having been convicted an punished with a permanent bar from office) be able to bring his case to SCOTUS?

    I’d have to say “Yes.” Someone treated under rules made for office holders (and in my opinion, still operable upon former office holders) should continue to have recourse to the same set of rules. The baby is in the tub with the bathwater. So long as the baby is in the tub, the bathwater can’t be thrown out without throwing out the baby too.

Every Senator knew that when retiring to debate the votes of Arizona that a well prepared set of documents were ready to be shown and discussed as to why the challenges should be returned to the states for reconciliation. That was the plan.. saying Trump would initiate a riot is so bogus that anyone even thinking that is corrupt.

The GOPe didn’t like the great unwashed controlling the Party and got rid of the Tea Party. This time they need both their elites and the Dems to “Unify” to get rid of MAGA. Bolsheviks and Mensheviks “united”!

    Yes, but we have NO ONE to blame but ourselves.

    Why are we continuing to allow the GOPe to be a viable party, when it is ours to control by vote?

    Answers: (1) with the advent of ‘voting software’, there are no elections anymore, just results desired by the Junta running the software; and (1) too many on our side are in denial there are no elections anymore, just results desired by the Junta running the software.

    Our only hope is secession. And if that reality scares you, take a baby-step and secede from the GOP.

Virtue that goes public turns into the worst sort of evil, Hannah Arendt said. In particular it’s not the German national character that’s the problem.

Romney loves his public virtue.

    Romney is a bitter little baby – his pathetic ego cannot take it that he lost the presidency to a fat woman arguing with him in national tv instead of a douchebag like obama, who is an airhead like Kamala Harris, but without the giggles to have filled in his cluelessness. But then, he did have Fat Crowley.

    What put Romney over the edge was PDJT showing him how to do it.

    Romney must beat his dog at night, in frustration.

My two cents is that the Socialist-Progressives want to see just how far they can push “the great unwashed in fly-over country.”
Il Duce was hung upside down as I recall

I can’t understand why people don’t call him by name. His name is Willard like the rat.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Firewatch. | January 24, 2021 at 5:13 pm

    “Willard” was not a rat. He was the character who raised and directed the rats. In the book (originally entitled Ratman’s Notebooks) he was unnamed, but given the name for the movie.

    OTOH, “Ben” was a rat in the sequel movie of the same name.

2smartforlibs | January 24, 2021 at 4:02 pm

Only the dumbest among us set on Capital hill.

    As we’ve learned by the exposure of the swamp, the oligarchy and the Communist Chinese control of much of our country, there is a very good reason why dumbasses are sent to Congress, and elections rigged by “voting software” to keep them there: they do the bidding for the swamp/oligarchy/Communist Chinese cabal without argument.

    McConnells are there for disguise.

Why not split the difference, avoid any Constitutional issues, and just impeach the current President Biden? 17 Executive Orders even before the streets of DC were cleared of Inauguration decorations doesn’t sound like much of democratic republic, and more like an abuse of power.

It is interesting to read the letter referenced in Turley’s January 22 piece and follow their logic.

They do admit that the automatic consequence of a conviction after impeachment is removal from office (“shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of“), and the Senate can add to that consequence “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” (which follows from the provision that the jurisdiction does “not extend further than” removal and disqualification.
Because removal is non-optional the Senate does not have the authority to convict and only disqualify. The disqualification therefore can only be added to removal, it is not a standalone sanction. Otherwise the constitution would say so.

As these scholars rightfully point out: “Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (…) before his or her term expires.” They fail to mention that it is not the exclusive constitutional means to prevent someone from holding office which is where their argument breaks down.

Maybe a mala fide resignation to avoid impeachment if already set in motion might warrant continuing the process (and as far as I can see all “precedents” cited are cases like this), but there is no justification for continuing the impeachment process once the term of the office has expired. In the former case, the resignation thwarts removal from office, in the latter removal is impossible irrespective of the officeholder’s actions because the term has ended.

There is a means for preventing private citizens to be eligible for office: criminal conviction by a jury after due process including an effective and vigorous defense that cannot be tampered with according to the whims of a body that tailors its process to fit its political needs but follows the precepts of the law – if the law allows for this consequence.

This means there is no justification to proceed with a senate trial after the office of the impeached person has expired. If there is reason to condemn certain acts, the Senate can pass a resolution. To disqualify a private citizen from holding office requires conviction by a jury in a criminal trial that follows due process instead of a special rule exclusively adopted for a singular case as is done for impeachment trials in the senate.

If the House of Representatives insists on delivering the Article of Impeachment, the proper way to deal with it on the part of the Senate would be to dismiss the case as moot. Because Democrats have a majority this will not happen, and the Senate will proceed to hold an unconstitutional trial. But might does not make right. All senators are dutybound to vote to dismiss, and they must not convict.

    mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | January 26, 2021 at 6:26 am

    Interesting points Felixrigidus, however a conviction wouldnt actually exclude anyone from running for office. Clearly they couldnt run if they are in prison or their sentence isnt spent. The whole purposes of the disqualification aspect of impeachment is to prevent someone of clearly poor charachter from running..

Comanche Voter | January 24, 2021 at 6:40 pm

The Germams are big on using animals and animal parts as insults. I’d have to say that Mutton Head Romney is really a “schafshacker”. Break that into two parts and you’ll get the idea. What a tool that gu is–petty and vindictive–and treacherous. It’s a wonder that dog he carried in a crate on top of his station wagon didn’t bit him. Dogs can normally tell who’s a jerk.

As someone who is as incredibly handsome as he us wise has already said, if you have to turn the text sideways, squint your eyes and use your [sponge Bob fingers] imagination then the thing your reading doesn’t say what you want it say.

Fuck the god damn mother fuckers all to fucking hell.

Any “Republican” who supports, participates in, or otherwise grants legitimacy to this utterly outrageous and transparently vindictive attempt by the vile Dhimmi-crats to humiliate President Trump in one final, frenzied and utterly lawless display of TDS, should be kicked out of the Party, posthaste.

Bucky Barkingham | January 25, 2021 at 7:23 am

Mittens say’s it’s not the law but the “preponderance of opinion” that should guide the US Senate. No need for a Federal judiciary or SCOTUS. All we need is a nation wide poll to determine the “preponderance of opinion” on any political issue. It scares me that I voted for this loser, but since then I have taken the Red pill and know better.

Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

Call The Utah Republican Party TODAY and ask when they are going to CENSURE Mitt?

(801) 533-9777

15 W. South Temple, Ste 250, SLC 84041

Et Tu Mittens?

“I think it’s appropriate for us to have unity of purpose, unity of heart,” Romney said. “At the same time I think there are some actions that the president is taking that are going to lead to some anger and division.”

“Bend the knee, peasants,” he explained

caseoftheblues | January 25, 2021 at 8:50 am

So Democrats are fine with private citizens who have served time in prison or are currently in prison running and winning office…its happened. But this particuliar private citizen, Trump, needs to be barred cause they *checks notes* don’t like him….doesn’t seem very Constitutionally to me regarding citizens rights in general…

Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” is not much help. A colleague of the great Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Story makes a passing reference to whether former office holders may be impeached and convicted but does not come down on either side.

I’m so glad this nitwit left Massachsetts.

So, puke Romney admits that he can’t read either.