Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Acquitted – Nancy Pelosi Becomes First House Speaker To Bring Two Failed Impeachments

Trump Acquitted – Nancy Pelosi Becomes First House Speaker To Bring Two Failed Impeachments

Vote 57-43, short of the 2/3 needed. The following Republicans voted Guilty: Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Toomey

The Senate has voted on the Article of Impeachment against Donald Trump for Incitement of Insurrection, failing to reach the 2/3 majority needed, resulting in acquittal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVMITs_RG4o

Earlier Coverage:

LIVE: Will Senate finally bury the “Dead-on-Arrival” Impeachment Trial? (Update 2 – Democrats Capitulate, No Witnesses)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Hopefully the Dems will go the extra mile and remove Nancy from the Speaker position.

    Conservative Beaner in reply to Tsquared. | February 13, 2021 at 4:01 pm

    Miracles can happen but don’t count on it.

    Ghost Rider in reply to Tsquared. | February 13, 2021 at 4:04 pm

    Richly deserved, but not going to happen.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Tsquared. | February 13, 2021 at 5:25 pm

    As devious as she is, she’ll claim if the second impeachment had not been brought there wouldn’t be now a call by McConnell for a criminal investigation …

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Tsquared. | February 13, 2021 at 5:31 pm

    She will – by acclamation – be Speaker Emeticus.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Tsquared. | February 13, 2021 at 6:20 pm

    They are not smart enough to do so. Dems surround themselves with deplorables, mostly really dumb deplorables

    Milhouse in reply to Tsquared. | February 13, 2021 at 7:40 pm

    Why on earth would they want to do that?

    In any case, whoever replaced her would probably be worse.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 7:52 pm

      That depends on how you define “worse.” Someone more cunning and more capable is definitely needed. (Does such a Dem exist in the House? So many appear to be fairly dull, at best.) But “worse” could mean “less capable” (obviously not what the Dems need) or it could mean “more dedicated to progressive ideals and the destruction of the Republic.” Concerning the latter, I don’t think such a person exists, so the best (or worst, depending on your POV) the Dems can do is appoint someone cagier and as dedicated to the ruin of America.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 13, 2021 at 10:04 pm

        Concerning the latter, I don’t think such a person exists

        On the contrary, there are at least 50 House Dems who are more dedicated than Pelosi to America’s destruction.

    jblow51 in reply to Tsquared. | February 15, 2021 at 11:30 am

    She was just re-elected to that position!

As a voice from England, I’m pleased to see that there were sufficient honest Republicans to acquit President Trump.

    Ghost Rider in reply to Brit. | February 13, 2021 at 4:02 pm

    What is troubling is there were 7 Republicans hell-bent on punishing Trump — it was the usual suspects and squishy moderates….. hopefully their days as Congresscritters are numbered.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Ghost Rider. | February 13, 2021 at 4:09 pm

      So does this mean it’s over? Really over?? Really and truly over?!? Or are the lunatics in the democrat party going to try a third time to impeach and convict Trump of some heinous crime that they just recently discovered.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | February 13, 2021 at 4:10 pm

        That was supposed to be a reply on its own. Not sure why it got stuck as a reply to Ghost Rider.

        Schumer is contemplating an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder in order to disqualify Trump from running for President in 2024.

        Again, the brazen contempt these leftists have for the Constitution, while claiming to defend the document they are publicly using as toilet paper, used to be breath taking. I believe the Jews call it chutzpah.

        Now it’s just another day ending in “Y.”

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | February 13, 2021 at 10:06 pm

          Schumer is contemplating an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder in order to disqualify Trump from running for President in 2024.

          How? Even if Trump had been convicted he could not be prevented from running in 2024. I don’t think he will want to do that, but if he wants to nobody can stop him. Certainly not the US senate.

          A point of order …

          I’ve been reading stories of how Majority Leader Schumer didn’t want any witnesses. This doesn’t square with a vote of 55-45 for witnesses, with 5 Republicans and all 50 Democrat Senators.

          Just saying …

          felixrigidus in reply to Arminius. | February 14, 2021 at 8:41 am

          @Neo.
          He just needs to value Democrats being in lockstep more than his wishes as regards the vote.
          Also, he seems to have successfully prevented actually having to deal with actual evidence.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | February 14, 2021 at 6:05 pm

          Umm, Milhouse…

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/having-lost-impeachment-trial-dems-now-considering-14th-amendment-disqualification-against-trump/

          Trump would never be convicted of “incitement” in an actual court of law where there are, you know, actual rules of evidence. The Dem House propagandists admitted that Trump’s remarks on January 6 couldn’t meet the Brandenburg test for incitement. So they had to attempt to convict him based on prior comments. An argument that never would have been allowed in an actual court of law since reaching back to a heavily edited version of Trump’s comments in, say, 2017 in a proceeding taking place in 2021 by definition doesn’t meet the Brandenburg standard of imminence. And all the defense would have had to have done is show Trump’s complete remarks to demonstrate the prosecution was lying by omission would be to do what Trump’s defense team did; show the unedited comments. A judge would have thrown the case out with prejudice and referred the prosecutors to the state bar for disciplinary action. If it even got that far; the “incitement” case against Trump was so absurd it would have been dismissed summarily.

          What we just witnessed was a political show trial. Jonathan Turley thinks the Dems tanked their case on purpose, since they really were just trying to smear Trump in the “court of public opinion.” Since they can’t convict Trump of anything even in the Kangaroo court that is the Dem controlled Congress the Dems are talking as if they can bar Trump from running for office as if he’s guilty of their baseless charges.

          And by doing so demonstrating it was never Trump who was the threat to our Constitution, our country, or our citizens. It’s been the Dems all the time.

        Antifundamentalist in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | February 13, 2021 at 5:38 pm

        They will probably charge him as a private citizen in the federal courts, and if they can’t get him on insurrection charges, then they will go through his past business dealings, have the IRS investigate him for things to charge him on, whatever they can think of. There will be years of legal harassment & they will not be satisfied until he is destitute and in jail.

        The impeachment fiasco might be. However, “it” is far far far from over.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Dathurtz. | February 13, 2021 at 6:46 pm

          Damn right it is far from over, we need to start giving it back, at leas an order of magnitude, two would be better.

        Since they’ve decided no longer holding office is no impediment to impeachment, They may well give it another shot.

      Halcyon Daze in reply to Ghost Rider. | February 13, 2021 at 8:15 pm

      Elmer Fudd Republicans.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Brit. | February 13, 2021 at 4:29 pm

    Honesty is a bit of a strong word. Probably they were thinking of the tar feather and rails waiting for them when they got home and they had to answer to their constituents. Yes, I am a cynic.

    mark311 in reply to Brit. | February 14, 2021 at 4:43 am

    You are kidding me right? Honesty doesn’t come into it, the remainder are thinking of the next election cycle. Driven by nothing but fear.

Toomie is gone but would never get a vote from me ever again anyway.
DJT wants another run at it he would get my vote as well as eternal gratitude if he didn’t for the 4 years.

    Concise in reply to Skip. | February 13, 2021 at 5:14 pm

    Probably just emotion but I find it difficult to support the republicans a party. The establishment (McConnel et al) consistently join the democrat chorus of attacks against the president. Part of me just wants to say the hell with them, but that’s probably what they want, to cleanse the party of Trump supporters.

      henrybowman in reply to Concise. | February 13, 2021 at 8:46 pm

      If Trump started a party, the GOP would be cleansed of Trump supporters in two days.
      Then they would understand the wisdom of the saying, “Be careful what you wish for.”

      Sanddog in reply to Concise. | February 13, 2021 at 9:30 pm

      After the election, I went to our SOS website and changed my registration over to “decline to state”. Until the party gets it’s shit together, they get nothing from me.

        Milhouse in reply to Sanddog. | February 13, 2021 at 10:07 pm

        What do you imagine they get from your registration? How do you imagine your switch hurts them?

          AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 9:03 am

          I’ll answer your question about how making the switch to Independent hurts them. It doesn’t.

          I also changed my registration to Independent. But I also have made a decision that after 40 years of voting for Republicans (in addition to my donations to the party, knocking on doors, making phone calls) I am sitting out for all future elections. No donations, no votes, no support.

          I am hoping that the Democrats take full and total control of the government, and begins to ruin this country. Here’s my wish list:

          1. Unlimited illegal immigration where the borders are ignored by both the United States and those who desire to get into this country.
          2.Immediate citizenship for the 30 + million illegals who have been in this country for years. (If one thinks that the number has been 11 million since 1990, that person is a moron and should commit suicide immediately).
          3. An increase in abortions to the point that there are waiting lines at the doors of abortion mills.
          4. An increase in taxes to the point where companies shutter their doors, the government spends the money on “winners” they deem by political support, and the taxpayer has little left as discretionary income.
          5. The decrease in discretionary income shuts down the housing market, the appliance industry, the auto industry, and any other industry that depends on the consumer having enough cash to buy these “extras.”
          6. Unemployment skyrockets to a point never seen before in this country. People standing in line begging for food, with nothing coming. A Venezuela style “search the garbage dump for scraps” unemployment rate.
          7. A crime wave so huge, brought to you by “Burn, Loot, Murder” and Antifa. Crime so heinous that Chicago will look like a party.

          This country needed and deserves what they get.

Not one Democrat was a profile in courage.

Subotai Bahadur | February 13, 2021 at 4:10 pm

Keep in mind that those Republican Senators who voted for conviction are also likely to vote for literally anything that the Democrats want because they have no way of making peace with the Republican and conservative base of the party.

Get used to the numbers 57-43 and remember most things do not require a 2/3 majority.

Subotai Bahadur

    The goodies on the table spread before the Hateful 7 must be tasty. Watch them be the ones to “fundamentally transform” the country into a socialist state by voting for everything that destroys the country and the Constitution. This seals the steal and the fate of the USA. Who needs Harris to tie-break… it’s already been arranged.

      henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | February 13, 2021 at 8:52 pm

      A lot of Democrat bills are filed to specify who receives the graft. Since the Republicans will get any of that graft totally accidentally, if at all, those votes won’t be there for those bills.

    Keep in mind that those Republican Senators who voted for conviction are also likely to vote for literally anything that the Democrats want because they have no way of making peace with the Republican and conservative base of the party.

    That’s not a reason for them to vote for Democrat proposals.

    I’m disappointed in Sasse, but I continue to trust his conservative principles.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 9:34 pm

      “…but I continue to trust his conservative principles.”

      Gullible. He has no principles.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 9:04 am

      Anybody who can explain his guilty vote with this statement has little conservative bona fides left. If any.

        I don’t see anything in that statement that abandons conservative principles. It’s a very conservative statement. I disagree with it; I think it’s short-sighted and shallow, and I’m disappointed that he showed such poor judgment in this case. But I don’t see any indication that his principles have changed, or reason to suppose he’ll make the wrong decision in other cases.

        felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | February 14, 2021 at 1:27 pm

        A non-exhaustive list:

        An impeachment trial is a public declaration of what a president’s oath of office means

        No, it is a trial to determine if a President, Vice President, or civil officer has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and whether beyond removal from office disqualification is warranted.

        First, President Trump lied about (…) Each of these actions are violations of a president’s oath of office.

        Irrelevant to the article of Impeachment and thus not a valid reason for a guilty vote. Violation of his oath of office, whether it could be deemed a “high crime or misdemeanor”, is “incitement of insurrection,” the crime the House’s has brought before the Senate.

        Second, political violence is evil whether it happens in Portland or at the United States Capitol. (…) the former president and some of his allies have now given themselves permission to ignore the violence by those supposedly on ‘their side.’

        The former president has not said that the violence at the Capitol should be ignored or go unpunished. Nor has his defense counsel. Quite the contrary. However, the question is whether President Trump incited an insurrection at the Capitol. Letting your emotions govern your reason and justify a guilty vote against a person just because the crime he is accused of is heinous does not qualify as conservative. At least not in my book.

        Third, (…) because the president abused his power while in office and (…) Congress (…) needs to respect itself enough to tell the executive that some lines cannot be crossed.

        That is your reason to vote guilty? Not only do you arrogate the sole power of Impeachment vested in the House of Representatives by changing their article to “he is worthy of Impeachment”, a notion not even Pelosi and her hate-filled conference dared to put on paper, you also think that you can use a private citizen as an object of a power play between the Article I and Article II branches of government? That is not a conservative principle, last I checked.

      Burn_the_Witch in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 12:31 pm

      Nothing says “principles” like trying to torpedo the political career of the most powerful political ally you’ve had in decades.

      Good call, chief.

Morning Sunshine | February 13, 2021 at 4:12 pm

I am starting to see cracks in the Romney fanclub here. I cannot say that he will be voted out, but those who had high hopes for him are starting to be disillusioned.

The problem is that they say things like “I admire his strength to stand up for his convictions” and “I like having a senator who won’t bend to pressure.”

Lee does those things, AND he comes off looking strong instead of weak. Romney looks like a petulant schoolchild told no for the first time in his life, so he will throw a temper tantrum so no one in the family can have nice things.

    Starting? STARTING?!?

    Mormons are TOO patient! They need to be more like Baptists where patience is concerned. 😉

      Morning Sunshine in reply to MrE. | February 13, 2021 at 10:30 pm

      lichau is right – the Romney name still holds a LOT of respect here. Or it did. His uncle or cousin or someone was a Mormon apostle back in the 70s or 80s (I was too little to really pay attention before he died). He is still quoted occasionally. But Mitt is squandering that good will.

      the bigger problem is that the state party has re-arranged our system so they get to pick our candidates. So our choices are limited to RINOs.

    The problem is that they say things like “I admire his strength to stand up for his convictions” and “I like having a senator who won’t bend to pressure.”

    I’d admire those things too, if his convictions were right. The problem is that they’re wrong, and standing up for the wrong thing is not a recommendation.

    Romney is Mormon royalty. Back to Joseph Smith royalty.
    Grew up in Mormon country, things may have changed, but back then his name would be all that mattered.

Burn_the_Witch | February 13, 2021 at 4:15 pm

Ah yes, Sen. Cassidy, who voted for the constitutionality of this farce based on the preparedness level of one of Trump’s lawyers. One of the Usual Suspects here was convinced that Cassidy’s vote for constitutionality wasn’t an indicator of how he would vote to convict.

    Essentially Cassidy thought the House Dem propagandists won the competition on style points alone.

    He should resign from the Senate and become an Olympic synchronized swimming judge if that’s his criteria.

    It wasn’t. But now we know that the lawyers convinced him of their whole case, not just the constitutionality part. Or maybe he already thought Trump was guilty, and the only thing that he was hesitating over was the constitutionality, so being convinced of that meant he could vote to convict with a clear conscience.

    Stop ascribing bad faith to people when there’s no evidence of it.

    This will hurt Cassidy when he runs for reelection. Trump is very popular in Louisiana.

      SeiteiSouther in reply to Toad-O. | February 15, 2021 at 1:39 pm

      And I’ll make it a point to primary this schmuck. He’s done and he thinks that people will forget.

      All it’ll take is one reference attack ad on his vote and people here will go, “Oh, yeah.” and WILL vote him out.

I haven’t seen Burr’s name before concerning this farce, but I am not surprised to see it now. He’s as big a putz as the rest of them.

Cassidy: how do you recall a sitting Senator in Louisiana;
Collins: how do you recall a sitting Senator in Maine;
Murkowski: how do you recall a sitting Senator in Alaska;
Romney: how do you recall a sitting Senator in Utah;
Sasse: how do you recall a sitting Senator in Nebraska?

    Milhouse in reply to paracelsus. | February 13, 2021 at 7:50 pm

    It doesn’t matter what the state is, YOU CANNOT RECALL A US SENATOR. There is no such thing as recall in the US constitution.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 8:16 pm

      Legally, you’re correct. Still, I think it wrong.

      Tenth Amendment:
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Recall is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (and obviously so, the federal government can’t “recall” that which it did not send) and the Constitution does not prohibit it. The authority is therefor “reserved to the States…or to the people.” There can’t be a plainer case for the constitutionality of recall.

        henrybowman in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 13, 2021 at 9:01 pm

        Nine states have explicit recall provisions in their own constitutions for US Senators and Representatives. None has ever been successful; some efforts have been stopped by various courts, but no court higher than the NJ State Supreme Court. SCOTUS has not weighed in.

        https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/353298-you-want-to-recall-john-mccain-good-luck-it-will-be-impossible

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 13, 2021 at 10:17 pm

        As far as the US constitution is concerned recall is simply not a thing. It is not a power that existed in 1788 and was reserved to the states or to the people; it’s a power that didn’t exist then and therefore still doesn’t exist.

        Senators exist only by virtue of the constitution, and the constitution specifies exactly how they’re to be elected and how they can be removed; nothing outside that can affect them. And the only way it provides for removing them is by a vote of 2/3 of the senate.

        (Further, congress has for more than 100 years taken the firm view that this power can only be exercised for an offense committed since the member was last elected. That’s not in the constitution, but the supreme court, while carefully not endorsing it, has taken official notice of the fact that this has been the congress’s long-standing view and is likely to still be, and therefore that it’s unlikely that 2/3 of a chamber would ever vote to expel a member for something that happened before the last election.)

          TheOldZombie in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 12:11 am

          I’d also point out that the Senators in the beginning were chosen by the states. It wasn’t until 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment that Senators were chosen by popular vote in their states and even than the 17th Amendment made no mention of having the ability to recall a Senator.

          You can’t recall House or Senate members. The founders put in the expulsion clause to deal with members who conducted themselves in a way that they needed to be removed.

          Recalls are largely ineffective anyway because it’s a high bar to pull it off. You can’t make recalls easy because than each elected person would constantly face a recall the moment they pissed off one group or another.

          Governor Newsome is on the verge of recall only because he’s managed to upset a large enough group of people regardless of their political views.

          The best option is to primary the current office holder or if in another party run against the current office holder. Or vote for someone else.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 9:38 pm

      “There is no such thing as recall in the US constitution.”

      No such thing as abortion either, so?

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | February 13, 2021 at 10:29 pm

        Everyone agrees that the rights enumerated in the constitution are not an exhaustive list. The supreme court has taken the position that one of the rights not explicitly listed is a right to abortion. You and I think that’s wrong, but it’s not inherently impossible.

        But the methods the constitution lays out for how congressmen can get or lose their positions is exhaustive, because congress only exists by virtue of the constitution. Without it there’s no such thing as a senator, so there can’t be a way to become one, and certainly not a way to stop being one.

Nemesis has wakened up and is starting to chase the smug, arrogant, overweening, lying b**rds.

Cuomo and Newsom are the canaries in the coalmine. Who would have thought some idiot Cuomo aide would confess to lying about Covid deaths? That’s how it works– you think you’re safely in the catbird seat and WHAM!

I do believe in Nemesis, having gotten my share of whacks when I let myself get smug and arrogant.

La Cunya the Speakuh of the House! is next, I hope. I want to see that red smear of lipstick get a big whack. But the line after her is getting long. Seeing it unfold will be worth it even if Nemesis comes after me for excessive Schadenfreude.

Someone asked what comes next, a third impeachment?

The answer is simple….Arkancide

The Friendly Grizzly | February 13, 2021 at 4:28 pm

Sock a Toomey!

Apologies to Rowan & Martin

Brave Sir Robbin | February 13, 2021 at 4:29 pm

All Democrats also voted in stupid mendacious lockstep, too. Remember than. Always solidarity on that side of the isle.

The Republicans who voted to convict Trump hate you. It is vote of disdain and disgust at you.

When the Democrats come after you, these Republicans will at best stand idly by. Likely, they will join the Democrats in whatever else they have planned and aimed at you.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | February 13, 2021 at 5:32 pm

    Oh, and there are others on the Republican side who voted to acquit, but who also hate you. They are just too cowardly to vote their mind.

    Many of the rats have come out into the light. Others continue to hide in the dark.

    That’s one theory or they thought Trump was guilty. You ascribe bad faith when the evidence was clearly in favour of conviction.

Murkowski getting primaried and destroyed in that primary and losing the general election this time has to be top priority.

She is a waste of a seat.

Let’s not get cocky just yet. There may be some mail-in or absentee votes yet to count. I predict Trump will actually lose 95-43, and Biden will also get a few more votes for president.

Lucifer Morningstar | February 13, 2021 at 4:35 pm

Nancy Pelosi becomes first House Speaker to bring two failed impeachments

And if the Republicans had any sense (they don’t) they’d be trumpeting this single fact to the American public. How Pelosi and the democrats thought that attempting to impeach Trump, twice no less, was more important then the welfare of the citizens in during a pandemic.

If the GOP is to survive, at least seven scalps must be collected (politically speaking). If these folks don’t feel real, serious, consequences for their votes, then we are in big, big trouble. (We are anyway, but it’s even more dire otherwise).

    Milhouse in reply to Jounulz. | February 13, 2021 at 7:55 pm

    Six of those scalps are not available for collection, at least until 2024. And the seventh isn’t particularly available either, since she’s already survived losing a R primary.

      Jounulz in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 11:04 pm

      Thanks, Captain Obvious. Since it appears you missed the point, I’ll lay it out. Voters must remember these votes and vote against these persons (where applicable) the next chance they get. For the others, they need to have things like censure, and general rejection from voters. That can take many forms.

It is beyond nauseating what this spiteful, hideous woman has been allowed to do to our country.Not once, but twice this despicable gas bag has been allowed to put our country through a nightmare, simply to satisfy her personal hatred of Trump…in both cases she knew she had absolutely no chance to impeach him, but went ahead and did it anyway. She cannot stop hating, even after he is out of office. I would so love to see this woman locked away in prison forever for what she did, just to satisfy herself and a handful of the other radical psychopaths that make up the left wing of Congress.

    hopeful in reply to yerheinous. | February 13, 2021 at 5:32 pm

    couldn’t agree more,yerhein. I’m a couple of years older than La Cunya, The Madam Speaks! and I have the most fervent wish to live just one day longer than she does.

    Nancy’s Prison Blues
    (A parody* of Folsom Prison Blues by Johnny Cash)

    I hear the speaker grumblin’, she’s prattling on again
    Some cockamamie nonsense ‘bout some Russian
    I’m stuck in Nancy’s prison, with AOC’s mayhem
    Impeachment train keeps rollin’, will it never end

    I’m just a lowly freshman – the speaker told me “Hon”
    Don’t ever go against me, or you’ll be “one and done”
    She shot me with that look of hers she must think she’s a god
    I laughed when I remembered, she fears the wrath of Squad

    I bet she’s drinking vino in that wine snob’s fancy cave
    Grazin’ on some goat cheese up Sonoma way
    She’s lining her own pockets “pay to play” is where it’s at
    Meanwhile in her district, they’re knee deep in crap

    If I escape this prison, if the gavel could be mine
    I’d start banging heads and I’d move us down the line
    No more Nancy’s prison, that ain’t the way it works
    I’d gavel down the hard heads do-nothing democrat jerks

I just don’t understand how this could have happened. In addition to a rock-solid understanding of the Constitution, the dems had such an air-tight, fact-filled case. /sarc

    amwick in reply to UJ. | February 13, 2021 at 5:42 pm

    I know you are kidding.. but.. if you weren’t..
    as they say down south..

    Bless your heart..

    Milhouse in reply to UJ. | February 13, 2021 at 8:15 pm

    They were stronger on the constitution than on the facts.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 8:21 pm

      They were on the side of the Constitution by chance only. Given different circumstances (say, the impeachment of Obama for his crimes) they would be less “strong” on the Constitution and more strong on whatever suits their purpose.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 9:28 am

      Despite 144 legal scholars against the First Amendment cheering them on, the violations of due process alone show that it is not by choice that if they were on the side of the Constitution in any matter relating to this impeachment it was by accident and not by choice.
      That being said, they may very well have been even more far off with respect to the facts than with respect to the law.

next order of business, replace mc connell and mc carthy as minority leaders

It is now my mission to ensure the GOPe is as miserable as possible from now on. I can’t think of a better place to start than to establish a new political party with 70% of their voters.

Now Pres. Trump can get busy with his post-presidency priorities: getting even with the ones who stabbed him in the back. It will be a full-time job, but he’s got the time and the money to do a thorough job.

Connivin Caniff | February 13, 2021 at 5:13 pm

Don’t forget, with all the indictments, sooner or later all the facts will come out as to precisely who the instigators and participants were in the trespass on the Capitol, and when they actually planned their assault. It is our job to figure out how we can set up totally independent and untouchable internet operations that can serve 80 million active minds.

Bitch McConnell is throwing a tantrum on the floor. He was desperate to get rid of Trump and the Democrats gave him absolutely no cover to do so.

Read his pathetic weasel statement and listen to what he’s saying.

He hates Trump and he hates YOU for voting for Trump.

Then McConnell goes out and makes a speech that shatters the party.

Now we have the names of the seven GOP Senate traitors who hate Trump so much they ignored the lack of evidence. Including two who previously voted the trial was unconstitutional.

Just another one of the many reasons why I no longer support the GOP as a party and call myself an independent.

    bobtuba in reply to JHogan. | February 13, 2021 at 8:20 pm

    The trouble is, if you live in a closed primary state, then that means to don’t get a vote in the GOP primary. That makes getting rid of the RINOs even more difficult. Many are in states / districts where the GOP candidate is going to win. The primary is the only chance we have to get rid of these scumbags.

      gospace in reply to bobtuba. | February 13, 2021 at 8:47 pm

      Closed primary states give you a BETTER chance of getting a conservative Republican in. Democrats and fence sitters can’t come in and mess up the votes. No one should have a say in who represents a party except party members. If you want to register independent- fine. Sign a petition to get a 3rd party candidate on the ballot or vote for a party candidate- but don’t complain you didn’t have a voice in who was running. You had a choice to participate in candidate selection, and chose not to.

    Milhouse in reply to JHogan. | February 13, 2021 at 8:34 pm

    Or they saw the evidence differently. I don’t understand how one can do so, but people are different, and rather than ascribing bad faith to them we should consider that perhaps they simply saw something that we do not. At least those of them who have solid histories of conservative principles. Romney, we understand, it’s petulance; Collins has a hard row to hoe in her state; Murkowski, who ever knows what motivates her? I have no idea about Cassidy and Barr. But Sasse and Toomey have good histories, so it’s not right to throw them overboard just because of one disagreement. But I’m disappointed with them.

Antifundamentalist | February 13, 2021 at 5:34 pm

Too bad they cannot bill Pelosi personally for the waste of taxpayer dollars. I wonder what it cost the taxpayers – gold commemorative pens and all?

Impeachment isn’t intended to further your political agenda.

I hope that this shitshow made the point that people become incensed when they and their elected sitting president of the United States are censored, scrubbed, erased from all media, specifically having their 1a rights violated by unelected media oligarchs working for the interests of those who committed proven voting fraud.

The proof of voter fraud is available. Physically recounted votes showed that the machines flipped thousands of votes from Trump to Biden in the counties audited. Watch the video.

A valid election didn’t happen and it won’t until the censorship ends and ithe details of the fraud are exposed by nationwide audits bringing ALL the guilty to justice.

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/absolute-proof-exposing-election-fraud-and-theft-america-enemies-foreign-and-domestic

    Milhouse in reply to robmisek. | February 13, 2021 at 8:37 pm

    The proof of voter fraud is available. Physically recounted votes showed that the machines flipped thousands of votes from Trump to Biden in the counties audited.

    This just isn’t true.

Now that McConnell invited further persecution, I’m curious what you guys think.

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 states in relevant part:

but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

I’d argue this means only the Party convicted is liable &c. with respect of the conduct impeached, if acquitted double jeopardy applies. If the House had not, on the other hand, brought their snap impeachment, the entirety of the behavior they made part of their Impeachment could be subject to criminal proceedings.

Thoughts?

    My thoughts are that the Democrats don’t give a shit what the law says or allows them to do.

    They’re going to do it anyway.

    DaveGinOly in reply to felixrigidus. | February 13, 2021 at 8:28 pm

    That clause is just an assurance that a president who is removed from office can’t escape criminal liability. It is an “if>not” proposition, not an “if>only then” proposition.

      gospace in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 13, 2021 at 8:51 pm

      Don’t agree. It’s a double jeopardy provision. The Senate punishment doesn’t include anything which resembles criminal punishment. So a trial on the charges- if they’re criminal charges, can be pursued in criminal court. But- if not convicted in the Senate, it prevents a President from being pursued and harassed on those same charges in a criminal court while still sitting. And that applies to post presidency.

      felixrigidus in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 14, 2021 at 10:55 am

      Dave, I do not think that is true. First of all, if the impeached officer (or President, or Vice President) is convicted the sanctions are restricted to removal and possibly added on top of that disqualification. That means there is a need to allow actual criminal sanctions, and it makes sense to explicitly state that a criminal trial is not prevented by a conviction.
      However, if the Court of Impeachment render holds them not guilty how would a criminal prosecution on top of the Impeachment process be justified?
      There is no explicit language that allows civil suits where a criminal trial has taken place and yet it is not a case of double jeopardy. If the Constitution has specific language allowing prosecution under certain circumstances it seems more natural to assume these words do have meaning and are not purely ornamental.

        You’re still not making any sense. How would it not be justified? If a conviction doesn’t bar criminal prosecution, then a fortiori an acquittal can’t bar it. Acquittal in a political process is certainly no indication of how the case would go in a judicial process.

        In any case, there’s a much more fundamental problem with your claim. The bar on “double jeopardy” is that a person may not, for the same offense, be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb. That’s a term of art that includes fines and imprisonment, i.e. criminal penalties; but it doesn’t include removal from office or disqualification from future office. Trump’s senate trial did not put him in jeopardy; there was nothing the senate could do to his life, limbs, property, or liberty. Therefore there’s no bar to his being put in jeopardy for the first and only time.

        A note to those who seem to be under the impression that the purpose of this clause was to carve out an exception to the bar on double-jeopardy: That is impossible, because the original constitution had no such bar. People could be tried for the same offense as often as the government cared to prosecute them. The purpose of that clause is therefore not to permit a second trial, but to say that the limit on the penalties the senate can impose would not apply to a subsequent trial in a criminal court. The point was to reassure people that a criminal official would not escape justice, but that it had to be done in a proper court, not in the senate.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 12:40 pm

          You’re still not making any sense.

          May I suggest you tone down your unearned arrogance just a little bit? At least when your arguments are as feeble as here?

          If a conviction doesn’t bar criminal prosecution, then a fortiori an acquittal can’t bar it.

          You really haven’t thought this through, have you? You are asserting that if you have been found not guilty double jeopardy does not apply if it does not apply if you are found guilty?
          Do you also think that if being found guilty leads to sentencing then a fortiori being found not guilty must also lead to sentencing?

          In any case, there’s a much more fundamental problem with your claim. (…) Therefore there’s no bar to his being put
          in jeopardy for the first and only time.

          Well, there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. As you correctly point out the Fifth Amendment is “not in the original constitution.” This shows that the framers thought of the concept as so fundamental that they found it necessary to explicitly permit criminal prosecution after the officer was subjected to an Impeachment trial. Impeachment is a species of a criminal trial, despite your protestation that it is something categorically different. The grounds for Impeachments are “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and Article 3 Section 2 Clause 3 (“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury”) makes the nature as a criminal procedure perfectly clear. That is exactly what it was in English law: a criminal proceeding where all criminal punishments were available upon conviction.

          A note to those who seem to be under the impression that the purpose of this clause was (…) The point was to reassure people that a criminal official would not escape justice, but that it had to be done in a proper court, not in the senate.

          The Constitution says

          but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable

          It does not say

          but the Party shall nevertheless be liable

          The framers generally were parsimonious, an interpretation like yours that would allow for a word simply be stricken from the text without changing its content is generally not preferred.

    Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | February 13, 2021 at 8:49 pm

    Sorry, that makes no sense. If even a party already convicted and punished can be subjected to the criminal process and punished again, a fortiori one who has not yet been punished.

    The whole point is that this is a completely separate process, unrelated to a criminal trial. It’s like when a cop is accused of a crime; he faces a criminal trial to see whether he should be sent to prison, and also an administrative trial to see whether he should be fired, and the two process have nothing to do with each other. Trump has passed his administrative trial, so if he still had his job he would get to keep it. But if there were any evidence that he’d committed a crime he could still be tried for it.

    The real obstacle to a criminal trial is simply that he didn’t break any laws. His speech was 100% protected by the first amendment, which was not a bar to impeachment but is a complete bar to any criminal process.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 10:45 pm

      “The real obstacle to a criminal trial is simply that he didn’t break any laws.”

      Yes, I suppose everyone who was sent to a Soviet gulag was guilty, at least of something even if not what they were charged with and convicted of.

      I could give countless examples of people from all over the world, including the US, that were charged and convicted of things they did not do, of which those who did the charging and convicting new full and well, but did not care, or even looked upon that as a feature of the prosecution to demonstrate their power over their victim.

      I fully expect Trump and his family to be criminally charged with something soon. Do not worry. They will make something up if required. They will do all they can to try and make him admit guilt to something in court, head bowed solemnly – hands clasped in front of him, confessing his sins and evil, his soul beaten and begging for mercy.

      The deplorables must be made to learn their place. So if they can publicly shame, humiliate, ruin, and jail Trump, what kind of signal does that send everyone else? That’s what all this show is about – the impeachment and the 25,000 troops in DC. It’s about letting the deplorables know what their place is, in no uncertain terms.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 11:07 am

      Are you saying double jeopardy does not apply after you are found not guilty but only if you have been found guilty?
      Surely not.
      Unless you do, you must admit that your a fortiori argument fails. Otherwise, it still fails, but you would probably not see any inconsistency.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 11:33 am

      Impeachment is and was historically a criminal trial. The grounds for Impeachment are crimes and misdemeanors (even though no federal criminal law existed at the time the Constitution was written, obviously), the Senate votes “guilty” or “not guilty,” and Article 3 Section 2 Clause 3 (“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;”) plainly points to the Trial of Impeachment being a special case of a criminal trial.
      If the framers thought Impeachment would in no way bar prosecution, why would they have bothered to give express permission, even before the Fifth Amendment even was an issue? They were not in the habit of putting purely ornamental flourishes into the constitutional text, after all.

caseoftheblues | February 13, 2021 at 5:45 pm

So the traitorous 7…the ones who think they are safe because not seeking re-election…whatever companies that they are going to “work” at to further pad their bank accounts…need to be hounded and shamed..boycotted…etc..whatever. Hey we got the memo about the new rules….

My heart breaks for President Trump and his family. This is an absolutely vile, evil thing that they are enduring.
I absolutely loathe the jackals in DC.
Posted by: Pug Mahon, Being Moar Dumber

We are a broken country. I am seething just under the surface.

Anything else I say will get me banned.

Mitch McConnell is now calling for Trump to be prosecuted as a private citizen “for everything he did while in office”
====
PDT can be arrested for record unemployment, roaring economy, mid east percent deal, no wars, etc?

    DaveGinOly in reply to gonzotx. | February 13, 2021 at 8:31 pm

    Is McConnel baiting the Democrats? An actual trial would not be under their control. Trump could bring documentation and witnesses. Any such trial could end just about the time campaigning starts for 2024. If Trump survives criminal prosecution(s), the Dems will have created a monster. A vindicated Trump supported by a base of people breathing fire.

What an utter disgrace and outrage — the final gasp of the vile, lawless, petulant, vindictive, spite-filled, infantile and totalitarian Dhimmi-crats utterly destructive and insane Trump-hatred.

Every single so-called “Republican” Senator who supported this farce should be kicked out of the GOP and made persona non grata in all circles, political and otherwise.

Sasse is such a transparently self-promoting and sanctimonious fool. This guy writes books and believes himself to be oh-so intelligent. He thinks that he’s gaining currency with the Dhimmi-crats and their media lemmings, in preparation for a 2024 presidential run. But, he’s a narcissistic fool.

    Milhouse in reply to guyjones. | February 13, 2021 at 8:53 pm

    What does “kicked out of the GOP” mean? Seriously, there doesn’t seem to be such a thing. They can be kicked out of the GOP senate caucus, but that’s not likely because their votes are needed. What else is there for them to be “kicked out” of?

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2021 at 9:20 pm

      The cloakroom, after someone turns out the lights.

      guyjones in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 8:34 am

      So, one can’t be formally kicked out of the GOP. I was speaking rhetorically, gadfly.

      Call it being made “persona non grata.” Shunned, ostracized, vilified. Made to experience shame and scorn. You get my point.

Next step — Trump must form the “America Party” and run as a third-party candidate, in 2024.

I was having some fun listening to the live NPR coverage today and fisking (in my mind) all the logical (and legal (not a lawyer)) fallacies and falsities being put forward by the speakers – including a few on the presidents side btw.

Most obvious included Schumer saying Trump not volunteering to testify was sufficient proof of guilt in and of itself – has the man no idea about how American concepts of justice work?

And I got a kick when I noticed lots of NPR overdubbing for “this is live coverage of…” when Trumps lawyers were talking which drowned them out – not so much during house managers talking – I guess to NPR any defense was by definition unimportant?

It occurred to me I’d buy a book by professor Jacobson which did a professional fisking of the logical and legal arguments I was hearing. Just a thought.

    Arminius in reply to BobM. | February 13, 2021 at 6:36 pm

    “…Most obvious included Schumer saying Trump not volunteering to testify was sufficient proof of guilt in and of itself – has the man no idea about how American concepts of justice work?…”

    Yes, of course he does. He just despises American principles of justice as much as he despises the United States Constitution.

    He prefers the Soviet model in both categories. Or, the CCP’s if you prefer. There’s a reason the Dems want to be “China for a day.” Or rather, China for eternity.

    In Uncle Joe’s USSR Trump would have been convicted. When I call these people Stalinists I’m not using the term lightly or ahistorically. But calling them Maoists would be just as accurate and work just as well.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to BobM. | February 13, 2021 at 7:01 pm

    Like much of media, NPR is no longer content to report just news, today they shovel way too much crap.

      henrybowman in reply to JusticeDelivered. | February 13, 2021 at 9:22 pm

      You don’t need freedom of speech or press — we have a government department now that is charged to take care of that for you.

      What? That’s precisely what they used to tell gun permit applicants about police departments.

What a freaking shame

Michael van der Veen, “My Entire Family, My Law Firm, and My Home is under siege right now.”
Posted by: whig

And no one will do anything about it if he lives in a blue city.

    henrybowman in reply to gonzotx. | February 13, 2021 at 9:23 pm

    This is the second time in just this thread you have referred to something having been “posted,” but you never say where.

Per the Babylon Bee, three more impeachments on the punch card and Trump is entitled to a free foot-long Italian BMT.

caseoftheblues | February 13, 2021 at 7:57 pm

Mitch McConnell MUST go! He gets NO credit for judicial appointments…I’m guessing and its starting to appear he got in a bunch of fake conservative judges in including the SC ones.

Don’t worry;
They aren’t done trying to prosecute him yet.
Good thing they don’t have to use their own money.

“Murkowski: Up for re-election in 2022”
Sarah Palin can see 2020 from her house.

https://realnewsrealpatriots.com/sarah-palin-threatens-to-primary-lisa-murkowski-over-scotus-vote-i-can-see-2020-from-my-house/

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Florida Gator. | February 13, 2021 at 8:48 pm

    As much as I would love to see Senator Palin replace Murkowski, we have to realize that what controls matters is WHO counts the votes, not who and how many vote how.

    Subotai Bahadur

That’s 2022.

Forget recalling the Senators, just start local and soon they will have no friends.

I understand that Ms. Peloi got all wee wee’d up and was furious with the House impeachment team when Trump avoided impeachment. She probably needs to change her Depends now.

Pelosi will be proud to say that she managed to impeach Trump twice! Nobody ever did that.

Trump can be proud to say that he beat the phony Pelosi rap twice!
Nancy doesn’t like being a two time loser–but that’s what has happened.

    Come on, did she seriously expect him to be convicted?! Is she that detached from reality?! She had to know from the beginning that he was guaranteed acquittal no matter how good a job her managers did.

      mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 8:38 am

      Very true, I think there are several strands to Pelosis’ argument for impeachment

      1) it was a show trial ie air republican dirty laundry in public

      2) conviction ie it was the right thing to do given the nature of what Democrats think Trump did

      And 3) it continues to drive a wedge in the Republican party.

      I’d suggest that as a political operation it’s done a lot of damage to both Trump and the Republicans. The GOP is more disunited than ever before and with Trump threatening revenge on those who voted against him that makes those seats more vulnerable and potentially threatens to make GOP spend money on otherwise easy races. Then there is the wider view point, there are indications of a drop in registered Republican voters. The long term impact is very hard to predict but in the short term I think GOP and Trump have been badly damaged.

      venril in reply to Milhouse. | February 17, 2021 at 11:27 am

      “… he was guaranteed acquittal no matter how good a job her managers did.”

      Indeed. They could only polish that turd of a case so much.

Every failed impeachment makes her eyebrows travel farther away from her eyes and closer to her hairline.

TRIGER WARNING will effect Woke, Uni student and iD-teN-ts feelings

“Mum what’s for tea tonight? Guess what happened a work today. They showed that film and in it were those mean men who were picking on me and calling out my name in a mean way! But Mum they didn’t say they were sorry and the others didn’t stick up for me. You know Johnny, the one who sits next to me at work and lives down the road with his mum and dad ? He stood up for me Mum and said it was “a day in Infamy”. You know those word that nice president said after Grand Dad die in that air raid in that port in Hawaii?”

Lets get some sad reality, which today’s MSM don’t, in the form of exaggeration (or hyperbole) to what the current events in the USA Capital says and means.

First of all the facts. Only 1 unarmed person-a female vet- got unlawfully shot; 3 elderly gentlemen died of heart attacks through over excitement (their fault for coming); 1 cop didn’t duck fast enough and got hit by a flying fire extinguisher (sad) and 2 cops sadly didn’t get care at work and home and committed suicide at their own hands- sad indictments of the lack of proper training of the nation’s police force.

Pence’s and Pelosi’s fancy chairs were sat upon and defiled by at least 2 of Hillarys despicables and/or those Obama people who practice their freedom of religion and bear arms,

The “working” political wokes experienced a very small example of the full calamity as We The People do when BLM and ANTIFA follow their woke masters indignations and Burn and Shoot us Common People.

Instead of the elite ruling wokes pointing their long Pelosi like fingers at the utter failure of the protection arm of the Washington deep state bureaucracy in protecting them in the first place, they aim their “guns” at the 70 million WTP through Trump and with great hypocrisy salute Joe’s healing and coming together process with two long Polosi fingers.

Thanks for that. See you in ‘22 and ‘24 and ever more after that Pelosi!! We have been shown how to stand up for ourselves and freedom even though our current mentor is a sad effected man like most of us. WE thank him for showing that it is possible to beat the born to rule elites at their own game and win!! Be involved or they will destroy you and what you stand for!

    Milhouse in reply to dkabay. | February 14, 2021 at 10:56 am

    WTF are you on about? None of the people who died were elderly, or gentlemen, and there was no fire extinguisher.

      robmisek in reply to Milhouse. | February 14, 2021 at 1:07 pm

      Hey dipshit

      I called you out to refute any evidence in the video of voting fraud above that you said was fabricated.

      Refute it, or you’re a liar.

      That’s how rational debate in an environment of free speech works.

Don’t you just love all the unity ?

Pelosi is just stupid.

Or as Scott Adams calls them, Failpeachments.

“Trump Acquitted – Nancy Pelosi Becomes First House Speaker To Bring Two” hoax “Impeachments”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend