GOV/MIL Main "Second Impeachment" Thread


TB Fanatic
[COMMENT: Pulling this away from the "Elections" thread]

“YOU SHOULD BE IMPEACHED! You Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff!” – Rudy Giuliani DESTROYS Democrats’ Illegitimate Impeachment of Donald Trump

By Joe Hoft
Published January 26, 2021 at 9:11am

The corrupt and seditious Democrats are again projecting. This time they are claiming President Trump committed sedition when he claimed the stolen 2020 election was stolen.

The Democrats are getting much worse. They have always projected their faults and crimes on fellow Americans but now they really believe what they are saying. For example, the Democrats claim President Trump and his supporters are racists yet they are the only party in the world today that supported slavery, the Klu Klux Klan and segregation. They still support segregation today in demanding white males, females and children give up their ‘privilege’.

Democrats and foreign agents interfered in the 2020 election. We found proof. The Democrats pushed absentee ballots and violated laws. But the law requires that these changes be made in the legislatures not by far left politicians.

China and other foreign entities interfered in our election and Democrats have yet to acknowledge this:

The Democrats and their allies are actively censoring discussion of the election being interfered with and the numerous anomalies and what are likely fraudulent acts that occurred. Instead of looking at their own seditious acts, they blame President Trump for being seditious.

Rudy Giuliani released his most recent ‘Common Sense’ discussion and he discussed the upcoming impeachment going to the Senate. The Democrats base their reasoning, not on evidence, but on their feelings. They claim Trump supporters, after hearing the President’s speech on January 6th, stormed the Capitol. But they provide no support for such allegations.

The President was still speaking when the Capitol was breached. We don’t know if all of the people who went into the Capitol even committed a crime by doing so. Many were let in the Capitol. We do know Antifa was there inside the Capitol and Antifa members were breaking glass in the Capitol and they were all around Ashli Babbitt when she was shot dead by a Capitol policeman:

Rudy says it was very cold that day and they all wanted to go back to their rooms it was so cold. The walk to the Capitol from where President Trump spoke was about a 40 minute walk.
The Democrats have not provided one individual who listened to the President’s speech and then went inside the Capitol and threatened Congress and damaged property.

The Democrats call President Trump seditious for giving a speech about a stolen election. But Rudy shared the obvious (at the 17:30 mark below):
How do you define the good, better or best American? The belief in the values of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence to hold us together. Where’s the belief in this Constitution that says you shall impeach someone to remove them from office and then you have an impeachment to remove then someone who’s been removed?
[Someone] who you attempted to impeach before and who was acquitted. And now it turns out it was a phony charge before.
YOU SHOULD BE IMPEACHED! You Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff! And you should be tried after that for conspiracy to defraud the United States! And then we should see how much did Obama know – how much did Biden know? Oh and by the way, you’re impeaching a man who’s removed from office for not committing a crime and you just inaugurated a President where there is a hard drive showing 30 years of criminal activity and you censored that from the American people.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO OUR COUNTRY? YOU’RE RIPPING IT APART. Prosecuting an impeachment to remove a man from office who’s been removed based on no allegation of a crime and not a single witness.
Rumble videoon website Rudy's Common Sense 24:22 min

Democrats believe free speech based on facts is not as good as accusations based on lies.
  • Like
Reactions: bev


TB Fanatic

MUST WATCH: Rand Paul Goes Off on “Sham Impeachment,” Media and Democrat Hypocrisy in Scorched Earth Speech

By Cristina Laila
Published January 26, 2021 at 12:56pm

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) went off on the “sham impeachment,” media and Democrat hypocrisy in a scorched earth speech on Tuesday.

The Democrats in the senate along with some Republican traitors want to convict private citizen Donald Trump after the House voted to impeach him for ‘inciting an insurrection.’

No where in the Constitution or any other documents written by our framers does it mention anything about impeaching and convicting a former president.
Rand Paul said the senate trial of Donald Trump is a “kangaroo court.”

“Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history… It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump,” Rand Paul said.

The best part of Rand Paul’s speech was when he called out Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris for inciting violence against Trump supporters and supporting BLM-Antifa rioters.

“No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise” Rand Paul said referring to the Bernie supporter who shot up a baseball field full of GOP lawmakers and staffers in June of 2017.

‘No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters to push back on members of Trump’s cabinet if they see them at a gas station,’ he added.

This is the BEST takedown of Democrats’ unconstitutional impeachment sham I’ve seen.
EVERY American should see this speech from @RandPaul.
Watch what your elected officials are busy debating while millions of Americans are suffering
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 26, 2021
9:09 min


TB Fanatic

BREAKING: Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy Taken to Hospital After Presiding Over Opening of Sham Impeachment Trial

By Cristina Laila
Published January 26, 2021 at 6:03pm

80-year-old Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) was taken to the hospital on Tuesday evening after presiding over the opening of the sham impeachment trial against Donald Trump.

Leahy, the Senate President Pro Tempore, is the longest serving Senator of the Majority party and is presiding over the sham impeachment trial since Chief Justice John Roberts opted out.

Tuesday evening Leahy was taken from his Capitol office to the hospital after he wasn’t feeling well.

Leahy spox said: “This evening, Senator Leahy was in his Capitol office and was not feeling well. He was examined in the Capitol by the Attending Physician. Out of an abundance of caution, the Attending Physician recommended that he be taken to a local hospital.
Leahy spox: “This evening, Senator Leahy was in his Capitol office and was not feeling well. He was examined in the Capitol by the Attending Physician. Out of an abundance of caution, the Attending Physician recommended that he be taken to a local hospital.” He’s being evaluated
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 26, 2021
Leahy is expected to be back in the Senate tomorrow.
Durbin says to @wolfblitzer that Leahy was taken to the hospital out of an “abundance of caution” but expects that the senator will be back in the Senate tomorrow
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 26, 2021
Update: Leahy is now home after getting test results back and after a full examination.
Leahy spox: “The Capitol Physician suggested that Senator Leahy go to George Washington University Hospital this evening for observation, out of an abundance of caution. After getting test results back, and after a thorough examination, Senator Leahy now is home.”
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 27, 2021


TB Fanatic

BREAKING: Senate Votes 55-45 to Set Aside Rand Paul’s Point of Order That Impeachment Unconstitutional – 5 Republicans Vote with Democrats

By Jim Hoft
Published January 26, 2021 at 2:40pm

On Tuesday Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) raised a point of order that the impeachment of private citizen Donald Trump is unconstitutional.

Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer then moved to table or kill Paul’s point of order. Schumer only needed a simple majority vote to set Paul’s point of order aside.

The Senate then voted 55-45 against Senator Rand Paul’s motion.
Senate votes to set aside Paul’s point of order, arguing the Trump impeachment trial is unconstitutional The vote was 55-45
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 26, 2021
Five GOP senators vote with Dems, rejecting Sen Paul’s argument that impeachment trial is unconstitutional: Collins
Murkowski Romney Sasse Toomey
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 26, 2021
FIVE Republicans voted with Democrats and against Rand Paul. The list included: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.
Five GOP senators vote with Dems, rejecting Sen Paul’s argument that impeachment trial is unconstitutional: Collins
Murkowski Romney Sasse Toomey
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 26, 2021
The US Senate then moved the impeachment trial to February 9th at 1 PM.
Senate approves resolution for operation of Senate trial, 83-17. Trial is done until February 9 at 1 pm et
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 26, 2021
Senator Paul responds
The Senate just voted on my constitutional point of order.
45 Senators agreed that this sham of a “trial” is unconstitutional.
That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process.
This “trial” is dead on arrival in the Senate.
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 26, 2021


TB Fanatic

Senate votes 55-45 to hold trial — Five Republicans vote with democrats…
Posted by Kane on January 26, 2021 7:39 pm


The Senate rejected a move by Rand Paul to declare Trump’s impeachment trial unconstitutional

Senate Votes 55-45 — Five Republicans Vote with Democrats

Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey…
Five GOP senators vote with Dems, rejecting Sen Paul's argument that impeachment trial is unconstitutional: Collins
Murkowski Romney Sasse Toomey
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 26, 2021
The Senate just voted on my constitutional point of order.
45 Senators agreed that this sham of a “trial” is unconstitutional.
That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process.
This “trial” is dead on arrival in the Senate.
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 26, 2021
Rand Paul requests vote to dismiss impeachment trial

1:43 min


TB Fanatic
14:57 min
Rand Paul: Trump impeachment push is ‘most divisive thing’ Dems could do
•Jan 26, 2021

Glenn Beck
Senator Rand Paul recently called the Democrats’ efforts to continue with President Trump’s impeachment trial a ‘sham,’ and he tells Glenn it’s the ‘most divisive’ thing Democrats could do right now. ‘This is an illegitimate process from top to bottom,’ he says, adding that his point will be further proven if Chief Justice John Roberts skips the trial. Plus, Sen. Paul explains why the Dems’ argument that former President Trump ‘incited violence’ is hugely hypocritical: They used similar language in 2017, he says, and it nearly cost the life of Rep. Steve Scalise.


Contributing Member
I like Rand to an extent,actually voted for him in the general election.I emailed him (from illinois) and got a response back pretty quick.Sorta impressed me that I didn't live in his state and still he responded.My own pos senators anytime I've sent them an email expresing my displeasure the dumb shhhits thank me for my support.
  • Like
Reactions: bev


TB Fanatic

'They're Wasting Our Time': Rand Paul Shreds 'Unconstitutional' Trump Impeachment, Lists Examples Of 'Democrat Incitement'

TUESDAY, JAN 26, 2021 - 19:46
Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul shredded Congressional Democrats over the second impeachment of former President Trump, arguing in a floor speech in a procedural motion to 'table or kill' the proceedings that "Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history," adding "It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump"
Sen. @RandPaul:

"Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history... It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump."
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 26, 2021
Paul then argued that Democrats are guilty of the exact 'incitement' they've accused Trump of - suggesting that "No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise," and "No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters" to confront Trump officials in public."
Sen. Rand Paul:

"No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise."

"No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters" to confront Trump officials in public.
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 26, 2021
Sen. Rand Paul:

"I disagreed. I don’t think Congress should overturn the Electoral College but impeaching or censoring, or expelling a member of Congress you disagree with? Is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth?"
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 26, 2021
Ultimately, 45 GOP Senators voted to kill the impeachment - meaning they agree that it's unconstitutional, while five GOP Senators voted to table it and proceed with the impeachment; Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.

It would require another 12 GOP Senators to convict and impeach Trump - now a private citizen.

Earlier in the week, Paul wrote that the impeachment trial was a "farce and should be dismissed before it is even allowed to begin," adding that the Senate doesn't have the authority to hold an impeachment trial for a former president.

"It shows they don’t have the votes and we’re basically wasting our time," said Paul, who believes the Senate roll call would show that over a third of the chamber thinks the proceeding is unconstitutional.
Republican senators have criticized the president for his actions on Jan. 6, but many have signaled opposition to voting to convict the president. At least 30 Senate Republicans have said they are opposed to or leaning against convicting Mr. Trump, according to a Wall Street Journal survey of senators and their public comments, leaving few open to potentially casting a guilty vote.
I doubt there are seven, quite honestly. I’m certain there aren’t 17, at least not today,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R., N.D.). He cited concerns over the legality of trying a former president, as well as whether Mr. Trump’s actions, while wrong, constituted incitement. -WSJ
Democrats, meanwhile, say the trial is warranted and that Congressional Republicans are focusing on the constitutional question to avoid having to weigh the impeachment on its merits - much like most of the judges who tossed out election challenges based on technical factors.

"They don’t want to be held accountable on that vote, so they’re going to try to make it another argument that [it’s] all about the Constitution," said Democratic Senator Dick Durbin.

This will be the first ever impeachment trial for a former president. It's scheduled to begin in earnest the week of Feb. 8, approximately one month after the US Capitol riot which left five people dead and temporarily disrupted the counting of the electoral votes.

Watch Paul's entire speech below:

8:56 min
  • Like
Reactions: bev


TB Fanatic

BARR: A Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction Should Swiftly End The Senate Impeachment Farce
US President Trump

(Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

January 25, 20219:55 AM ET

If there was perhaps one mistake our Founders made in drafting the Constitution, it was presuming that future members of the Legislative Branch would be sufficiently competent to actually read the document to which they all had sworn an oath. It is, however, increasingly clear that many – perhaps most — sitting United States senators cannot read the plain text of the Constitution.

The relevant wording in the Constitution is at the very end of Article II, establishing that a constitutionally errant “President, . . . shall be removed from Office” if he first has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Unlike other sections of the Constitution where clarity may be obscured by arcane wording, this particular provision is clear and concise, and it applies to “the President.” The language pointedly does not provide in any way, shape, or form that a “Former President” or an “Ex-President” may be similarly punished, only the President.

The 100-member Senate at this moment is split right down the middle between those who identify as Republicans and those who identify as Democrats.

Democrat leader Chuck Schumer has declared openly and without hesitancy that as the self-styled “Majority Leader,” he will move forward within days to try Donald Trump. The goal of such a trial would be to find Mr. Trump guilty of the single Article of Impeachment passed on Jan. 13 by a majority of representatives on the other side of the Capitol Dome.

While many GOP senators remain openly opposed to Schumer’s plan, it appears that a number of Republican senators, notably including the most recent “Majority Leader” – Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell – have signed on to the notion that there will be a trial as demanded by Schumer.

The basis on which Schumer and his Democrat colleagues are proceeding against Trump can best be understood by their all-consuming hatred for the former president, a sentiment they share with their House colleagues. Their zeal to punish Mr. Trump appears to have blinded them even to common sense and to the plain meaning of words – factors that otherwise and in less toxic times would lead them to realize that no matter how powerful and exalted they might view themselves as “senators,” a person cannot be “removed” by them from an office that he or she does not in fact occupy.

It is black-letter law that a court cannot punish someone for a crime if it does not have jurisdiction over that person. Just as courts of law have no power over individuals outside their defined jurisdiction, the United States Senate has no power over a former President of the United States.

No matter the degree to which Sen. Schumer despises Mr. Trump and hopes to prevent him from being able to run again for office at some future date (as unlikely as that may be), the body of which Schumer is a long-serving member does not have power under the Constitution to thus punish the ex-president.

It is less clear what accounts for Sen. McConnell’s decision to buy into the legally baseless presumption that the Senate magically has acquired jurisdiction to conduct a trial of and to then punish a former president. Perhaps it is the fact that Trump’s behavior leading to the twin loss of Georgia’s Senate seats in the Jan. 5 runoff cost McConnell his job as Majority Leader. Maybe it is four years of pent-up dislike for Trump’s personal behavior contrary to establishment norms.

Regardless of why McConnell is behaving so foolishly as to read into the Constitution’s impeachment trial power of the Senate something that clearly and legally is not there, it is making the Senate appear unmoored from history, the law, and common sense.

Mitch McConnell is a lawyer. He seems, however, to have forgotten that a prosecutor who oversteps his authority and tries to convict someone over whom the court has no jurisdiction, will be hit with a swift – and ultimately successful – motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This is precisely what Trump’s lawyers need to file, and by so doing let the American people know that at least they can read the Constitution.



TB Fanatic

Jim Jordan Rounds Up a Rapid-Response Squad for Trump's 2nd Impeachment Trial
Jim Jordan Rounds Up a Rapid-Response Squad for Trump's 2nd Impeachment Trial

Monday, 25 January 2021 05:06 PM

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and several like-minded House colleagues are looking to reprise an impeachment trial rapid-response group to advise former President Donald Trump’s legal team and speak to the media, according to multiple people involved.

A similar effort was mounted during Trump’s first impeachment trial by eight House Republicans, acting apart from Trump’s formal impeachment defense lawyers.

Jordan didn’t respond Monday to requests to talk about efforts to revive such a squad, or how that might dovetail with the trial strategies of Trump’s new post-presidency legal team, to be headed by South Carolina lawyer Butch Bowers.
There had been some uncertainty over whether such a team was wanted, and whether lawmakers wanted to participate.

But people familiar with the plans said efforts to organize the squad are underway, with Jordan and several colleagues planning to look for opportunities during the trial to highlight what they see as a rushed impeachment and political overreach.

Some of the House Republicans who participated in the earlier team are no longer in Congress. Mark Meadows of North Carolina went on to serve as Trump’s White House chief of staff, and John Ratcliffe of Texas became director of national intelligence.

Doug Collins of Georgia, who was the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, is no longer in Congress.

Others on that team who remain in the House, and had no immediate comment, include Elise Stefanik and Lee Zeldin of New York, Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Debbie Lesko of Arizona.

This time around, with a trial expected to begin in early February, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy will preside, rather than Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump is no longer a sitting president.

Leahy, a Democrat, has promised fair rulings as he presides over Trump’s politically charged impeachment trial.

“I’m not presenting the evidence. I am making sure that procedures are followed,” he told reporters. “I don’t think there’s any senator who over the 40-plus years I’ve been here that would say that I’ve been anything but impartial in ruling on procedure.”

But his ability to be impartial was questioned by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who asked on Twitter, “How does a Senator preside, like a judge, and serve as juror too?”

Leahy, 80, is the longest-serving sitting senator, having been elected in 1974 in the wake of Watergate. He’s a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and is the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.


TB Fanatic

Democrats’ hopes to convict Trump in Senate fade, as some seek pivot to censure

All but five of 50 GOP senators voted that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a president who has already left office
Capitol in DC

Capitol in DC
(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
By Just the News staff
Updated: January 26, 2021 - 11:43pm

Members of the U.S. Senate are now reportedly talking about a censure resolution against former President Trump after a vote earlier in the day indicated that there wasn't enough support to convict him in a trial following his impeachment earlier this month by the House.

The vote in the Senate was over the question of whether it was constitutional to hold a trial for a president who had been impeached but had already left office. Only five Republican senators, along with all 50 Democratic senators, voted that it was constitutional, while 45 Republican senators voted that it wasn't.

Axios reported on Tuesday that Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) had been talking about a possible censure resolution with each other, and with other Senate colleagues as well.

"I think it's pretty obvious from the vote today," said Collins, "that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the President will be convicted. Just do the math." she said.

The Hill reported that "Kaine is also among a group of Democrats floating trying to bar Trump from future office through the 14th Amendment. That, like a censure resolution, could pass the Senate with only 60 votes compared with impeachment's two-thirds requirement. That means that if every Democrat voted for a censure resolution, they would need the support of at least 10 Senate Republicans."


TB Fanatic

Biden Acknowledges the Votes Aren't There to Convict Trump
Leah Barkoukis
Leah Barkoukis

Posted: Jan 26, 2021 8:15 AM
Share Tweet

Biden Acknowledges the Votes Aren't There to Convict Trump

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, Pool
Though President Biden is all in on a Senate impeachment trial, telling CNN he believes it “has to happen,” even he is acknowledging the reality that the upper chamber will not be able to convict former President Trump.

He told the network that if Trump had several months left in office the outcome of the trial could be different, but noted that it’s unlikely now that 17 GOP senators will vote to convict the former president.

"The Senate has changed since I was there, but it hasn’t changed that much," Biden said.
News — President Biden tells CNN that President Trump's impeachment trial "has to happen." While acknowledging the effect it could have on his agenda, Biden tells me there would be "a worse effect if it didn't happen.” Biden tells CNN Trump's impeachment trial 'has to happen'
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) January 26, 2021
Biden made the comment during a brief one-on-one interview with CNN in the halls of the West Wing. He acknowledged the effect it could have on his legislative agenda and Cabinet nominees but said there would be "a worse effect if it didn't happen." (CNN)
House Democrats on Monday night brought the article of impeachment to the Senate.

"Tonight, we have delivered the Article of Impeachment against Donald John Trump, former President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States,” said Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager. “The nine Impeachment Managers appointed by the House of Representatives will present overwhelming evidence of the facts of former President Trump's incitement of the violent insurrection that took place in and around the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

The trial is set to begin in early February, with Senate President Pro Tempore, Sen. Patrick Leahy, presiding over the proceedings.


TB Fanatic

Don Surber

Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Time is on Trump's side

3:25 min

It is always nice to work the Rolling Stones into a post about Donald Trump. He's a fan. Their catalog of songs has something to fit every occasion.

Time Is On My Side is actually a cover of a Jerry Ragovoy song. He later wrote tunes for Big Brother and the Holding Company, which was Janis Joplin's band back in the day.

It is a simple song in which the singer tells his girl to go ahead and run around, but "You'll come running back (I said so many times before). You'll come running back to me-ee-ee."

And time is on The Donald's side in this impeachment thing, as well as the election thing.

Democrats once again were Wile E. Coyote as they pounced on the storming of the Capitol, elevating it to an insurrection. Worse than 9/11 some said.

They talked themselves into a frenzy and used this as the excuse for their long-sought Second Impeachment.

Liz Cheney and a few other Fake Conservatives unmasked themselves as Democrats.

But nearly 3 weeks later, this Seinfeld Impeachment looks silly because it is ridiculous. Democrats talked themselves into impeaching him over an insurrection, or as Senor Schumer said, an erection. I now know more about his sex life than I care to.

They got so caught up in calling this trespassing an insurrection that they brought in 20,000 National Guardsmen to protect the city from imaginary hordes of Trump supporters. The scenes of Washington under an armed lockdown was haunting, eerie, and creepy as it gave Americans a glimpse of the future Chairman Xiden and company desire.

As if that did not make them look bad enough, Democrats then kicked 5,000 National Guardsmen out off the Capitol and made them sleep in a parking garage with two toilets and no heat.

On Monday, Official Washington woke to the grim reality that the American people see them as heartless buffoons who are flogging a dead horse. We are rolling their eyes over this mean-spirited and petty act of vengeance.

Mitch McConnell gave Schumer the bad news. He cannot deliver the 17 Republican votes needed to convict President Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts won't show up to preside over the trial, despite the constitutional requirement to do so. Both Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds believe he does not want to give legitimacy to this impeachment. They are law professors. They should know these things.

However, I believe the chief justice should show up, declare the impeachment null and void, and go home. That would let everyone off the hook.

But fortunately he's a coward. The show will go on, and President Trump will triumph again.

The impeachment has the stench of defeat on it, but it also has the stench of stupidity. Normal people who pay little attention to politics look upon it as Democrats learning nothing from the last impeachment, and instead doubling down on failure.

Glenn Reynolds wrote, "Drag it out as long as possible, waste their momentum and make them look dumb on TV. Then crush it."

Their momentum left when Peyton Manning fumbled the ball into the end zone for a safety on the first play of the game.

Oh wait. That was Super Bowl 48.

This is worse for Democrats. Denver lost by only five touchdowns.

This impeachment was meant to give a legitimacy to Chairman Xiden's presidency that his sham election could not. January 6, when a few supporters stormed the Capitol, was a day to live in infamy and all that.

Instead, Democrats look like fools by impeaching a man who is no longer in office. The longer it plays, the dumber they look. And while this takes the spotlight off Basement Biden, it also raises the expectations. Instead of working on the nation's problems, Democrats waste our time by fooling around with this nonsense.

The B side of Time Is On My Side by the Rolling Stones is a seldom-heard song called Congratulations.
Well done, my friend
You've done it again
You've gone and broken another heart
Yeah, you've torn it apart
The hearts the Democrats break this time are their own.


TB Fanatic

Joe Biden dismisses Democrats' bid to convict Donald Trump by saying they DON'T have enough votes in the Senate - at the very moment they deliver article of impeachment
  • President Biden speaks about Donald Trump's impeachment trial for the first time - at exactly the moment the Article of Impeachment was delivered to the Senate
  • Biden told CNN he did not believe Democrats have Republican votes they need to convict saying: 'The Senate has changed since I was there, but it hasn't changed that much.'
  • But he said 'I think it has to happen' even though a trial threatens to derail his legislative agenda
  • Trump's second impeachment trial will formally begin Tuesday as senators are sworn in as jurors, then take a two-week hiatus
  • Democrat Patrick Leahy, the longest-serving senator who is president pro tempore, will preside, not Chief Justice John Roberts
  • But there are no answers to whether there will be witnesses or how long the trial will actually take

PUBLISHED: 19:11 EST, 25 January 2021 | UPDATED: 10:32 EST, 26 January 2021

President Joe Biden cast doubt Monday on the ability of the Senate to convict former President Donald Trump– just as House impeachment managers were transmitting a formal article to the chamber that will set in motion his historic trial.

Biden, who served for decades in the Senate and once chaired the Judiciary Committee, low-balled the chance of success for Democratic managers before they had even begun to make their case.

'The Senate has changed since I was there, but it hasn't changed that much,' he told a CNN reporter Monday evening, after a weekend where Senate Republicans appeared to be lining up against the impeachment trial.

But amid a series of vague statements on where he stood on impeachment, Biden also said the trial was a necessity.

'I think it has to happen,' he said, amid concerns it could imperil getting his cabinet confirmed and what he hopes will be a burst of legislative action.

He said there would be 'a worse effect if it didn't happen,' indicating Biden believes the trial is necessary for accountability.

His intervention is unlikely to be welcomed by Democrats - coming minutes after they walked across the Capitol Monday evening to hand-deliver an article of impeachment to the Senate charging Trump with 'incitement of insurrection' - formally beginning his second impeachment trial.

With solemn expressions on their faces, the House impeachment managers made the journey less than three weeks after a MAGA riot ransacked the Capitol during the electoral count after Trump told supporters to 'fight.'

In an event carried live on cable news, the managers left Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office at 7.01pm, crossed Statuary Hall and the Capitol Rotunda – some of the same spaces that were invaded by the mob less than three weeks ago.

Leading the charge: Jamie Raskin, the Democrats' lead impeachment manager, is first in line of the nine who will prosecute the case against Donald Trump

Article on its way: Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson along with acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Tim Blodgett, lead the Democratic House impeachment managers as they walk through Statuary Hall on the way to the Senate
Here they go: The House impeachment managers make their way through Statuary Hall towards the Senate

Here they go: The House impeachment managers make their way through Statuary Hall towards the Senate

Moment of history: The impeachment managers cross through Statuary Hall towards the Senate
Crime scene: Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson along with House Sergeant-at-Arms Tim Blodgett lead the Democratic House impeachment managers as they walk through Statuary Hall. It is less than three weeks since MAGA rioters stormed into the Capitol

Crime scene: Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson along with House Sergeant-at-Arms Tim Blodgett lead the Democratic House impeachment managers as they walk through Statuary Hall. It is less than three weeks since MAGA rioters stormed into the Capitol

Overshadowing: Joe Biden suggested Donald Trump will be acquitted by the Senate because Democrats do not have the votes - speaking to CNN at exactly the time the article was delivered

Overshadowing: Joe Biden suggested Donald Trump will be acquitted by the Senate because Democrats do not have the votes - speaking to CNN at exactly the time the article was delivered
Waiting to enter: Jamie Raskin stands waiting for the Senate to receive him and the other impeachment managers

Waiting to enter: Jamie Raskin stands waiting for the Senate to receive him and the other impeachment managers
They're here: The House impeachment managers file into the Senate to stand in front of Democratic senators

They're here: The House impeachment managers file into the Senate to stand in front of Democratic senators
Ready: The House impeachment managers are announced as being present by Patrick Leahy, the Vermont senator who will preside over the trial

Ready: The House impeachment managers are announced as being present by Patrick Leahy, the Vermont senator who will preside over the trial
Ceremonial: In this image from video, acting Senate Sergeant-at-arms Jennifer Hemingway reads the proclamation before the article of impeachment alleging incitement of insurrection against former President Donald Trump are received by the Senate, in Washington, Monday, Jan. 25, 2021. (Senate Television via AP)

Ceremonial: Acting Senate Sergeant-at-arms Jennifer Hemingway reads the proclamation before the article of impeachment is read
Starting the case: Democrats' lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin, who will oversee the prosecution of Trump, reads the article

Starting the case: Democrats' lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin, who will oversee the prosecution of Trump, reads the article
Presiding: Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the new president pro tempore of the Senate, on his way to the chamber to start his role presiding over the trial by hearing the article of impeachment

Presiding: Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the new president pro tempore of the Senate, on his way to the chamber to start his role presiding over the trial by hearing the article of impeachment

Witness to history: Patrick Leahy took a photograph of the journalists photographing him. The senator who will preside over the trial is also a keen photographer

Democrats walk articles of impeachment over to the Senate

Outside thousands of National Guard troops remained deployed around the Capitol which the MAGA mob had stormed on Wednesday January 6.

House Clerk Cheryl Johnson led the nine House managers to the Senate, where Trump's second impeachment trial will be held. Johnson and all of the managers wore dark masks for the walk.

It was history repeating itself - with a COVID twist: On January 15 2020, nine Democrats had walked the articles of impeachment for his first trial to the Senate. It ended in his acquittal.

As in Trump's first impeachment, cameras were allowed on the second floor of the Capitol to capture the occasion.

The formal transmittal of the articles does not establish the procedures for the trial such as whether witnesses will be allowed and how long it will go. That is still to be negotiated by senators.

The House members waited outside the south door of the Senate – steps away from where a group or rioters were detained during the riots. 3:15 min

In the chair when they arrived was Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who will preside over the trial. He is the president pro tempore of the Senate.

Here ye, here ye, here ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States an article of impeachment against Donald John Trump, former president of the United States,' said Johnson.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland read the resolution aloud to the Senate the resolution appointing the managers to argue the case.

Raskin then read the impeachment article in its entirety that Trump 'is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.'

Article I charges Trump with 'incitement of insurrection.' It cites the 14th Amendments prohibition on those engaging in insurrection or rebellion holding office, and charges Trump with failing to uphold his oath to faithfully execute the office.

It states that Trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors 'by inciting against the government of the United States' on the day of the electoral vote count.

He cited Trump's repeated claim that the election included 'widespread fraud' and that 'we won,' as well as Trump's call at a January 6 rally for his supporters to 'fight like hell.'

It then recalls 'violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts' of the mob and says Trump endangered the security of the nation and interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and 'betrayed his trust as president.'

When he was done, Raskin asked for leave to withdraw from the Senate. Leahy said the Senate was now ready to proceed with the trial, and the managers left.
Thus ended Monday's formal action, with senators set to be sworn in Tuesday afternoon to form the court of impeachment.

There were numerous Democrats, and multiple empty chairs in the Senate when the action went down – in a chamber that is frequently mostly empty. Also there was Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Mitt Romney of Utah.

Romney was the only senator to vote to convict Trump of an article in January.

Also present was new Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, who has called the post-presidency impeachment 'unconstitutional.'

The moves set up an impeachment trial to begin within weeks, with the Senate Republican conference already split – and GOP Sen. Rob Portman announcing his retirement Monday morning.

There is expected one marked change from Trump's first impeachment: Chief Justice John Roberts will not be in the chair for the trial.

The Constitution establishes that 'when the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.'

But it makes no specific mention of a former president. Roberts was reportedly anxious to avoid presiding over a second Trump impeachment: a role that would test his efforts to remain nonpartisan, while once again soaking up part of his workday.

At one point there had been speculation it would be Kamala Harris presiding, because of the vice president's constitutional position as Senate president.
It was not immediately clear how having a senior Democrat presiding might affect the tenor of the proceedings.
Most likely to preside: Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is president pro-tempore is set to take charge

Most likely to preside: Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is president pro-tempore is set to take charge

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is not expected to preside over the historic second impeachment of Donald Trump, following reports he didn't want the duty

80-year-old Leahy, the Vermont Democratic senator since January 1975, is the longest-serving - although not oldest - member of the Senate.

He is broadly seen as a liberal, having been a critic of the Iraq war, staking out strong advocacy for same-sex marriage and is a long-time critic of government surveillance powers.

Well-liked by colleagues of both parties, he has a long track record of bipartisan bills but presiding over a divisive inauguration may test a reputation for bonhomie.

But even that was tested in 2004, when the Senate class photo was presided over by then Vice President Dick Cheney.

Needled by his criticism over Iraq he turned to Leahy and said: 'Go f*** yourself, Leahy.'

Married since 1962 and a father of two, he is a devout Catholic who attends the same church which Joe Biden went to on Sunday, Holy Trinity in Georgetown.

A Leahy spokesman said the two Senate leaders were negotiating 'all process issues' regarding the trial and that Leahy would defer to them.

Neither side volunteered why Harris was not chosen to preside, but she would have wanted to avoid entirely the spectacle of the Senate trial defining the start of her time as vice president.

And Democrats would have been hit by worse accusations of partisanship with Harris presiding than Leahy.

But the Republican caucus was also hit by drama Monday with Portman saying he would not run.

Portman has called the MAGA riot 'an attack on democracy itself' and said days afterward that Trump 'bears some responsibility' for what happened.

He is a two-term senator who was previously a House member and U.S. Trade Representative under the George W. Bush White House.

His retirement sets off a key open-seat Senate race in a hotly contested state, as Republicans sort through whether to continue to embrace or reject Trump amid the intra-party clash over impeachment.

Transmitting the impeachment article – an act undertaken by managers selected by Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a time she revealed to Senate on Friday – sets in motion procedures under the rules of the Senate for Trump's trial.

Only broad outlines of the time-frame are known, but it is now a certainty that the trial will go forward, with the trial itself set to begin in about two weeks.

The Senate is expected to receive the article around 7 pm tonight, after the managers physically bring a document charging Donald Trump with 'incitement of insurrection.'

On Tuesday, senators will be sworn in to hear the trial. The trial itself will begin on Feb. 9, under an agreement reached Friday between Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, although many details of how it will go have yet to be worked out.

It was still not clear who would preside over the trial and whether it will be Chief Justice John Roberts.

The trial will advance even as Senate Republicans have been expressing opposition to the impeachment – even after some of them denounced Trump in the immediate hours after a MAGA mob trashed the Capitol after attending a 'Stop the Steal' rally where Trump urged them to 'fight.'

Among the most emphatic is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is up for reelection in Trump's new home state. 'I think the trial is stupid, I think it's counterproductive. The first chance I get to vote to end this trial, I'll do it.'

He also said it was 'arrogant' for the Senate to vote to bar Trump from holding future office – in a procedure laid out in the Constitution.

'I think that's an arrogant statement for anyone to make. Voters get to decide that. Who are we to tell voters who they can vote for in the future,' Rubio told 'Fox News Sunday.'

But Rubio also said Trump 'bears responsibility for some of what happened' when a mob of MAGA supporters ransacked the Capitol during the counting of the electoral votes of Joe Biden's election victory.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who opposed an effort to overturn the election during the Electoral Vote count January 6, says he doesn't think the Senate has the authority under the Constitution to convict an ex-president.

'The more I talk to other Republican senators, the more they're beginning to line up' in agreement, he said, of a conference that stood by Trump throughout his presidency.

'I think a lot of Americans are going to think it's strange that the Senate is spending its time trying to convict and remove from office a man who left office a week ago,' he said.

The GOP senators move toward Trump comes even amid a bombshell New York Times report that a top Justice Department official met with the president in his final weeks in office about an effort to announce a federal investigation into the Georgia election results – and a plan for Trump to fire the acting attorney general after he wouldn't go along with a probe into baseless allegations of election fraud. Trump reportedly backed down only after a team of top DOJ officials threatened to quit if he went ahead with the plan.

A group of legal scholars have pointed to past impeachments for lower offices even after the occupants had resigned or left office.

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted for an impeachment article against Trump in January, is among a handle of Republican senators most likely to vote to convict.

'I believe that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not, what is?' he said.

The two-week pause negotiated by leaders allows for both sides to draft legal briefs.


Telescope Steve

Veteran Member
As I understand impeachment the penalty is that the president of the USA will be removed from office. Is Donald Trump in office as the president?


TB Fanatic

Trump Impeachment DOA in Senate
He will be neither convicted nor barred from holding public office.
David Catron
January 24, 2021, 11:30 PM

Nancy Pelosi (vasilis asvestas/Shutterstock)
Listen to this article

President Biden and congressional Democrats have an opportunity to move beyond what they have routinely characterized as the “chaos” of the Trump era. Yet having finally succeeded in evicting him from the White House and getting him censored by the various social media platforms, they plan to drag the Bad Orange Man back into the spotlight for a show trial that even left-of-center legal scholars have declared unconstitutional by definition. On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will send her slapdash article of impeachment to the Senate, where the Democrats are already preparing a performance they plan to debut during the second week of February.

But the show will be a flop. As professor emeritus at Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz writes at the Wall Street Journal, “Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction…. Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor.” In other words, the Senate lacks the authority to try a former official, and it would be dumb politics. Trump’s populist movement is by no means dead, and few of his 74 million voters believe he incited insurrection. Consequently, Senate Republicans are getting cold feet. The Hill reports:
Republicans say the chances that former President Trump will be convicted in an impeachment trial are plummeting … Only five or six Republican senators at the most seem likely to vote for impeachment, far fewer than the number needed, GOP sources say.… They have observed the angry response to House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who is facing calls to resign from the House GOP leadership team after voting last week to impeach Trump.
A failure to convict Trump for inciting insurrection will also frustrate Democrat hopes of barring him from holding public office in the future. As Shmuel Klatzkin pointed out in The American Spectator last week, this dubious goal is the main reason they insist on trying Trump after he has left office. They are so terrified that he will return after four years, as he has hinted he will, and win a second term, that they want to deprive him of the right to run. But because the Senate lacks the jurisdiction to put citizen Trump on trial — much less the votes to convict him — it will certainly fail to disqualify him from holding public office.

Moreover, it isn’t at all clear that Chief Justice John Roberts is willing to preside over such a travesty.

The Democratic leadership of the Senate doesn’t seem to have considered the jurisdiction issue any more than the Democrats in the House bothered with due process during their obscenely precipitous impeachment charade. According to various news outlets, Trump has recently hired South Carolina attorney Butch Bowers to defend him pursuant to a recommendation by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). But if Democratic leadership in the Senate insists on plunging ahead with the trial in February, there will obviously not be enough time for the Trump legal team to properly prepare a defense. This suggests that Trump should consider following a strategy recently proposed by legal scholar Jonathan Turley:
[Trump] must first decide whether he wants to sit for trial at all. He can legitimately argue that a private citizen cannot be impeached and the Senate cannot remove a person from office who has already left.… Trump can treat the proceeding as an extra-constitutional act because he is no longer subject to removal. If the Senate were to convict, he would have standing to challenge any disqualification from future federal offices. He could well prevail.
This strategy would also highlight the illegitimacy of the impeachment process, but it’s unlikely that the famously pugnacious former president would be willing to watch passively while people like Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) accuse him of inciting insurrection. Turley points out that the failure to put on a defense is not an admission of guilt, but there is little doubt that it would be portrayed that way by the Democrats and most of the media. The charges made by the Left in general are becoming ever more irresponsible as it is. In a blog post published Friday, for example, a University of Virginia academic actually compared the January 6 mayhem to the conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln.

This rubbish was written at Lawfare by Professor Philip Zelikow by way of introducing the claim that Trump can be barred from holding office via Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The obscure provision has received increased attention since it began to dawn on the Democrats that impeachment is a dumb idea. According to Zelikow, “The 14th Amendment path is true to the facts and preferable procedurally, as compared to impeachment.” Nope. As Indiana University law school professor Gerard N. Magliocca told the Washington Post, a Section 3 resolution would merely express congressional opinion and that the courts would have to make the legal declaration. “It’s not just something that Congress can do,” he said.

The smartest move for the Democrats would be for the Senate to quickly dismiss the House’s impeachment article and drop the goofy 14th Amendment idea.

They desperately want to banish Trump to outer darkness, but they will achieve precisely the opposite result if they make a martyr of him in a show trial. They won’t be able to convict him of inciting insurrection and can’t bar him from holding future office. Impeachment will be dead on arrival in the Senate, but Trump will be back above the fold. That’s exactly where he wants to be, battling the swamp creatures as his 74 million loyal supporters cheer him on.


TB Fanatic

GOP senators say only a few Republicans will vote to convict Trump
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 01/22/21 06:00 AM EST 4,262

Republicans say the chances that former President Trump will be convicted in an impeachment trial are plummeting, despite lingering anger among some Republicans over his actions.

Only five or six Republican senators at the most seem likely to vote for impeachment, far fewer than the number needed, GOP sources say.

A two-thirds majority vote would be necessary for a conviction, something that would require at least 17 GOP votes if every Democrat votes to convict Trump.
Senators say a few things have moved in Trump's favor.

One significant development is that Trump decided not to pardon any of the individuals charged with taking part in the Capitol riot, which would have lost him more Republican support.

“I thought if he pardoned people who had been part of this invasion of the Capitol, that would have pushed the number higher because that would have said, ‘These are my guys,’” said one Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak about how GOP senators are likely to vote.

GOP senators are also worried about a political backlash from the former president’s fervent supporters.

They have observed the angry response to House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who is facing calls to resign from the House GOP leadership team after voting last week to impeach Trump.

A second Republican senator said the Republican Party needs to rebuild and warned it will be tough to bring Trump’s base into the party tent ahead of the 2022 midterm elections and the 2024 presidential election if GOP senators vote in large numbers to convict Trump.

“I do think his supporters would be very upset,” the lawmaker said.

At the same time, this lawmaker warned of the dangers of the party being too beholden to Trump.

“The Republican Party is going to have to have a discussion about its future. At some point it’s going to have to become about something more than a person,” the lawmaker said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday proposed delaying the start of the trial until mid-February. He is asking for the House impeachment managers to wait until Thursday to present the article of impeachment to the Senate. He wants to give Trump’s legal team until Feb. 11 to submit its pre-trial brief.

This represents a third factor that could blunt political momentum among Republicans to convict Trump, as with each passing day his presidency recedes further and further into the past.

“For the most part, there is a real strong consensus among our members that this is after the fact. He’s out of office and impeachment is a remedy to remove somebody from office, so there’s the constitutional question,” the second GOP senator said.

“That’s my sense of where most of our members are going to come down,” the source added.

A fourth factor is growing doubt about whether Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over a Senate trial.

Republicans say if Roberts doesn’t preside and the chair is instead occupied by Vice President Harris — who as a California senator voted to convict Trump on two articles of impeachment last year — or Senate President Pro Tempore Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the process will appear like a partisan exercise.

“It starts losing its legitimacy,” the first Republican senator said of an impeachment trial without the chief justice in the chair.

A third Republican senator said there are “five or six, maybe” votes to convict Trump, arguing there’s no point in casting a vote that would further divide the country when the president is already out of office.

“If people like me vote no, then there are only five or six,” the senator added. “What would it do to the country?”

“I don’t want to tell my constituents you can’t vote for him. They’re grownups,” the lawmaker added.

Democrats say a major reason to hold a trial even though Trump is now a private citizen is to bar him from running for president again.

The Senate would need to vote to convict Trump on the pending article of impeachment and then hold a separate simple-majority vote to bar him from future office.

A fourth Republican senator also said the number of expected Republican votes to convict Trump will be fewer than 10.

“I’d say certainly less than 10, and I’d say five or six is probably about right,” the lawmaker said.

Republican senators say that colleagues who have publicly declared that Trump has committed impeachable offenses or have blamed him for inciting the mob that stormed the Capitol are most likely to vote to convict Trump.

Sens. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have said they believe Trump likely committed impeachable offenses.

Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) publicly blamed him for inciting the crowd.

And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) called on him to resign from office early.

There have been reports that McConnell himself has confided to associates that he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses, and the GOP leader has not said how he would vote.

But many believe McConnell would not vote to convict Trump if doing so would hurt a number of his colleagues up for reelection in 2022, when Republicans hope they can again gain control of the Senate.


TB Fanatic

Cruz: Second Trump impeachment was 'exercise in political rage' by Democrats: 'It was their id speaking'

'I feel like I'm kind of trapped in "Groundhog Day" where, apparently, every January, we're gonna be doing another impeachment,' senator tells 'Hannity'

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

Cruz slams impeachment, says 'extreme left' 'driving the train' for Biden
8:01 min
Cruz slams impeachment, says 'extreme left' 'driving the train' for Biden
Texas Republican tells 'Hannity' president ignoring Democrats' traditional working-class base

Congressional Democrats' push to convicted former President Donald Trump of impeachable offenses is "driven by the partisan rage and the partisan anger that the Democrats feel," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told "Hannity" Tuesday.

"They hate Donald J. Trump and they are engaging in an act that I think is petty retribution and that is vindictive and a waste of time," Cruz told host Sean Hannity, adding, "and so I think it’s time to move on."

Cruz told "Hannity" he heard the 46th president call for unity in his inaugural address, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., must not have gotten the message.

"Unfortunately, congressional Democrats weren't listening to a word he said," Cruz said of Biden. "And the very first step that they took is to charge down the road of a partisan and divisive and angry impeachment trial."

Hannity: 'Irrational psychotic rage' driving impeachment push
4:46 min

Turning to the impeachment itself, Cruz argued the House's action "doesn't meet the constitutional standard.

"They didn't pretend to follow due process, they didn't have hearings, they didn't pretend to look at any facts or any evidence," he said. "This was an exercise in political rage. It was their id speaking ... look, these are the same Democrats who four years ago, in 2017 -- actually in December of 2016, before Trump was sworn in, said they wanted to impeach him. They've wanted to impeach him from the beginning. They did it a year ago.

"I feel like I'm kind of trapped in 'Groundhog Day' where, apparently, every January, we're gonna be doing another impeachment."

Turning to Biden's decision last week to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline, Cruz described the modern Democratic party as "the party of Hollywood celebrities and big technology billionaires and the incredibly wealthy coastal elites.

"But if you are a working person, if you're a union member, if you're blue collar, if you have callouses on your hands, if you are a cop or a firefighter ... this Democratic Party doesn’t care about you," he added.


TB Fanatic

Anti-Trump Senators Quietly Pitching Colleagues On Censure As Trump Impeachment Unlikely

WEDNESDAY, JAN 27, 2021 - 10:20
With the chances of the Senate actually convicting former President Trump in the upcoming impeachment trial at virtually nil, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Susan Collins (R-INO) are quietly pitching their colleagues on a bipartisan resolution to censure Trump, according to Axios.

The Senators are 'looking for a way to condemn Trump on the record' as it's become abundantly clear that Democrats don't have the 17 GOP crossover votes required to gain a conviction for Trump's second impeachment. That said, Axios says that some Democrats are only interested in censure if at least 10 GOP Senators will publicly commit to it - which would accomplish the 60-vote margin required to pass major legislation in the chamber.

It isn't clear whether the censure would come after a trial, or be in lieu of it.
More via Axios:
Driving the news: Kaine (D-Va.) and Collins (R-Maine) have been interested in a censure resolution for weeks now and have discussed it on multiple occasions.
  • But the bipartisan discussions among senators grew more earnest after 45 Republicans voted today in favor of a motion to dismiss the trial because Trump is now out of office.
  • The vote was a clear indication he won't be convicted.
Between the lines: In some ways, a censure vote could be more difficult for Republicans, because they can't rely on the argument that a resolution is unconstitutional — like they are for an impeachment conviction.
  • It would also be a history-making vote. No other president has been censured after leaving office.
What they're saying: "I think it's pretty obvious from the vote today, that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted. Just do the math," Collins told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
  • Kaine has said he wants to do whatever possible to keep the focus on the Biden-Harris agenda and COVID-19 relief, so he supports a speedy trial or alternate way to hold Trump accountable.
* * *
Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) excoriated Democrats over the impeachment effort against Trump for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, despite the fact that he told his supports to come, and leave, peacefully while protesting the results of the 2020 election.

"Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history," said Paul, adding "It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump"
Sen. @RandPaul:

"Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history... It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump."
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 26, 2021


TB Fanatic

Hillary Clinton: Most GOP Senators Voted for Trump to ‘Get Away with’ Inciting Capitol Riot
Jeenah Moon/Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU27 Jan 2021305

Twice-failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday sharply criticized the 45 GOP senators who formally questioned the legitimacy of the forthcoming Senate impeachment trial, peddling the left-wing narrative that former President Trump actively “incited a violent mob to attack Congress” and concluding that the majority of GOP senators “voted for Trump to get away with it.”

“Three weeks ago, Donald Trump incited a violent mob to attack Congress and stop the peaceful transition of power,” Clinton said, placing the deaths of five people, including a Capitol police officer, on the former president.

“Yesterday, all but five GOP senators voted for Trump to get away with it,” she concluded:
Three weeks ago, Donald Trump incited a violent mob to attack Congress and stop the peaceful transition of power.
Five people died, including a Capitol policeman.
Yesterday, all but five GOP senators voted for Trump to get away with it.Republicans Rally Against Impeachment Trial, Signaling Likely Acquittal for Trump
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 27, 2021
Her remarks follow a Tuesday vote on Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) point of order on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial. The Kentucky lawmaker argued on the floor that the effort is wholly partisan in nature and “designed to further divide the country.”

“Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity,” Paul told his colleagues, emphasizing that “brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat [Senate President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy] to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial, and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country.”

“No, ‘unity’ is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness,” he said.

“If the accused is no longer president, where is the constitutional power to impeach him? Private citizens don’t get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from office. And the accused here has already left office,” he added.

Only five GOP senators failed to side with Paul. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who has not indicated how he would vote in the impeachment trial, sided with the majority of the GOP in questioning the legitimacy of impeachment.

“This ‘trial’ is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Paul concluded, as the Senate would need 67 votes to convict the former president:
The Senate just voted on my constitutional point of order.
45 Senators agreed that this sham of a “trial” is unconstitutional.
That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process.
This “trial” is dead on arrival in the Senate.
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 26, 2021
Speaking from the Senate floor earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) revealed that his party’s focus largely remains on preventing Trump from being eligible to run for office again.

“Let me be clear: There will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him again,” Schumer said.


TB Fanatic

Rob Reiner: Senate Must Convict Trump, ‘New Leader of the Confederacy,’ to Win ‘Our Continuing Civil War’
LOS ANGELES, CA - JANUARY 20: Actor Rob Reiner speaks onstage at 2018 Women's March Los Angeles at Pershing Square on January 20, 2018 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Amanda Edwards/Getty Images for The Women's March Los Angeles)
Amanda Edwards/Getty Images for The Women's March Los Angeles

Actor and director Rob Reiner took to Twitter Wednesday demanding that the Senate convict former President Donald Trump, who he referred to as “the new leader of the Confederacy” during “our continuing Civil War.”

“Our original sin is at the the root of our continuing Civil War. Donald Trump, the new leader of the Confederacy, heads the Sedition,” Reiner wrote. “If he is not held accountable with a Senate conviction, there will be no Appomattox,” the site of Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant in 1865.

Our original sin is at the the root of our continuing Civil War. Donald Trump, the new leader of the Confederacy, heads the Sedition. If he is not held accountable with a Senate conviction, there will be no Appomattox.
— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) January 27, 2021
This is not Reiner’s first time trying to pressure lawmakers into impeaching Trump. Earlier this month, the actor claimed that any member of Congress who does not oust the president during his remaining days in office will be supporting sedition, which is a federal crime.

“Any members of Congress that doesn’t support Impeachment and Removal of this President supports Sedition,” tweeted Reiner two days after the Capitol Hill riot.
Any member of Congress that doesn’t support Impeachment and Removal of this President supports Sedition.
— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) January 8, 2021
Last month, the actor ignored Joe Biden’s call to “heal America” and unite a divided nation by declaring that the very survival of American democracy depends on whether members of Trump’s family and administration face criminal prosecution.

In September, Reiner insisted that law enforcement will apprehend then-President Trump after election day, stating, “in 42 days we will arrest the killer.”
“Donald Trump has essentially shot and killed 100s of thousands Americans on 5th Ave, continues to do it every day, and he’s right, his cult doesn’t care,” tweeted Reiner. “But the rest of US do. In 42 days we will arrest the killer.”


TB Fanatic

Tim Kaine: Trump Impeachment ‘Not the Right Prioritization of Our Time’
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
SEAN MORAN27 Jan 2021121

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) told reporters Monday that the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump may “not be the right prioritization of our time” considering that the Senate will likely not convict the 46th president.

“To do a trial knowing you’ll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time. Obviously, we do a trial. Maybe we can do it fast, but my top priority is COVID relief and getting the Biden cabinet approved,” Kaine said.

Reports also suggested that Kaine and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) are talking about using the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from holding office again.

Kaine’s comments arose as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) forced a vote on the Senate floor, questioning the constitutionality of impeaching a former president.

The motion did not pass to object to the impeachment trial; however, 44 Senate Republicans voted with Paul, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Only five Republicans, Sens. Collins, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Pat Toomey (R-PA), voted with Democrats, believing that the impeachment trial is constitutional.

The vote likely serves as a proxy vote on the final vote on whether to convict Trump on the allegation that he incited an insurrection during the January 6 riots.
After the vote, many Republican senators said that impeaching a former president serves as a dangerous precedent and is unconstitutional.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said in a statement after the vote:
Today, the Senate voted on the constitutionality of holding an impeachment trial on a former president, who is now a private citizen. In my opinion, the Framers of the Constitution never intended for the Senate to hold a trial to remove a former president from an office he no longer holds and that is why I voted with forty-four of my colleagues to end this divisive exercise.
“Today I voted to support Senator Rand Paul‘s objection to holding a partisan, unconstitutional trial against a former President. It is time for our country to move forward, instead of looking backwards and fighting the same battles with each other,” Sen. Marsh Blackburn (R-TN) said in a statement on Tuesday.


TB Fanatic

CORTES: Trump Can Turn The Impeachment On The Insiders And Put Congress On ‘Trial’.
As former President Trump faces the second sham impeachment effort of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in just over a year, opportunity arises, both for him and for the America First movement. Within this shameful political charade, the overreaching Democrats included accusations that allow for Team Trump to make a robust case before the nation about the material problems that mar the November 3rd presidential vote, in a forum of unparalleled prominence and reach.

If Trump dives headlong into this challenge with courage, imagination, and the charisma that only he can command, then he will transcend the absurdity of this tribunal, crystallize his own political viability, and propel the populist nationalist cause forward into 2022 and beyond.

Repelling the illogical and unfounded incitement charge will prove relatively easy, given the then-president’s own clear exhortation to his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” before the Congress.

But Pelosi’s snap-impeachment also includes the scurrilous accusation that President Trump “repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.”

Clearly, this allegation by the impeachment resolution opens the trial proceedings to a full adjudication of whether Trump’s post-election assertions were, in fact, “false statements.”

In a perverse sense, Pelosi and her minions unwittingly did the country a service.

At last, our deeply divided nation is afforded a trial setting to fully weigh the countervailing arguments about the validity of the 2020 presidential vote in the highly contested states. After all, recent polling reveals severe skepticism about the official results among tens of millions of voters.

A November 23rd CNBC survey found that a scant 3 percent of Trump voters believe Biden won legitimately.

Even after constant efforts of corporate media to affix blame for rioting to Trump, varied polling shows his supporters remain solidly supportive of the 45th President. For example, in battleground states, McLaughlin & Associates polling found that fully 76 percent of Republican voters reported that they are less likely to support any member of Congress who supports this second impeachment.

The proper way to bridge this wide chasm regarding the November 3rd vote involves a serious presentation of evidence before massive national broadcast audience.

Media charlatans constantly claim that Trump lost dozens of court cases contesting results. In reality, most of these cited lawsuits were brought by non-campaign plaintiffs, and almost all went unheard on procedural grounds.

The most serious courtroom deliberations, that aired a detailed vetting of official campaign objections, unfolded in Wisconsin.

That state’s Supreme Court decided by a narrow 4-3 ruling against Trump. In a blistering dissent, Wisconsin Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote that a “significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020 presidential election was fairly conducted… four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the [state] statutes require.”

As such, this open wound upon our democracy festers.

Our country’s best hope to coalesce and form some consensus lies in a vigorous presentation of arguments to the nation.

For Trump and his defense team, this exposition should center on the three verticals of election irregularities.

First, convey the stunning confluence of statistical anomalies in the swing states that make the likelihood of a Biden win so improbable as to be impossible. Second, provide the immense evidence of demonstrable frauds perpetrated across the six most controversial states. Finally, explain the grave Constitutional violations that invalidate the election procedures in these states which used the cover of the COVID virus to subvert constitutional protections of process. In particular, the defense team must fully elucidate the swing states’ evisceration of 14th Amendment guarantees against creating de-facto different classes of voters.

As Donald Trump methodically lays out this case before the American voter, he can essentially turn legal guns around and effectively put the Congress itself on trial. Such a tactic would illuminate the true battle lines of this political struggle, which is not so much Republican vs. Democrat, but rather outsider vs. insider.

Trump should resist the temptation to pursue a narrow, technical “not guilty” verdict and instead charge toward a broader exoneration. Such a triumph would prove his own indispensability to the America First cause and catalyze the movement’s momentum toward retaking Congressional majorities in 2022.

In addition, once Trump educates the public on the myriad abuses present in the 2020 vote, the task of election reforms among state legislatures clarifies.

This impeachment represents a farce, an unprecedented, and vindictive witch hunt. But it also presents irreplaceable opportunity, with just the kind of stage on which Donald J. Trump can shine.


TB Fanatic

Justice for me but not for thee, is no justice at all
Karen KatalineJanuary 24, 2021

photo credit: McConnell Center CIA Director Petraeus visits the McConnell Center via photopin (license)

The Deep State is about to preen about the treasured American principle of due process–that when there is a charge of wrong-doing facts and evidence should be presented and adjudicated in a court of law.

They are about to hold an impeachment trial for a President that is no longer in office. There is credible evidence that they cheated to get their guy in and Trump out but the facts and evidence have never been fully presented and adjudicated in a court of law.

Due process and a fair hearing was brazenly rejected when Americans believed their rights and their votes were stolen, by whom? The very same Deep State that refused to hear the evidence. Talk about a conflict of interest.

The players will put on a dog and pony show and build a case against Donald Trump for inciting violence based on a speech he gave for all of America to hear. He did no such thing. Those who heard the speech know it. They know it.

The usual suspects, including the now fully exposed Mitch McConnell, will ignore evidence that Leftist rioters who hate Trump helped incite and create a false flag event to provide the flimsy excuse to keep trying to destroy Donald Trump. Even as they sit in control of the federal government, and probably because the sit in control of the federal government they can conduct this kangaroo court.

Who thinks the preposterous allegations against Trump will be adjudicated fairly by the same perennial bunch? Who thinks Trump will be “acquitted.”

There once was a great America.


TB Fanatic

John Roberts’ refusal to sit for Trump impeachment sparks constitutional concerns

By Emily Jacobs
January 27, 2021 | 4:13pm | Updated

Chief Justice John Roberts’ refusal to preside over former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial is raising questions about whether he views the first-of-its-kind proceedings as constitutional.

The Supreme Court has been declining to comment when reached by The Post, as well as other outlets, on why its top jurist will not take part in the historic trial.
Speaking to MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” on Monday evening, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) revealed that Roberts “did not want” to take part in the trial.

“The Constitution says the chief justice presides for a sitting president,” the top-ranking senator said. “So it was up to John Roberts whether he wanted to preside with a president who is no longer sitting, Trump, and he doesn’t want to do it.”

Roberts has not offered any comment on his role in a second impeachment trial since the House of Representatives voted in favor of taking the matter to trial in the Senate earlier this month.

That silence has been noted by those opposed to impeaching a former president.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has been vocal in his opposition to the second impeachment, used Roberts’ planned absence from the trial as a point in favor of dropping the trial.

“The Constitution says two things about impeachment — it is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” the Kentucky senator wrote in an op-ed Sunday for The Hill.
“Neither one of those things will happen. President Trump is gone, and Justice John Roberts, properly noticing the absence of an officeholder being impeached, is declining to preside,” he continued. “That settles it for me.”

Speaking earlier this week on the matter, Paul referenced Roberts again, saying, “If the chief justice doesn’t preside, I think it’s an illegitimate hearing and really goes to show that it’s not really constitutional to impeach someone who’s not president.”

Roberts’ role in the trial will be filled by Senate president pro tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who voted to convict Trump during his first impeachment trial.
Leahy, the longest-serving Democrat in the Senate, pledged, however, to take his trial oath “extraordinarily seriously.”

“When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws,” he said in a statement when he revealed that he would sit in for Roberts.

Paul was not the only GOP senator to speak up over Roberts’ absence — or comment on Leahy serving as his replacement.

Chief Justice John Roberts leads the US Supreme Court justices as they arrive in the Crypt of the US Capitol for President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration.Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Photo via AP

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of GOP leadership, remarked Monday, “The Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the impeachment trial of a president, but that’s not what we’re doing. To me, that’s indicative of the fact that we’re in uncharted waters.

“I just think it looks very petty and vindictive,” he added. “I understand there are a lot of people who are mad, but the process itself already looks like a railroad job.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) echoed Cornyn’s concerns, saying, “There’s only one constitutional process for impeachment and it is of the president, not a president. It requires the chief justice to preside.”

Even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voiced objection to Roberts sitting out the trial last week amid concerns that he would do so.

“That is his constitutional duty. I can’t imagine why a Supreme Court justice would not do his duty,” the liberal pol said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which plays a critical role in the impeachment process, also hoped Roberts would attend.

“I think he should because it will be a straightforward, simple trial. I would think that the chief justice lends the dignity and seriousness it requires,” he said, noting that he was “not required by law to do it.”


TB Fanatic

‘Democrats Are In A Box’: Graham Says Pelosi’s Impeachment Push Just Backfired
byMartin Walshabout 13 hours agoupdated about 6 hours ago

While a few Never-Trump Republicans have sided with Democrats in their support of impeachment against former President Donald Trump, it appears that most of the GOP oppose the idea.

During an interview on Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham revealed that many Senate Democrats are souring on the effort pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi because they know there will be political ramifications.

“There’s more than a handful of Democrats praying that [President] Joe Biden will get on the phone and call [Senate Democratic Leader Chuck] Schumer and say it’s over because they understand this is going to blow up in their face politically,” he said.

The South Carolina Republican insisted that his party is largely united against the impeachment effort.

Following a recent meeting with the GOP leaders, Graham declared that he had “never felt better about the Republican Senate conference being united behind the idea that what the House did was wrong in terms of process.”

While Graham had initially distanced himself from Trump in the immediate aftermath of the riot, he has since been vocal in his opposition to the impeachment effort.

“The second impeachment of Donald Trump is not wearing well over time,” he said. “Democrats are in a box. They started this thing in the House, they impeached the president of the United States in Nancy Pelosi’s House in less than 50 hours from bringing it up to conclusion, without a lawyer, not one witness was called.”

As a result, Graham predicted that the Senate will “have an overwhelmingly Republican vote that this second impeachment of Donald Trump in unconstitutional.”

Video on website 3:31 min

McConnell has yet to determine how he will vote in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial, stating in a letter earlier this month that he intends to “listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate.”

Graham, too, veered from his Senate colleague last week.

“I don’t agree with him,” Graham said of McConnell’s remarks. “That would be a crime, to provoke somebody, to incite them to violence. Show me the clip where he did that.”

“We impeach the president today without any evidence. It’s just sheer hatred. If this becomes the norm, be careful what you wish for today. Under this theory, the radical left — if you can impeach a president after they’re out of office, why don’t we impeach George Washington? He owned slaves. Where does this stop?” he said.

He added: “So, to my Republican colleagues, let’s stand firm for the idea — whether you like Donald Trump or not, he’s not above the law.”

“If he did something wrong, you know, you can face the consequences of the law,” Graham continued.

“Impeachment is political. What we’re doing here is we’re impeaching the president without any evidence, without any witnesses, and we’re going to have a trial after they are out of office. How do you survive as a president in the future? This will be an attack on the presidency in perpetuity. Should we impeach Barack Obama because, for 24 hours, he never lifted a finger to help those people under siege in Benghazi? Where does this stop?” he said.


TB Fanatic

Impeachment Is Almost Certain To Fail, But Schumer Is Moving Forward Anyway

byMartin Walshabout 13 hours agoupdated about 9 hours ago

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is making it clear that he plans to ram ahead with the Senate impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump.

“Make no mistake: There will be a full and fair trial on convicting Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. He is charged with inciting an insurrection. The evidence against him will be presented in living color for the nation and every one of us to see,” Schumer tweeted.
Make no mistake: There will be a full and fair trial on convicting Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
He is charged with inciting an insurrection.
The evidence against him will be presented in living color for the nation and every one of us to see.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 27, 2021
Schumer’s statement comes after Axios reported that GOP Sen. Susan Collins and Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine joined forces and crafted a resolution to censure Trump and bar him from ever being able to hold office again.

They do not have the 67 votes required to convict Trump in the Senate.

So, Never-Trumpers like Collins wants to partner with Democrats to censure Trump and pass an amendment to bar him from ever holding political office.
In a statement, Collins and Kaine said:
“It declares that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States. It was an effort to stop Congress from undertaking its constitutional duty to count electoral votes. It then finds that President Trump gave aid and comfort to those who carried out the insurrection by repeatedly lying about the election, slandering election officials, pressuring others to come to Washington for a wild event and encouraging them to come up to Congress. Those two findings, that it was an insurrection and that President Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists is language pulled right out of section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. And that amendment says anybody who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution who either engages in an insurrection against the Constitution or gives aid and comfort to those who do will be barred from office again.”
A whopping 45 Republican senators voted in favor of a motion introduced by GOP Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday to dismiss the impeachment article against former President Donald Trump as unconstitutional.

The point of order, which was defeated 55-45, argued that the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to try a president after he has left office.

Below are the five Republican senators who voted to proceed with the trial were:
  1. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine
  2. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
  3. Mitt Romney of Utah
  4. Ben Sasse of Nebraska
  5. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
Paul gave a speech on the Senate floor excoriating the second impeachment push against Trump and did not mince his words.

“The Chief Justice’s absence demonstrates that this is not a trial as a president, but of a private citizen,” said Paul. “Therefore I make a point of order, that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president, or civil officer violates the Constitution, and is not in order.”

Sen. @RandPaul submits Point of Order saying trial is unconstitutional. @SenSchumer: "The senate has the power to try former officials."
Full video here: Senators Sworn In for Second Impeachment Trial of President
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 26, 2021
Sen. @RandPaul:
"Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history… It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump."
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 26, 2021
Paul also blasted the Democrats for continuing to stoke division among Americans, especially when President Joe Biden is now calling for unity.

“Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history. Instead of doing the nation’s work with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office,” Paul said.

“It’s almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump,” Paul added. “Without him as their boogeyman, they might have to legislate and to actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.”


TB Fanatic

“HOW DARE YOU!” Leo Terrell Goes Nuclear On Geraldo For Saying Trump “Incited Insurrection”

byJonathan Davisabout 6 hours agoupdated about 6 hours ago

No matter how hard you try to convince a leftist that what happened on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol Building was not “insurrection” and that former President Donald Trump did not “incite” the riot, it makes no different because most will simply tune you out and ignore the facts.

Trump told rallygoers to “peacefully” protest (that’s a direct quote). He never said, ‘Storm that place!’

Big difference. Except to hardcore liberals like Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera. He refuses to ‘get it.’

As such, a discussion of the riot devolved into a shouting match with network contributor (and former leftist) Leo Terrell who blasted Rivera after he, again, falsely claimed Trump “incited insurrection” (apparently he and other libs have never actually been to or seen a real insurrection).

Leading in, Rivera said that the thousands of federalized National Guard troops remaining in the capital city well beyond President Joe Biden’s inauguration should remain for the foreseeable future — ostensibly because there’s some existential threat to DC or something — while Terrell accurately countered that the troops are there to make Trump’s unconstitutional second impeachment trial more dramatic.

On that subject, Rivera did urge the Democrat-run Senate to just censure Trump (there is nothing in the Constitution providing for the ‘censure’ of a private citizen, by the way, but oh well).

“With this vote yesterday, it’s clear that 45 Republicans are not going to go along with impeachment,” Rivera explained. “What the Senate has to do is a joint bipartisan resolution to censure Donald Trump. Let’s censure him. Let’s say what you did was unacceptable. You incited that.”

3:41 min

“Come on!” Terrell exclaimed. “How dare you blame Donald Trump for that. We have a rule of law. We have due process.”

“Because I have eyes,” Rivera replied.

Sure you do, Rivera — except all last year (and into this year) when Antifa and BLM thugs and anarchists were burning down a billion dollars’ worth of businesses and infrastructure because they could.

“For you to come on here and say that he was responsible is wrong!” Terrell continued. “You should not say that and you should apologize to President Trump for that statement. You have no facts to justify that!”

“President Trump needs to apologize to us,” Rivera countered.

“No! You’re wrong!” Terrell fired back. “I think you should review the First Amendment again because I’ll ask you right now on TV, tell me the words, the magic words that he used to incite those criminals. Tell me the magic words right now, Geraldo.”

“I’ll give you three weeks of incitement,” Rivera said. “What in the hell do you think that crowd was going to do when they got to the Capitol? What were they going to do?”

Uh, maybe listen to the president’s speech, Geraldo? Because that’s all the vast majority of his 100,000-plus supporters did that day.

In any event, it is pointless to try and convince these lunatics that Trump “incited insurrection” because that has become the left’s talking point upon which new legislation and executive actions aimed at combatting the phantom ‘domestic terrorist threat from the right’ will be based.

Nevertheless, as Terrell demonstrates, the fake narrative still must be refuted, and forcefully, every time it is uttered.


TB Fanatic
Is The Establishment Still Terrified Of Trump?

FRIDAY, JAN 29, 2021 - 18:00
Authored by Pat Buchanan via,
As soon as the Senate received the lone article of impeachment accusing President Donald Trump of “incitement of insurrection” in the Jan. 6 mob assault on the Capitol, Rand Paul rose to object.

The Senate, he said, has no right to try a private citizen, which Trump now is. Thus, what we are about to do is flatly unconstitutional.

Forty-five of 50 Republican members agreed with Paul’s motion.
“This vote indicates it’s over. The trial is all over,” said Paul.
“If you voted that (the Senate trial is) … unconstitutional, how in the world would you ever vote to convict somebody for this?”
Consistency says you would not.

Susan Collins of Maine, one of five Republicans who voted against Paul’s motion, agreed that the vote portends the final vote on conviction.
“Do the math,” Collins said. “It’s extraordinarily unlikely the president will be convicted.”
Rand Paul may have just derailed the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the constitutional officer designated to preside over Senate impeachment trials, has said he will not preside over this latest trial of the ex-president. With Roberts seeing no constitutional duty, and declining the honor, his replacement as the presiding officer will be Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the longest-serving Democrat and the president pro tempore of the Senate.

But Leahy is viscerally hostile to Trump and one of a Democratic bloc that voted twice last January to convict Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors. How will it look to the world if this partisan is installed as both judge and juror at the trial of his political enemy?

Welcome to Zimbabwe.
Does the liberal establishment, now back in power and controlling the House, Senate and presidency, not see how this is all going to look in the history books, generations hence?

Blinded by hatred of Trump, enraged by the mob that stormed the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi’s House, in a rush to judgment, without hearing a single Trump witness and without letting his lawyer offer a defense, impeached, i.e., indicted, Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

But how could Trump have incited the riot and the attack on the Capitol when the mob swept up the stairs before Trump finished speaking a mile away?
And he would end his rally remarks by urging the crowd to march to the Hill “peacefully and patriotically.”

We have subsequently learned that plans and plots were being hatched days before the assault on the Capitol began.

Was the Trump White House, or Trump, privy to those plots?

In August 1974, it was a near certainty that the House would vote to impeach Richard Nixon. But after the president resigned, the House did not impeach, and Ford pardoned Nixon so the country could move on.

The rage of the establishment at being deprived of its revenge against Nixon who had turned the Silent Majority against it, not unlike today, knew no bounds. And, though history has vindicated Ford, his pardon of Nixon precipitated a plunge in his poll numbers.

Half a century on, however, history says Ford did the right thing.

Why then are the Democrats continuing with this exercise in vengeance?

They want Trump convicted so that he will be prohibited from ever again holding public office. The establishment fears that Trump could make a comeback, win the Republican primaries in 2024, become the nominee, and return in triumph as president.

They are determined to abort that possibility. Many openly admit it.

What does that say about the liberal establishment’s love of democracy when they would disqualify, in advance, the largest vote-getter their opposition party ever had, out of fear he might come back to win the presidency as he did in 2016?

“Trust the people!” was a campaign slogan made famous by George Wallace. Our national establishment prattles endlessly on about its devotion to democracy, but it does not trust the people.

But the establishment is going to pay a price for trying to squeeze the last ounces of juice out of this rotting fruit. President Joe Biden’s call to unity are being drowned out by Democratic howls for a trial, conviction and banishment.

This effort to convict and disqualify Trump from running again tells us more about the people behind it than it does about Trump.

For the odds are slim at best that Trump would or could, at 78, win the nomination and the presidency a second time, as Grover Cleveland did in 1892.

Yet, a fearful establishment does not want to take the chance.

For all the babbling about “democracy” we have heard in recent days, the establishment wants to eliminate the possibility that the people could rise up, and, horror of horrors, elect Trump once more.

You can smell the fear.
“There’s more than a handful of Democrats praying that [President] Joe Biden will get on the phone and call [Senate Democratic Leader Chuck] Schumer and say it’s over because they understand this is going to blow up in their face politically,” he said.
I doubt if he remembers the number.

“I don’t agree with him,” Graham said of McConnell’s remarks. “That would be a crime, to provoke somebody, to incite them to violence. Show me the clip where he did that.”
My wife will testify. She knows he incited violence. Those guys that had been planning it for days, they knew he was going to incite them before he did.


TB Fanatic

Growing evidence Capitol assault was planned weakens incitement case against Trump, experts say

If Trump "didn't know about it, they had planned it without him, then you're missing the causal relationship," said Alan Dershowitz. "It would have happened without his speech as well. So that would be relevant on the issue of causation."

Video on Website 1:34 min

By Carrie Sheffield
Updated: January 29, 2021 - 10:28am

Growing evidence of advance planning and coordination of the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol undermines claims that the rioters were responding spontaneously to former President Trump's speech to supporters about a mile and a half away, according to legal and intelligence experts.

As Senate Democrats mull their options for convicting or censuring Trump and banning him from future public office for allegedly inciting insurrection, experts said their incitement case against him was dealt a severe blow this week when federal prosecutors charged three men in the Capitol attack, alleging their communication and coordination dated back to November.

For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI.

In Trump's case, Brock said, there were neither.

In an interview Thursday, Brock told Just the News he listened to Trump's entire Jan. 6 speech. "I didn't hear a single word about — or anything that would trigger a reasonable person to believe that he was inciting— violence," he said. "He even used the words 'peaceful' and 'respectful.'"

Brock thinks that Trump "was caught by surprise at what happened" and was probably unaware of the segment of the crowd intent on violence. That was "a failure, frankly, on the intelligence that he should have been provided as president of the United States," Brock said. "We shouldn't be in a position where knuckleheads like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers can plan a disruptive violent event and it catches us by surprise."

Still unanswered are questions about how much House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell knew in advance of the potential for violence and when they knew it. Also unresolved are lingering questions surrounding the Pentagon's pre-attack offer to send National Guard troops to reinforce the Capitol Police.

Brock, former principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), noted that Trump did use the word "march" in encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol and voice their dissent during the floor proceedings to formally certify the 2020 Electoral College vote.

"But 'march' — we've had peaceful marches as part of our history — doesn't necessarily indicate automatic, violent response," Brock said. "So I think they'd be hard-pressed to prove that he was using words that were inciting violence."

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said during his speech at the Ellipse, according to a transcript. "Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated."

Brock, who is now consulting at a firm he founded called NewStreet Global Solutions, said such use of words urging "strength" to "take back our country" is far from uncommon in political speeches.

"Every other politician in this country uses those kinds of words and that kind of language," Brock said. "So I think to convict him on those words would open up politicians across both parties for future examination as to whether or not their words are inciting violence across the country. Frankly, I think a lot of them are exposed in that regard."

In a Senate floor speech, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) cited other examples that he said further undermine Democrats' claims that Trump incited the Capitol Hill riot.
"No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the [pro-Sanders] shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise," Paul said. "No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters" to confront Trump officials in public.

Brock said based on his assessment of Trump's claims questioning electoral integrity in key battleground states, Trump's language in the weeks and months leading up to Jan. 6, following the Nov. 3 election, "purely from a predication standpoint, for a federal investigation, those words would not be significant."

A politician expressing frustration, bitterness, or disbelief he or she lost "is not new in the American tradition," Brock said. "So that alone is not enough to have the FBI launch an investigation as to whether or not somebody is inciting an insurrection. If that were the case, we'd have to do it after every election."

Constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz told Just the News that a successful case by Democrats would depend on whether Trump knew about the planning of the Capitol Hill assault but that there was no evidence of that.

"If you didn't know about it, they had planned it without him, then you're missing the causal relationship," said the longtime Harvard Law School professor. "It would have happened without his speech as well. So that would be relevant on the issue of causation."

All of Trump's claims in the weeks and months before Jan. 6 about electoral malfeasance are protected by the First Amendment, said Dershowitz, a member of the president's defense team during his January 2020 impeachment trial.

Even while he personally disagreed with Trump's content, he said legally there was "nothing wrong, it's constitutionally protected, clearly" under the Brandenburg test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a court ruling used to determine whether inflammatory speech is intended to advocate illegal action. In Trump's case, said Dershowitz, it was "not even a close question" under Brandenburg,

"The Bible has caused violence, the Koran has caused violence. [Karl Marx's] 'Das Kapital' has caused violence," Dershowitz noted. "You can't be held responsible for making constitutionally protected arguments that lead others to engage in violence. Jefferson wrote about that in 1801. It goes way back in our history, we punish the actor, not the speaker."

Senate Democrats say they are considering whether or not they can utilize the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to bar President Trump from ever holding public office again. The 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, in part directs that no individual may hold any public office in the country if he or she "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. after taking an oath of office in support of the Constitution.

"It's an idea that's out there that I think people are contemplating in the accountability space," U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine told the Hill last week.


TB Fanatic

Paul says Roberts's absence 'crystalized' argument against Trump impeachment

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday said hearing that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over former President Trump's upcoming impeachment trial "crystalized" the GOP argument that the proceedings are unconstitutional.

Paul emerged as a hero for Trump supporters this week after he used a little-known procedural tactic, a privileged constitutional point of order, to strike a severe blow to Democrats' hopes of convicting the former president on a House-passed article of impeachment.

Forty-five Republican senators voted this week to support Paul's motion that said Trump's impeachment trial is unconstitutional since he's no longer in office.

"We've long been aware that a constitutional motion is a privileged motion and that it could happen. We discussed it within our office," Paul told The Hill in an interview Thursday. "What really crystalized it for me is that about a week ago we were on a Republican conference call and they said the chief justice wasn't coming."

"Myself and others were like, 'Oh my goodness, the chief justice is not coming.

That's a huge, huge signal that there's something wrong with this proceeding,'" Paul said, recounting the conference call on Jan. 21, the day after Trump left office.

Paul said the news that Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would preside over the second impeachment trial struck many Republicans as deeply unfair. Leahy voted to convict Trump on two articles of impeachment last year.

"The optics of the chief justice not coming and then also the optics of a person who had favored the last impeachment now presiding over the trial - who's also going to vote in the trial - it just didn't look right or sound right to any of us," he added.

Paul described how he then put together a motion to declare the trial unconstitutional. He offered the motion as a privileged point of order on Tuesday.

The move caught GOP colleagues by surprise.

"I didn't know we could do it," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said of Paul's motion. "I was surprised he could even raise the point of order. I'm glad he did."

"When I found out that was in the works, I supported it," Johnson added. "I always thought this was unconstitutional."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she was asking her legislative director the day of the vote about the obscure procedural tactic.

"Constitutional point of order. I was asking my L.D. coming over here. Constitutional? We talk about budget points of order all the time; when was the last time we did a constitutional point of order?" she told reporters after the vote.

Murkowski said the vote illustrated the immense power the Senate rules give to individual senators.

"Around here, the power of one senator we see demonstrated every day," she said.

A former Senate Republican aide who is known for his procedural expertise as an early master of the so-called clay pigeon amendment process applauded Paul's move.

"I was very impressed by it. Props to Rand Paul. He basically ended the impeachment proceedings before they even got started. (A) I was impressed that he did, I thought it was a great maneuver, and (B) I was surprised at how the vote was," the strategist said.

Paul said he kept his plan secret up until the day of the vote. He only let the Senate cloakroom know about the point of order on Monday.

"We told the cloakroom staff the day before," he said, adding the floor staff probably alerted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of the tactic immediately afterward.

Paul said he was informed by the legal analysis of Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard law professor and constitutional expert who has argued that the penalty for an impeachment conviction - removal from office and disqualification from future office - would not apply to Trump since he is no longer in office.

"His point is that it doesn't say 'remove from office or disqualify,' it says 'remove and disqualify.' That doesn't really work if you've already left office," Paul said.

Paul's point of order stated that Trump "holds none of the positions listed in the Constitution" and is "a private citizen."

It also emphasized Leahy's role in presiding over the trial.

"His presence, and the chief justice's absence, demonstrates that this is not a trial of the president but of a private citizen," the motion states.

Several legal analysts have pointed to precedent for impeaching a former public official, just not a president.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) acknowledged in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow this week that Roberts didn't want to preside over the trial of an ex-president.

"He doesn't want to do it," the Democratic leader told Maddow.

After 45 Republicans voted against tabling Paul's motion on Tuesday, many senators predicted Trump's trial will end in acquittal, especially since only five GOP senators joined with Democrats, falling far short of the 17 needed to reach the conviction threshold of 67.

"I think it's pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said after the vote.


TB Fanatic

Why Mitch McConnell Backed Away From Trying To Convict Trump

FRIDAY, JAN 29, 2021 - 19:20
Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,
Mitch McConnell really wanted to convict Donald Trump and ban him from ever running for office again, but he was forced to back off. In fact, he just voted for a motion that declared that convicting Trump at this point would be unconstitutional. That represents a stunning reversal by McConnell, because earlier this month he was telling other Republicans that he wanted Trump gone. Putting the pieces together, it appears that McConnell really did try to get to 67 votes so that Trump would be convicted, but political reality forced him to back down in a major way. Now a weakened McConnell will try to move forward as the minority leader in the Senate, and the future of his political career is very much in doubt.

Once the riot at the U.S. Capitol happened on January 6th, McConnell decided that he was done with Trump and never wanted to speak to him again
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he never wants to speak to President Donald Trump again following a violent insurrection at the US Capitol on Wednesday, The Washington Post reported.
But of course at that point they had already not spoken for quite some time.

According to McConnell, the last time the two spoke was all the way back on December 15th
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he hasn’t spoken to former President Trump since the middle of December, confirming news reports that the Senate GOP leader has cut off personal contact with the former president.
“The last time I spoke with him was the day after I declared that Biden had obviously won the election after the Electoral College [voted on] Dec. 14. It would have been Dec. 15,” McConnell told reporters.
Not content to keep his feud with Trump private, McConnell took it to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

When McConnell delivered a speech in which he directly blamed the chaos at the Capitol on Trump, it made headlines all over the nation…
“The mob was fed lies,” McConnell told the chamber, which two weeks earlier had been evacuated as rioters invaded the building.
“They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.”
Once it became clear that the House was going to impeach Trump, rumors were running rampant that McConnell was going to back a move to convict Trump in the Senate.

For example, the following comes from a New York Times article entitled “McConnell Privately Backs Impeachment as House Moves to Charge Trump”
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking.
And CNN reported that a Republican member of Congress actually told them that “Mitch said to me he wants Trump gone”…
The lobbying started in the House after the January 6 attack on the Capitol and in the days leading up to impeachment. But it’s now more focused on Sen. Mitch McConnell, the powerful minority leader who has signaled he may support convicting Trump.
“Mitch said to me he wants Trump gone,” one Republican member of Congress told CNN. “It is in his political interest to have him gone. It is in the GOP interest to have him gone. The question is, do we get there?”
So why did Mitch McConnell change his mind so dramatically?
There are three main reasons.

First of all, it became clear that there wouldn’t be a way to get to 67 votes. As I warned yesterday, that would probably be enough to force McConnell and his allies to back down.

Voting to convict Trump without succeeding would be political suicide for McConnell and his allies and they know it.

Secondly, Trump was threatening to start his own political party if he was convicted.

The “Patriot Party” would have split the votes of conservatives in every state, and it would have made it absolutely impossible for Republicans to take back control of the House or the Senate in 2022.

In fact, splitting conservatives between the Republican Party and the Patriot Party would have ensured one party rule in Washington for the foreseeable future.

As much as McConnell would like to get rid of Trump permanently, regaining the majority in the Senate is much more important to him.

Thirdly, other Republicans in the Senate were threatening to boot McConnell from his position as minority leader if he voted to convict Trump
“No, no, no,” Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican and Trump ally, told CNN when asked if he could support McConnell if he voted to convict Trump, calling such a vote a “dangerous precedent” and adding: “I don’t even think we should be having a trial.”
“If you’re wanting to erase Donald Trump from the party, you’re going to get erased,” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Wednesday. “This idea of moving forward without Donald Trump in the Republican Party is a disaster for the Republican Party.”
McConnell is a political survivor, and he could see the writing on the wall.
So he backed off.

But if he could figure out a way to get rid of Trump without any consequences, he would pull the trigger in a nanosecond.

Unfortunately for McConnell, now that everyone knows what he tried to do, he has been greatly weakened politically.

He may survive for a while, but the days remaining in his political career are definitely numbered.

If the Republicans are not able to regain control of the Senate in 2022, I have a feeling that Senate Republicans may decide that it is time for a new standard bearer.

Of course a lot could still happen between now and then, and my regular readers already know that I am not optimistic about America’s future at all.

The rot and decay in Washington is simply a reflection of the rot and decay that is growing throughout our society as a whole.

Our country is literally falling apart all around us, and decades of incredibly foolish decisions by our leaders are now catching up with us in a major way.


TB Fanatic

Democrats Reportedly Building ‘Emotionally Charged’ Case in Trump Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 25: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) leads fellow House Impeachment Managers as they proceed to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate on January 25, 2021 in Washington, DC. The House is impeaching Donald Trump for the second time with the Senate scheduled to begin its …
Jonathan Ernst - Pool/Getty Images
HANNAH BLEAU30 Jan 2021596

The Democrat House impeachment managers are reportedly building what has been described as an “emotionally charged” case against former President Trump for the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

According to a report from the Washington Post, Democrats are hoping to present new footage of the January 6 Capitol protest “as well as updated details about injured police officers as they seek to build an emotionally compelling impeachment case against former president Donald Trump.”

The primary goal, according to the report, is to “present the Senate with fresh evidence that reveals what Trump knew in advance” of the mass protest. They hope to put Republican senators, many of whom have indicated that they will not vote to convict the former president, in an “uncomfortable” position, particularly given the party’s position of backing the blue. One police officer, Brian Sicknick, died “due to injuries sustained while on-duty,” according to the Capitol Police.

“Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters,” police said. “He returned to his division office and collapsed.”

According to the Post:
The House impeachment managers are determined to present as much evidence as senators allow, to ensure a permanent record of Trump’s role in the riots — and to force Republicans to witness the chaos and carnage one more time before they vote against conviction, several individuals familiar with Democratic thinking said.
House Democrats are assuming they will be permitted to play a compilation of footage from Jan. 6, including newly released cellphone recordings of protesters attending Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally that morning, said these individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The compilation will also likely feature footage from inside the Capitol after protesters breached it.

The footage is being collected by House managers and support staff, and compiled by the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, which produced audiovisual materials for Trump’s first impeachment trial when he faced charges that he had solicited foreign interference to help his reelection bid.
“What story are we going to tell to get there? We are going to describe what happened as summarized by Liz Cheney when she announced her support for Trump’s impeachment: ‘He summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,’” an individual described as “working on strategy with the House impeachment managers” said, adding that the goal is to convict Trump.

The Democrat-led House, alongside ten Republican lawmakers, voted to impeach Trump for incitement of insurrection one week after the riot. They contend that Trump effectively urged supporters to rush the Capitol and engage in lawless acts, despite the fact that he did not call for lawlessness or violence at the “Save America” rally earlier in the day. As the chaos unfolded, Trump repeatedly called for peace and order.

Shortly after 2:30 p.m. Eastern that day, Trump wrote on Twitter, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

He later added, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” He also called on people to “go home with love & in peace.”

The impeachment trial is expected to begin the week of February 8, although Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has deemed the trial “dead on arrival” after the majority of GOP senators supported his concerns of the constitutionality and legitimacy of proceeding:
The Senate just voted on my constitutional point of order.
45 Senators agreed that this sham of a “trial” is unconstitutional.
That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process.
This “trial” is dead on arrival in the Senate.
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 26, 2021
“This impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country,” he told his colleagues, adding that “impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity.”

Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sided with Paul. Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are among the five GOP senators who joined Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made it clear this month that the Democrats’ primary goal is to prevent Trump from ever running for office again.
“Let me be clear: There will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him again,” he stated.

Trump has yet to definitively outline his plans for 2024.


TB Fanatic

Senate is playing the dangerous game with the 14th Amendment
Loading video
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTORThe views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The HillTWEET SHARE EMAIL

After a vote suggesting that about half of the Senate has constitutional or prudential concerns over the trial of former President Trump, members are discussing censure as an alternative. I previously supported a censure resolution, but this is censure with a twist. Senator Tim Kaine would add yet another controversy to an array of constitutional issues by electorally barring Trump under the 14th Amendment. With the snap impeachment and a retroactive Senate trial, the country needs another constitutional controversy like Wall Street needs another Reddit stock tip.

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution because it is a resolution with the view of Congress. Such a statement could allow for bipartisan condemnation. It is also now seen as a type of shadow impeachment. A Senate trial could work to the advantage of Trump if it ends in acquittal. For the first time ever, the House used a snap impeachment and sent the Senate no record to support its article.

As before, the Senate can refuse to call witnesses and vote on the record or lack thereof, meaning a brief trial and about half of the Senate rejecting the case. It has led some members back to censure as the effective substitute for conviction.

Part of the controversy of this snap impeachment is using a trial solely for electoral disbarment. The Constitution refers to the trial as to decide on whether to remove "the president" and so that leads some of us to doubt any retroactive trial, while disbarment is an optional punishment for after removal. The Constitution limits the power of the Senate in impeachment trials to "removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."

Retroactive trials remain a close issue even for most scholars who have reached conclusions on either side. Now Kaine and others suggest the Senate can avoid the need for the trial but achieve the same result by a majority vote on censure.

At issue is the 14th Amendment section that bars people from holding office if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

According to Kaine, his censure resolution would make two findings "that it was an insurrection and that President Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists." While this would be a workaround of an unattainable impeachment conviction, it would be defended as part of the authority of Congress over any citizen under the 14th Amendment.

This has never been used to disqualify a former president, and it is not clear Congress has carte blanche authority to bar a citizen from office by majority vote. The Constitution refers to individuals determined to have engaged in treasonous acts. Under this theory, it would be relatively easy to disqualify someone from office and declare him a traitor, but difficult to lift their electoral disbarment. Further, it would also flip the burden of the supermajority vote from a protection for the accused in impeachment trials into a barrier for those disenfranchised by Congress.

Kaine is open about his motivation for "an alternative that would impose, in my view, a similar consequence" without a trial and supermajority vote. But that is why this tactic is so dangerous. The party in control could bar dozens of its opponents from running for federal office. Some Democrats are now demanding such action against Republicans who challenged the election of Joe Biden. This is common in authoritarian countries such as Iran, where leaders often bar their opponents from office.

Kaine could be making a case for Trump in claiming the 14th Amendment as an alternative to conviction at trial. Academics have echoed this view, and some insist Congress clearly has authority to bar Trump from office. Columbia University professor Eric Foner says the 14th Amendment "is very applicable" and "would only require a majority vote in Congress." Such statements leave little doubt that the motivation is to achieve the penalty of impeachment without the burden of a conviction.

It would be a first impression for a court, but Trump would have a credible case.

If he were to prevail, he could cite the decision as vindication and perhaps enhance his claims of being an establishment target. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, it was easy to see its applicability to those who swore allegiance to the confederacy or fought for it. A court today would face the issue of whether Congress has total discretion to make such a finding or if, as I believe, it is subject to judicial review.

The Framers, with their ban on bills of attainder, had opposed individual punishment meted out by Congress. Such bills were used in Great Britain to punish individuals through Parliament rather than the courts. Years ago I had litigated one of the few successful bills of attainder cases in striking down the Elizabeth Morgan Act, which punished my client with stripping him of parental rights. This proposed censure resolution would achieve the same purpose to mete out punishment by popular vote.

Using the 14th Amendment is too clever by half. Our raging politics blinds many to what could be a dangerous precedent of barring opponents from office. When many people call for blacklists and retaliation against anyone "complicit" with Trump in the last four years, such a power would be ripe for abuse. There is an alternative, which is a censure resolution that can garner overwhelming support as a bipartisan condemnation rather than a circumvention of impeachment. We can then leave the Constitution alone, and leave the future of Trump to voters and to history.