Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (66 posts)

70
jeff61bposted 3 years ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.

But Donald Trump wanted to incite the extremists. He chose the most inflammatory rhetoric he could. Long after the election was settled, he repeatedly lied about a “stolen election”, refused to concede or agree to a peaceful transition of power, and told his supporters they needed to march on the Capitol building to stop the certification of the election.

So they did march, they did break into the Capitol, they did stop the certification and they proudly posted pictures of their accomplishments on social media.

Trump didn't even criticize them on the day of the attack. He wanted this chaos to happen. There needs to be serious consequences for Donald Trump, or this sort of thing will definitely happen again.
reply report
1. 86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well, he has been impeached, and the Senate will address it when they are back in session which is not until Jan 19th. Trump will be gone, but if the impeachment is deemed legal (which many Constitutional scholars say it is not) Trump will have a Trail, and then the all-important vote. And punishment. ---- " Alan Dershowitz added that "the Constitution specifically says the president shall be removed from office upon impeachment." He said that because it does not say "the former president,"
  
  "In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office"
  
  He will have already have been living in Sunny Florida for a week as a private citizen.
  
  "There needs to be serious consequences for Donald Trump, or this sort of thing will definitely happen again."
  
  What would you suggest?
  reply report
  70
  jeff61bposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  If the Senate convicts Trump it is a message to future presidents that they cannot engage in lies, corruption, incitement of violence and attempts to subvert the Constitution as Trump has done.
  
  It also prevents Trump from running for president again and makes him subject to criminal prosecution for his crimes.
  reply report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You need to brush up on a bit of history. The US Constitution is very specific about impeachment. The purpose of an impeachment is to remove a president from office. NOT to punish him. You can't remove someone from office who is already gone. This is nothing more than political theater.
  
  Oh, and according to CNN and the NYT, the protest at the capital was preplanned. It had NOTHING to do with the speech. It is a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
  
  How can you hold a trial to remove a president that is already gone?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  As near as I can tell the purpose of this impeachment is to remove a possible future opponent from the political arena. Nothing more - it is a political ploy to cement the power of one party.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I know it's crazy, but some people seem to think that a politician who fomented violence in support of a false conspiracy theory (the Big Lie) should never again hold office.
  
  Crazy, huh?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not crazy at all. The will of the people must ALWAYS be controlled by those who know better. So sayeth those who have the power to control, anyway.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You seem to be confused about why impeachment is included in the Constitution. Perhaps you should do some reading to remind yourself. I know it's hard to see what's right while still under the spell of a lying demagogue, but I hope you'll at least give it a try..
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  yes, not sure why many are so determined to waste the time with a meaningless gesture.
  
  "In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office"
  reply report
  78
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  No, but impeachment can ensure a bad politician can never hold office again. It also ensures that the any pardon for offenses against the United States in the case of impeachment are negated.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It sounds to me like you have not considered one thing, actually a very important thing. --- The Senate has the last word.
  reply report
  78
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, Captain Obvious. But my stating reasons for impeachment had nothing to do with who runs the trial of impeachment.
  reply report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I suggest you read a bit more of the Constitution about the purpose of impeachment and then try reading what the founders wrote about it
  
  The Democrats have set a good precedent. When Republicans gain power again, they can begin to impeach Democrat presidents who are out of office and violated their oath of office. We could start with Bill Clinton, since impeaching a president more than once is now a precedent. We could then focus on obama and the IRS scandal and others. I'm sure Biden will do more than one impeachable thing during his time in office. This might turn out to be a good thing for the future.
  reply report
  78
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, because you're the only one who's ever read about impeachment.
  
  Clinton and Obama are a little different than Trump as they have both already served two terms and there is no threat of them ever taking public office again. So go ahead and impeach them - it'll just look like pettiness to go after two former well-regarded presidents (Clinton - 66% approval ; Obama - 59% approval).
  reply report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Glad you agree. Maybe we could impeach Andrew Johnson again. Why not?
  reply report
  78
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Him mounting a defense should be entertaining after you exhume him. Let us know how that works out.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Very good point.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  President Donald Trump became the first U.S. president to be impeached by the House twice, but without action from the Senate, that might not prevent him from running for election again in four years. Trump faced a single charge, “incitement of insurrection.” He is accused of encouraging a mob of loyalists to storm the Capitol following his speech at a pro-Trump rally on the National Mall.
  
  The Senate will next hold a trial and vote whether or not to convict. If Trump is acquitted he can run again for President. However, with the new majority Senate, it would be plausible he will not get an acquittal.
  reply report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Sharlee, I highly doubt 2/3 of the Senate would vote to impeach and THAT is what is required. As I've said before, this is nothing but political theater.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I very much agree this was just a new page out of the "Dems Playbook Of Cheap Ploys". Page number 423... Titled "Just Impeach When In Doubt"... LOL
  reply report
2. 96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, when stripped of your own opinions
  (But Donald Trump wanted to incite the extremists.
  Long after the election was settled, he repeatedly lied about a “stolen election”
  He wanted this chaos to happen.)
  
  and your false statements
  
  (He chose the most inflammatory rhetoric he could
  Refused to concede or agree to a peaceful transition of power
  They did stop the certification
  Trump didn't even criticize them on the day of the attack.)
  
  there isn't anything left to convict him on. As far as happening again; as long as we take a soft stance on rioting it will absolutely happen again. Perhaps not by breaking into the capital but certainly by burning cities, killing cops and others, destroying businesses and other property as well as the rest of the violence of a riot. This one was but the latest in a long string of riots that authorities have condoned and even encouraged; that it was on Capital grounds, and directly threatened the VIP's of our country, is the only real difference. Interesting, don't you think, how threatening legislators rather than plain old citizens trying to make a living resulted in such a different response?
  reply report
  70
  jeff61bposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody has taken a soft stance on rioting that I've seen. In fact, rioters have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and were condemned for their violence.
  
  The difference between BLM protests and the Trump riots is that the Trump riots were based entirely on the lies that Trump himself told. The Trump rioters did exactly what they believed he wanted them to do. Had it not been for the incessant lies Trump told about a stolen election and his urging his supporters to stop the certification of the election, this tragedy would never have happened.
  reply report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "Nobody has taken a soft stance on rioting that I've seen. In fact, rioters have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and were condemned for their violence."
  
  You may need to read the news a bit more.
  
  "Most charges against Portland protesters won’t be prosecuted, DA says"
  
  https://nypost.com/2020/08/12/most-char … ecuted-da/
  
  "Trump riots were based entirely on the lies that Trump himself told. The Trump rioters did exactly what they believed he wanted them to do. Had it not been for the incessant lies Trump told about a stolen election and his urging his supporters to stop the certification of the election"
  
  Now THIS is a lie. NO proof. Saw the speech and read the transcript. NOTHING in there talks about violence.
  
  "Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned"
  
  https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics … index.html
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "Nobody has taken a soft stance on rioting that I've seen."
  
  Then you missed 3 months of nightly rioting in Portland. You missed the "CHAZ" takeover of Seattle, with no response. You missed city leaders marching with rioters, breaking down gates on private land as they did so. Even that "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" is silly, with judges across the nation releasing rioters as soon as they enter the system and DA's declaring they will not prosecute no matter what.
  
  But you're right in that the Capital riot and those throughout the nation were based on different things. The dozens (hundreds?) of riots across the country last year, burning cities, destroying millions in property (both private and public), destroying monuments, etc. were based on the false narrative that people with dark skin are targeted by police everywhere for death, while the riot at the capital, producing relatively little in damage (no fires, no destroyed vehicles, etc.) was about voter fraud that the establishment refuses to investigate, instead simply declaring there was none without ever looking.
  
  Of course it goes without saying that ALL of riots were also about idiots that think their personal vendetta/agenda is so important as to be above the law. That believe that it is so important that the ends justify the means, whether ruined lives, simple destruction for the sake of destruction or death to innocent people. And for those outside the capital riot, that free TV they stole doesn't hurt, either!
  reply report
  0
  Mentocioposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  What kind of procedure do you suggest that those who rioted, should have taken?
  reply report
  0
  Mentocioposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Do you prefer a Gandhi/M.L.K type riot perhaps?
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting.
  
  If anti-Trumpists protest peacefully, it is illegal. If Trumpists riot violently, it's freedom of expression.
  
  That's why they refuse to condemn the deadly Capitol Hill riot.
  
  They also don't understand that the people who were released without charges were arrested for non-violent misdemeanors.
  reply report
  0
  Mentocioposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Is there a reliable source that describes how 'legal protests" should be done?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Every city of any size has laws and guidelines on protests, so yes.
  reply report
  0
  Mentocioposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Who is the final arbiter of those 'guidelines'?
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  City and state governments pass the laws. Courts and police enforce them.
  
  Ultimately, it's the federal court system and the Constitution.
  reply report
  0
  Mentocioposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I end my case here.
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely. Nothing stops you from standing on public property with a sign. If you are part of a group, you often have to get a permit.
  
  Otherwise, here is one source for protest laws for each state:
  
  https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforci … state.html
  reply report
  0
  Mentocioposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome link!
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Is it legal to burn a police station, and try to bar the doors so the officers could not get out?
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  That's a silly question. It also has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.
  
  That said, are you talking about the right-wing instigator who set fire to the Minneapolis police station?
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … orge-floyd
  
  Otherwise, the alleged arsonists were indicted. Why in the world wouldn't they be?
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  No, I am talking about all the protesters in many Left coast cities that burned and looted all summer.
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You seem obsessed with BLM protests that are long gone.
  
  You should be much more concerned about the need for 20,000 troops in DC for Inauguration Day.
  
  But I understand why you want to fixate on old BLM protests.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Can you spell Hpypocrttacal? I pointed out IMO 'MANY" had no problem while thugs ran ramped all summer burning and looting.
  
  Yes, I am very concerned that 20 thousand troops need to be at an inauguration due to so many a fevered dislike for a new president. Seems like a third world country when the president is so disliked he needs such protection. Not to mention so many feeling the election was rigged. Real shame our country has come to this point.
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I spell "Hpypocrttacal" differently than you do.
  
  If BLM is your answer for everything, you clearly aren't concerned about right-wing violence on Wednesday.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  No, I have been concerned for many many months in regard to the historic riots we had all last Summer. And I am also concerned at this point about the riot that occurred last week, and possible riots that unsatisfied citizens may commit in the future due to not being satisfied with the current Government. It's very apparent the troops are being deployed to protect a new president.
  report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The protests and tiny riots last summer weren't even close to historic. The '60s, '70s, WTO and many others were far, far larger.
  
  Once again, you focus on BLM in your comment. Once again, you clearly want to blame Trump violence on old BLM news.
  
  "Troops are being deployed to protect a new president" -- yeah, from Trump fanatics.
  report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You lost me at tiny riots. That would seem unlogical to me... Just saying
  
  And yes the new president will need protection like no other president we have had, due to so many very unsatisfied with Government. It well appears that is a fact Joe will need to live with.
  report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Illogical based on what? That the largest Portland protest had 1,000 people and the 1999 WTO protest in Seattle -- which I witnessed -- had more than 40,000 people?
  
  The "so many very unsatisfied with government" are simply people who want to believe Trump and Russian propaganda.
  
  Fortunately, that dangerous minority is shrinking fast.
  report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well, it is very apparent many on the right are very dissatisfied with the current Government. And I would assume there are many reasons for their dissatisfaction.
  
  I have no idea how many would be willing to continue protesting the
  election and neither do you.
  
  Not sure where you formed your opinion that Trump supporters are "simple". I find that attitude lofty... Unrealistic. And might be time to let go of all the Russia rhetoric, it all leads back to the Obama/Biden administration, and Hillary. Come on -- do some catching up.
  report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I told myself that I would avoid using LOL on here, but you force me to use it.
  
  LOL. Now you're blaming Hillary and Obama. Talk about not catching up. Quite the opposite.
  report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Just giving a bit back of what you gave. You certainly got snarky with your comment. When I think of anything Russia I think of the Obama/Biden investigation they conducted on an incoming president. When I think of Russian propaganda I look at the facts. It was the Obama Ad and Hillary that drummed up propaganda and lied their brains out. IMO
  
  "so many very unsatisfied with the government" are simply people who want to believe Trump and Russian propaganda." Pretty snarky
  report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Snarky has nothing to do with it. It's just an obvious truth.
  report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Your truth.
  report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The assault on Capitol Hill by Trump fanatics who believe phony election fraud claims is THE truth.
  
  It proves the delusions of Trump fanatics.
  report
  78
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  When you get your truth from someone who defrauds people for a living, you might want to reconsider your sources.
  report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely.
  report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You are aware the Biden's are as we speak being investigated by the FBI. As of yet, there has been no request presented to the DOJ for criminal charges. The investigation is ongoing. So, it is fair to say we may just have a new President that will face criminal charges along with his brother, and son.
  
  Ir would seem your comment accuses Trump of defrauding people, I could say at this point Biden MAY HAVE done the same.
  
  https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics … index.html
  report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting."
  
  I wonder if this includes the soon-to-be fraudulently elected vice president who created a fund to pay the bail of those who rioted in Minneapolis, Portland and other places. Does she believe they were peaceful protests?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "If anti-Trumpists protest peacefully, it is illegal."
  
  Assuming you refer to the dozens of BLM "protests", not sure I've seen any. Just riots and destruction, although there were most likely a few in Timbuktu or somewhere with a handful of actually peaceful protesters as the entire protest.
  
  "They also don't understand that the people who were released without charges were arrested for non-violent misdemeanors."
  
  You're right...as long as looting, monument destruction and burning buildings or cars is defined as "non-violent".
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said, "They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting."
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  What makes a protest legal?
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I already answered that question.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting."
  
  Are you under the impression the summer burning, looting, and killing was legal?
  
  I have not witnessed anyone here on this forum that has not condemned the riot on the Capitol.
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Of course not. But protests protected by the U.S. Constitution that don't involve burning and looting or any other laws are simply not illegal.
  
  Killing? Are you talkiing about Kyle Rittenhouse, who murdered two BLM protesters?
  
  Then you aren't reading all of the forum protestings. I asked Wilderness 3 times if he condemns the Capitol riot. He refused to answer all 3 times. Likewise 1 other person.
  reply report
  86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Facts can be very inconvenient...
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … rest-acled
  
  Your explanation makes pretty much the "majority" of the summer riots illegal.
  reply report
  70
  ScottSBatemanposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You still don't understand the difference between legal protests and illegal riots.
  
  Your link is irrelevant to my comments. Trump supporters seem obsessed with irrelevance.
  
  You didn't acknowledge my point about Wilderness refusing to condemn the Capitol Hill attack.
  
  You didn't answer any of my questions.
  
  None of this is a surprise.
  reply report
  70
  jeff61bposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Either you have a bad memory about the BLM protests or you get all your news from right wing Facebook memes. There were hundreds of protests last summer and sadly some of them turned violent. The vast majority were peaceful but you will choose to forget that. The people who committed criminal acts of violence were arrested and prosecuted.
  
  The pro-Trump riots were planned ahead of time and were based on the bald-faced lies that Trump told. There were recounts, more recounts, and investigations in state after state with no evidence of voter fraud that could impact the election.
  
  All 50 states certified the election results and Trump continued his lies. The Electoral College met and made Biden the official President-Elect, and Trump continued to repeat his lies. He contacted officials in several states and tried to coerce them to nullify the election results.
  
  Trump lied about "thousands of dead people who voted" when investigations showed there were exactly 2. He lied about the Post Office back-dating Biden mail-in ballots so they could be counted after the election. He lied about "massive dumps" of Biden votes by election officials and Trump ballots being dumped in a river. All the while he was telling his supporters that the Biden and Obama were guilty of treason.
  
  None of his claims had any merit, yet long after they were disproved he continued working his supporters into a frenzy by claiming the election was stolen. Long after the Electoral College made it official, Trump still told his supporters to march on the Capitol to stop the certification of the election on January 6.
  
  Meanwhile, his gullible supporters were talking about starting a new Civil War on January 6 and Trump only increased his harsh rhetoric about stolen elections and treason. He is directly responsible for the violence that was planned and carried out at the Capitol.
  reply report
80
emgeposted 3 years ago
Impeaching and trying to punish Trump is going to be like a double edge sword. The Democrats better be careful because all said and done Trump does have support whether people like it or not. Losing an election doesn't mean he has no support and the Democrats should not try and bait Trump. Trying to go ahead with all this impeachment process is definitely a witch hunt and it's not going to benefit America at all. When two sides harden their stand against each other, the next result is always violence.
reply report
1. 86
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Good point.
  reply report
78
Valeantposted 3 years ago
Karl Rove on election fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4SNf4jLRCk
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies