When history judges McConnell
I doubt history will reflect positively on Mitch McConnell’s actions during the 2nd impeachment of Donald Trump.
By voting ‘not guilty’ on the grounds the impeachment of a former President was unconstitutional, he completely disregarded the Senate’s vote that the impeachment was constitutional, which undermines the validity of Senate decisions.
By then immediately jumping to his feet to condemn Trump on multiple levels, including being responsible for inciting the Capitol riot (and failing to quickly stop it), he looks like the epitome of hypocrisy.
And to claim he would have found Trump guilty if Trump had still been President at the time of the hearing (when McConnell himself delayed the hearing until after Biden’s inauguration), defies all logic.
McConnell could have made that same speech before Senators voted. He could have said, “I’m personally not convinced the timing is constitutional, but I respect the vote of the Senate”, and then encouraged all Republican senators to vote according to their conscience.
Instead, he’s allowed conspiracy theorists to keep dreaming.
Am I the only one to think it was unfair to expect votes to follow party lines? And was there no option for a secret vote on such an emotionally charged issue?
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics … ot-vpx.cnnDo you find it wrong somehow when members of the SCOTUS disagree and vote in opposition to the prevailing opinions? Do they completely disregard the opinion of the majority and are therefore wrong in having a differing opinion?
Some time ago I read the opinion of a much lower court judge who set a rapist free because of a poorly written law. She was nearly in tears when reading the verdict, but followed the law whether she liked it or not.
Whether I think McConnell was right or wrong in his decision is irrelevant; like that rapist judge he followed his opinion of what was legally wrong and voted accordingly; he should be congratulated for that. So did some of the others (notably the 7 Republicans crossing the party line), but where were the Democrats during that? Hiding behind the party platform, refusing to vote their opinion or conscience (if they have one) in favor of the party agenda.
McConnell's decision and vote are only "illogical" if you demand a vote based on party politics while also demanding that those opposing those party politics not engage in politicking themselves.
You are reasonable to think votes will follow party lines. It is not honest, but it is what a reasonable person will expect from our so-called "leaders", for honesty is not a part of the package. It is, however, NOT reasonable to want a secret vote "on such an emotionally charged issue"; it is those very issues (that matter the most to constituents) that must be open to constituents to know how the person they selected to represent their wishes vote.Faced with the specific circumstances surrounding Trump’s 2nd impeachment, I would expect party officials to make decisions based on what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents and their country.
Given the threat to kill Mike Pence for following the law instead of following the delusional instructions of Trump, I can understand it would be extremely difficult to be a Republican senator whose vote to impeach may well result in death threats and possible future violence against themselves and their families. Only a secret vote would offer protection.
Senators took an oath to act as impartial jurors in the impeachment proceedings. Their role was to examine the evidence and make a considered decision. They are the elected officials entrusted to represent their constituents, so they should have been able to make responsible decisions. Yes, republicans voted them into office, but I don’t believe every republican considers storming the Capitol to be acceptable. Voters who were pro-Trump prior to the violence at the Capitol saw the same footage at the time of the riots and had the ability to watch the full impeachment proceedings.
Seems to me that anyone who bothered to watch the timeline etc would have to agree Trump was responsible for inciting the violence. So republican senators who voted ‘not guilty’ may well be voted out at their next election anyway, for failing to meet the expectations of constituents who drew their own conclusions based on the evidence presented. Time will tell.If you believe our legislators are more concerned with the needs of our country than the needs (or wants) of themselves and their party you are deluded. IMO, of course.
Senators take an oath of office when elected...which they promptly set aside in preference to voting a party line and maintaining their job. No reason, IMO, to think that this time would be any different, and the 100% lockstep vote of Democrats in a muddy, gray decision only serves to accent that opinion. I understand the reasoning behind the barrage of disgusting, fear producing videos of the riot during the trial...but they provide exactly zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump. Instead they were designed to raise emotions and elicit votes based on that emotion and on fear rather than facts.
Yes, time will tell whether those emotions laden "arguments" for impeachment will prevail for most people, or whether they will sit back and say to themselves "What does showing criminal actions by a few have to do with proving incitement by Trump?". The answer, of course, is nothing at all; everything shown had to be combined with insinuation and assumption of guilt to be useful in garnering a "guilty" verdict. That and implied threats that their job was on the line, of course.
LTM: I agree with everything you said. Mitch is a sly old fox. He has learned how to use Time Delay to his advantage. He also did it with what he calls the "Biden Rule" to delay Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court until after the election. He makes up his rules to suit his parties needs and he is never held accountable.
I won’t be surprised if Mitch is dumped at his next election.
Wilderness, you wrote, “I understand the reasoning behind the barrage of disgusting, fear producing videos of the riot during the trial...but they provide exactly zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump. Instead they were designed to raise emotions and elicit votes based on that emotion and on fear rather than facts.”
I can see how much you wish that were true ... but it’s not. You, by your own admission, didn’t bother watching the impeachment proceedings on live tv. If you taped it, you should watch it for yourself. Instead, you have fallen again for lies presented by who? Fox News opinion non-journalists?
The fact that you wrote, "What does showing criminal actions by a few have to do with proving incitement by Trump?" shows you don’t have a clue how effectively the prosecutors were in presenting the evidence. It impressed Mitch McConnell enough to say Trump was to blame. And the Republican senators who voted guilty. And even the lawyers representing Trump! So why not you?
And as for what you wrote about your legislators, I’m not arguing with you. Worth noting I said what I ‘expect’; not what I ‘believe’ happens in the US. I know what happens in Australia is very different to what happens in the US. Given your country’s situation with civil unrest, COVID deaths etc, I suggest it could be a very long time before Americans again can claim to live in ‘the greatest country on earth’. IMO.
You’re not going to have a united, peaceful country and healthy, functioning economy and environment until Americans (like you) properly identify Trump’s many lies ... and reacquaint yourselves with news sources that tell you the truth.Really? A video of the riot convince McConnell that Trump was to blame for it? If so, any respect I had for the man (very little, I'm afraid) just plummeted.
But I didn't say it was not effective; it obviously was because thousands of people took it as proof of incitement. It just wasn't proof of anything...except that gullible people will gobble up anything that supports a pre-made conclusion.
LTM, I just finished watching a show about "hacking the mind"; how advertising of all kinds, including election campaigns, influence us. Influence, not produce hard evidence leading to a conclusion. It even went into the Russian social media ploys used in 2016.
Sadly, we are seeing more and more of this, from our courtrooms to political speeches to stocking grocery store shelving. And this production of the House prosecution team was a prime example, for it has convinced thousands or millions of guilty verdicts in the minds of people...without ever offering a single piece of hard evidence in support. No written code book for followers to use. No private meetings choosing which doors to break down, let alone effective tools to do that. No written instructions for what weapons to bring, and no list of legislators to murder. No guidelines on who would be in the front lines - no indication of anyone giving instructions. No method of communication with rioters. No attempt to prevent the escape of intended victims. No effective demolition, just gratuitous vandalism, and no instructions on what to destroy. No record of attempted surveillance or even plans outside of "March on the Capital and peacefully speak to your legislator!".
Just a claim it was planned for months and video and sound clips designed and used to bring fear/anger/disgust to the watcher...and lots and lots and lots of assumption, innuendo and insinuations. The only thing proven was that people really are gullible enough to be guided that way and "forced" into conclusions that data does not support.
Trump may have intended a riot although to what purpose I don't know for nothing would have changed if Pence, Pelosi and others had been murdered. Not even if every elector in the building had died that night. He may have done that, but the "evidence" presented does not even come close to supporting that conclusion. Not surprising as it was never intended to; only to produce an emotional response.
Had it been presented to 100 independent, foreign, unbiased listeners that knew nothing of the events of the past 4 years (the kind of thing we look for in jurors) it might have convinced a few of them; there is no chance of 100% agreement such as we saw from the Democrat half of the room.Stop claiming there was no evidence. You didn’t watch the evidence! If you had, you’d have moved on from your blinkered position of denial.
You really are embarrassing yourself with your willful ignorance of the evidence combined with an irrational belief that you somehow know the truth without knowing the facts.
Fair enough - I find that you are doing much the same with the willful refusal to recognize the difference between factual evidence and twisted or changed rhetoric that, at absolute best, could be considered circumstantial evidence.
It is extremely difficult to build a legal case based solely on circumstantial evidence, and when the case is about the intent of the accused it becomes even harder. At the end of the road it all depends on your irrational belief (as prosecutor) that you have knowledge of the truth without knowing any facts at all.Lol, my gawd, how can you talk about factual evidence when you refuse to even look at the evidence? What has happened to you? You were not like this ten years ago, I don't think..
Present some then. Show a memo from Trump asking armed followers to break into the Capital. Show one telling people to kill Pence, Pelosi or anyone else. Show a video of Trump asking for followers to destroy what they could of the Capital. Present the detailed plan of when and how to break into the Capital building, with advice on what weapons or tools to carry.
Present anything that does not require assumption of incitement to show incitement.
And yes, I've always tried to look at facts, not just hate, insinuations, spin and assumptions. But until Trump I didn't see you doing those things...now you appear willing and eager to take nearly anything at all as proof that Trump is evil and committed crimes.Got to say - Nice. So well put. Don't hold your breath on that evidence. Hate has no boundaries and as a rule no room in our society. Do you find it disgusting that they just won't move on, they can't let go of Trump no way no how.
So you're going to board the Stupid Train with wilderness? You, too, can view the entirety of the case presented against Trump as well as the rebuttal. To suggest I should provide info to those purposely choosing to remain ignorant is just manipulative game playing.
Childish.PP, were that "trial" held in courtroom with a judge rather than a room full of biased, political "voters" (the large portion of whom will vote the party line) it would be laughed out of the room. And the prosecutors would be fined lawyer fees for the defendant; I've seen it happen.
As I pointed out, and you concur with, there was not one single piece of definitive evidence presented. And courts do NOT appreciate wasting their time with such cases.
You may find "justice" in voting a party line without evidence; many of us do not in spite of recognizing that that fake "trial" was a political dog and pony show and never meant to be anything else. Impeachment, and the Senate trial of the president is all about politics, not truth and not honesty. Even the Democrats recognize and agree with that simple, true statement.
No. You are being ridiculous. If you will not bother to do your job as a responsible citizen and view the entirety of the case presented by the prosecution, as well as the defense, then I am not going to play your stupid game.
No, I'm asking for actual evidence - not a twisted representation of a word (such as "fight") that politicians have used for centuries.
And there hasn't been a single thing produced; just assumptions that are made from an assumption of guilt. And that is the difference between us; you jump at the chance to declare that circumstantial "evidence", along with an assumption that it shows what it does not, is proof positive of guilt. I am not.You, as has come to be your MO, are redefining the meaning of proof and guilt in an impeachment trial to suit your position and make it easier on yourself.
I am done with all you Trumpers for awhile. I'm spending the rest of February on a new project, away from people who bask in alternate realities so they can safely live in their little bubbles.It is true that I want and demand justice from that Senate trial. Not a confirmation of which party has power; truth on the question of whether Trump incited the riot or not. I will even go so far as to say that if he did, and it was unintentional, then he is not guilty; that the onus then falls on the idiots rioting for starting it themselves.
On the other hand I do recognize that I am in the minority; that the goal was elimination of a political opponent and that the vote was about politics, not truth. That's the category you have chosen (politics over truth) but it is not the one I chose.Wonder if the lawyers will come up with something beyond "fight", "peacefully march on the capital" and videos of the riot.
Should be interesting. That is, if the court decides they have standing to sue at all - shouldn't be hard in a liberal court to bypass that requirement.
I’m wondering how it is possible seven Republican Senators voted to impeach Donald Trump if no evidence was presented. How do you Trump supporters explain that?
I have seen several politicians (House members, Senators, governors, etc.) comment that the entire impeachment process is a political one, not a legal one.
And they are right, too. The "law" governing impeachment is so vague ("high crimes" for instance) as to be nearly meaningless, leaving nothing but politics to determine the result.
As such, you should recognize the answer immediately; votes will be made on what the legislator thinks is in their best interest. Might be what their party platform is (how do 50 Democrats vote in lockstep (twice!) on such a muddy matter if it's not about politics?), might be what their voters want, might be a trade off with some other legislator. Might even be what they think is the "right" thing to do. But it will not be about justice or truth - a room full of highly biased, political figures voting on a political matter will never find "justice" or even truth even without the hours of horrible, tear jerking videos of a riot.Wilderness: How does a vote of 57 guilty to 43 not guilty make the defendant not guilty? It's because of the 2/3 rule set by the senate.
How can a candidate win the popular vote and still lose the election? It's because of the electoral college vote.
Why is the accused in congressional hearings and investigations assumed guilty until proven innocent? It's because of party politics.
Why is a sitting president charged with 10 counts of obstruction of justice not allowed to be tried until he is no longer president? It's because the AG made up the rule.
I think our Constitution sucks when there is not a balance of power in congress, especially the 2/3 rule. I understand it has to do with the importance of the vote. But a person is guilty or innocent based on the simple majority as well. It shouldn't be based on the preponderance of votes. It should be based on the preponderance of evidence.
This is from a comedian on SNL It's satire, but it speaks to the absurdity of the trial.
“This has to be the dumbest trial I’ve ever seen. Here’s how dumb it was: the jurors who were deciding the case were the ones attacked by the defender; the trial took place at the scene of the crime; and then right after the trial ended, one of the jurors who voted to acquit Trump ran out and said, ‘Someone’s gotta prosecute this guy. He did it. This man belongs in jail!’” That last bit referring to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Jost then put things in perspective for former vice president Mike Pence, who’s been on rocky terms with Trump since the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
“I mean, whatever you’re gonna do, if you’re gonna impeach a president for anything, don’t you think it’s sending a mob to kill the vice president? I feel bad for Pence — 43 of his work friends were like, ‘Oh, come on, Mike, they only tried to hang you. Stop being such a drama queen,'” Jost joked.
“I think it would be hilarious if Biden now sent rioters back into the Capitol. And he was like, ‘What, you guys said it was fine.'”But there is a balance of power in our government - each section has it's own area where it is "omnipotent" and each oversees the others to at least some extent.
As far as the 2/3rds, it makes sense to me. Given that an "impeachment trial" is not a trial at all, given that your quote from the comedian is spot on, given that jurors are NOT unbiased and are NOT objective, given that the accused stands to be denied his/her constitutional rights, it makes sense that a higher standard is applied. Criminal trials require 100% agreement of jurors to deny them freedom or even life itself; 2/3rds in an impeachment trial seems reasonable.
But I don't understand your comment on preponderance of evidence vs votes: all it takes is a single truthful bit of evidence to cancel out a dozen lying pieces. That's why we have juries; to determine which is truth and which is not, and those dozen lies are worthless against the truth...when votes are counted rather than the number/amount of evidence.
Of course, it is rather moot when the "jury" is composed of such biased, subjective voters in a political body. Once more, though, that "balance of power" comes into play and it is designed (in this case) to deny one political party from simply running roughshod over the rest of the voters, denying those constitutional rights based on nothing more than political power.
Related Discussions
- 42
Mitch McConnell - The Baffling Continued Support for Donald Trump
by Sharlee 3 years ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
- 105
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 6 weeks ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
- 44
Every Democrat Should Vote for Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
If I were voting, I'd vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS.I'd ask her some questions about her views on various settled cases, but that is not a litmus test for her confirmation. Her political views should have nothing to do with her confirmation. The only question that matters is whether...
- 19
The Impeachment Vote Could Be Anonymous...
by J Conn 3 years ago
With anonymity, those GOP Senators looking to vote their conscience would have protection from the threat of violent repercussion that they have already witnessed on January 6th. The base would never be sure who sided with democracy. Schumer should look to go this route with the rules,...
- 31
With more circumstantial evidence favour election fraud, is Hilary possibly the
by peter565 7 years ago
With more circumstantial evidence favour election fraud, is Hilary possibly the real President elect
- 31
McConnell blocks bi-partisan bill to prevent Russian meddling.
by Randy Godwin 4 years ago
Despite yesterday's warning from Robert Mueller about the Russian meddling, Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators blocked a voter securitybill from coming to the floor. They're afraid of Trump so much they believe passing such a needed bill will make Trump angry. So much for the integrity...