I gotta admit I’m very disappointed by that vote. Last week it looked like there would be at least 10 Republican votes and now it’s dropping. Apparently an angry mob threatening their lives doesn’t compare to the fear of a primary.
He’s posturing and trying to win the base of pro white, anti Muslim anti gay agenda. I don’t know when my fellow Republicans turned into such vile pieces of ****. You’re a trumper, not a Republican. if you believe Paul is stupid enough to believe what he’s saying when the president ordered a mob of people to the capital while congress was certifying election results (coincidence right?) on top of a giant fraudulent conspiracy while he was out begging governors to find votes DM me. I wanna sell you some ****
For the benefit of their party in 2024, the democrat and republican senators should actually be voting the opposite way. If Trump is the republican candidate in 2024 or if he gets pissy and runs as an independent then the republicans are guaranteed a loss in 2024. Therefore the democrats should want Trump to be able run in 2024 and not convict him in the senate. The republicans should not want Trump to be able to run in 2024 and they can prevent that with a conviction.
The Republicans are just hopeful that someone else will solve their Trump problem so they don't have to. DD
Congrats, Rand. When the next insurrection, be it from the left or right, succeeds, maybe historians will stamp your traitor name on it. Works for me.
Yes. it's a ludicrous argument on the part of Rand Paul but considering that in the last impeachment many GOP Senators latched onto the argument from Dershowitz's that essentially amounted to Congress can't impeach the President ludicrous arguments are to be expected. That said if we take Paul's argument then it should open the door to criminal and civil charges. If the argument is that you can't impeach someone who is no longer in office even though the actions he was impeached for was while in office then you should be able to criminally charge them as the DOJ rule against charging a sitting President no longer applies. I get the feeling though if Trump is criminally charged you will Paul making the argument that he can't because he was President at the time that happened.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/01/my-democratic-colleagues-would-have.html excerpt ... it's extremely important to remember that there is a "fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.'" I'm quoting the Supreme Court case rejecting term limits for members of Congress, which was quoting a case about Congress's power to exclude someone the people have elected. The internal quote — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — comes from Alexander Hamilton, arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution: After all, sir, we must submit to this idea, that the true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed. I think the presumption should always be against a constitutional interpretation that would restrict the power of the people to choose whom they please. The Senate would need to strain the other way to disqualify Private Citizen Trump from running for office again, and that betrays a lack of respect for the people, for the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy." Enough fretting that the people can't be trusted evaluating Trump as one of our options. Let the members of Congress get on with proving that they deserved the trust we the people put in them.
You're on point Judoka, Unfortunately all of the politicians careless about right or wrong... They only care about votes, so the only thing that will change them is when the individuals that are being backed by Trump lose their election... People have to understand that majority of these elected individuals could careless about the common people and only care about themselves... T_Man
That's an optimistic take. We have a Republican problem and an authoritarian problem. Same people same goal. Trump is the symptom
Dude, use that matter in between your ears. Your argument here makes any form of impeachment unconstitutional even the legally defined process of impeachment expressed in the constitution which means an excerpt in the constitution is unconstitutional. A impeachment and successful convicinction bars a president from running again even an impeachment trial where the president being impeached is still presiding as president. So no matter what, your argument applies here therefore making any impeachment not "respecting the decision making of the people".
Except that that the Constitution has already provided limits on who the people can elect. Article II already lays out qualifications for who can be President, the 14th Amendment says that anyone who has taken up insurrection against the US cannot be President, and the 22nd Amendment limits a President to two terms. [Edit] I see Fchowd already pointed that out.
