The WY GOP has censured Liz Cheney. The vote was 56-8. This really is Trump's party and the sole factor driving party is activists is loyalty to Trump. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/liz-cheney-wyoming-gop-censure-impeachment-vote/ Wyoming GOP censures Liz Cheney for impeachment vote BY CAROLINE LINTON, REBECCA KAPLAN, AARON NAVARRO FEBRUARY 7, 2021 / 6:57 AM / CBS NEWS The Wyoming Republican party on Saturday voted to censure Congresswoman Liz Cheney over her vote to impeach former President Trump. Cheney, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said Saturday that her vote to impeach was "compelled by the oath I swore to the Constitution." The Wyoming GOP approved a censure resolution by a vote of 56 to 8. The censure resolution says the state party will not raise money for her in the future and also asks that she repay any donations made to her 2020 campaign by the state party and any county parties that request it. "I'm honored to represent the people of Wyoming in Congress and will always fight for the issues that matter most to our state," Cheney said in a statement on Saturday. "Foremost among these is the defense of our Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees." Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans who broke with the party and voted on January 13 to impeach Mr. Trump on a charge of incitement of insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Trump's trial will start in the Senate on Tuesday. The censure document says Cheney voted for impeachment "despite the lack of any formal hearing being held, evidence being presented, witnesses being sworn to testify, or accusers being questioned." Mr. Trump won nearly 70% of Wyoming voters in November, and Cheney is the only Congresswoman from the state. The Republican party accused of her not being in touch with the voters of the state. The resolution claims that Republicans in the state have since left the party or changed their voter registration. Several party members spoke out against the move to censure Cheney. During Saturday's meeting, Teton County Chairman Alex Muromcew said the state party should resist "this left-wing trend of 'cancel culture,' trying to censure and get rid of anybody that we disagree with." Natrona County Republican Party Chair Joseph McGinley criticized the state party's recent decisions to censure other state and county lawmakers, including himself. With the U.S. House still in session, Cheney did not attend the meeting. There was an empty chair with her name on it to bring attention to her absence, which McGinley said was done in "poor taste." "This is our sole representative to the U.S. House. And censuring someone for how they voted doesn't help in any way, shape or form. If we're unhappy with voting records then that gets sorted out in the primary. Trying to undermine somebody's ability to represent the people of Wyoming is counter-productive," McGinley told CBS News. Cheney has also faced blowback from national Republicans. Earlier this week, Cheney survived a vote by House Republicans to remove her from her leadership position, with 61 Republicans voting to remove Cheney from her post and 145 voting for her to stay. The vote was conducted via secret ballot. On January 28, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz held a rally in Wyoming, blasting Cheney for her impeachment vote and calling her a "Beltway bureaucrat turned fake cowgirl." Adam Brewster contributed reporting.
agree, but he should be charged with accessory to murder in the same way that the get-away driver is charged when someone else pulls the trigger. his words and actions directly led to the deaths of four of his own supporters and a police officer. that and he also committed treason when he incited an insurrection against his own government. he should be charged for that as well and at the minimum, spend the rest of his life in prison.
Hey, why isn't this guy listening to os and Johnathan Turdley? Breaking With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial One of Washington’s leading conservative constitutional lawyers publicly broke on Sunday with the main Republican argument against convicting former President Donald J. Trump in his impeachment trial, asserting that an ex-president can indeed be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors. In an opinion piece posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website, the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, who is closely allied with top Republicans in Congress, dismissed as illogical the claim that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president. The piece came two days before the Senate was set to start the proceeding, in which Mr. Trump is charged with “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the deadly assault on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6. Since the rampage, Republicans have made little effort to excuse Mr. Trump’s conduct, but have coalesced behind the legal argument about constitutionality as their rationale for why he should not be tried, much less convicted. Their theory is that because the Constitution’s penalty for an impeachment conviction is removal from office, it was never intended to apply to a former president, who is no longer in office. Many legal scholars disagree, and the Senate has previously held an impeachment trial of a former official — though never a former president. But 45 Republican senators, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader who is said to believe that Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses, voted last month to dismiss the trial as unconstitutional on those grounds. Mr. Cooper’s decision to take on the argument was particularly significant because of his standing in conservative legal circles. He was a close confidant and adviser to Senate Republicans, like Ted Cruz of Texas when he ran for president, and represented House Republicans — including the minority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California — in a lawsuit against Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He is also the lawyer for conservative stalwarts like John R. Bolton and Jeff Sessions, and over his career defended California’s same-sex marriage ban and had been a top outside lawyer for the National Rifle Association. But Mr. Cooper, who is said to be dismayed by the unwillingness of House and Senate Republicans to hold Mr. Trump accountable, took on the main claim made by his own confidants and clients, offering a series of scholarly and technical arguments for why the Constitution allows for a former president to stand trial. It was unclear whether Mr. Cooper’s opinion would have any influence on the outcome of the trial. It could provide cover to Republican senators open to convicting Mr. Trump who were caught off guard by last month’s vote, forced by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, to effectively dismiss the case as unconstitutional. Some Republicans have since said they did not necessarily mean to signal that they were opposed to hearing the case, or had made up their minds about Mr. Trump’s guilt. Seventeen Republicans would have to join with all 50 Democrats to reach the two-thirds threshold necessary to convict Mr. Trump — something that appears to be exceedingly unlikely. But Mr. Cooper seemed to be working to change minds. He wrote in his opinion piece that in the short time since the vote, legal experts’ understanding of the issue had evolved and “exposed the serious weakness of Mr. Paul’s analysis.” “The senators who supported Mr. Paul’s motion,” he wrote, “should reconsider their view and judge the former president’s misconduct on the merits.” The question of constitutionality could come to a head quickly when the trial opens on Tuesday. Though Senate leaders were still debating the precise structure of the trial, prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s defense team were preparing for the possibility that Mr. Paul or another senator could force a second vote on the question on the opening day, before either side gets into their full presentations. Mr. Cooper has a deep and long history in the conservative legal movement. He grew up in Alabama, and despite not attending an Ivy League law school, landed a clerkship for Justice William H. Rehnquist in 1978 before he became the chief justice, and at a time when Justice Rehnquist was considered the most conservative member of the court. Mr. Cooper went on to become the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan administration, writing several highly conservative and controversial interpretations of the law, including one about whether employers could decline to hire someone who may have AIDS. As a private lawyer, he has defended issues like school prayer and was an active member in the Federalist Society. In 2010, when the Republican National Lawyers Association named him the Republican lawyer of the year, there were three speakers for Mr. Cooper: Mr. Bolton; the head of the N.R.A., Wayne LaPierre; and Ed Meese, an attorney general under Ronald Reagan who was considered among the most conservative in the department’s history. In the early days of the Trump administration, Mr. Cooper — who is longtime friends with Mr. Sessions — was considered to be the solicitor general. But Mr. Cooper remained in private practice, becoming the lawyer for Mr. Sessions as he was enmeshed in controversy related to the Russia investigation. In the second half of the Trump presidency, Mr. Cooper represented Mr. Bolton and his deputy, Charles Kupperman, in the first impeachment trial of Mr. Trump. Mr. Cooper has continued to represent Mr. Bolton as the Justice Department has sued him to recoup money he made from a damning book he published about Mr. Trump.
Lies, lies, and coverups. Denial, denial, shift the blame, and take no Accountability. The Republican mantra.
No the current Republican mantra is: " Really? **** YOU, it is your fault I did it. Go **** YOURSELF!"
Three men facing charges in Jan. 6 Capitol riot implicate Trump A day before former president Donald Trump goes on trial in Congress, accused of inciting violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, three more men facing criminal charges have implicated the former president in their actions that day. To date, the former president has been named by federal prosecutors or defense attorneys in more than two dozen of the cases related to the Capitol assault. Trump is “somewhat of a de facto unindicted co-conspirator in this case,” wrote an attorney for Patrick McCaughey III. McCaughey, 28, who came to the Capitol with his father, is accused of using a riot shield to pin down a police officer. Defense attorney Lindy Urso wrote that her client had no plan to break into the Capitol and that it is not clear he engaged in violence. Matthew Ryan Miller, a 21-year-old construction worker from Maryland accused of wielding a fire extinguisher against police on the Capitol steps, wrote through a lawyer Monday that he “was merely following the directions of then-President Trump, the country’s chief law enforcement officer.” He has no criminal record and his actions were an “extreme aberration,” defense attorney A. Eduardo Balarezo wrote. And Ethan Nordean said in a filing Sunday that he was “egged on by Donald Trump, other politicians, his legal advocates, and news media.” Federal authorities argue that Nordean, 30, and other members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group with a history of violence, planned for a confrontation with the police Jan. 6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...live-updates/#link-TW3LXWUL3NGBHAHKLP2OEZR3LI
Even though it's unlikely Trump get's convicted in this impeachment as a private citizen he should be charged. Also Trump's family and others should be. in terms of inflammatory language Trump Jr., Giuliani and others are just as guilty.
Always was, and always will be. If they vote no to impeach, then they are just as guilty in my eyes, for allowing this sick twisted type political incitement to become "the GOP norm".
If the Senate does not convict and bar Trump fo future federal offices/elections, I really want them to do two things 1. have a censure vote 2. have a vote that forces the DoJ to investigate the allegations against Trump (force Biden's hand) DoJ is already investigating 100+ insurrectionists ...
A vote to acquit based on the constitutionality of Impeaching an official no longer in office guarantees the DOJ to then investigate. It would be the US Congress and the Legislative branch of government ruling officially that the DOJ memo that the Nixon White House wrote to axe Spiro Agnew no longer stands because Congress essentially overrules that DOJ opinion with the vote to acquit. If Impeachment does not apply to presidents who are in the transition period, then they have to be held accountable to the law somehow, or else that means that the Constitution grants Presidents who lose the election three months of Dictatorial power. The Biden DOJ must investigate and prosecute Trump if the Senate acquits.
