Growing Number of GOP Senators Oppose Impeachment Trial

[jimnyc]

I thought they had a shot from the get go, but as time goes on the support is dropping. That's a tough reach to get 17 members on-board with them.

---

Growing Number of GOP Senators Oppose Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON (AP) — A growing number of Republican senators say they oppose holding an impeachment trial (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-biden-cabinet-trials-462425af29b02c43e24913b6fd191b6f), a sign of the dimming chances that former President Donald Trump will be convicted on the charge that he incited a siege of the U.S. Capitol.

House Democrats, who will walk the impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection” to the Senate on Monday evening, are hoping that strong Republican denunciations of Trump after the Jan. 6 riot will translate into a conviction and a separate vote to bar Trump from holding office again. But GOP passions appear to have cooled since the insurrection, and now that Trump’s presidency is over, Republican senators who will serve as jurors in the trial are rallying to his legal defense, as they did during his first impeachment trial last year.

“I think the trial is stupid, I think it’s counterproductive,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.. He said that “the first chance I get to vote to end this trial, I’ll do it” because he believes it would be bad for the country and further inflame partisan divisions.

Arguments in the Senate trial will begin the week of Feb. 8. Leaders in both parties agreed to the short delay to give Trump’s team and House prosecutors time to prepare and the Senate the chance to confirm some of President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees. Democrats say the extra days will allow for more evidence to come out about the rioting by Trump supporters who interrupted the congressional electoral count of Biden’s election victory, while Republicans hope to craft a unified defense for Trump.

An early vote to dismiss the trial probably would not succeed, given that Democrats now control the Senate. Still, the Republican opposition indicates that many GOP senators would eventually vote to acquit Trump. Democrats would need the support of 17 Republicans — a high bar — to convict him.

When the House impeached Trump on Jan. 13, exactly one week after the siege, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said he didn’t believe the Senate had the constitutional authority to convict Trump after he had left office. On Sunday, Cotton said “the more I talk to other Republican senators, the more they’re beginning to line up” behind that argument.

“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,” Cotton said.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/news/growing-number-of-gop-senators-oppose-impeachment-trial/


Prospects of convicting Trump erode as GOP grows vocal against Senate impeachment proceedings

(CNN)The path in the Senate to convict Donald Trump is extremely slim, with a growing number of Republicans expressing confidence that the party will acquit the former President on a charge that he incited the deadly insurrection aimed at stopping President Joe Biden's electoral win.

After Democratic leaders announced they would kick off the process to begin the impeachment trial on Monday, Republicans grew sharply critical about the proceedings -- and made clear that they saw virtually no chance that at least 17 Republicans would join with 50 Democrats to convict Trump and also bar him from ever running from office again.

In interviews with more than a dozen GOP senators, the consensus was clear: Most Republicans are likely to acquit Trump, and only a handful are truly at risk of flipping to convict the former President -- unless more evidence emerges or the political dynamics within their party dramatically change. Yet Republicans are also signaling that as more time has passed since the riot, some of the emotions of the day have cooled and they're ready to move on.

"The chances of getting a conviction are virtually nil," said Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican.

"I don't know what the vote will be but I think the chance of two-thirds is nil," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and member of his party's leadership who called the Democratic push to begin the trial "vindictive."

"From listening to the dynamic -- and everything to this point -- it's going to be tough to get even a handful," said Sen. Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican, referring to possible GOP defectors. "I think so many are getting confused by the fact that we're doing this - and everybody has views that it's kind of a constitutional concern."

Rest - https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/politics/senate-republicans-trump-impeachment-case/index.html

[SassyLady]

Maybe because of this .....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/president-trump-drafting-list-dirtbag-republicans-primary-moving-forward-plans-create-patriot-party-people/

[tailfins]

Maybe it's because prosecuting a private citizen in the Senate is unconstitutional. Now it doesn't require rendering an opinion on Donald Trump to oppose impeachment.

[KarlMarx]

I wonder if it is possible to bring charges under the RICO statutes against the Democratic Party?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MtnBiker]

Maybe it's because prosecuting a private citizen in the Senate is unconstitutional. Now it doesn't require rendering an opinion on Donald Trump to oppose impeachment.

I don't think the democrats are too concerned with the constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't think the democrats are too concerned with the constitution.

The dem party's only concern with the Constitution is how to get rid of it.
As they want a one party government and work diligently to advance their agenda to get it.--Tyr

[KarlMarx]

Justice Roberts has declined to preside over the trial stating that the USC does not require him to preside over a Senate Trial of an ex-president.

So Sen. Patrick Leahy is going to preside. What a joke this entire thing has turned into. A huge turd bomb is about explode in Pelosi’s face.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fj1200]

Justice Roberts has declined to preside over the trial stating that the USC does not require him to preside over a Senate Trial of an ex-president.

Sounds to me like the Constitution has spoken.

Not to mention it being a stupid idea.

[fj1200]

Maybe because of this .....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/president-trump-drafting-list-dirtbag-republicans-primary-moving-forward-plans-create-patriot-party-people/

Further proof that he doesn't really care a whit about the country or his apparent party or the people in it.

[jimnyc]

It doesn't matter what the SC thinks, or anyone for that fact. They'll be going through with it as they want to eliminate Trump going forward. And if they fail, then they get to blame Republicans for supporting insurrection.

Too bad Roberts can't oversee it - and then toss it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It doesn't matter what the SC thinks, or anyone for that fact. They'll be going through with it as they want to eliminate Trump going forward. And if they fail, then they get to blame Republicans for supporting insurrection.

Too bad Roberts can't oversee it - and then toss it.

Quote:
"Too bad Roberts can't oversee it - and then toss it."

That is certainly a compelling reason why Roberts declined, imho.
As that option now no longer exists.
Roberts is a traitor imho..-Tyr

[icansayit]

The Impeachment according to the U.S. Constitution is ONLY for Sitting Presidents.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachment
Persons Subject to Impeachment
During the debate in the First Congress on the “removal” controversy, it was contended by some members that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the government from his post,842 but Madison and others contended that this position was destructive of sound governmental practice,843 and the view did not prevail. Impeachment, said Madison, was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.”844 While the language of section 4 covers any “civil officer” in the executive branch,845 and covers judges as well,846 it excludes military officers,847 and the precedent was early established that it does not apply to members of Congress.848.
.................................................. ...................................
https://www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-constitutions-option-for-impeachment-after-a-president-leaves-office/
This section talks about AFTER BEING IN OFFICE. However. There is NO PROOF to backup the Haters in the Senate who Accused Trump. He DID NOT break any laws or his Oath.

The principal argument against allowing post-presidential impeachment is that the Constitution does not make private citizens subject to impeachment. The founders rejected the British model that allowed Parliament to impeach anyone, except for the King, and so they limited impeachment to certain public officials, including presidents. Subjecting a president to impeachment after he has returned to his private life would, seemingly according to this logic, violate this basic constitutional principle. (Indeed, the Constitution itself applies only to governmental not private action.)

The problem with this argument, however, is that presidents and the other officials who are subject to impeachment are not like the rest of us. Once they leave office and return to their private lives, they are still ex-presidents and former officials who may have committed impeachable offenses in office. A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. What’s more, the special penalties upon conviction in impeachment are designed to protect the republic from the very type of people who have abused public office in such a grave manner that they should never have the opportunity to be entrusted with public power again. It would make no sense for former officials, or ones who step down just in time, to escape that remedial mechanism. It should accordingly go without saying that if an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart.
Like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and all of the TRUMP Haters. They STILL have No Valid, Truthful, Honest, Proven, Verified, Documented PROOF that President Trump did what they insist.

[SassyLady]

Further proof that he doesn't really care a whit about the country or his apparent party or the people in it.

I don't care if he burns down the old boy GOP party as long as he helps conservatives get into office. I personally believe he cares more for this country that any other politician out there right now. 80,000,000 people think that as well.

[fj1200]

I don't care if he burns down the old boy GOP party as long as he helps conservatives get into office. I personally believe he cares more for this country that any other politician out there right now. 80,000,000 people think that as well.

A few things wrong with that. He only got 74 million votes. Not all of those votes he did get think he cares more about the country more than others; ask me how I know. Some of them legitimately think he only cares about himself; and his actions indicate such. And of those whom he might potentially get into office; "conservative" is not the benchmark against which they would be measured. Lastly? that would cement the democrats in power. There were plenty of Republicans who should have won elections, thinking Senate specifically, in the past 20 years who screwed their chances because they were not ready for prime time.

I don't want to peg my future on a populist and that's what he is.

[icansayit]

A few things wrong with that. He only got 74 million votes. Not all of those votes he did get think he cares more about the country more than others; ask me how I know. Some of them legitimately think he only cares about himself; and his actions indicate such. And of those whom he might potentially get into office; "conservative" is not the benchmark against which they would be measured. Lastly? that would cement the democrats in power. There were plenty of Republicans who should have won elections, thinking Senate specifically, in the past 20 years who screwed their chances because they were not ready for prime time.

I don't want to peg my future on a populist and that's what he is.

Mine is that I'd rather have a Populist than a Minority or Majority of all RINO, Self Serving, Professional Politicians who care EVEN LESS about We The People...as long as they...FROM EACH PARTY get all the power to do as they please while pretending to care.

[fj1200]

Mine is that I'd rather have a Populist than a Minority or Majority of all RINO, Self Serving, Professional Politicians who care EVEN LESS about We The People...as long as they...FROM EACH PARTY get all the power to do as they please while pretending to care.

I think this whole RINO thing just goes over the top and doesn't lead anywhere except to rile up the tribes. I don't want populists because populism is bad because it isn't rooted in any core belief; you grab some thing here and there and hope it sounds good until you start contradicting yourself or previous beliefs.

But RINO's... Does it do any good to call Susan Collins a RINO and complain that she's there when she will vote for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Comey-Barrett? I don't think so because if she loses there will be another Democrat in the Senate. She was elected by Mainites to serve the state of Maine; that's who they want to represent them and she's a Mainean Republican. Why do we need to go any farther than that?

My preference is to stay as close to conservative as possible which means Republican at this point and be glad that the majority of the states are red.

[icansayit]

I think this whole RINO thing just goes over the top and doesn't lead anywhere except to rile up the tribes. I don't want populists because populism is bad because it isn't rooted in any core belief; you grab some thing here and there and hope it sounds good until you start contradicting yourself or previous beliefs.

But RINO's... Does it do any good to call Susan Collins a RINO and complain that she's there when she will vote for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Comey-Barrett? I don't think so because if she loses there will be another Democrat in the Senate. She was elected by Mainites to serve the state of Maine; that's who they want to represent them and she's a Mainean Republican. Why do we need to go any farther than that?

My preference is to stay as close to conservative as possible which means Republican at this point and be glad that the majority of the states are red.


Can anyone HONESTLY say what the ENTIRE CONGRESS of Dems, and Repubs have ACCOMPLISHED over the last five years....other than Declare the President Unqualified, Unfit, A Racist, Terrorist, and TRAITOR?????

Members called RINO's along with the Radical Dems...of which there are about 400 haven't done anything for "WE THE PEOPLE". Which is why Trump was so POPULAR and still is as a NON POLITICIAN.

[fj1200]

Can anyone HONESTLY say what the ENTIRE CONGRESS of Dems, and Repubs have ACCOMPLISHED over the last five years....other than Declare the President Unqualified, Unfit, A Racist, Terrorist, and TRAITOR?????

Members called RINO's along with the Radical Dems...of which there are about 400 haven't done anything for "WE THE PEOPLE". Which is why Trump was so POPULAR and still is as a NON POLITICIAN.


Not quite sure what you're saying there. I seem to recall a fairly sizeable tax cut, 3 justices to the Supreme Court, countless Federal judicial appointments, criminal justice reform... getting through Congress. Apparently 96 laws in total in just 2017.

[icansayit]

Not quite sure what you're saying there. I seem to recall a fairly sizeable tax cut, 3 justices to the Supreme Court, countless Federal judicial appointments, criminal justice reform... getting through Congress. Apparently 96 laws in total in just 2017.


Yes, while it took so much Trouble getting those things with a Dem majority in the House after They INSERTED THEIR PORK programs as a tradeoff. And you know it wasn't anything less than a WITCHES trial for the 3 Supreme Court appointments while the Dems feared a Black Backlash if they didn't do something about the Criminal Justice reform. NOTHING is done in CONGRESS that isn't a QUID PRO QUO of some sort.

[fj1200]

Yes, while it took so much Trouble getting those things with a Dem majority in the House after They INSERTED THEIR PORK programs as a tradeoff. And you know it wasn't anything less than a WITCHES trial for the 3 Supreme Court appointments while the Dems feared a Black Backlash if they didn't do something about the Criminal Justice reform. NOTHING is done in CONGRESS that isn't a QUID PRO QUO of some sort.

Whatever you say. Pork wasn't invented in the last 4 years. And the First Step Act was signed well before last year's unrest. trump made that a major push of his administration. Thank goodness the Republicans controlled Congress the first two years of his administration.

[KarlMarx]

Pelosi is acting like the Dowager Empress of China.

Now she wants a standing Army stationed at the Capital and extra security at the Hill because of “The Enemy Within”

Does this sound like the McCarthy Era or what?

Nancy Pelosi and Biden, the mental health twins. One is a Paranoid Psycho the other one is in dementia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KarlMarx]

https://youtu.be/8bl-vbBnJ3I

A song for our times.... but it was recorded in 1966


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LongTermGuy]

``It fits todays problems...**50 years ago we were warned. Ain't shit changed.``

[icansayit]

https://youtu.be/8bl-vbBnJ3I

A song for our times.... but it was recorded in 1966


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First time I heard that was on my first ship in 66. Nam was really starting to perk, and OUR WORLD was being turned upside down so much. We were told Not to wear our uniforms on Liberty out in public. So we had Locker Clubs outside of Fleet Landing in Norfolk where we could change into civies. Thanks for the memories...almost have a wet problem in my eyes.