Trust me, there's no need to. She'll return on her own like a bad penny.

 

Rand Paul held a vote yesterday to say that impeaching the now former president was unconstitutional, and 45 Republicans voted for it. Paul then points out that this mean the trial is going to fail, with which I agree.

Again, what a waste of money.

"
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul declared former President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial "dead on arrival" on Tuesday after 45 Senate Republicans voted against holding the proceeding, viewing it as unconstitutional.

Rand, a Kentucky Republican, had called for a procedural vote regarding holding a trial, claiming the Senate shouldn’t address the article of impeachment against Trump filed by the House this month because Trump is now out of office.

If a trial were to proceed, Trump would become the first former president to face an impeachment trial.

In Paul’s view, the votes of 45 Republicans against holding a trial proved his point – and likely rendered any upcoming trial to be moot.

"If you voted that it was unconstitutional, how in the world would you ever vote to convict somebody for this?" Paul told reporters after the vote, according to Politico. "This vote indicates it’s over. The trial is all over.""


and this part pretty much sums up what's going on:

"
"One of Bernie Sanders' supporters came to the ballfield, nearly killed Steve Scalise ... but nobody talked about impeaching Bernie Sanders. Maxine Waters has said, 'Get up in their face' -- so has Cory Booker -- 'Become a mob, we want you to mob them at restaurants and cause mayhem.' That sounds like an incitement to violence but nobody's talking about impeaching Maxine Waters, nobody's talking about impeaching Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker for saying 'Get up in their face.'

"So it's a significant hypocrisy and double standard that they're putting forward and they should be called out on it. Nobody should be shy about calling them out on their hypocrisy.""

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ra...arrival-after-45-gop-senators-vote-against-it

 

How much evidence and thought went in to this impeachment? It was introduced to the House on Jan 11 and voted on on the 13th, so... 2 days? For Congress to seek a Constitutional remedy? Yeah, that's a sham.

Supreme Court Justice Roberts knows it is too, as he's decided NOT to preside over the trial - although he could have. Instead, the "judge" of the trial will be... a Democratic senator??? That doesn't look very objective, either.

And he won't automatically be withheld from holding office again even if convicted, that is a potential punishment, but not a mandatory one (practically, of course, if the Dems could convict him, they'd vote for this too).

The Repubs are cowards? Please. Unlike their Democratic colleagues who let our cities burn to appease left wing mobs?


"
Roberts was constitutionally required to preside over the Senate trial last year when Trump stood accused of bribing Ukraine's president to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election, a charge Trump was ultimately acquitted of by the GOP-held Senate.

That duty was one Roberts appeared to discharge with some reluctance, though, perhaps owing to his preference for insulating himself and fellow justices from the political glare. As one veteran Supreme Court advocate told The Hill at the time, Roberts had figured out how to "look the part" and "play the part," but he did not "want the part."

This time around, Roberts apparently believes the Constitution has let him off the hook.

Since Trump will be a private citizen when he's tried for allegedly inciting the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, many experts agree that Roberts is under no legal obligation to wield the gavel when proceedings begin the week of Feb. 8.

The Founders made clear that when an impeachment trial concerns a sitting president, "the Chief Justice shall preside." But they did not explicitly prescribe the same role when the high crimes and misdemeanors in question were carried out by a president who has since departed the White House, as Trump did on Jan. 20.

Instead, that duty will fall to Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the most senior member of the Senate Democratic Conference. The president pro temp was sworn in to preside over the trial on Tuesday.

...According to Schumer, Roberts was offered the job but turned it down."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-trial-isnt-a-surprise/ar-BB1d8lZC?li=BBnb7Kz

 

I hear you, but that's the way it is. If there was a Republican-majority house he wouldn't have been impeached in the first place. At least It's a street that runs both ways.

 

Remember that Trump didn't pretend to be a sane and moderate politician to get elected and then became this raving maniac once in office, he was like this BEFORE he got elected and people voted for him anyway. That's how he became president. If we consider the general public competent to vote and they vote in some nut, we just have to live with it. One could say that by voting for Trump a majority of the votes that matter in 2016 were *already* ready for and voting for a revolution from the government - as least as it has been in the recent past. Just live with it and move on. You had to live with Trump, I'll have to live with Biden.

On the responsibility questions, unfortunately, the answer is the same either way. If the Dems are responsible for the BLM riots, they aren't being held accountable for them. If Trump is responsible for this riot, he shouldn't be held accountable under the same standard. Obviously, if the Dems and Trump are NOT responsible for the actions of their followers they shouldn't be held accountable for their action.

 

Actually, that would be hilarious! I'd vote for that.