Impeachment

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And Murkowski is reportedly voting no on witnesses and documents too.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

Murkowski's argument seems to boil down to "We don't have enough facts so we're going to refuse to find more." I'm not following the logic. Who's buying into this and why?

[elengil]

Murkowski's argument seems to boil down to "We don't have enough facts so we're going to refuse to find more." I'm not following the logic. Who's buying into this and why?

Trump's base.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In hindsight, the Democrats should absolutely have included an Article of Impeachment alleging Obstruction of Justice based on the findings of the Mueller report. The only reason they didn't was political; the more moderate representatives from districts that Trump won in 2016 didn't want them. But all the so-called deficiencies that were attacked in the Articles that were presented would not have been the case. 1) It does allege a specific crime; 2) there is full record based on an independent years long investigation by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department; and 3) they did go to court to compel testimony by the key witness, former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

This will never happen, but if I were then, I would immediately go forward with a new article of impeachment and start the process all over again.

[elengil]

In hindsight, the Democrats should absolutely have included an Article of Impeachment alleging Obstruction of Justice based on the findings of the Mueller report. The only reason they didn't was political; the more moderate representatives from districts that Trump won in 2016 didn't want them. But all the so-called deficiencies that were attacked in the Articles that were presented would not have been the case. 1) It does allege a specific crime; 2) there is full record based on an independent years long investigation by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department; and 3) they did go to court to compel testimony by the key witness, former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

This will never happen, but if I were then, I would immediately go forward with a new article of impeachment and start the process all over again.

Should also have included violations of emoluments.

[elengil]

https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/01/tru ... -done.html

Even John Kelly thinks witnesses should be called.

[elengil]

Censure if not remove?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/politics ... index.html

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I suspect that eventually the details of the complaint will leak out, and Democrats will be outraged, and Republicans will be outraged at the Democrats outrage, and probably nothing will come of it.

Regardless of the outcome, I'll take that bet.

Well, something came out of it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Censure if not remove?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/politics ... index.html

Since Manchin's resolution would need McConnell's permission to get a vote, it is extremely unlikely to happen. I'd love to see how many GOP senators would actually vote for it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Doug Jones of Alabama announced that he will vote to convict and remove Trump. That will obviously be a very unpopular decision in heavily Republican Alabama, and could well seal Jones' own fate in his reelection campaign this year (although admittedly he faced an uphill battle either way). I give him credit for doing what he thinks was right, nonetheless.

The one remaining undecided (or at least unannounced) Senator is Joe Manchin, from even more heavily Republican West Virginia. Manchin, you will recall, was the one Democrat to vote to confirm Kavanaugh. I suspect that he will be the one Democrat to vote to acquit Trump as well.

ETA: Actually Kyrsten Sinema has also not said how she will vote, along with Mitt Romney. I seriously doubt that Romney will become the lone Republican to vote to convict Trump as it would likely make him a complete pariah in his party. I wouldn't be that surprised if Sinema votes to acquit though.

[Faramond]

Romney is voting to convict on one count.

[Faramond]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/606127/

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wow! Needless to say, I am surprised. I really didn't think he would go through with it. I have to say, I'm impressed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He is, literally, the first Senator in U.S. history to vote to convict and remove a president of his own party.

Did I say "Wow!"? That doesn't even come close to expressing my surprise.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Damn, watching Romney's announcement of his vote made me tear up.

[Griffon64]

Haven't watched his announcement yet.

The thing about Romney I think, is that his faith and his morals are real. Which is more than I can say for the hypocrites clustering under the banner of Christian faith yet voicing full-throated support for Trump's cruel side. And this is probably where he needs to watch his back when it comes to large swathes of his current political home. I'd like to see him run as an independent - he shouldn't have any trouble getting elected in Utah and that would free him up to act on his morals more.

Once morals become partisan, I fear that ... well, that's a sentence that is hard to complete. Morals is supposed to be something that humanity shares.

[RoseMorninStar]

Damn, watching Romney's announcement of his vote made me tear up.

It certainly was a profile in courage. And honor. Honesty. I greatly admire those traits.

[yovargas]

Wonder why he voted yes on abuse of power but not on obstruction.

[elengil]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/susan-coll ... d=81760957

I wonder what on earth Collins thinks Trump learned... other than the very stark lesson "you can do whatever you want and noone will ever hold you accountable"... he certainly seems to have gotten that memo loud and clear.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

All the Democrats voted to convict on both charges.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk