- Reaction score
Hey. Mike Flynn used to be a Lieutenant General in the Defense Intelligence Agency. Why would it be hard to believe a former FBI agent is part of this crowd?
Surprised? Not in the least. Really the most telling thing here is the seven republicans who did in fact vote to convict their own president of inciting insurrection.Is anyone really surprised by the outcome?
Actually, I should day verdict. The outcome is yet to be determined.
Not really.Is anyone really surprised by the outcome?
The Republican Party has a ton of soul searching to do.
Indeed. The mechanism of impeachment has been proven essentially toothless and meaningless. Which of course ultimately reverts the matter back to the electoral process.Not really.
Even though the Democratic half of the Senate represents 41,549,808 more Americans than the Republican half, that's only enough to get "the Dems" a 50-50 split.
So, it's pretty hard to imagine them ever achieving the two-thirds majority of Senate seats required for a conviction.
Just to get the sequence right:The mechanism of impeachment wasn't properly used. They didn't even make a half-hearted effort. That's twice now that Pelosi's Democratic House has blundered by putting politics ahead of process. The House has to do a proper investigation, not limit itself to hearing what it wants in front of the cameras and then demand the Senate tie itself up in further investigations; and the House has to send over the materials without playing games.
"Former President Trump's actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty," added McConnell. "Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."
But McConnell -- who, as Senate majority leader last month, rejected calls by Senate Democrats for a speedy trial during Trump's final days in office -- said Trump was constitutionally ineligible for conviction since the punishment is removal, and Trump was already out of office. McConnell claimed that a verdict before Joe Biden's inauguration had been impossible.
How much more evidence would have been required for the Republicans to vote to convict?
Impeachment isn't criminal law otherwise they would use impartial jurors, have rules of evidence, require a unanimous verdict and have penal consequences. None of that is involved. Impeachment, at least at the level of a presidency, is a political process. The evidentiary process is as the Senate decides it to be and they rejected the concept of calling witnesses. The nature of the evidence presented was up to their desired standards. The determination as to whether the evidence was adequate or not for conviction is highly subjective and tinged by political partiality.Not so much 'more' evidence as better evidence. Every crime has a set of facts-in-issue that have to be ticked off, and the criminal burden of proof is much higher. A lot of straight lines were drawn between his speech and the riot. Criminally, they would need either direct evidence or enough circumstantial evidence that A caused B to convince a jury. There is also the issue of intent (or willful negligence). Criminal law is based on proving a specific crime in the face of precedent law. Impeachment was a political process with limited rules of engagement.
1. The House moved to impeach Trump before his presidency ended;
2. McConnell refused to hear the case until after Biden was sworn in;
3. Republican Senators voted to dismiss the case because they were largely of the view that it was unconstitutional to convict a president after he's out of office (or at least were prepared to use that as their reason for voting the way they did); and
4. There is no amount of evidence on Earth that would have changed the outcome of this.
Based on what Mitch McConnell , leader of the Sedate Republicans, had to say about the events of that day, hopefully there will be lessons learned going forward.The Republican Party has a ton of soul searching to do.