Trump is different from typical Republican / Democrat. Trump represents the populist movement which both sides recognize could usurp the uniparty as being the obvious America-First movement that real Americans actually want.
And much more to come, the cat is out of the bag. We've forced them into a corner where they can pretend to make subtle globalist movements or they can choose to go full aggressive with their bullshit and see if we fight back. They're going for the aggressive option while attempting to silence voices on big tech. It'll backfire and reveal them as the enemy of the people. You can control big tech but you can't control free Americans. The ultimate tweety bird isn't twitter, it's the voice of free men and free women who people instantly recognize as the truth, and it can't be contained. You can attempt to snuff it for a while, you can attempt to intimidate for awhile, eventually the lion bites back and reminds the tamer who the master always was. The key at this point is to identify the real tamers of American and make the correct bites, not flippant red herring bites.
Wasn't very free. The judicial system was used to block or stall almost everything we voted for. We got most of it, but it was hard won. We are losing it all, as I type.
Look up exemptions in your state. You could be exempt just based on ideology alone. Then, if you’re fired, you have a damn good case, depending again where you’re at. You can consult with an attorney, usually for free and get any questions answered and retain them if necessary.
Thanks, it's just rumors and rumblings and my comment represents my expectations more than anything. Rest assured I've looked into it and my state allows for exemptions based on personal beliefs. But if the last year had shown us anything, it's shown us that laws don't mean a thing. That said, I will live in a tent by the creek before I take the vax
All you have to do is say it is against your religion to take it. If they ask what denomination you are say "none of your damn business." At will work sites won't screw with you any further.
kek. TRUST SESSIONS! 1253 DIVIDED BY .1032 EQUALS 12141.47 WHICH IS THE AMOUNT OF BITES IT TAKES FOR TRUMP TO FINISH A TACO BOWL WHICH MEANS Q IS REAL! WWG1WGA!
Tabled a motion by Rand Paul to vote on whether the impeachment is constitutional. 45 Republicans wanted to vote on constitutionality. 50 Democrats + 5 Republicans didn't want to vote on whether it is constitutional. So tabling is a loss for the Republicans, but it does show that only 5 Republicans seem to want to plow forward with this nonsense, which won't be enough to convict (so probably a win for Trump overall).
This post could have used a lot more context than just a title and a photo.
Sasse is a fucking piece of shit who didn't show his true colors until so close to the election that a lot of people had already voted for his commie ass.
say goodbye to his senate seat then. give that one to the dems in 2022. toomey sucks ass but he's the only GOP/RINO able to win that senate seat in PA.
Pat Toomey and Lisa Murkowski seats are up for grabs in 2022... apparently Pat Toomey is leaving Congress and Lisa Murkowksi? I dunno? Perfect time to primary her wrinkly old ass.
They tabled a motion by Rand Paul that would have (at least temporarily) stopped the impeachment trial from going forward. Since it was tabled, the trial will go forward. Rand Paul's motion wouldn't be relevant in 2 years (after the trial).
It's better for us that impeachment goes thru! What was Rand thinking?
The Senate will have its hands full and will spend less time voting on the absurd bills coming out of the House. And there's always the chance we get to present evidence.
He lost me at the vaccines. If Trump and Don Jr keep pushing the vaccine that's going to sterilize and re-program our bodies, what does that say???????
I think 5 R voted against Rand and the idea the impeachment is unconstitutional. Trump is already impeached, that was done in the house. Then Senate does the trial and Rand was trying to say the impeachment itself was unconstitutional (already passed, he is impeached but not yet tried).
So 5 republicans dont think the already approved impeachment is unconstitutional. They may believe him innocent, that is unknown and seperate.
In reality, trump wants a world stage to present evidence. So this helps him.
They should also all be censured. It’s obviously unconstitutional to impeach a private citizen, especially when the Chief Justice won’t preside over the impeachment, a democrat senator will.
Collins and Murkowski’s political careers are over. Toomey is going to retire.
Mittens will murder his own mother to remain in the spotlight and is backed my major foreign money. We will be making memes about him for a long time to come.
The only thing that is definitely happening is showing every American how completely + utterly USELESS every fkg one if them is. I WANT THEM ALL GONE! I'm sick to death of watching these CARNIVAL CLOWNS 🤡🤡🤡 They haven't done DICK for the American people in over a year! Nothing for WE THE PEOPLE 🤬🤬🤬
I just got Don Jr.'s Telegram video explaining exactly this. Rand forced a vote to basically flesh out the reality that they don't have enough votes to make it happen, so when they continue ahead anyway they look bad for pettily wasting everyone's time and money on a grudge match when real issues like job creation etc should be the focus.
Disappointed Utahn here. Romney unfortunately was a shoe in for this state I think Trump recognized this and saw it as an olive branch opportunity. He shouldn't have. Romney sucks ass.
Fair analysis. Either way, Trump was being the peacemaker in this exchange, and Romney true to form is the ever reliable petty backstabber who pretends to be principaled.
Trump tried to appease too many of his enemies. Abe Lincoln was a badass lawyer who called the insurrectionists insurrectionists, jailed them and their media propaganda machine for sedition, and commanded the military to conquer their territories of treason. Trump is no Abe Lincoln, though he a great president from a policy standpoint.
Never vote based on Christian sect. Romney should never have been a shoe in other than being a Mormon. Those fools are hopefully learning to keep politics and religious grouping/piety seperate.
Agreed. Romney has Utah mormons absolutely mystified and it's embarrassing. Mormons already get a bad rap for being cultish without worshipping Romney's stupid rewrites of conservative/constitutionalist principals.
You've definitely gotta question the hell out of any group that thinks the Garden of Eden was in Independence, Missouri. Maybe the meth lab of Eden was lol.
people need to remember that trump does like to negotiate which means he's willing to compromise. he's also willing to work with people who might be less than desirable. to trump, this is just part of doing business and getting shit DONE!
and to anyone who thinks "compromise" with democrats is a bad idea, it is if you're a republican who is always willing to take the short end of the stick. but trump is a hard nosed new york real estate mogul. he'll compromise but he's always going to get the long end of the stick!
Thank you. It also bears mentioning as the media treated Trump as some obstinate meany for 4 years, while ignoring the fact that Trump offered compromise after compromise the entire time. He was dealing as a good faith negotiator and the Dems/Media weren't. Every time he offered to meet them half way on an issue, they moved the goalposts. Take covid relief. Take wall funding and daca, and a dozen other things you could probably come up with in a few minutes of internet search. Trump was a negotiator through and through and the Dems/media and a lot of Republicans were stuck up, lying, deceitful asshats.
Utah faggots who vote for him solely based on him being a Mormon. Low IQ morons who keep voting for a Rhino simply based off his religion instead of his polices and allegiance to the will of the people.
Whatever McConnell is doing, you can rest assured he's thought it through. I'm not saying I always agree with him but I usually do, and sometimes when I think he's being a moron, it later turns out he was doing his thing. He's a shrewd motherfucker.
Sowing doubt in half of the GOP voting base is quite a ballsy move. I'm willing to see McConnell as a shrewd strategist, but don't overlook the damage he's done to his voting base in the last couple weeks alone. Even brilliant strategists can blunder.
You are correct, he could be making a mistake. However, he has been pretty damned good at managing the political flashpoints the last few years. I'd rather have him in charge than some limp dick like Paul Ryan. :)
The Senate voted 55-45 to set aside Paul's motion, with all but five GOP senators siding with Paul. GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) voted with Democrats to table Paul's point of order.
But the national Republican party is bloody awful.
They will dump piles of money into propping up the "establishment" candidate, and flood the airwaves with blatantly false scaremongering.
If that's still not enough to roll the insurgency back, they'll make a backroom deal with the Democrats, and "borrow" a bunch of their voters in exchange for surrendering laws the base fought hard for.
If that isn't enough, they will stab the winner in the back by either endorsing the Democrat, or running as a third-party candidate to try and split the vote and hand the win to the Democrat. (Or, if you're in Alaska, magically get an outright majority to write-in "Murkowski" correctly.)
In Collins case, we're lucky to have her instead of another Dem. At least there's a chance she will go with the Reps on something.
Romney and Murkowski I don't understand at all, at this point, how they stay (or will remain) in office. Sasse is kind of a libertarian (the annoying kind, sometimes :D), but I can at least understand where the voters were coming from with him.
It's hard up here in Maine. The citizens are being bullied by Janet Mills and none of the 151 Reps will even help us on the Recall-Removal of Janet Mills. Susan Collins isn't the right match for Maine anymore either but she is better then what we had to choose from. We are holding strong in Maine but need someone to come and take Mills for us.
Just because congress says something is constitutional doesn't make it so. Remember, every piece of legislation ever ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court was written by congress. The problem is our supreme court is made up of a bunch of commie leftists and pussy rino's so very little legislation gets overturned anymore.
It's magical thinking. This is the group that thinks they can create wealth out of thin air, turn a man into a woman by identifying as one, and make election fraud not exist by plugging their ears and shouting "la la la".
When congress turns their back on the constitution, and when judges turn their back on the constitution, then it's up to the people to enforce it even though it's at their peril.
The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS said "Nope, not constitutional, not coming to the party" already - so the opinion of the SCOTUS is it's a sham. And as compromised as spineless as Roberts is, when even he says "fuck no, lol", you know it's all bullshit.
Precedent has fuck all to do with it, no judge, no impeachment.
It's a bit murky, but Leaky Leahy talking about presiding means someone contacted the court and asked. Roberts has not made any official statement, that I've found.
Not really because the impeachment hasn’t actually been challenged in a court if Congress’ actions were legal. It’s like when Cuomo or Newsom make some stupid, unconstitutional COVID order, it goes to court and the governor drops it so the court dismisses the case as moot; there was no actual case tried as to whether the order was constitutional or not.
Impeachments can't be challenged in courts. Impeachment creates a court out of the Senate, when the Chief Justice presides. The Constitution says "sole" responsibility of the Congress regarding impeachment, look up Renquist's writings on the matter.
GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) voted with Democrats to table Paul's point of order.
That cuck seemed to lose intentionally. I bet he was told he needed to lose and then sabotaged his own campaign. It was pathetic watching him apologize to Obama and apologize about his 47% comment.
RINOs have outed themselves here, but there are more. I think most of the party is corrupt or at least all talk at this point. Trump showed them how to win and they ignored him.
FUCK THESE RINOS
It should never have gotten there in the first place and its NOT constitutional as hes technically not a "sitting" President. Althiugh he is the true president
Not really. Putting my normal thoughts about Rand aside, he was actually smart with this motion. He made them put it on record regarding the Constitutionality over it (despite that being a sham as the Constitution is defunct), and proved they don't have the votes anyway. Except for the usual traitors in the GOP, the Pubs in the Senate just showed they won't get a 2/3rds vote. Impeachment is dead in the water, as of today. It was dead when Roberts passed on the sham, anyway - but now it's official.
Now the DNC has to think about the optics of losing, which won't go well down with their base.
Rand Paul does not believe in checks and balances for election integrity. Rand plays both sides of the table. Here he is using the same "Better luck next time" argument as the Left: https://streamable.com/xn27gm
Why? This is called playing it safe. Rand Paul stayed silent for the whole month of November. Then he tells Congress not to vote to reject electors in swing states. His actions are not what you think they are.
Yes, and never forget Rand Paul voted to certify the elections. NEVER FORGET! Don't let all of these theatrics make you forget why we're at this point in time, which should not have happened.
Any libertarian worth respect and being called a libertarian should either (1) vote from principle, or (2) explain why they didn't vote from principle. I think Rand Paul is only libertarian leaning at best, but otherwise a politically calculating Republican.
That's why, even as a Libertarian, I'd consider voting for any other republican as much as Rand Paul.
(Standard disclaimer about how votes actually don't matter.)
Rand Paul is not for theatrics, if you were kept up until the early hours of the morning just to get things passed would you still oppose? Its funny how the very things we cited to break away from the UK is happening here. Like "has called together legislative bodies ... for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance"
Playing both sides of the table seems pretty theatrical to me. Here Rand is using the same "Better luck next time" argument as the Left: https://streamable.com/xn27gm
By choosing to commit those crimes yourself and completely remove the checks and balances? Show me what portion of Article II allows them to override the State Governments again.
Romney added that "the preponderance of opinion with regards to the constitutionality of a trial of impeachment of a former president is saying that it is a constitutional process."
"Hurr if 60% of people think George Stephanopoulos is 6 feet tall, then he's six feet tall."
you sure you didnt mis read this? they motion to table the constitutional point of order would Kill the motion rand paul made... therefore this means that it is MOVING FORWARD.... its lawyer doublespeak
I would like to believe that Republicans who recognize that the impeachment isn't constitutional wouldn't turn around and vote to impeach. But at this point, who knows.
The republicans are spineless and corrupt, but there's no way they're dumb enough to impeach Trump, he's too popular with the republican base. I'm guessing they'll vote no and make try to make us believe they were on his side the entire time.
Every single frickin' lockstep Democrat. How do they do that? Pelosi, Schumer, they tell their minions "do this", and they ALL do! Republicans, no, why they have to virtue-signal and go with the anti-Trump Dems. So infuriating.
Patriots I suggest you get in touch with your state legislators and governors. Have the governors call a special legislative session to pass a resolution to convene a convention of the states. This convention will then abolish the current federal government, fix the voting system in the form of an constitutional amendment, hold an election for both congress and the president, and finally have them appoint a new supreme court. Start fresh! Its a tall order but this government has become destructive towards certain unalienable rights.
Supremacy Clause sets "law of the land" as Federal Law, and that any powers given to the Fed by the Constitution are supreme and cannot be removed by states. The main point of the Constitution, as set by the founders, that the Federal government is the glue that holds the whole thing together, and that replacing the Fed is not an act of states by petition, but by force. The founders were pretty prescient in what they tried to give us in terms of tools to fight tyranny, and a states convention to end the Fed was not one of them. Their idea, as I understand it, is that if the Fed is so broken it cannot govern....2nd amendment.
The idea of the states getting together to end the Fed - while theoretically an interesting debate - is simply not on the table. Starting with getting all states to go along with it. Then tackling the actual process, assuming the Fed doesn't fight to stop it. And no precedent to govern the process. Whole lotta "what ifs' and "I thinks" in that debate.
A convention of states is at the same level of our founding fathers who wrote the constitution. They are by very definition a constitutional convention with unchecked power. That is why the bar of 3/4th is set as high as it is for it. The constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government, the framers knew that should a federal government become tyrannical it is the power of the states to alter or abolish it. Look into the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky General Assembly.
Yes, Schumer (D-NY) emphasized that the senate has the authority to both impeach AND prevent anyone from holding public office again. He just dismisses the notion that the impeachment powers to bar future appointments depend on them actually holding office at the time. Basically they're choosing what words to read and in what order.
These Republicans just slow things down a little bit until we get used to the new normals. We always just end up trying to conserve what the progressives paved the way for. Very sad.
The point of order was whether or not the senate has the constitutional authority to impeach a private citizen, 45 said no. If 45 think they don't even have the authority it stand to reason that the same 45 will vote to acquit. Its basically a way to check and see who will vote what at the final vote.
Basically, there was an objection, brought by Ron Paul, I think, that the whole thing is unconstitutional. They voted to "table" the objection, that is, no further discussion on the objection, put it aside and move forward.
He tweeted something about it being DOA, but in think that's just based on impeachment conviction requires 2/3 vote (66), and 45 votes that it's unconstitutional means they can't convict. They need 11 more defectors or it goes nowhere, even if they can technically move forward for now.
This is actually bad news. I was hoping a trial would give Trump a chance to expose their asses. The whole thing is a bluff, just like Dominion filing lawsuits.
The impeachment isn't over the election. They're not going to let Rudy haul his library of vote stealing in. They're impeaching him over the lie that he told the crowd to 'attack" the Capital.
Since when does the Legislative Branch have the power to say something is Constitutional or not? I thought that power was vested in the Judicial Branch... You know the branch created to determine if something the Legislative Branch or Executive Branch does is Constitutional or not?
They don't. And the trial is explicit in that it must be held by the chief justice and Roberts already says he refuses as it doesn't meet the standards of impeachment. This is just dumb shit that will be either dead or never resolved.
These are the same senators who voted for unconstitutional Biden electors. Don't fall for their act. The don't give a shit about you. Never forget what they did.
If this is not an indicator of what's to come - with both parties flagrantly ignoring the Constitution and voting purely on Party lines, and resolutions passing with a Democrat majority of 51-50, then I don't know what is.
As of now they have no one to preside over it, leahy want to the hospital today looks like he’s gonna play the Rona card to get out of it, no one wants to touch this 😂
Someone explain it to me like I'm a sheltered, rich lib kid just learning Economy 101; per the image, does that mean that the Senate will not conduct an impeachment hearing, or that they've blocked opposition to the impeachment from being voiced?
Sen. Paul (R-KY) brought a point of order saying that the impeachment is unconstitutional. 45 senators agreed, 55 did not. Since a majority tabled the point of order they move on to impeachment. The 45-55 split shows that there aren't enough senators to convict Trump at the very beginning and should stop it now or continue and waste everyone's time.
They voted to scrap arguments on the 'constitutionality' (if it's constitutionally legal) of the impeachment process. Now they go forward with the impeachment. It's ALL theater to weaken Trump and make any future MAGA lose its legs.
They've blocked discussion of the constitutionality of impeaching a private citizen. But it shows they are at least 5 votes short (they need 60, iirc) to impeach.
This is so they can impeach future candidates before an election happens so that can't participate, that aren't deep state. They aren't letting Trump happen again.
no there are more rinos, but these 5 just got re-elected and figure people well forget before they run again VOTE THEM ALL OUT, leave Cruz, and Josh Hawley, that's all for now
The worst part about this, is if you ask any of their people they claim to support they would have told them to fuck off with what they thought and VOTE NO!
Fuck Pat Toomey. I can't believe I voted for him over the past several years, now his true colors shine. Plus he's being extra faggoty because he's "retiring" from politics and can say/do as much shit as possible without recourse.
fucking finally something good happens since last wednesday. also a conservative federal district judge finally fought fire with fire by blocking pedo joe's anti-deportation EO. fucking make them fight it in the SCOTUS and keep trump's policies in place. they did this shit with DACA. should be the same with trump's deportation orders.
Hold on, now I'm confused about the vote. This was a vote on whether or not it was constitutional to try Trump? Or a vote on whether or not they should ASK whether or not it's constitutional to try Trump?
We know from previous votes that the RINOs will vote to proceed but not to convict. The 55-45 vote pretty much says they’ll get 52-53 votes to “remove Trump” but far short of the 67 needed.
The MSM will be able to crow about how a “majority” of Senators votes to convict Trump and how it was bi-partisan but basically meaningless because they spin it even if the vote ended up 49-51 in favor of not removing from office.
No need, impeachment continues. They tabled the motion to hear arguments on its constitutionality. Basically told Paul & co. to fuck off and get in line.
So 5 rinos voted for it
You mean communist insurgents
THIS is what we're calling them now.
add 'faggots' for flair if you like.
Communist Infaggents
They will never impeach Trump because he is playing GOOD COP.
Trump is different from typical Republican / Democrat. Trump represents the populist movement which both sides recognize could usurp the uniparty as being the obvious America-First movement that real Americans actually want.
did usurp*
Just cause they stole it back doesn't mean we didn't have 4 glorious years of freedom.
And much more to come, the cat is out of the bag. We've forced them into a corner where they can pretend to make subtle globalist movements or they can choose to go full aggressive with their bullshit and see if we fight back. They're going for the aggressive option while attempting to silence voices on big tech. It'll backfire and reveal them as the enemy of the people. You can control big tech but you can't control free Americans. The ultimate tweety bird isn't twitter, it's the voice of free men and free women who people instantly recognize as the truth, and it can't be contained. You can attempt to snuff it for a while, you can attempt to intimidate for awhile, eventually the lion bites back and reminds the tamer who the master always was. The key at this point is to identify the real tamers of American and make the correct bites, not flippant red herring bites.
Another meaningless show trial.
They will not be able to get 2/3 of all senators to convict Trump for nothing.
Frewee-dom
Yeah cause when I think 2020, I think freedom.
Wasn't very free. The judicial system was used to block or stall almost everything we voted for. We got most of it, but it was hard won. We are losing it all, as I type.
I got an e-mail from the epoch times.
I still support this idea, I hope Trump reconsiders.
Exactly. Global populist movement has no brakes! It's going to bulldoze the globalist elite cucks
With real bulldozers, I hope
Well said. I've been searching for those words.
Beginning to wonder. Work is starting to talk about requiring the vax. Thanks for warp speeding that right along for us.
Your boss being a faggot is not Trump's fault
Amen.
Lol, true! When you're right, you're right.
Lol, true! When you're right, your right.
its illegal. call your lawyer now. Don't wait. Have your law suit ready.
Wouldn't a company fire you a few weeks after you hire a lawyer to sue them for something.
I feel like there would be some sort of retaliation
It's FDA experimental. They better talk to legal before they do... I'm a physician at a hospital and they're not mandating it (yet).
They can't mandate it.
Look up exemptions in your state. You could be exempt just based on ideology alone. Then, if you’re fired, you have a damn good case, depending again where you’re at. You can consult with an attorney, usually for free and get any questions answered and retain them if necessary.
Thanks, it's just rumors and rumblings and my comment represents my expectations more than anything. Rest assured I've looked into it and my state allows for exemptions based on personal beliefs. But if the last year had shown us anything, it's shown us that laws don't mean a thing. That said, I will live in a tent by the creek before I take the vax
All you have to do is say it is against your religion to take it. If they ask what denomination you are say "none of your damn business." At will work sites won't screw with you any further.
Who's the ba- OH I see lol
Fagrancy
Someone on GA.win said they hate thedonald because he always gets called a faggot.
I had to be the voice of reason... "well pal, are you a faggot?"
rolls eyes Don't they know that Faggot is our word for 'numpty'.
^ this.
kek. TRUST SESSIONS! 1253 DIVIDED BY .1032 EQUALS 12141.47 WHICH IS THE AMOUNT OF BITES IT TAKES FOR TRUMP TO FINISH A TACO BOWL WHICH MEANS Q IS REAL! WWG1WGA!
Wow this sounds like it could be legit!
x22 is a fantasy
Rhinos who voted for: “I’m sorry. It’s just that the whores that Pelosi bought us as a reward were too damn good. I mean they swallowed everything!”
damn
Redundancy is for the left
The left invented the department of redundancy department
my bad
Irving Kristol and all the offspring of his loins and his mind are rebranded Bolsheviks, change my mind.
The correct term is collaborator.
I bet you can guess at least one of those names right off the bat.
Globalist*
No, 5 or more democrats voted AGAINST considering the point of order any further... That's what "table" means... Means kill it
Edit: This was a motion by Rand Paul.
So in fact, 5 Republicans did vote IN FAVOR of Impeachment (by way of shutting down Paul's obstruction).
But the headline is reading into the votes to infer that ONLY 5 Republicans will vote to convict, when 17 will be needed.
So it's not DOA, there will be a trial, etc. It's just that in the final vote, there is unlikely to be a conviction.
Tabled a motion by Rand Paul to vote on whether the impeachment is constitutional. 45 Republicans wanted to vote on constitutionality. 50 Democrats + 5 Republicans didn't want to vote on whether it is constitutional. So tabling is a loss for the Republicans, but it does show that only 5 Republicans seem to want to plow forward with this nonsense, which won't be enough to convict (so probably a win for Trump overall).
This post could have used a lot more context than just a title and a photo.
Every one of them needs to be primaried, regardless.
Which Republicans voted for this motion?
Sasse, Collins, Romney, Murkowski, and Toomey.
Write, call starting today.
So 55 democrats voted YEA then
Sasse is a fucking piece of shit who didn't show his true colors until so close to the election that a lot of people had already voted for his commie ass.
Sasse is the new Flake.
Same with fucking Romney. They both got 6 more years to plan their next election theft.
Isnt Toomey retiring?
say goodbye to his senate seat then. give that one to the dems in 2022. toomey sucks ass but he's the only GOP/RINO able to win that senate seat in PA.
Yes
Well if he wasn’t planning on it, I think he is now, lawlz
Collins just won reelection
She's always been a cunt.
Surprised Tillis isn’t on that list.
Paper.
Winners fight just as hard in the face of defeat.
Lmao, they didn’t want to consider if it were constitutional? 🤡
This is better for us IMO. A busy Senate during the impeachment will not get much passed from the House.
dude they have 2 years. this might buy a little more time to prepare your anus, but that's about it.
Grease it up, buttercup!
KEK Biden is not staying in office for 2 years. No way.
Why is that even an option?! It should be mandatory, anyone who voted no should be jailed for contempt.
Any idea who the 5 are?
Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah)
Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Pat Toomey (Pa.)
Five primary losers.
More like, enemies of We the People.
Murkowski is done.
Votes no longer matter.
That's cute, you think "elections" and "votes" matter.
Pat Toomey and Lisa Murkowski seats are up for grabs in 2022... apparently Pat Toomey is leaving Congress and Lisa Murkowksi? I dunno? Perfect time to primary her wrinkly old ass.
Nothing that $1 million under the table to Dominion can't solve.
As usual. Am not surprised to see faggot Pierre Delecto on the list.
Why doesn't he just join the Ds already?
He did a long time ago
It's good to know who to vote against.
By tabling it does that mean the could bring it back up in 2 years?
They tabled a motion by Rand Paul that would have (at least temporarily) stopped the impeachment trial from going forward. Since it was tabled, the trial will go forward. Rand Paul's motion wouldn't be relevant in 2 years (after the trial).
It's better for us that impeachment goes thru! What was Rand thinking?
The Senate will have its hands full and will spend less time voting on the absurd bills coming out of the House. And there's always the chance we get to present evidence.
I disagree: it's always better when government overreach is restrained by the Constitution.
The only "evidence" needed is to read the First Amendment of the US Constitution into the record.
Watch Don Jr. explain https://t.me/TrumpJr/8719
He lost me at the vaccines. If Trump and Don Jr keep pushing the vaccine that's going to sterilize and re-program our bodies, what does that say???????
Thanks for clarifying.
Thank you for the explanation.
You're welcome.
Think they were tabling something paul introduced
Right... So in fact, 5 Republicans did in fact vote IN FAVOR of Impeachment (by way of shutting down Paul's obstruction).
But the headline is reading into the votes to infer that ONLY 5 Republicans will vote to convict, when 17 will be needed.
So it's not DOA, there will be a trial, etc. It's just that in the final vote, there is unlikely to be a conviction.
I think 5 R voted against Rand and the idea the impeachment is unconstitutional. Trump is already impeached, that was done in the house. Then Senate does the trial and Rand was trying to say the impeachment itself was unconstitutional (already passed, he is impeached but not yet tried).
So 5 republicans dont think the already approved impeachment is unconstitutional. They may believe him innocent, that is unknown and seperate.
In reality, trump wants a world stage to present evidence. So this helps him.
Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.)
They should all be primaried. But I gotta admit I’m surprised we don’t see Mitch on that list.
They should also all be censured. It’s obviously unconstitutional to impeach a private citizen, especially when the Chief Justice won’t preside over the impeachment, a democrat senator will.
Collins and Murkowski’s political careers are over. Toomey is going to retire.
Mittens will murder his own mother to remain in the spotlight and is backed my major foreign money. We will be making memes about him for a long time to come.
The usual suspects. 6_6
Why not surprised?
The only thing that is definitely happening is showing every American how completely + utterly USELESS every fkg one if them is. I WANT THEM ALL GONE! I'm sick to death of watching these CARNIVAL CLOWNS 🤡🤡🤡 They haven't done DICK for the American people in over a year! Nothing for WE THE PEOPLE 🤬🤬🤬
It’s always the same 4 or 5 people that are the traitors. They are always the ones holding our party hostage. I am so sick of it.
The people who are sworn to uphold the constitution do not want the judical branch ruling on whether this unprecidented action is constitutional.
No he’s not impeached,you dont get convicted at the time of being charged not how it works if it did there would be zero reason for court!
Impeached just means charged. It is analogous to being indicted. He is impeached.
Thank you. That's what I was thinking.
Agreed! Discovery!
Makes sense fuck those rinos
We don’t call them democrats anymore. They’re either socialists or the communists. Please take note.
Socialists are just Communists that don't know they are Communists.
I think calling them tyrants is the most descriptive, that way it'll also include the neocons.
Traitors maybe?
I just got Don Jr.'s Telegram video explaining exactly this. Rand forced a vote to basically flesh out the reality that they don't have enough votes to make it happen, so when they continue ahead anyway they look bad for pettily wasting everyone's time and money on a grudge match when real issues like job creation etc should be the focus.
yup. good thing is 45 will vote to block it. this was a great test vote to check who will vote for conviction and against conviction.
Uniparty gonna uniparty.
Who? Mitten, Turtle, ...
Sasse, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and Toomey.
Romney is such a flaming faggot, HOW DOES HE GET ELECTED
because Trump endorsed him.
Disappointed Utahn here. Romney unfortunately was a shoe in for this state I think Trump recognized this and saw it as an olive branch opportunity. He shouldn't have. Romney sucks ass.
I suspect it was more to appease his niece, so she wouldn't actively work against him, instead of her usual doing nothing at all to help him.
Fair analysis. Either way, Trump was being the peacemaker in this exchange, and Romney true to form is the ever reliable petty backstabber who pretends to be principaled.
Trump tried to appease too many of his enemies. Abe Lincoln was a badass lawyer who called the insurrectionists insurrectionists, jailed them and their media propaganda machine for sedition, and commanded the military to conquer their territories of treason. Trump is no Abe Lincoln, though he a great president from a policy standpoint.
Same. I was a lost sheep, no more! Romney WILL NEVER get my vote again. LIAR!
Never vote based on Christian sect. Romney should never have been a shoe in other than being a Mormon. Those fools are hopefully learning to keep politics and religious grouping/piety seperate.
Agreed. Romney has Utah mormons absolutely mystified and it's embarrassing. Mormons already get a bad rap for being cultish without worshipping Romney's stupid rewrites of conservative/constitutionalist principals.
There's a reason they're referred to as Utards by the rest of the denomination across the globe.
You've definitely gotta question the hell out of any group that thinks the Garden of Eden was in Independence, Missouri. Maybe the meth lab of Eden was lol.
this is a highly underrated comment!
people need to remember that trump does like to negotiate which means he's willing to compromise. he's also willing to work with people who might be less than desirable. to trump, this is just part of doing business and getting shit DONE!
and to anyone who thinks "compromise" with democrats is a bad idea, it is if you're a republican who is always willing to take the short end of the stick. but trump is a hard nosed new york real estate mogul. he'll compromise but he's always going to get the long end of the stick!
Thank you. It also bears mentioning as the media treated Trump as some obstinate meany for 4 years, while ignoring the fact that Trump offered compromise after compromise the entire time. He was dealing as a good faith negotiator and the Dems/Media weren't. Every time he offered to meet them half way on an issue, they moved the goalposts. Take covid relief. Take wall funding and daca, and a dozen other things you could probably come up with in a few minutes of internet search. Trump was a negotiator through and through and the Dems/media and a lot of Republicans were stuck up, lying, deceitful asshats.
Mormon mafia. And his niece runs the DNC.
You mean
RNCoh wait, same shit, never mind.Utah faggots who vote for him solely based on him being a Mormon. Low IQ morons who keep voting for a Rhino simply based off his religion instead of his polices and allegiance to the will of the people.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
He cheats.
same way biden did
Amazing. So McConnell gassed up this impeachment and then voted in favor of the motion to table it? What a fucking jackass.
“Well, you see, it’s important to compromise... sometimes I vote to commit treason.. sometimes I don’t... you can’t win ‘em all. “
🤡
Whatever McConnell is doing, you can rest assured he's thought it through. I'm not saying I always agree with him but I usually do, and sometimes when I think he's being a moron, it later turns out he was doing his thing. He's a shrewd motherfucker.
Sowing doubt in half of the GOP voting base is quite a ballsy move. I'm willing to see McConnell as a shrewd strategist, but don't overlook the damage he's done to his voting base in the last couple weeks alone. Even brilliant strategists can blunder.
You are correct, he could be making a mistake. However, he has been pretty damned good at managing the political flashpoints the last few years. I'd rather have him in charge than some limp dick like Paul Ryan. :)
No turtle? Changed his tune
That surprised me too until I got to thinking just how well he plays dirty politics. He may be trying to draw this out as long as possible.
Basically all of the usual suspects minus McConnell
The Senate voted 55-45 to set aside Paul's motion, with all but five GOP senators siding with Paul. GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) voted with Democrats to table Paul's point of order.
The typical RINO suspects.
Collins and Sasse were just reelected too. Why do we keep making these mistakes?
Because we sleep during the primaries and never run good opposition.
Not true.
But the national Republican party is bloody awful.
They will dump piles of money into propping up the "establishment" candidate, and flood the airwaves with blatantly false scaremongering.
If that's still not enough to roll the insurgency back, they'll make a backroom deal with the Democrats, and "borrow" a bunch of their voters in exchange for surrendering laws the base fought hard for.
If that isn't enough, they will stab the winner in the back by either endorsing the Democrat, or running as a third-party candidate to try and split the vote and hand the win to the Democrat. (Or, if you're in Alaska, magically get an outright majority to write-in "Murkowski" correctly.)
Palin can see her next job in government from her house!
really still have to ask?
In Collins case, we're lucky to have her instead of another Dem. At least there's a chance she will go with the Reps on something.
Romney and Murkowski I don't understand at all, at this point, how they stay (or will remain) in office. Sasse is kind of a libertarian (the annoying kind, sometimes :D), but I can at least understand where the voters were coming from with him.
It's hard up here in Maine. The citizens are being bullied by Janet Mills and none of the 151 Reps will even help us on the Recall-Removal of Janet Mills. Susan Collins isn't the right match for Maine anymore either but she is better then what we had to choose from. We are holding strong in Maine but need someone to come and take Mills for us.
What?!? At this point what makes you think people are still fairly electing anyone?
That cunt from Maine?
Delecto, Collins, Toomey, Murkowski and Sasse.
Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.)
You can probably guess which five... 🙄
Inky, Winky, Blinky, Dinky, and Pinky
the usual suspects
What about Clyde?
never bring up clyde damnit
Sorry I've been dealing with a serious case of Pac Man Fever
How is it constitutional to impeach a president who's not president anymore? Everything I've read said it's not. Did they just set precedence though?
Just because congress says something is constitutional doesn't make it so. Remember, every piece of legislation ever ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court was written by congress. The problem is our supreme court is made up of a bunch of commie leftists and pussy rino's so very little legislation gets overturned anymore.
It's like everything else the left does, just say something is true or not true and it becomes so, regardless of facts. It's tiresome.
"if you repeat the lie enough times".
It's magical thinking. This is the group that thinks they can create wealth out of thin air, turn a man into a woman by identifying as one, and make election fraud not exist by plugging their ears and shouting "la la la".
I wish With magical thinking that I could make my laundry go away or my kids not picky eaters.
Bippity boppity— oh, forget it.
Just tell them the laundry identifies as clean.
Clean laundry is a patriarchal construct meant to oppress women with an unending cycle of busy work intended to prevent self-actualization.
Stop being anti-skidmark, bigot!
And they're right. When has that ever not worked for them?
When congress turns their back on the constitution, and when judges turn their back on the constitution, then it's up to the people to enforce it even though it's at their peril.
Thank you, I understand.
Funny how hundreds of lawyers manage to misconstrue a legal document the rest of us read and understand before we are out of junior high school.
That's because they are intentionally misconstruing it.
That's why they get the big bucks
Artful misconstruction.
If they didn't, thousands of federal judges and prosecutors would be unemployed, and the Supreme Court would be bored.
If the supreme court cucks then literally any private citizen can be impeached and tried.
At that point it becomes a badge of honor
Quality of a legal system reflects the morality of a society
The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS said "Nope, not constitutional, not coming to the party" already - so the opinion of the SCOTUS is it's a sham. And as compromised as spineless as Roberts is, when even he says "fuck no, lol", you know it's all bullshit.
Precedent has fuck all to do with it, no judge, no impeachment.
Did he say no or was he not even invited?
It's a bit murky, but Leaky Leahy talking about presiding means someone contacted the court and asked. Roberts has not made any official statement, that I've found.
Hes invited via the constitution. He doesn't need an eVite.
They can't set precedent, they are not judicial. They are simply cheating.
They don't give a fuck.
Not really because the impeachment hasn’t actually been challenged in a court if Congress’ actions were legal. It’s like when Cuomo or Newsom make some stupid, unconstitutional COVID order, it goes to court and the governor drops it so the court dismisses the case as moot; there was no actual case tried as to whether the order was constitutional or not.
Impeachments can't be challenged in courts. Impeachment creates a court out of the Senate, when the Chief Justice presides. The Constitution says "sole" responsibility of the Congress regarding impeachment, look up Renquist's writings on the matter.
Whether the impeachment actually applies and if it was done properly can.
GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.) voted with Democrats to table Paul's point of order.
Pat Toomey makes me sick.
Mitt still butt hurt about that meal with trump that didn’t go his way. Fag
He’s still butt hurt he lost to obummer
That cuck seemed to lose intentionally. I bet he was told he needed to lose and then sabotaged his own campaign. It was pathetic watching him apologize to Obama and apologize about his 47% comment.
On the bright side, we know who HAS to be primaried (if votes ever matter again), or at least ridiculed like the slimy globalist cocksuckers they are.
RINOs have outed themselves here, but there are more. I think most of the party is corrupt or at least all talk at this point. Trump showed them how to win and they ignored him.
Some of them outed themselves. Some of them are afraid of getting primaried. A lot of them will just go to wherever the wind is blowing.
Time for them all to go.
They all need to be slapped with an anvil
No surprises there, then.
FUCK THESE RINOS It should never have gotten there in the first place and its NOT constitutional as hes technically not a "sitting" President. Althiugh he is the true president
Like Barnes mentioned, let's do Hillary now and make it hit the newspapers with the optics.
Or IS he....?
Q music...
So no peach ments?
peach mints continues. They tabled the motion to hear arguments on its constitutionality. Basically told Paul & co. to fuck off and get in line.
Not really. Putting my normal thoughts about Rand aside, he was actually smart with this motion. He made them put it on record regarding the Constitutionality over it (despite that being a sham as the Constitution is defunct), and proved they don't have the votes anyway. Except for the usual traitors in the GOP, the Pubs in the Senate just showed they won't get a 2/3rds vote. Impeachment is dead in the water, as of today. It was dead when Roberts passed on the sham, anyway - but now it's official.
Now the DNC has to think about the optics of losing, which won't go well down with their base.
Looks like 45 repukelicans realized how badly they done fucked up and are backpedalling.
Too little too late bitches, you had your chance and you blew it out your asses.
Every Single one. Time to fill Congess with MAGA. They had their chance and chose poorly.
Now we just need to make sure that local elections happen fairly
That's actually a good observation, thanks pede.
Rand Paul does not believe in checks and balances for election integrity. Rand plays both sides of the table. Here he is using the same "Better luck next time" argument as the Left: https://streamable.com/xn27gm
Like I said, not getting into my overall opinions on Rand.* In this one case*, this motion accomplished a very important thing.
I get that a lot of people want to rant about him - and I don't even disagree on much of it, but that should be it's own thread.
But this motion was important. Gotta give him credit for it, regardless of anything else he does or says.
Why? This is called playing it safe. Rand Paul stayed silent for the whole month of November. Then he tells Congress not to vote to reject electors in swing states. His actions are not what you think they are.
I haven't made a single claim about his actions outside of this specific motion. If you want to beat up Rand Paul, make a thread for it.
What do they need a base for? They cheat in elections.
Can't wait to vote and see how badly the Dems steal this one too!
Then don’t vote 🙄
could a different Senator introduce the same motion tomorrow?
Yes this is not DOA at all, dumb headline from OP
Peach Mints
Mitch still wants his peach mints
sorry son, you'll have to hold off another couple years or months or weeks or days or hours...
Anyone surprised? Anyone?
Mitt and his niece are most of the reason the GOP is on my pay-no-mind list.
Toomey surprises me. Time to primary his ass.
He's not running again, so he's free to be as leftist as he wants.
He knew he wouldn’t win re-election. We need to make sure who takes his place is the right person.
gang of 5 traitors who don't care to debate the constitutionality of this fake impeachment
Ben sasse must be pulling a mitt and enjoying being in the news cycle these past few months. Trump must have pissed in this dudes cereal or something
Bold move on Toomey's part, given that Biden just slaughtered half his state's economy.
Yes, and never forget Rand Paul voted to certify the elections. NEVER FORGET! Don't let all of these theatrics make you forget why we're at this point in time, which should not have happened.
Any libertarian worth respect and being called a libertarian should either (1) vote from principle, or (2) explain why they didn't vote from principle. I think Rand Paul is only libertarian leaning at best, but otherwise a politically calculating Republican.
That's why, even as a Libertarian, I'd consider voting for any other republican as much as Rand Paul.
(Standard disclaimer about how votes actually don't matter.)
Rand Paul is not for theatrics, if you were kept up until the early hours of the morning just to get things passed would you still oppose? Its funny how the very things we cited to break away from the UK is happening here. Like "has called together legislative bodies ... for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance"
Playing both sides of the table seems pretty theatrical to me. Here Rand is using the same "Better luck next time" argument as the Left: https://streamable.com/xn27gm
I actually agree with him there. Congress is already sending out bill of attainders, do you really want them to vote for you too?
We need to have checks and balances in this country. Not just throw our hands up or look the other way when 1 area of government commits crimes.
By choosing to commit those crimes yourself and completely remove the checks and balances? Show me what portion of Article II allows them to override the State Governments again.
It's not an override if PA asks for their electoral votes back.
House still rushed it through. Commies.
There are no grounds whatsoever for impeachment. Those who voted for it in both House and Senate:
I will add to this.
Plain and simple: this is a witch hunt. It is simply a show so dems can say "see, we did something to stop this evil evil person!!!"
Sauce: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/535925-senate-rejects-paul-effort-to-declare-trump-impeachment-trial
"Hurr if 60% of people think George Stephanopoulos is 6 feet tall, then he's six feet tall."
Oh! I know this fallacy: argumentum ad populum.
Bills of attainder are specifically outlawed by law, because the Parliament abused them back in Britain.
That's a lot of five-dollar words to still end up sounding like a retard.
Ah. so he admits there was fraud, then.
He knows all about frauds. But he'll never admit to being one. Or any other admission than might inadvertently lead to that conclusion.
Mitt needs to stop reading buzzfeed opinions
Oh. So they met them halfway. It's constitutional. (It isn't.)
Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Zero confidence from the public. Illegitimate govt.
you sure you didnt mis read this? they motion to table the constitutional point of order would Kill the motion rand paul made... therefore this means that it is MOVING FORWARD.... its lawyer doublespeak
No, the point is that the vote wasn't 67-33. This means that only the 5 worst Rinos (Romney, Sasser, etc) voted with the dems.
This likely means that the possibility of conviction and therefore the Dems plan to prohibit President Trump from running again has failed.
they could still vote 67-33 on impeach, but 55-45 on motion to table.... its not over until Stacy Abrams sings....
I would like to believe that Republicans who recognize that the impeachment isn't constitutional wouldn't turn around and vote to impeach. But at this point, who knows.
The republicans are spineless and corrupt, but there's no way they're dumb enough to impeach Trump, he's too popular with the republican base. I'm guessing they'll vote no and make try to make us believe they were on his side the entire time.
I dont think anyone would vote yes if they have already said the constitution does not give them the authority to prosecute.
They are moving forward. They need 67 to convict but only 55 think they actually have constitutional authority to move forward.
That's 55 too fucking many.
Well dems DID steal an election
Every single frickin' lockstep Democrat. How do they do that? Pelosi, Schumer, they tell their minions "do this", and they ALL do! Republicans, no, why they have to virtue-signal and go with the anti-Trump Dems. So infuriating.
5 targets to kick out of the Trump party.
Patriots I suggest you get in touch with your state legislators and governors. Have the governors call a special legislative session to pass a resolution to convene a convention of the states. This convention will then abolish the current federal government, fix the voting system in the form of an constitutional amendment, hold an election for both congress and the president, and finally have them appoint a new supreme court. Start fresh! Its a tall order but this government has become destructive towards certain unalienable rights.
That's not quite how it works, pede. You might want to look into the Supremacy Clause, if you believe the Constitution is still has any power.
If you don't, then the states have even less power to change anything DC dictates.
Supremacy Clause sets "law of the land" as Federal Law, and that any powers given to the Fed by the Constitution are supreme and cannot be removed by states. The main point of the Constitution, as set by the founders, that the Federal government is the glue that holds the whole thing together, and that replacing the Fed is not an act of states by petition, but by force. The founders were pretty prescient in what they tried to give us in terms of tools to fight tyranny, and a states convention to end the Fed was not one of them. Their idea, as I understand it, is that if the Fed is so broken it cannot govern....2nd amendment.
The idea of the states getting together to end the Fed - while theoretically an interesting debate - is simply not on the table. Starting with getting all states to go along with it. Then tackling the actual process, assuming the Fed doesn't fight to stop it. And no precedent to govern the process. Whole lotta "what ifs' and "I thinks" in that debate.
I'm choosing the "not gonna happen" side.
I'm still on the "not gonna happen" side, but if you're going to accuse me of being brainwashed, then I have nothing else to add.
A convention of states is at the same level of our founding fathers who wrote the constitution. They are by very definition a constitutional convention with unchecked power. That is why the bar of 3/4th is set as high as it is for it. The constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government, the framers knew that should a federal government become tyrannical it is the power of the states to alter or abolish it. Look into the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky General Assembly.
The 5 Communist "GOP" members to vote against this: • Lisa Murkowski (AK) • Susan Collins (ME) • Mitt Romney (UT) • Pat Toomey (PA) • Ben Sasse (NE)
Did they read The Constitution? That should be required reading.
Yes, Schumer (D-NY) emphasized that the senate has the authority to both impeach AND prevent anyone from holding public office again. He just dismisses the notion that the impeachment powers to bar future appointments depend on them actually holding office at the time. Basically they're choosing what words to read and in what order.
Thus, they can now impeach the opposition candidates at will?
Get the list MF !
It's neither constitutional not would it get the required 2/3 to convict, stop the dog and pony show retards
That's the point, instead of getting COVID-19 aid out to people they would rather bar trump from future ballots.
They won't get 2/3, won't happen, not only that it's unconstitutional he isn't president. Patrick leahy is going to preside? Fucking clown show
What a waste of time! I’m laughing at progressives for voting for Biden. They get a 15 dollar minimum wage for federal workers, but not other workers.
Our government has zero credibility anymore
Time for that Patriot Party.
GOP - see, we support Trump now. Give us money.
These Republicans just slow things down a little bit until we get used to the new normals. We always just end up trying to conserve what the progressives paved the way for. Very sad.
Well. I guess that means Obama can still be impeached. Trying to look at the bright side here. Lol.
Don't forget Hillary!
Fck Carter. He’s going down!
no it's NOT consititutional. Impeachment is ONLY for removing a sitting President.
Preaching to the choir here
I don’t understand. The chyron says they voted to “table” a point of order concerning the constitutionality of the trial.
The point of order was whether or not the senate has the constitutional authority to impeach a private citizen, 45 said no. If 45 think they don't even have the authority it stand to reason that the same 45 will vote to acquit. Its basically a way to check and see who will vote what at the final vote.
I think OPs point is that the 55 votes would be the same to try and convict, therefore not the required 60?
Actually the requirement is 2/3, ie. 67.
Ohhhhhhhhh that would make sense.
Correct. Unless they compromise more Pubs, they don't have the votes. It's a narrow margin, but enough to show they don't have it.
Basically, there was an objection, brought by Ron Paul, I think, that the whole thing is unconstitutional. They voted to "table" the objection, that is, no further discussion on the objection, put it aside and move forward.
Then why is the impeachment DOA? (I think you mean Rand Paul)
He tweeted something about it being DOA, but in think that's just based on impeachment conviction requires 2/3 vote (66), and 45 votes that it's unconstitutional means they can't convict. They need 11 more defectors or it goes nowhere, even if they can technically move forward for now.
Means scrap I believe
Its not constitutional
Now if they Secret vote, we'll know who the CCP loving America haters are
The problem we have up there is that 95% of the members of the US Congress know absolutely nothing about the US Constitution.
I just got an email from Jim Jordan. I am not giving a penny to one Republican. Not one.
copying someone else's comment because this is fake news:
No, 5 or more Republicans voted FOR considering the point of order any further... That's what "table" means... Means kill it
Edit: This was a motion by Rand Paul.
So in fact, 5 Republicans did vote IN FAVOR of Impeachment (by way of shutting down Paul's obstruction).
But the headline is reading into the votes to infer that ONLY 5 Republicans will vote to convict, when 17 will be needed.
So it's not DOA, there will be a trial, etc. It's just that in the final vote, there is unlikely to be a conviction.
Its basically showing that this is all a waste of time
Must dismantle the Republican party!
I disagree, WE are the republican party. Force the RINOs out let them try and fight to get federal funding to be their own party.
This is actually bad news. I was hoping a trial would give Trump a chance to expose their asses. The whole thing is a bluff, just like Dominion filing lawsuits.
The impeachment isn't over the election. They're not going to let Rudy haul his library of vote stealing in. They're impeaching him over the lie that he told the crowd to 'attack" the Capital.
Trial is still set to occur, but we already know 45 senators will vote to acquit based on constitutionality.
Trial is still happening.
Since when does the Legislative Branch have the power to say something is Constitutional or not? I thought that power was vested in the Judicial Branch... You know the branch created to determine if something the Legislative Branch or Executive Branch does is Constitutional or not?
Good job. You figured out, as I did, that there are no checks or balances anymore and we have only one branch of government.
They don't. And the trial is explicit in that it must be held by the chief justice and Roberts already says he refuses as it doesn't meet the standards of impeachment. This is just dumb shit that will be either dead or never resolved.
These are the same senators who voted for unconstitutional Biden electors. Don't fall for their act. The don't give a shit about you. Never forget what they did.
The republican party must die.
YEAs - 55
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kelly (D-AZ)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lujan (D-NM)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Romney (R-UT)
Rosen (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Sinema (D-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Toomey (R-PA)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs - 45
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Braun (R-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
Results:
.
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table: Is the Point of Order Well Taken?)
On upholding the constitutionality of Impeaching a US Citizen.
Resolution passed. 55-45
.
Five Republicans broke ranks to support the resolution:
.
No Democrats broke ranks to vote against the resolution.
Summary
.
Impeachment trial continues. There will be no further question of constitutionality.
Even if all five of those RINO Republicans voted against the resolution, it would still have been 50-50, leading to the VP voting to break the tie.
If this is not an indicator of what's to come - with both parties flagrantly ignoring the Constitution and voting purely on Party lines, and resolutions passing with a Democrat majority of 51-50, then I don't know what is.
Would think Coons would have a problem with Hunter Biden having kiddy porn of his daughter and Joe Biden grouping her on video but nope.
Correct, but there is no tie breaking vote for a supermajority.
You made a typo in your list it's
Cuntwell (D-WA)
:^)
As of now they have no one to preside over it, leahy want to the hospital today looks like he’s gonna play the Rona card to get out of it, no one wants to touch this 😂
Someone explain it to me like I'm a sheltered, rich lib kid just learning Economy 101; per the image, does that mean that the Senate will not conduct an impeachment hearing, or that they've blocked opposition to the impeachment from being voiced?
The OP got the headline wrong. It means Rand Paul's motion regarding the Constitutionality will not be heard.
However, "only" 5 Republicans voted with the Democrats on this. Meaning they are unlikely to have the 60 votes needed to convict.
It also showed they don't have the votes, if they continue with this sham.
Sen. Paul (R-KY) brought a point of order saying that the impeachment is unconstitutional. 45 senators agreed, 55 did not. Since a majority tabled the point of order they move on to impeachment. The 45-55 split shows that there aren't enough senators to convict Trump at the very beginning and should stop it now or continue and waste everyone's time.
So was it more of a "test the waters" move by Rand Paul?
More like taking instruments to test the waters instead of using your toe.
They voted to scrap arguments on the 'constitutionality' (if it's constitutionally legal) of the impeachment process. Now they go forward with the impeachment. It's ALL theater to weaken Trump and make any future MAGA lose its legs.
They've blocked discussion of the constitutionality of impeaching a private citizen. But it shows they are at least 5 votes short (they need 60, iirc) to impeach.
The 55 Senators voted to not discuss the Constitutional issues of impeaching a private citizen.
Senate says impeaching a private citizen is constitutional? Lmao
This is so they can impeach future candidates before an election happens so that can't participate, that aren't deep state. They aren't letting Trump happen again.
Sasse, Murkowski, Mittler, Toomey and Collins--the usual suspects.
Mitt Romney (UT) Susan Collins (ME) Lisa Murkowski (AK) Pat Toomey (PA) Ben Sasse (NE)
The five RINOs who don't believe in the constitution.
no there are more rinos, but these 5 just got re-elected and figure people well forget before they run again VOTE THEM ALL OUT, leave Cruz, and Josh Hawley, that's all for now
The worst part about this, is if you ask any of their people they claim to support they would have told them to fuck off with what they thought and VOTE NO!
Fuck Pat Toomey. I can't believe I voted for him over the past several years, now his true colors shine. Plus he's being extra faggoty because he's "retiring" from politics and can say/do as much shit as possible without recourse.
5 RINOs that should be getting calls, emails, mail, everything and the kitchen sink for the next two weeks telling them not to convict.
they won't take calls if your not from their state
I don’t blame them, why should a senator from UT get input from someone in CA?
fucking finally something good happens since last wednesday. also a conservative federal district judge finally fought fire with fire by blocking pedo joe's anti-deportation EO. fucking make them fight it in the SCOTUS and keep trump's policies in place. they did this shit with DACA. should be the same with trump's deportation orders.
So there was a vote on whether it was constitutional, and it passed? Oooh, that's not good news. What else might they vote on?
Who said it was constitutional to impeach a civilian? I want names.
Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Pat Toomey (Pa.)
Hold on, now I'm confused about the vote. This was a vote on whether or not it was constitutional to try Trump? Or a vote on whether or not they should ASK whether or not it's constitutional to try Trump?
They know it will destroy them if they convict Trump.
They know its a waste of time
They want to take the bruising in 2022 instead of 2024
There can be no unity with these tyrants abusing the system. We can only fight them by abusing the system whenever we can.
I disagree, use the system. Use the convention of the states that has the ultimate power of the pen with unlimited ink.
Both. Tie them up in court, and beat them extrajudicially wherever possible
No excuse on Gods green earth for President Trump to ever support Romney after all that he’s done. Why Mr. President? Why?
The shitlibs are going to be screeching this day, brother.
We know from previous votes that the RINOs will vote to proceed but not to convict. The 55-45 vote pretty much says they’ll get 52-53 votes to “remove Trump” but far short of the 67 needed.
The MSM will be able to crow about how a “majority” of Senators votes to convict Trump and how it was bi-partisan but basically meaningless because they spin it even if the vote ended up 49-51 in favor of not removing from office.
You got two weeks to give them two weeks notice vote to convict and you got three options: retire, resign, or be censured
Don't worry, the house will file new articles over something next year
No need, impeachment continues. They tabled the motion to hear arguments on its constitutionality. Basically told Paul & co. to fuck off and get in line.