The article of impeachment against former Comrade President Trump will go to the Senate today. Predictably, most Republicans are being assholes about it, making a couple of bullshit arguments against conviction.
Bullshit Argument #1: Impeaching Trump a second time will only further inflame the deep divisions between
decent folks and fascist terrorists the two political parties and lead to further violence. Basically, this argument acknowledges that Trump, at the very least, encouraged the insurrection at the Capitol Building, but suggests that if he’s held accountable for his part in the insurrection, it could lead to another insurrection. In other words, “Yes, Daddy hit you, he’s sorry he lost his temper, it won’t happen again, unless you make Daddy very angry, then he’ll have to hit you again.”
At the heart of this bullshit argument is the notion that inciting a physical assault on the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election is certainly to be frowned upon, but Trump failed to overturn the election, and surely that humiliating failure is punishment enough. This bit of fuckwittery leads us directly to the next bullshit argument.
Bullshit Argument #2: Impeaching a president after he leaves office sets a bad precedent. Unpopular presidents could be punished for being unpopular. This is a spectacularly stupid argument. Failing to impeach and try a former president essentially indemnifies a president against doing all sorts of awful shit in his last few months in office. Like, for example, installing a bunch of stooges in the Justice Department and the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community to help overturn an election. This argument says a president is free to commit crime during the lame duck period because there won’t be any consequences once the corrupt motherfucker is out of office.
Senate Republicans have only themselves to blame. They’ve dropped themselves into a situation where their choices are either 1) to convict the corrupt motherfucker they should have convicted a year ago OR 2) go on the record saying they support the corrupt motherfucker who a) incited an attack on the Capitol that led to half a dozen deaths, b) spent a couple of months trying to strong-arm a handful of states into falsifying their election results, and c) placed a cadre of equally corrupt motherfuckers in key federal positions to help overturn the will of the voters.
Neither option is attractive. They’ll try to pretend they’re doing the right thing. They’ll claim they’re taking a principled stand in defense of…I don’t know what. Unity maybe? The Constitution? It’ll be bullshit, whatever it is. And whatever the result, the GOP’s romance with Trump has produced an angry, resentful, hate-fueled mob of white supremacists who will continue to plague the US for some time.
One last thing. When President Uncle Joe spoke about unity, he wasn’t saying we should all agree on what’s important and how stuff should get done. He was just saying we’re all caught in the same fucked up situation and if we want to get out of it, we should try to work together rather than kicking each other in the balls out of spite. Jeebus on toast, it’s not that complicated.
ADDENDUM: I just learned SCOTUS has chucked all of Trump’s emoluments cases as moot, since he’s no longer POTUS. Basically, that clears future presidents to turn the White House into a for-profit enterprise, allowing them to accept money (including from foreign governments) so long as they can delay any legal proceedings and run out the clock until they’re out of office. Thanks, Republicans.
Some Republicans are making the argument that holding an impeachment trial for former POTUS Trump is unconstitutional because he is no longer in office. It is a silly argument, but I would encourage them in their delusion and suggest they show their disapproval by boycotting the Senate trial. 0:) 😉
As an argument, the entire ‘unconstitutional’ approach simply fails. But the worst thing about that argument is that it’s made in obvious bad faith. I could sorta kinda forgive somebody who made that argument out of ignorance or stupidity, but those who are making the argument knowing it’s wrong deserve to be kicked repeatedly in the balls.
Unity, the constitution – looks like they have gone with both, so far.
(This went long, oops. Short version – they rode unity as long as they could, then went for the constitution (Rand put the “unconstitutional” claim out there, and then 45 senators voted to not go to trial since you posted this) based on Roberts not presiding over the trial. As a Senator, though, Rand really should know that the chief justice presides to keep the VP from adjudicating on their own interests – their decision could get them the office of president. I had to look it up, that’s how little I knew, but I found the answer in a right wing rag. Plus it’s their job to know this or have staffers research and make them know this. Therefore, Rand is either colossally incompetent or is covering up. Allegedly.)
They resisted even bringing this to the floor (looking at you, Moscow/Beijing Mitch) until after inauguration. Then Rand Paul stepped forward to claim this impeachment trial must be unconstitutional because Roberts declined to preside. And 45 senators went along with a vote to not go to trial.
Roberts recused, I hadn’t even looked into why. Until now. FIVE MINUTES for a non-legal person to find, in The National Review, of all sites, a lucid explanation of why Roberts won’t show. He starts the discussion by bringing up an old article/post of his suggesting the GOP impeach ex-SOS Clinton over emails (the effin’ emails will *NEVER* effin’ die! They’ve already been investigated to death and nothing found, except for Clinton following the contemporaneous rules, but they just couldn’t resist throwing them on the pile *ONE. MORE. TIME.* It’s a zombie apocalypse!!! ) but then goes on to add useful information.
The Supreme Court head justice presides over the Senate impeachment trial because if the Vice President does so, as the VP does in other Senate matters, they would have a personal interest in the outcome, since removing the president gets them the job. Ergo, recusal is required (?) or at least standard.
Not in this case. The outcome of the trial has no effect on the current VP’s job. She only has a stake in the fairness of the trial and the addressing of corruption in high office. As should they all. (Oh, if only)
Therefore, Rand’s argument that the impeachment trial must be unconstitutional because Roberts chose not to preside is malarky. Roberts chose not to preside is simply because he doesn’t need to.
Glad I looked. I maybe should know more without looking it up, but this sort of thing is in Rand’s job description. Is he that incompetent at his job or is he doing this to protect himself?