The aftermath of Trump's acquittal in his second impeachment trial

sorry, it quite demonstrably does. It's why we have done it multiple times in this country, and why you can't point to a single court ruling to support your position.

 

Wrong.

 

Wrong we've have not done it multiple times. We've done it once 150 years ago. We've impeached and convicted multiple lesser figures some of them may have resigned during the trial but save for Belknap none of them were out if office when the trial phase began, and none if them were presidents. This is simply Dems trying to eat their cake and still possess it.

 

Quite accurate and factual

 

Establishment Repubs can't win elections. They do not stand against the tide of the globalist elite. Americans know that. That is why we are America 1st!

 

Establishment Mitch has been in the Senate since 1985. That probably involves winning at least 1 election since then, maybe more.

 

I think we elected one Bush since then but we lost a McCain and 1 Romney. All establishment.

 

uh, yes we have. Belknap and trump.

and once last week, lol.

you are certainly free to not like the constitution all you want. Nobody will stop you. But, reality doesn't care, and neither does the law. You are demonstrably incorrect, which is why you can't support your position with any court ruling or legal precedent, while I can and have.

 

Don't forget Establishment Don

 

Don made his money BEFORE government. Don't know what you are talking about. The others are entrenched up to their eyeballs!

 

And both failed and won't go to the courts for a final settlement of the legal question. Clearly the Chief Justice thought it bogus and likely so did more than enough others on the court to throw the whole thing out on constitutional grounds.
And note Trump cannot legally serve as a precedent to his own case...

 

What about his call to officials in GA, which was part of the article of impeachment, during which he illegally tried to get election officials to change the state's vote in his favor?

 

1. They fear their constituents. They value their jobs over the wellfare of the republic.

2. They greatly fear that if they publicly excoriate Trump en masse, he'll form a third party. Who loses if that happens? Hint: not the Democrats.

 

If they have a case then go for it and prosecute him. But that has nothing to do with the riot.

 

McConnell is part of the problem. It was he who refused to hold the trial until after the inauguration, and now it's he who claims that he can't vote to impeach Trump because he's now a private citizen. There is no one in congress more hypocritical than Moscow Mitch.

 

On the contrary. Trump wants to rule the GOP, and Republicans like McConnell are allowing him to do so because if he doesn't rule them, he'll form a third party that will split the GOP and thereby hand most elections to the Democrats.

This is known as pandering, btw. Mitch is one of the biggest hypocrits in congress, and that's a very high bar.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/13/the-7-republicans-who-voted-to-convict-trump.html

 

It is simple fact he was acquited due to no evidence he incited anything.

 

You are confusing acquittal with innocence.

“Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one. And rather than defend the constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring,” Collins said. “His actions – they interfere with the peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of our constitution and our American democracy – were an abuse of power and constitute grounds for conviction.”

 

LOL, sure. That's why McConnell told the DoJ to prosecute him in a court of law.

 

I accept that you have this opinion, but it is not based in fact, law or precedent.

 

It is based on and in all of them. And crowned by simple logic.

 

this has been directly refuted, with constitutional law and legal precedent. "nuh uh" is not a legal argument. You have not, because you can not, support your position that it was unconstitutional. there is no court ruling that you can cite to support you. There are multiple precedents showing you are in fact incorrect in your position.

 

Nope you have asserted you have prove nothing.

 

again, demonstrably false. I've given you the law, and multiple examples as precedent. You have given.................."nuh uh" as an argument.