McConnell's remarks in full - analysis...

[WillJ8787]

Source:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mcconnell-remarks-trump-acquittal/index.html

So, Mitch does a full throated conviction of Trump...that he was guilty of inciting a riot and insurection. You can read it above.

Questions: we all knew before hand that conviction in the Senate wasn't going to happen. It stands to reason both Pelosi and Shumar and most Dems knew this as well so...

Why impeach and send it to the Senate? What is the end goal? You know it isn't that Dems are stupid...what is the plan here?

 

[AlexBailey]

More to come. Mitch McConnell believes trump incited the insurrection and that he may be tried by the criminal justice system rather than the Senate:

---

"Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."

"We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."


----


Trump enjoyed immunity from criminal indictment while he was president. He is now liable to criminal prosecution. While the Biden administration may want to stay above the frey and not charge Trump federally, there are still other jurisdictions within which Trump has broken laws:


* The Southern district of New York
* Washington DC
* Fulton County Georgia

It's not over yet.

 

[pointless]

the part missing from turtle's statement is the fact that he is the one who delayed the impeachment until after trump left office. also, that he's fucking lying.

and the plan was to get a conviction or make the republicans look like a bunch of abject cowards. they chose cowardice.

 

[KeithD]

Impeachment came up for this because this begged for impeachment if anything ever was going to. It fulfills an expectation of a majority of American citizens. The case was laid out before the American people and obviously showed Trump as trying to pull off a bloody coup. That's worthwhile and justified no matter what the Senate vote. Beyond that, it identified for the majority of voters which Republicans support the insurrection and which ones don't. Also useful in future elections.

Both of these were more useful (and necessary) than doing nothing by way of the impeachment process.

This doesn't preclude criminal cases in various venues, and that's what McConnell's speech today supports.

My guess is that when the Democrats voted for having witnesses today, McConnell pointed out that no matter how strong their case, with or without witnesses, they weren't going to win the vote. I wouldn't be surprised if he produced two speech drafts--one that stonewalled completely and avoided laying blame and the speech he gave fingering Trump as a criminal who should go to prison for this--using the criminal courts--and gave the Democrats a choice: keep slicing with knives that, while convincing, aren't going to get a conviction, or stop this and get backing in a McConnell speech to throw the bastard in prison.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Impeachment came up for this because this begged for impeachment if anything ever was going to. It fulfills an expectation of a majority of American citizens. The case was laid out before the American people and obviously showed Trump as trying to pull off a bloody coup. That's worthwhile and justified no matter what the Senate vote. Beyond that, it identified for the majority of voters which Republicans support the insurrection and which ones don't. Also useful in future elections.

Both of these were more useful (and necessary) than doing nothing by way of the impeachment process.

This doesn't preclude criminal cases in various venues, and that's what McConnell's speech today supports.

My guess is that when the Democrats voted for having witnesses today, McConnell pointed out that no matter how strong their case, with or without witnesses, they weren't going to win the vote. I wouldn't be surprised if he produced two speech drafts--one that stonewalled completely and avoided laying blame and the speech he gave fingering Trump as a criminal who should go to prison for this--using the criminal courts--and gave the Democrats a choice: keep slicing with knives that, while convincing, aren't going to get a conviction, or stop this and get backing in a McConnell speech to throw the bastard in prison.

I agree, they were never going to convict but it was important to establish the record. I was disappointed that they didn't show images of injured police. At the very least they should have listed the injuries. If they did, I missed it. The voters should have seen what trump's army did to the police.

 

[phrodeau]

I agree, they were never going to convict but it was important to establish the record. I was disappointed that they didn't show images of injured police. At the very least they should have listed the injuries. If they did, I missed it. The voters should have seen what trump's army did to the police.

They brought up the injured police several times and showed footage of police being injured. I doubt anything more would be admissible.

 

[Funit]

More to come. Mitch McConnell believes trump incited the insurrection and that he may be tried by the criminal justice system rather than the Senate:

---

"Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."

"We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."


----


Trump enjoyed immunity from criminal indictment while he was president. He is now liable to criminal prosecution. While the Biden administration may want to stay above the frey and not charge Trump federally, there are still other jurisdictions within which Trump has broken laws:


* The Southern district of New York
* Washington DC
* Fulton County Georgia

It's not over yet.

All those Democrats that incited violent protest over the past five years may find themselves prosecuted as well.

 

[Lazaran]

^
Another fool removes all doubt.

*nods*

 

[phrodeau]

All those Democrats that incited violent protest over the past five years may find themselves prosecuted as well.

Another ball that Bill Barr dropped, I guess.

 

[YDB95]

All those Democrats that incited violent protest over the past five years may find themselves prosecuted as well.

And oddly enough, you can't name a single one of them...

 

[icanhelp1]

More to come. Mitch McConnell believes trump incited the insurrection and that he may be tried by the criminal justice system rather than the Senate:

---

"Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."

"We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."


----


The DOJ blew it. It is no longer the stalworth of justice it used to be. Comey, McCabe and others failed to prosecute Hillary. If you really studied the Clinton case the only conclusion you could reach is:

She obstructed justice by deleting thousands of subpoenaed E-MAILS.

She violated 18 U.S. code 1924/798 mishandling and storage of classified materials, Comey took one for the team,( corrupt )

There is no equal application of the law. Nothing but double standards.

President being prosecuted in civil court very unlikely. Criminal incitement and state of mind cases are difficult to prove. I doubt the senate or house judiciaries would send referrals to the DOJ for prosecutions.

Maybe other civil cases before inauguration but not during.

 

[icanhelp1]

And oddly enough, you can't name a single one of them...

Willful ignorance is not an argument, oddly enough.

 

[LLCox]

Moscow Mitch can suck my dick.

 

[WillJ8787]

I agree, they were never going to convict but it was important to establish the record. I was disappointed that they didn't show images of injured police. At the very least they should have listed the injuries. If they did, I missed it. The voters should have seen what trump's army did to the police.

I think this is very important.... politically, Dems will forever more be able to show that Repubs did not punish Humpty and in fact kept supporting him even after an insurection. They will use McConnell's speech where he out and out condemns Humpty and yet does, what appears to be an about face, and votes to not impeach.

This is more devastating than actually impeaching the prior President, who is just one person and not likely to return to politics. These non actions taken by Repubs affect the entire party and will for some time.

This is not a failure of the Dems....it actually was and still is a situation where every direction is a win for Dems. All Dems have to do now is express their shock over Repubs failure to convict along with every one else who clearly see that...

Someone must go to jail, not just the individuals who were on Capitol grounds, but the ring leader....who has been identified by the leader of the REPUBLICAN party Mitch McConnell.

 

[Dribble]

The end goal is simple. Split the Republican Party. To put it on Record who supports a Fascist traitor more than they love their own country. Slam mother fucking dunk.

 

[WillJ8787]

I agree

 

[FGB]

Mitch McConnell.

A whole different kind of snake!

Him and a couple of Democrat Leaders need to GO.

Best arguments for term limits going!

 

[phrodeau]

Willful ignorance is not an argument, oddly enough.

True.

So why did you display your willful ignorance?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

They brought up the injured police several times and showed footage of police being injured. I doubt anything more would be admissible.

I’m not an attorney, I just play one on Lit. I saw the police getting savagely beat and I understand that there are rules of evidence, but the images of the aftermath would have a serious impact on a national discussion of violence in the US. I’m not just referring to the trump insurrection, I’m considering mass murder of innocents like Sandy Hook, Parkland…etc. The incidents are reported on from all sides but without the images, the story is sanitized. Obviously, the victim’s family would have to give permission but I’m sure that some would. Hearing about 6-year-olds being shot and killed doesn’t have nearly the impact of seeing it. It might not be so easy for all of us to get to sleep at night after seeing the images.

Someone needs to hack databases and release the pictures.

 

[KeithD]

Willful ignorance is not an argument, oddly enough.

It seems to be what you rely on.

 

[Liar]

the part missing from turtle's statement is the fact that he is the one who delayed the impeachment until after trump left office. also, that he's fucking lying.

and the plan was to get a conviction or make the republicans look like a bunch of abject cowards. they chose cowardice.

Another part missing from turtle's statement is the fact that the issue of jurisdiction had already been established in a previous vote.

“When this process started, I believed that it was unconstitutional to impeach a president who was no longer in office. I still believe that to be the case. However, the Senate is an institution based on precedent, and given that the majority in the Senate voted to proceed with this trial, the question of constitutionality is now established precedent." - GOP Senator Burr, who voted guilty.

The turtle is saying that since he disagrees with the Senate's majority decision, he's just going to ignore it and pretend the question before him was one of jurisdiction, when it wasn't.

 

[AlexBailey]

Smart little fucker Mitch softened the landing for all of the GOP Senators when he equivocated:

"Brilliant scholars argue both sides of the jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who have reached either conclusion."


McConnell laid out an excuse for every GOP Senator and Congressman to use in the future if their vote comes back to haunt them politically, regardless of which way they voted and regardless of whether or not it was a valid position.

He also originally refused to schedule the Senate hearings until an hour after the inauguration, now he blames democrats for not bringing him the papers until after Trump was no longer in office.



By Mitch's position there is a January exception against impeachment. He is trying to say that it is fine because the criminal justice system comes to bear once the president is out. He referred to impeachment as being a 'narrow instrument ' and a mechanism for removal and banning future eligibility for office, not as a form of punishment. Because of this, the Senate vote does not create a double jeopardy issue with criminal courts.



I wonder if Trump had continued to press for insurrection, would Mitch have been willing to declare an emergency session and have a vote to remove him on the spot? I think it would have been possible to call for a summary judgment, and as long as 2/3 of the Senate was in support of conviction, Trump would have been removed from office at the gavel.

Without 2/3, even if this had happened in the first week of his administration, Trump would have stayed in office. If he had won re-election, the statute of limitations would have expired before the end of his second term and he would have been safe from criminal prosecution too. If that were to happen, there would be some debate about how the statute of limitations works to protect a POTUS while in office. Would the SOL clock be ticking while the president is immune to criminal indictment? - find out next time..


The GOP has some soul searching to do.

It's funny to hear GOPTQ-anon bash Mitch McConnell. He has been their best and most effective soldier over the last ten years. He's a manipulative, equivocating, bad-faith - win at all costs negotiator. He's pissed and blames Trump for losing the Senate majority. Lots of the non-TQ-anon GOP wants to be done with Trump. It would have helped them most of all to convict Trump and make him ineligible for office, now the GOP will stress and may split over a divide between the truth and their own conspiracy fringe.

 

[phrodeau]

I’m not an attorney, I just play one on Lit. I saw the police getting savagely beat and I understand that there are rules of evidence, but the images of the aftermath would have a serious impact on a national discussion of violence in the US. I’m not just referring to the trump insurrection, I’m considering mass murder of innocents like Sandy Hook, Parkland…etc. The incidents are reported on from all sides but without the images, the story is sanitized. Obviously, the victim’s family would have to give permission but I’m sure that some would. Hearing about 6-year-olds being shot and killed doesn’t have nearly the impact of seeing it. It might not be so easy for all of us to get to sleep at night after seeing the images.

Someone needs to hack databases and release the pictures.

I’m not an attorney either, but I think that anything from the aftermath needs to be attested under oath, like a deposition or affidavit, and that’s the same as witness testimony, which wasn’t permitted until Saturday morning, I believe.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I’m not an attorney either, but I think that anything from the aftermath needs to be attested under oath, like a deposition or affidavit, and that’s the same as witness testimony, which wasn’t permitted until Saturday morning, I believe.

Prodeau, I appreciate your response. I respect your opinion so I'm going to ask you for yours. I suggested that news reports on mass murders are accompanied by graphic pictures of the injuries.

The public needs to be shocked out of complacency and the normalization of violence

A report without the images is the difference between seeing an old John Wayne war movie, then going to see Private Ryan.

 

[phrodeau]

Prodeau, I appreciate your response. I respect your opinion so I'm going to ask you for yours. I suggested that news reports on mass murders are accompanied by graphic pictures of the injuries.

The public needs to be shocked out of complacency and the normalization of violence

A report without the images is the difference between seeing an old John Wayne war movie, then going to see Private Ryan.

I doubt we’ll see that, since most news sources have family-friendly standards, and shy from sensationalism.

Maybe we’ll see photos of police injuries and piles of shit in the Capitol, in upcoming campaign ads, though.