The Senate votes against removal
Along strict party lines, except for good old Mitt the Democrats’ hero.
It is unsurprising but still astounding that with such a weak case – or rather, a non-existent case – every single Democrat voted for removal. Every one. Now, that’s party discipline.
Note that two Democratic senator one would think were vulnerable – Manchin and Simena – and who were making noises about maybe not voting to remove, came right along with the rest. Their vulnerability is really much less than it seems, because both have terms (just like Romney) till January of 2025. So they’ll be just fine. And (unlike Mitt) they will be rewarded by their leaders for their loyalty.
The only truly vulnerable Democrat who voted to remove Trump is Doug Jones of Alabama, who must run again this year. My guess is that he thought he didn’t have much of a chance before today, anyway, so he had little to lose.
By the way, there’s a Utah bill that was proposed just a few days ago, providing for the recall of senators. The bill’s sponsor says it wasn’t about Romney and impeachment, because it was in the works long before that. At any rate, it may face a constitutional challenge because recall votes are ordinarily only for state offices, if they are allowed at all.
The Constitution gives the states the power to establish the method of electing senators. It’s arguable either way whether that power includes a power of recall. It’s not obvious that it doesn’t.
“The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust,” Romney said during a Senate floor speech.
WTF? Somehow I missed Trump’s “abuse of public trust”… to what could Romney be referring?
What a petty, egotistical little man Romney has now proven himself to be.
IMO, it’s a good thing that every single Senate democrat voted to convict Trump, as in doing so they reveal their utter contempt for the Constitution. Compromise is now a dead letter. Not one democrat Senator had the integrity to choose the Constitution over party loyalty and in doing so they reveal themselves to be TWANLOC.
How will the Alan Dershowitzs now “square that circle”?
They’re playing the tune of irreconcilable differences and when the consequences of that path are finally revealed they’re going to find themselves having to pay the piper.
“Now, that’s party discipline.”
In this case, it’s less about discipline and more about fear of confronting the deranged. This is a tasteless analogy but it’s like having a family member with a significant mental disorder/addiction issue. A common reaction is denial and going along with whatever is necessary to avoid confronting the problem. The Democratic Party, the Left, and the media are not rational about Donald Trump. That’s a fearful thing to truly accept.
Mike
Uh… forgot the seventeenth amendment.
Recalls are only proper for judges and for people who serve in appointive positions with lengthy terms, and only at infrequent intervals – once every six or seven years.
It seems that whenever a Republican announces he/she is voting their conscience, most of the time it goes against a conservative position.
Very few Democrats have said that and voted for a conservative position. If a Democrat does, they are no longer in the party. Zell Miller is one who comes to mind. It is amazing how many consciences are really for the liberal/progressive side.
I predicted last October that Romney was sure conviction vote regardless of the strength of the case. He only ran for Senate so he would be in a position to go to the White House to tell Trump to resign when he was impeached over the Russian Collusion Hoax. People say that Trump is thin-skinned, but Romney takes this to Olympian levels. Trump should wear Romney’s conviction vote as a badge of honor- were I in Trump’s position, I would have literally told Romney to vote against me after Romney’s performance during the trial itself- you don’t need or want a quisling like that in your fox hole.
On the recall bill. Recalling of US Senators has only really been tested in court once- in 1967 during an attempt to recall Frank Church in Idaho. A district court ruling was issued that said such an effort violated the Constitution, and the state didn’t appeal the decision since it was the result they actually wanted.
There was a case in the mid 90s that overturned Arkansas’ term limits for their US representatives and senators. Notably, that case was 5-4 where it was the liberals with Anthony Kennedy that declared the Arkansas measure unconstitutional. So, it isn’t at all clear to me that Utah passing and implementing such a measure will ultimately fail, but it probably wouldn’t make in time before Romney leaves the Senate.
Buster,
The text of the Constitution and the 17th Amendment appear to me to be silent as whether or not Senators can be recalled. The main problem I see is that the documents state explicitly that once appointed/elected, the person sits for 6 years- full stop. The mid 90s case I mentioned was decided on the basis that if the Arkansas measure wasn’t overturned, it would allow the states to make additional qualifications for who can be a US Senator- qualification above and beyond those set out by the Constitution itself. Like I noted, this wasn’t a 9-0 decision- it was 5-4.
So just to recap, someone who wasn’t there used just-changed “Whistleblower” laws to accuse Trump of something he didn’t do. Since he didn’t do it, Democrats then attempted to impeach Trump on their projection of what he was thinking when he didn’t do it. Never mind that “it” wasn’t an actual crime, even if Trump had done it.
And anyone thinks that the impeachment failing was a miscarriage of justice?
Had this been done against a Democrat president by pitchfork-wielding, screaming Republican congress animals, I would have thought exactly the same thing. That’s what believing the foundational principles of our country, like due process and the process of law, does for a person. The entire population of the DNC needs to be locked in a room listening to incessant reading of the Constitution and other useful documents until they break down and realize that there are actually four lights.
If any senator who voted guilty embraces Obama, their vote against Trump demonstrates their hypocrisy.
Obama did investigate Trump under partisan and very dubious circumstances, and “hid” behind Executive Privilege many time during congressional investigations.
This impeachment will bring forth further investigations on all future presidents by all parties in opposition. A bad precedent has been set by both the House and Senate which WILL be exploited to the detriment of the country.
I have it on good authority that Mitch Romney has information, documentary and DNA evidence that will inevitably lead to the indictment and conviction of …well, you know.
Keeping focused.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481773-mcconnell-disappointed-by-romney-impeachment-vote-but-theres-always-the-next
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481766-mcconnell-tees-up-five-trump-judges-after-impeachment-trial-wraps
Whatfinger News:
‘NOT GUILTY! Donald J. Trump Is Still Your President. GET OVER IT!”
Maybe Romney is trying to put the brakes on any Ukraine investigations given his son, and Pelosi’s son are involved with and receive income from Ukrainian oil and gas interests. Or that one of his top aids – get this – sits on the board of Burisma – and overlapped Biden’s term on the board.
I’m ashamed to say I voted for him in 2012.
Democratic party discipline has always been an incredible thing: I still recall when they needed John Dingle’s vote to get the ’94 AWB passed, and managed to get it, despite him being an NRA board member. Nobody knows what they threatened him with, but it worked, whatever it was.
This needs to have been round 1. I will be very disappointed if Trump’s DOJ doesn’t immediately come out with indictments that were just waiting until the impeachment was passed.
I suspect that Mittens will find a few more things that his conscience won’t let him do before he leaves the Senate. Then he’ll find a few more things that his conscience will require him to do. He’ll spend his last year in the Senate in one of his three principal residences, admiring his image in a mirror as he wears his “saintly” costume. Then he’ll get upset if they don’t make him head of the LDS Church.
Disraeli said about Gladstone, “He made his conscience not his guide but his accomplice.” Mitt’s conscience is deeply implicated here, and it is not a good look. He needs to get over this childish and unproductive snit about Trump. He didn’t even run against Trump.
Many people (I am looking at you, Jonah Goldberg) have completely lost their moral balance over Trump. Billy Kristol has gone over to the other side. It is crazy. Trump is an unlikely but successful politician, largely doing things that have needed to be done. Someone needed to push back against the cultural tide that was sweeping the USA into the statist befuddlement currently paralyzing Europe and, increasingly, Canada. The tool of choice here in the US is a strange brew of identity politics and national self-destruction.
Kristol, Goldberg, Brett Stephens, George Will, etc. should be celebrating and counselling how things could be done with more art and care. Instead, they have gone completely off the deep end. Romney is just a silly and sanctimonious fool who can’t get over his envy of Trump.
It is the most amazing thing. It is deeply human, but in the worst way.
The President’s most notable/vocal opponents have all-in invested their careers, their finances, their reputations – even their self-esteem – in the concept that they are the “elite” to whom the rest of the world should submit and benefit from the “enlightened intellect” of their One and Only True Way.
They consider themselves to be “elite” because they strive to be faithful to the club rules of Bushwood-on-the-Potomac … and are blinded to the rot those rules allow to be perpetrated on this nation. They have also profited greatly from their choices in this regard … look at the rise in housing value in NOVA and the Maryland swampburbs as an indicator.
The mere presence of a successful President Trump … who is not interested in compliance with the club rules … is a clear-and-present threat to their perceived value in this society. It threatens the stability of the club … because he shows that the rest of us do not have to submit to these notables.
And the more that catches on, the more of their rice bowls are broken. To them, irrelevance is their primal fear.
No big surprises – no Dem surprises, Mittens only a small surprise to convict Trump.
McConnell needs the 80% Rep votes of Mittens, and could use a full 100% but isn’t getting that. Too bad Utah Mormons supported him.
Given how Obama did all the abuses Trump is being accused of, I’m still glad I voted for Mitt in 2012, but my esteem for him as a person has gone way down. He’s too good at fooling himself, tho most smart folks are quite good at that.
Humans mostly make decisions from their hearts, emotionally, then use their brains to rationalize those decisions. With words to claim the decision was based on reason, when it was really based on emotion. Mittens is no better.
Trump is probably also like this, but his heart is to support America First. The results of his policies are, like he said in his SotU speech, GREAT.
Glad this impeachment is over with.
How are those Iowa final numbers coming?
Is Biden out, yet?
Tom Grey–ditto.
Richie,
Trump is Al Czervik to Romney’s Elihu Smails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHVosAYEtt0
As of yesterday, Doug Jones has been furiously clogging my email and Facebook feed with spam. Maybe if I finally change my registration it would reduce the spam.
Nobody knows what they threatened him with, but it worked, whatever it was.
Nobody threatens Dingell. I will say it was probably a nice payday, though.
Dingell was not scared of anything–he didn’t need to be.
I grew up in Michigan. I am pretty sure that Dingell is looking up, not down, but like Trump, I don’t really know. But it could be either.
An actual constructive idea from Sen. Rick Scott today, who proposes a constitutional amendment to require a 60% supermajority in the House to impeach the president.
The House should be, but under these Democrats, isn’t, too humiliated to even consider doing such a stupid thing again.
Andrew McCarthy explains why it isn’t over:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/481787-impeachment-is-over-or-is-it
H/T Powerline blog
“Recalls are only proper …”
“Proper” is not the same as legal or constitutional. Nevertheless the US Constitution is quite clear, both before and after the 17th amendment, that senators are chosen for a term of six years. The only exception is that either the House or the Senate may expel one of its members on a two-thirds vote.
Esther
As of yesterday, Doug Jones has been furiously clogging my email and Facebook feed with spam. Maybe if I finally change my registration it would reduce the spam.
He has as much chance of being reelected as Trump does of winning San Francisco.
Tom Grey on February 6, 2020 at 7:11 am said:
…
Given how Obama did all the abuses Trump is being accused of, I’m still glad I voted for Mitt in 2012, but my esteem for him as a person has gone way down. He’s too good at fooling himself, tho most smart folks are quite good at that.
Humans mostly make decisions from their hearts, emotionally, then use their brains to rationalize those decisions. With words to claim the decision was based on reason, when it was really based on emotion. Mittens is no better.
* * *
Also ditto.
I suspect, based on his history with Trump, there was a lot of confirmation bias operating here.
Kate on February 6, 2020 at 12:54 pm said:
An actual constructive idea from Sen. Rick Scott today, who proposes a constitutional amendment to require a 60% supermajority in the House to impeach the president.
* * *
That was pretty much the first thing AesopSpouse suggested when the impeachment articles were voted on.
I would support it as well, and preferably a higher rate.
“Obviously, the end of the impeachment trial does not mean the end of that strategy. For Democrats, the aim has not changed: End the Trump presidency as soon as possible.
The tactics will need rethinking, though.” – McCarthy (at The Hill, h/t Barry & PowerLine)
RTWT – it’s really kind of scary to think about.
Doc Zero puts forward a solid case criticizing Romney’s vote.
I won’t get into mind and motive conjectures, but the consequences are undeniable.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1225422247751495681.html
“There isn’t a damn thing conservative about it.” – Doc Zero
Actually, there is, and I thought quite seriously about that last night.
There has been a lot of grousing about Romney’s religious principles being a cover for some less than admirable personal motives, and maybe that is true — I don’t claim to know, and no one else does either.
First conservative principle on exhibit:
We just fought a three-year battle with the Democrats over the distinction, legally and politically, between the actual things that President (and even candidate) Trump DID, and what they claimedhe was thinking when he did it. They would even oppose things he did that they formerly approved of, because of “seeing into” his mind and motives.
Criticize the optics of Romney’s vote, and its almost tangible political consequences, all you want: I’ll join in.
But I won’t reach into someone else’s heart to try and discern their “real” reasons.
Second conservative principle on exhibit:
I’ve put money into Jack Phillips’ funds for fighting the court battles that erupted over the wedding cake ambush; some of you have too. We are defending his right to practice his religious principles even if that looks like what other people choose to call “discrimination” — it isn’t — and his battle is not the only one being fought in the courts of law and social media.
However, to turn around and castigate Romney, or anyone else, for voting according to his personal interpretation of his personal religious principles is not a very conservative thing to do.
We cannot, as conservatives, champion an ideological value only when we approve of the results.
BUT we don’t have to invite Mitt to our next Tea Party, either!
I did kind of laugh at this knee-jerk boiler-plate, in Romney’s particular case.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/02/05/the-one-tweet-that-captures-why-mitt-romney-is-totally-wrong-fro-betraying-trump-and-the-gop-n2560829
Maybe I missed it, but I watched most of the proceedings. I’m surprised I didn’t hear the following argument in the In either deliberative body. “The president is the chief law enforcement officer and we have an crime prevention/anti-corruption treaty with Ukraine. The Bidens behavior, while not strictly illegal on it’s face, smells less like impropriety and more like criminality. Ergo the president has the right and obligation to ask Ukraine to investigate what went on in their country. I mean come on people, even the former VP is not above the law.”