Posted on 12/08/2010 10:02:48 AM PST by davidosborne
Shocking !! /sarcasm
As a 10 year FReeper I can assure you that I understand that my FRiend.. but thanks for your concern..
David
You don’t ever find me guilty...I won’t find you guilty.
I’m Polish “from home”. Your last name synopsis is true for sure!
That’s just too weird.
Are you suggesting that these fine public servants failed in their constitutional duty as the “jury” of an impeachment resolution brought before them by the United States House of Representatives (423-ZERO) by the way..
I am sure they considered the merits of the charges carefully and found them completely lacking in substance and therefore before God and County voted their sincere concience... /sarcasm.. where is my barf bag for even typing those words... LOL
For those who care the HOUSE vote on this was 423-ZERO.
Those NOT VOTING as follows..
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll103.xml
Baldwin
Bilbray
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Griffith
Hoekstra
Hunter
Larson (CT)
Miller, George
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Towns
Woolsey
Young (FL)
Correction on last.. I post the wrong Roll Call vote.. it was Roll Call vote #105 not #103
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll105.xml
ONLY 7 not voting..
Buyer
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Griffith
Hoekstra
Young (FL)
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is recusing himself from the proceedings because he was a member of the House of Representatives in March when that body impeached Porteous on corruption charges. Kirk voted for each of the four articles of impeachment. Then, last month, he won election to the Senate and was sworn in to the upper chamber to serve out the remainder of President Barack Obama’s old Senate term.
The last impeached federal judge I remember was Alcee Histings, who is now a US Congressman from the Miami Hood!!!!
Heh. Didn't stop Chuckie Schumer during the Clinton impeachment. And unlike Kirk, Schumer was a member of the House Judiary committee, so he actually investigated the guy before sitting in judgment of him as a Senator.
Diaper Franken ought to be Impeached Next!
Don’t leave out the ultimate Sleezebag, Turbin Durbin!
He ain’t on active duty, he voted later in the day. He was probably picking out furniture for his new office.
Then seeing the names it was a real "OH YEH" moment.
It's clear that these truly worthless "humans" have no idea how truly useless/evil they are!!!!
The thing that average American doesn't seem to grasp is that the House and the Senate have completely different roles in the impeachment process. RATs will say stuff like "Clinton wasn't fully impeached because the Senate voted against it". It doesn't work that way, impeachment isn't a piece of legislation. When there's a problem with federal official, only the House has the power to impeach them, which means they examine the situation and determine whether is suffice evidence to accuse the federal official of wrongdoing. After the official is impeached by the House, only the Senate has the power to determine the guilt or innocence of the person the House accused, by conducting a trial, calling witnesses, etc. That's why it's only a simple majority to impeach but a 2/3rds majority to convict.
So, Kirk as a Congressman concluded that there's sufficient evidence this judge may have committed a serious offense. Then, as a Senator, he would sit as a juror and hear the argument's in the judge's defense that he did not commit serious crimes, and hear arguments that the judge did commit crimes that warrant removal from office. Where's the conflict of interest? Kirk doesn't know this guy personally or stand to gain or lose if the judge is removed. As a Senator, he would be scrutinizing the judge's record far more than he did as a Congressman, where he was only looking if there was enough questionable things on the judge's record to conclude he MIGHT have committed a serious offense while in office.
Had Kirk been on the judiciary committee like Chuckie Schumer, helped drafted the articles of impeachment, served as a House manager against the judge, or testified for or against impeachment as an expert witness, you might make a decent case that his mind is already made up and it's best he sit out the impeachment trial. But as an ordinary Congressman who concludes the judge MIGHT have committed a crime and the Senate needs to have a trial on the matter, no way. He could still serve as a juror in the Senate.
Looks like Mark Kirk "the lame duck killer" is once again ignoring the wishes of his constituents and giving the RATs cover. And now Illinois sole vote in the Senate is get this judge get away his crimes, thanks to Dick Durbin's Not Gulity vote. Is that the will of the electorate electorate? I doubt it.
I AGREE I don’t see any conflict with Kirk VOTING in the Senate... he needs to get over HIMSELF and consider his actions as being on behalf of the PEOPLE of his State !
If he does not get that he has not business being in ANY elected position.
Thanks for the post; ping; thread. Good news!
What an odd values system Kirk has.
Voting in the Senate trial of a judge he voted to impeach=somehow unethical
Crushing a baby’s skull and vaccuming it’s brains out=a woman’s choice
Weren’t there 4 impeachment votes? I think on one of them many Republicans voted no.
Yes more than one vote as there were more than one article in the Impeachment.
Vote 261: Article I,
Guilty 96
Not Guilty 0
Not Voting 4
Vote 262: Article II,
Guilty 69
Not Guilty 27
Not Voting 4
Vote 263: Article III
Guilty 88
Not Guilty 8
Not Voting 4
Vote 264: Article IV
Guilty 90
Not Guilty 6
Not Voting 4
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_2.htm
Right behind Wesley Snipes! What about ol’ Charlie Rangel - shouldn’t he be going, too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.