Posted on 02/10/2021 12:09:01 AM PST by knighthawk
The Republican Party of Louisiana said Tuesday it is “profoundly disappointed” in Sen. Bill Cassidy’s vote to join Senate Democrats in their claim that impeaching former President Donald Trump is constitutional and that a “trial” should proceed.
The statement reads:
The Republican Party of Louisiana is profoundly disappointed by Senator Bill Cassidy’s vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial now underway against former President, now private citizen, Donald J. Trump. We feel that an impeachment trial of a private citizen is not only an unconstitutional act, but also an attack on the very foundation of American democracy, which will have far reaching and unforeseen consequences for our republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If 44 Senators voted that it was not constitutional how can they vote to convict?
they won’t. this is a kangaroo court for show.
Follow the money.
Any way to recall this POS?
No. He was just re-elected in 2020. Louisiana is stuck with him for 6 years.
Find something to send him to jail on so you can censure him
on and indict him on.
I don’t know why Romney never gets censured?
“Any way to recall this POS?”
He just won re-election last year, so he thinks he is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar as far as job security is concerned.
He is looking for attention now. They played a clip yesterday, and he said that as a juror, he would evaluate the evidence. Such a rare specimen, he thinks. He is confused; he is a rare POS.
Evidently, Cassidy can’t read for himself. He said it was all about the presentations in Congress. Obviously, the Trump team was not arguing the constitutionality issue. They merely addressed the democrats’ motivation for holding this kangaroo farce. The dem vote was a foregone conclusion.
Cassidy couldn’t see that.
Weasel Cassidy was hedging his bets after the vote 2 weeks ago.
Another judas who accepted President Trump’s endorsement to get himself elected, then stabbed him in the back.
https://www.wbrz.com/news/trump-endorses-bill-cassidy-for-reelection-in-louisiana
When the lead starts flying is when cowards and traitors reveal themselves.
It won’t mean ****, but I let soon-to-be-former Senator Cassidy my feelings on the issue.
Thanks Louis !
Pretty much the 21st century equivalent of hearing that Hitler planning to kill all Jews, but then voting to agree with Hitler that Jews control a disproportionate amount of the German financial system and the German media...because Hitler was right in those specific claims.
I hope the short memory syndrome doesn’t happen in 6 years if he isn’t recalled.
I just sent an email to the LAGOP requesting information on how to start a recall effort. The little prick cassidy just got reelected....we cannot afford to wait 6 years to vote him out. He needs to recalled, NOW!!
Cassidy is idiotic for voting as he did because the Dems made a better presentation. However, and this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, he likely was right. He did not vote to convict Trump. He voted that it is Constitutional to hold an impeachment trial. Those are two logically distinct issues. It is quite possible (and IMO true) that the impeachment is legal, but completely unfounded on the merits of the case.
As evidence for this, I quote the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and shall have the sole power of impeachment”. If you read the Constitution you’ll find that this is the only language regarding impeachment. Article I Section 3 Clause 6 deals with impeachment trials in the Senate, and is the only other language regarding impeachment trials. It gives the Senate the power to conduct trials, specifies that the Chief Justice will preside when the POTUS is on trial, and limits punishment to removal from office and disqualification from holding future office.
Notably absent in these references is any discussion of who can be impeached. The Founders were smart men who were quite capable of using the written word to express their intent. If it were intended that impeachment would be limited to current office holders, I’m quite sure the Founders were capable of making that intent clear.
In the absence of any further guidance from the Constitution, the Article I Section 2 reference given above applies - the House has the power to impeach. That would presumably include the power to determine who can be impeached. As a further technical point, the House impeached Trump when he was a sitting President, so even if impeachment were limited to current office holders, this impeachment is Constitutional.
I’m no liberal; I’m as conservative as anyone on here. I am conservative based on fundamental principles. One of these is that our Constitution is the most effective governing document ever created, so we should actually follow it. I cannot and will not abandon this principle simply because it’s politically expedient to do so. This impeachment, like the previous one, is ridiculous on its face. Trump has now been impeached for conducting diplomacy with a foreign government and for giving a speech at a political rally. Obviously both of these are ridiculous, but neither is unconstitutional.
I have donned my asbestos suit — flame away.
It’s simple. You are not worth discussion.
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.