In Major News: Republican Party-Leader McConnell says "I will Support Garland for AG"

[Harry Dresden]

the guy is a wuss......he is another who should have been retired years ago.....

RINO for sure. Part of the Swamp.

he aint no rhino.....he is a wishy washy pussy....

 

[asaratis]

Trump wasn't a private citizen when he incited the riot, he was the president. He was being held accountable for his actions as president, not his actions as a private citizen. Do YOU understand now? Besides, if that was true, then why did so many Democrats vote to impeach?

If you were Chinese, your name would be Won Dum Fuk!

1. Trump wasn't a private citizen when he incited the riot, he was the president.

Trump did not incite the riot. Keep up with the news and you may learn that Antifa, The Proud Boys and BLM PLANNED to gather at the Capitol on Jan 6th.

Security Officials: Capitol Riot a 'Coordinated Attack Planned Weeks in Advance'

Group of top law enforcement officials testify at Senate committee hearing - A group of top law enforcement officials has testified to Congress that the riot at the U.S. Capi... | NEON NETTLE

neonnettle.com

The breach of the Capitol began before Trump's speech ended. Trump urged his audience to "peacefully" make their voices heard.

2. Besides, if that was true, then why did so many Democrats vote to impeach?

That is really a stupid question. The anti-American Democrats in Congress have been promoting impeachment of Trump since before he was inaugurated. Any knowledgeable human with a triple digit IQ would expect all Democrats to vote for impeachment no matter how the question came up. Queen Nancy's loyal subjects voted with her in both of the "impeachment" kangaroo courts in the House.

Saying that Trump deserved being impeached is like saying that Barack Obama deserved being awarded the Noble Peace Prize for doing nothing.

 

[d0gbreath]

This may have bad implications if Trump sees that McConnell wants to support Joe's nominations. Trump may turn on McConnell.

Trump is powerless against McConnell. Mitch isn't up for re-election for six more years and has already stated that he will retire at that time.

It looks more like Mitch has turned on the Don.

 

[bravoactual]

the guy is a wuss......he is another who should have been retired years ago.....

I do not recall you saying that when McChinless blocked Garland's Supreme Court Hearings.

 

[AFrench2]

RINOs be RINOs.

>_<

 

[basquebromance]

he single-handedly blocked him from being SC Justice...Mitch is for Garland now?

McConnell backs Garland for attorney general

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Politico Tuesday he will back Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general.Asked by the publication whether he supported Garland’s nomi…

thehill.com

 

[rightwinger]

Mitch
Ever the asshole

 

[Indeependent]

he single-handedly blocked him from being SC Justice...Mitch is for Garland now?

McConnell backs Garland for attorney general

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Politico Tuesday he will back Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general.Asked by the publication whether he supported Garland’s nomi…

thehill.com

It's not like Biden is going to nominate Rand Paul.

 

[Jets]

Blocks him from getting a nomination hearing for the SC, but is willing to support him for AG.

Alrighty then...

 

[basquebromance]

he single-handedly blocked him from being SC Justice...Mitch is for Garland now?

McConnell backs Garland for attorney general

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Politico Tuesday he will back Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general.Asked by the publication whether he supported Garland’s nomi…

thehill.com

It's not like Biden is going to nominate Rand Paul.

don't get me excited!

 

[22lcidw]

You can see Garland is crazy. He may be smart, but the chromosome reduction deducts points.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I watched the hearings. Garland came across as confused and befuddled. He has passed his sell by date.

 

[Desperado]

he single-handedly blocked him from being SC Justice...Mitch is for Garland now?

McConnell backs Garland for attorney general

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Politico Tuesday he will back Merrick Garland’s nomination for attorney general.Asked by the publication whether he supported Garland’s nomi…

thehill.com

I thought Mitch said he was a republican

 

[blackhawk]

Guys all you need in the Senate to be confirmed now is a simple majority vote no longer the 60. No Democrat was going to vote against Garland and Harris would be the tie breaking vote. If one party controls the Presidency and Senate they can pretty much get whoever they want confirmed.

 

[bodecea]

I watched the hearings. Garland came across as confused and befuddled. He has passed his sell by date.

Ok, Poe.

 

[sartre play]

Garland should get a chance to do the job, if for no other reason than being blocked from a hearing to see if he would make a good court justice by Mitch.

 

[Harry Dresden]

the guy is a wuss......he is another who should have been retired years ago.....

I do not recall you saying that when McChinless blocked Garland's Supreme Court Hearings.

ok so you never seen that.....now what?....

 

[San Souci]

the guy is a wuss......he is another who should have been retired years ago.....

RINO for sure. Part of the Swamp.

he aint no rhino.....he is a wishy washy pussy....

Same difference.

 

[OldLady]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

Wrong.
The defense also brought up language in Article I requiring that “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside[.]” U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 6. Carpenter argued that this text, like the removal clause, demonstrated a presumption that only current officeholders could be impeached.

Belknap’s defense also relied on the latter half of the Article II removal clause, which states that an officer “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Based on this text, Blair maintained that the Senate could only “entertain articles of impeachment” against a person “who can ‘be removed from office on impeachment and conviction of treason,’ &c.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

 

[San Souci]

And AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict because he DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
And you moronic leftists wonder why i call you all authoritarians. Geezus

EVERY Senator had a vote to convict or acquit. One Senator, one vote. McConnell was just too much of a pansy to vote what he knew was right. But, he tried to make up for it by castigating Trump after the vote in the speech he made. Sorry, but them's the facts.

AGAIN, he didnt vote to convict BECAUSE HE DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. The SAME thing happened the last time they tried to convict a private citizen.
Do you understand now?

Yes. In the Belknap trial, all but three senators agreed he was guilty, but 24 of the 25 Republicans voted to acquit because:
On the questions of precedent, Belknap’s lawyers did not claim that the Senate could not try a private citizen — the claim of Republicans today. Rather, they argued that Belknap could not be tried because he had been a private citizen — if only by minutes — when the House impeached him. It was his status at the moment of impeachment that mattered.

So it wasn't for the same reason exactly, but damned convenient.

T****'s conviction vote was the most bipartisan in history. 7 of his own party voted to convict him because he deserved it. The Constitutional bolt hole that has been crafted from a basically mum Constitution on the matter is what allowed Republicans to once again let a crook get away with gross misbehavior without accountability.

Maybe in another 100 years, senators will have evolved enough to put justice before party.

Wrong.
The defense also brought up language in Article I requiring that “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside[.]” U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 6. Carpenter argued that this text, like the removal clause, demonstrated a presumption that only current officeholders could be impeached.

Belknap’s defense also relied on the latter half of the Article II removal clause, which states that an officer “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Based on this text, Blair maintained that the Senate could only “entertain articles of impeachment” against a person “who can ‘be removed from office on impeachment and conviction of treason,’ &c.

First and foremost, I'm never wrong.

Second, despite all those clever but obscure arguments, even the Constitutional experts at the Federalist Society determined that T**** could be held accountable with a trial. They know a whole lot more about it than I do.

This is nothing but convenient rabbit holes for Republicans to bolt down because they're afraid of the thug they let overtake their party. It would be insane to have a 'January exception.'

What a total crock of shit.