How close was the vote to acquit Trump?

[blackribbon]

It wasn't close at all. Since 2/3 of the Senate needs to vote to convict a president, they were 20 votes shy of convicting him.

Interesting that the media isn't pointing this out.

So 48 for and 52 against means Trump was acquitted with overwhelming vote.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You could also say conviction had bipartisan support.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It wasn't close at all. Since 2/3 of the Senate needs to vote to convict a president, they were 20 votes shy of convicting him.

Interesting that the media isn't pointing this out.

So 48 for and 52 against means Trump was acquitted with overwhelming vote.

Trump being acquitted for breaking laws isn't a good thing. It's a sad day in history when the moral side doesn't do it's job. The moral thing was to punish this guilty man.

 

[stevil]

It wasn't close at all. Since 2/3 of the Senate needs to vote to convict a president, they were 20 votes shy of convicting him.

Interesting that the media isn't pointing this out.

So 48 for and 52 against means Trump was acquitted with overwhelming vote.

Mitt Romney is the first person in the history of USA impeachment to vote against their own party leader in a Senate trial, of which there have been three trials only.

The media only points out that the votes were largely as expected, partisan, all except for the one surprise.

 

[stevil]

Trump being acquitted for breaking laws isn't a good thing. It's a sad day in history when the moral side doesn't do it's job. The moral thing was to punish this guilty man.

I agree with Lindsay, it's not about punishment, but about trust. If the president can't be trusted with the power and assets at his disposal then he must be cleansed away.

He hasn't been cleansed away, so no doubt we will see more of the same. More pressure and blackmailing of USA allies for personal gain. The Republicans have said they will back him 100%. He is immune from law, immune from impeachment.

 

[wing2000]

Mitt Romney is the first person in the history of USA impeachment to vote against their own party leader in a Senate trial, of which there have been three trials only.

The media only points out that the votes were largely as expected, partisan, all except for the one surprise.

...of which there have been two trials. Nixon resigned before he was impeached by the House. And he resigned when he lost Republican support.

Nixon would have survived with today's GOP and right wing media.

 

[blackribbon]

You could also say conviction had bipartisan support.

You could say it that way. But that isn't really what happened any more than saying a bunch of bills pushed through the House had bipartisan support because there was a vote or two from the opposite party. Saying something like that isn't the same thing as saying the truth. Something that is sorely missing from even being expected in American politics.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You could say it that way. But that isn't really what happened any more than saying a bunch of bills pushed through the House had bipartisan support because there was a vote or two from the opposite party. Saying something like that isn't the same thing as saying the truth. Something that is sorely missing from even being expected in American politics.

The votes show the Republicans were the only ones who forced through a partisan vote to reject witnesses in the trial and then another partisan vote to acquit the president after their sham trial was over. They had a predetermined outcome and nothing was going to stop them from reaching it.

 

[blackribbon]

...of which there have been two trials. Nixon resigned before he was impeached by the House. And he resigned when he lost Republican support.

Nixon would have survived with today's GOP and right wing media.

And this belief is based on what? There were Republicans Senators who voted to acquit Clinton even though he admitted to lying under oath.

No one with first hand knowledge has actually said that Trump did what they said he did...including the Urkraine officials. Interesting enough is that Biden did exactly what they are accusing Trump of, even bragged about it, and nobody even seems upset among the people who think that this is a crime or reason to removing a duely elected president.

How do you respond to the people who were ready to impeach Trump BEFORE he did the crime they ultimately accused him of? Heck, they were calling for his impeachment BEFORE he even took office. That sort of sounds like a witch hunt....

Again, what US law did the president break? Clinton broke the law and admitted to breaking the law...and it was even a real bi-partisan vote that acquitted him. (10% of Senate crossed the party line in one article and 5% crossed on the other article).

 

[grasping the after wind]

You could also say conviction had bipartisan support.

As long as you also say that voting against impeachment had bi partisan support in the House.

 

[blackribbon]

The votes show the Republicans were the only ones who forced through a partisan vote to reject witnesses in the trial and then another partisan vote to acquit the president after their sham trial was over. They had a predetermined outcome and nothing was going to stop them from reaching it.

The time to present new witnesses was in the House's part of an Impeachment preceding. The few witnesses in the Clinton trial were not new witnesses but previously witnesses recalled for clarification. An impeachment is supposed to be a real big deal that is obvious enough that it has bipartisan support. I don't think any of our actual impeachment trials meet that definition. They were all political witch hunts. However, Clinton did actually break the law during his trial by lying under oath. However, I still don't think that justified removing him from office though it does make one wonder about his character and what other things he lied about which may have actually jeopardized our country.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

As long as you also say that voting against impeachment had bi partisan support in the House.

Why wouldn’t I?

I initially opposed impeachment as well, though mainly because I knew it would never pass in the Senate, no matter what the facts show, as we’ve had confirmed to us just this week. Once the evidence started pouring in during the hearings I quickly realized the Democrats really had no choice but to push for impeachment. The president was pretty much daring them to.

The bigger travesty here isn’t Trump’s acquittal. That was known from the start. It’s that the Senate has shown themselves to not be above the fray of partisan politics. They’re not this great deliberative body they kept touting themselves to be. They didn’t deliberate anything if they didn’t even care to call in witnesses themselves, decided by a partisan vote.

 

[essentialsaltes]

...of which there have been two trials.

Johnson was impeached in the 1860s

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why wouldn’t I?

I initially opposed impeachment as well, though mainly because I knew it would never pass in the Senate, no matter what the facts show, as we’ve had confirmed to us just this week. Once the evidence started pouring in during the hearings I quickly realized the Democrats really had no choice but to push for impeachment. The president was pretty much daring them to.

The bigger travesty here isn’t Trump’s acquittal. That was known from the start. It’s that the Senate has shown themselves to not be above the fray of partisan politics. They’re not this great deliberative body they kept touting themselves to be. They didn’t deliberate anything if they didn’t even care to call in witnesses themselves, decided by a partisan vote.

In the absence of treason, bribery and high crimes or misdemeanors. I can't see how anyone could vote to remove a President. As you say though, they are not above partisan politics.

 

[blackribbon]

As long as you also say that voting against impeachment had bi partisan support in the House.

Sad that is all that matters to you.

 

[blackribbon]

Johnson was impeached in the 1860s

He was also acquitted. And I believe I have read that it is now widely believed that his trial was wrong, too.

 

[blackribbon]

I agree with Lindsay, it's not about punishment, but about trust. If the president can't be trusted with the power and assets at his disposal then he must be cleansed away.

He hasn't been cleansed away, so no doubt we will see more of the same. More pressure and blackmailing of USA allies for personal gain. The Republicans have said they will back him 100%. He is immune from law, immune from impeachment.

If it is simply about trust, I assume that you believe that Clinton should have been found guilty? He admitted to lying under oath.

Again, the way we cleanse our government is through the election proceedings. We the people get to pick who we trust the most to represent us in government and in the world. We get to do that again this actual year. If he is re-elected, then it shows that the majority of the US populations actually does trust him. In a few months, we will know.

No one with first hand knowledge actually said he did anything wrong. Unlike Clinton, he doesn't claim to have done anything wrong. The so called harmed party doesn't believe that he did what they accused him of. Is that the standard you want to be judged with in life....you believe a claim by someone who wasn't there even though the parties involved both deny that it happened...and there is no actual evidence that a wrong was committed?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

In the absence of treason, bribery and high crimes or misdemeanors. I can't see how anyone could vote to remove a President. As you say though, they are not above partisan politics.

What’s a high crime or misdemeanor? Those aren’t specific laws.

 

[KCfromNC]

The time to present new witnesses was in the House's part of an Impeachment preceding.

That was one possible time. The other would be in the Senate, as has been done in every impeachment trial except this most recent one.

 

[blackribbon]

Why wouldn’t I?

I initially opposed impeachment as well, though mainly because I knew it would never pass in the Senate, no matter what the facts show, as we’ve had confirmed to us just this week. Once the evidence started pouring in during the hearings I quickly realized the Democrats really had no choice but to push for impeachment. The president was pretty much daring them to.

The bigger travesty here isn’t Trump’s acquittal. That was known from the start. It’s that the Senate has shown themselves to not be above the fray of partisan politics. They’re not this great deliberative body they kept touting themselves to be. They didn’t deliberate anything if they didn’t even care to call in witnesses themselves, decided by a partisan vote.

Do you feel as passionately about the fact the House said they wouldn't impeach without bipartisan support or the fact they didn't provide an Article of Impeachment that even stood a chance in the Senate? This is supposed to be a HUGE crime...one that is so obvious that it can't be ignored along party lines. Are you just as upset that while VP, Biden admitted to bribing the Ukraine to do a personal favor in relation to giving money to the Ukraine when they were investigating corruption in relationship to a Ukrainain business that his son worked for?