Colorado’s Republican Senator Cory Gardner voted this afternoon to acquit President Trump of the high crimes of obstructing Congress and abusing the power of his office, even though House Representatives presented overwhelming evidence during the impeachment trial that the President was guilty on both charges. A vote of two thirds of the Senate was required to convict the President. With the exception of a single Republican vote by Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who voted to remove the President, the vote was divided along party lines.
The House accused the President of withholding taxpayer funds destined for Ukraine in an attempt to force Ukraine to announce fake investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden — a move that Trump envisioned would advantage him in the 2020 elections — and of blocking Congress from accessing witnesses and documents pertinent to the President’s actions.
GAO concluded Trump broke the law
The non-partisan Government Accountability Office on January 16 concluded that the President violated U.S. law (pdf) by withholding the funds from Ukraine and that in so doing he had illegally substituted his own judgment for that of Congress.
The President’s own lawyers did not dispute that the President had violated U.S. laws, his oath of office and the Constitution, or that he had put the national security at risk and invited multiple foreign countries to interfere in U.S. elections.
Despite all evidence to the contrary and even though some Republicans admitted the President’s actions were illegal “inappropriate,” and “improper,” Colorado’s Republican Senator Cory Gardner voted to acquit Trump of all charges and retain him in office. Democratic Senator Michael Bennet voted to convict and remove the president.
The Senate vote means Trump and future presidents can violate laws with impunity and be immune to any consequences. The vote prevents Congress from being able to hold a president accountable for virtually any wrongdoing.
The question is what laws Trump will violate next with cover from Republicans, and whether the new era of lawlessness Republicans have ushered in pertains to all of us, or just the powerful, white men currently at the top of government.
The Democrats have been trying to remove President Trump from office even before the election! The people who testified against him in the impeachment trial could only spout heresay and opinion! They admitted that there was no Quid Pro Quo and repeatedly said so! If the Whistleblower would have been allowed to testify, he would also have had to say that he had no “personal knowledge!” He only had heresay to the telephone call! Those that were actually in the room, heard nothing wrong! Democrats have thrown so much shit against the wall and none of it has stuck! They need to get back to work!
My thoughts about the president have evolved. Currently, I would not trust him to drive a car I was in. I would not trust him with my retirement savings, fearing that he’d lose it. I would not trust him with a female family member. Maybe I’m just skeptical or over-reacting. Tell me, would you trust him in the above-listed situations? And what would be your justifications? Maybe you can swing my vote.
I think now it it imperative that we don’t just sit back, especially here in GJ. How about another billboard? Maybe not focusing on the idiot-in-chief specifically, but due process, the Constitution . . . ? I’ll put in$50.
Gardner and the rest of them except for the most part were never going to do anything else but vote to acquit and will continue doing the same.
What was the crime?
Why did the House refuse the accused the right to due process? That’s unconstitutional.
All of the “witnesses” that might have factual data with dates, times, places, people and motive were never called during the House investigation.
The author of this article is twisting the GAO’s official written report.
I appreciate Gardner’s vote that essentially protects all citizens in the USA from the “NEW” House standards of adjudication. Nobody should be stripped of due process during an investigation.
There was no crime proved, only opinions.
Be careful how you embrace a railroaded verdict by one party, thereby forcing the other party into a corner to balance the scales of justice.
No due process was withheld. The House part of the process is the investigation. The President was invited to participate, but he refused. The trial is held in the Senate, and he was granted all due process required.
That conservatives get this wrong so often speaks volumes about their lack of understanding of the issue.
Shelly, Shelly, Shelly. You are SO in the dark. Your ignorance is showing.
The House proceeded properly with impeachment as the Constitution gives sole impeachment power to the House, as well as all power to design the rules about how to carry out impeachments, so nothing was violated. Key witnesses with first-hand testimony were subpoenaed by the House, and the President issued a blanket order for them not to speak, furthering the need for the Obstruction of Congress charge. Those who did testify before the House violated the President’s order out of pure courage and concern for their country and our democracy. And all you have to do is lift a finger and click the link I supplied to read the original text of the GAO report yourself, and you’ll see I haven’t “twisted” its conclusions in the LEAST. A crime is not necessary as a precursor to impeachment, as the framers could not possibly envision in 1776 all the ways in which bad presidents could potentially violate the public trust in the future, and the Constitution, was written prior to any criminal codes was ever being written in our country.
Please know what you are talking about before commenting.
Amen to that
Until the NRA and the Dark Money Sources, like Koch Industries, who are Sen. Gardner’s true employers, sour on the president, Cory’s the president’s man. When #45’s craziness helps preciptate a recession, Gardner’s employers’, fearing for their wealth, will give their pocket senator the word to turn on the GOP president.
A friend just asked me “if a billionaire dies, who inherits the senators?”
He was never going to do anything but that. Or were the rest of them.
No one can be surprised about this.
Does anyone think this moron can be voted out of office next fall (not Garner, although that is likely – hooray – the moron in chief.