Mitch McConnell: Acquittal Vindicated the Constitution, Not Trump

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), Daguerreotype portrait by Matthew Brady’s Studio c.1844/45

Joseph Story (1779-1845) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, nominated by President James Madison, who served in office from February 3, 1812 until September 10, 1845.

He was also: Republican Congressman from Massachusetts, 1808-1809; Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1811-1845; Acting Chief Justice, 1835-1836, 1844; Professor of Law Harvard University 1829-1845.

He is perhaps most renown for his work “Commentaries On The Constitution of the United States” which was first published in 1833, though he authored several other books on the law, and Constitution.

The United States Constitution states in part as follows:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Justice Story wrote about the matter of impeachment at great length, and in part wrote that:

§393. It is obvious, that, upon trials on impeachments, one of two courses must be adopted in case of a conviction; either for the court to proceed to pronounce a full and complete sentence of punishment for the offence according to the law of the land in like cases, pending in the common tribunals of justice, superadding the removal from office, and the consequent disabilities; or, to confine its sentence to the removal from office and other disabilities. If the former duty be a part of the constitutional functions of the court, then, in case of an acquittal, there cannot be another trial of the party for the same offence in the common tribunals of justice, because it is repugnant to the whole theory of the common law, that a man should be brought into jeopardy of life or limb more than once for the same offence. A plea of acquittal is, therefore, an absolute bar against any second prosecution for the same offence. If the court of impeachments is merely to pronounce a sentence of removal from office and the other disabilities; then it is indispensable, that provision should be made, that the common tribunals of justice should be at liberty to entertain jurisdiction of the offence, for the purpose of inflicting the common punishment applicable to unofficial offenders. Otherwise, it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether, consistently with the great maxim above mentioned, established for the security of the life and limbs and liberty of the citizen, a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments. And if no such second trial could be had, then the grossest official offenders might escape without any substantial punishment, even for crimes, which would subject their fellow citizens to capital punishment. [emphasis added]

§394. The constitution, then, having provided, that judgment upon impeachments shall not extend further, than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold office, (which, however afflictive to an ambitious and elevated mind, would be scarcely felt, as a punishment, by the profligate and the base,) has wisely subjected the party to trial in the common criminal tribunals, for the purpose of receiving such punishment, as ordinarily belongs to the offence. Thus, for instance, treason, which by our laws is a capital offence, may receive its appropriate punishment ; and bribery in high officers, which otherwise would be a mere disqualification from office, may have the measure of its infamy dealt out to it with the same unsparing severity, which attends upon other and humbler offenders.

– Joseph Story, “Commentaries On The Constitution of the United States” §393, §394, p278-280, Book III, chapter X; 1833

How the cowardly, weasel-like jellyfish of a man “Moscow Mitch, the Bitch” McConnell could POSSIBLY use the word “vindicate” in reference to the United States Constitution is beyond the scope of imagination – however derelict and perverted it may be – and it is definitely most perverted.

McConnell wrote “Our job wasn’t to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate’s first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution.” -and- that “The text is unclear” about impeachment, whether “the Senate can try and convict former officers.”

McConnell had also earlier written a “dear colleague” letter to his fellow Banana Republicans in the Senate, in which he wrote in pertinent part that “I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal…”

His mind is like concrete – thoroughly mixed, and permanently set.

The cases of Tennessee United States Senator William Blount – impeached July 7, 1797, on charges of conspiring to assist in Great Britain’s attempt to seize Spanish-controlled territories in modern-day Florida and Louisiana, tried December 17, 1798–January 14, 1799 – and Ulysses Grant’s Secretary of War William Belknap – who tendered his resignation March 2, 1876 only moments before the House impeached him, was tried March 3–August 1, 1876 – demonstrate very clearly that officials may be tried on impeachment charges after they’re out of office. Or else, it completely absolves any official of any responsibility for any act of criminal wrong-doing while in office. It is the intellectual and moral equivalent of saying “so-and-so doesn’t live in Texas anymore, and moved to Minnesota 10 years ago, so s/he can’t be tried for murder or any crimes committed while residing in Texas.”

To assert as much is so absurdly preposterous that it defies imagination.

It’s an ethically reprehensible, morally wrong and judiciously untenable to deny anyone – including society – justice. And that is, in effect, what has happened with Donald Trump; society has been denied justice for the reprehensible, morally repugnant, and outright illegal acts of Donald Trump while in office as the President.

McConnell claims that Trump can be tried in other courts, and cites Justice Story’s writing that:

“There is also much force in the remark, that an impeachment is a proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person, nor his property ; but simply divests him of his political capacity.” –– §406, chapter X, book III, p289

“And the final judgment is confined to a removal from, and disqualification for, office ; thus limiting the punishment to such modes of redress, as are peculiarly fit for a political tribunal to administer, and as will secure the public against political injuries. In other respects the offence is left to be disposed of by the common tribunals of justice, accord- ing to the laws of the land, upon an indictment found by a grand jury, and a trial by jury of peers, before whom the party is to stand for his final deliverance, like his fellow citizens.” –– §407, chapter X, book III, p290

But, rest assured: Trump is completely free and clear of any charges related to impeachment. However, there are other charges at the state level which he may face for things he did while in office, including most notably, attempting to persuade Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to manipulate the results of the election in that state to throw the election to Trump’s favor. The Fulton County District Attorney, and Georgia State Attorney General are investigating that matter.

And just to be utterly and absolutely certain, the word “vindicate” is defined as meaning:

1. To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof: “Our society permits people to sue for libel so that they may vindicate their reputations” (Irving R. Kaufman).
2. To defend, maintain, or insist on the recognition of (one’s rights, for example).
3. To demonstrate or prove the value or validity of; justify: The results of the experiment vindicated her optimism.
4. Obsolete To exact revenge for; avenge.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.)

1. to clear from guilt, accusation, blame, etc, as by evidence or argument

2. to provide justification for: his promotion vindicated his unconventional attitude.

3. to uphold, maintain, or defend (a cause, etc): to vindicate a claim.

4. (Law) Roman law to bring an action to regain possession of (property) under claim of legal title

5. (Historical Terms) Roman law to bring an action to regain possession of (property) under claim of legal title

6. rare to claim, as for oneself or another

7. obsolete to take revenge on or for; punish

8. obsolete to set free
(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014)

1. to clear, as from an accusation or suspicion: to vindicate someone’s honor.

2. to afford justification for; justify.

3. to uphold or justify by argument or evidence.

4. to maintain or defend against opposition.

5. to claim for oneself or another.

6. Obs. to avenge.

7. Obs. to free.

8. Obs. to punish.
(Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010)

“Moscow Mitch, the Bitch” McConnell is a Banana Republican from Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader, the biggest weasel in Washington, D.C., and an ardent, though oblique, supporter of the Cult of Trump.

---

Acquittal Vindicated the Constitution, Not Trump

wsj.com
Sunday, February 14, 2021
by Mitch McConnell

January 6 was a shameful day. A mob bloodied law enforcement and besieged the first branch of government. American citizens tried to use terrorism to stop a democratic proceeding they disliked.

There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone. His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended.

President-elect Donald Trump leaves a meeting with Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, at the U.S. Capitol November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC Zach Gibson/Getty Images

I was as outraged as any member of Congress. But senators take our own oaths. Our job wasn’t to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate’s first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution.

Some brilliant scholars believe

Impeachment v2.0 Day 4: Is That All You Got?

The third-rate lawyers trying to defend Trumpanzee, aka “POS45” and formerly as the “Liar in Chief” from charges of Inciting Insurrection, were given 16 hours to make their case.

They quit after 4.

Remember: Charles Manson did NOT kill anyone, yet he was convicted of murder.

The Senate’s RINOs will likely NOT vote to convict their hero.

As I wrote recently, sadly, The Republican Party is dead. There are only 6 remaining members.

Donald Trump (sipping Diet Coke soda pop through a straw, like a goddamn 4-year-old child) during the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner at Waldorf Astoria October 20, 2016 in New York, New York.

Will POTUS Joe Biden Reverse Trump’s Corrupt Pardons?

WashingtonMonthly.com

Can Trump’s Pardons Be Reversed?

by Holly Brewer and Timothy Noah

President Ulysses S. Grant did it, and George W. Bush, and the Constitution would seem to encourage it.

January 22, 2021
2:07 PM

We’ve seen a lot of hand-wringing about President Donald Trump’s eleventh-hour marathon of glaringly unethical pardons, but only a little consideration (see 1-here, 2-here, 3-here, 4-here, and 5-here) about whether the Constitution permits them. A decent case can be made that it does not—and that at least some of these pardons can be reversed.

The relevant passage is Article II, Section 2, in the so-called “Commander-in-chief clause.” The president, it says, “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Nobody knows precisely what that means, but Trump has been under impeachment and awaiting Senate trial — for the second time — since January 13, 2021.

The most interesting real-life precedent for restricting a president’s right to issue pardons concerns President Andrew Johnson, who in March 1868 became the first of three presidents to be impeached by Congress, and two months later became the first to win Senate acquittal.

In March 1869, Johnson, on his last full day in office, pardoned Jacob and Moses Dupuy, who’d been convicted of defrauding the Internal Revenue Department, and Richard C. Enright, who’d been convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government. On assuming office, Johnson’s successor, President Ulysses Grant, reversed all three by calling back the U.S. marshals out delivering the pardons. A fourth pardon that Grant meant to reverse, to one James F. Martin, was permitted to stand because Martin had it already in hand, according to the late P.S. Ruckman, Jr., a political scientist at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Illinois. Grant’s reversal of Moses Dupuy’s pardon was challenged in court and upheld on the technical grounds that Dupuy never received it. (Ruckman, an expert on presidential pardons,

Open Letter to POTUS Abraham “Honest Abe” Lincoln

Dear President Lincoln,

You and George Washington had something in common, aside from Presidency – you were both honest men.

There’s a story told, that as we understand it now, is but a mythical fable of someone’s vivid imagination, although every lie has an element of truth. That fable was first apparently crafted by the Reverend Mason Locke Weems (1759-1825), the first person ordained by the Anglican Church for the Episcopal Church in America after the American Revolution.

Though he first studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh, and in London, his calling was apparently to the Christian ministry, and he never practiced medicine.

His 1784 ordination – first as deacon, as customary, September 5, and then as priest on September 12 – was remarkable in part, because he was the first beneficiary of the English Parliament’s passage of the Enabling Act on August 13, 1784, which thereby enabled English bishops to ordain clergy for the American Church without requiring them to swear a loyalty oath to the English sovereign.

He later served as rector in two Maryland parishes – All Hallows’ Parish in Anne Arundel County, 1784-1789, and then from 1790-1792 of Westminster Parish in the same county.

For about 20 years, he was also an itinerant preacher at various Virginia parishes, most notably among them the Pohick Church, where George Washington (1732-1799) attended, before the Revolution. That enabled him to refer to himself as “formerly rector of Mt. Vernon Parish.”

From around 1791 until his death, he became an author, and book peddler for publisher Matthew Carey. Though he wrote and had published various moralizing tracts and biographies of individuals of renown in that era, such as Benjamin Franklin, William Penn, and General Francis Marion (a Continental Army General nicknamed the “Swamp Fox” for his elusive tactics), his most famous biography was of George Washington – “The Life and Memorable Actions of George Washington, General and Commander of the Armies of America” – and first published in 1800. It proved to be quite a success, especially with school-aged children, and in its fifth edition in 1806 – albeit with a slightly different title, “The Life of George Washington: With Curious Anecdotes, Equally Honourable to Himself, and Exemplary to His Young Countrymen” – for the first time, there appeared the anecdote of Washington and the cherry tree.

Knowing Weems was a minister, and that he

Trump Death Count Wednesday, January 13, 2021

380,821

Bet you never thought you’d be seeing this, did you?

And yet, here we are.

Because of the Loser in Chief/Liar in Chief, America is f**ked.

India, which has over 1 BILLION MORE people than the United States (which has 330 Million+), has 10,495,147 cases of COVID-19 while America has OVER TWICE as many – 22,849,962.

Let that sink in for a moment.

India, which has 300% MORE people than the United States, has LESS THAN HALF the number of cases America does.

America has OVER 117% MORE cases than India.

Because of his, and his administration’s utter ineptitude and incompetence, our nation is closing in on 400,000 Americans who have died from COVID-19… all unnecessarily.

When ebola popped up on the global public health radar, the Obama administration didn’t allow it to spread globally. And yet, what did the Loser in Chief/Liar in Chief do when faced with a possible Public Health crisis?

He cut practically ALL monies allocated for biological terrorism, and pandemic response, and eliminated practically ALL the offices, agencies and departments charged with protecting the American people.

And then, what else did he do?

A Sad Day In America – Trump, Jr. Threatens GOP: “This is Donald Trump’s Republican Party!”

“To those Republicans, many of which may be voting on things in the coming hours: You have an opportunity today. You can be a hero, or you can be a zero. And the choice is yours. But we are all watching. The whole world is watching, folks. Choose wisely.”

“These guys better fight for Trump. Because if they’re not, guess what? I’m going to be in your backyard in a couple of months!”

– Donald Trump, Jr., in a meandering, expletive-filled speech delivered almost entirely in shouting, to the mob gathered for the “Save America March” assembled on the White House Ellipse, suggesting that he would support primary campaigns against Republicans who did not side with his father on confirmation of the state’s certified Electoral College vote results. After a speech given by the President, the exclusively White mob later rioted, became insurrectionist, and violently overthrew the Capitol Building, rampaging, looting, destroying, and wreaking havoc, and mayhem.

Trump, Jr. screamed thanks to the “red-blooded, patriotic Americans” in the mob “for standing up to the bullshit,” whining that his personal Instagram account is “being censored to hell right now.”

Donald Trump Jr. speaks Wednesday, January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., at a rally in support of President Donald Trump called the “Save America Rally.” The “rally” was a mob in waiting, which later rioted, becoming insurrectionists, and violently overthrew the nation’s Capitol Building.
image by Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

Trump junior also said that the mob “should be a message to all the Republicans who

Does POS45 Hypocrisy Much? You be the judge.

The President has made seemingly countless false statements on equally seemingly innumerable subjects, across numerous categories. But a common thread, if it could be described as such, has emerged. And it is that everyone else is wrong, and he is the only one right. In his own mind, at least to hear him tell it, he’s always right, always correct, always and in every way perfect. And since he doesn’t need to ask forgiveness, he could very well be the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth.

But, more to the point.

Whose “landslide” are you talking about anyway, eh?

On November 27, 2016, then newly-President Elect Donald Trump tweeted: “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

In the 2016 General Election, Republican candidate Donald Trump won 304 Electoral College votes, but lost the Popular Vote with 46.1%. His Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton won 227 Electoral College votes, but won the Popular Vote with 48.2%, or 65,853,514 votes cast, to 62,984,828 for the Republican.

In the 1972 General Election, Republican Richard Nixon won the Electoral College with 520 votes, and carried 60.7% of the Popular Vote. His Democratic opponent Senator George McGovern won 17 Electoral College votes, and won 37.5% of the Popular Vote.

In the 1984 General Election, Republican Ronald Reagan won 525 Electoral College votes, with 58.8% of the Popular Vote, while his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale won 13 Electoral College votes, and 40.6% of the Popular Vote.

He claimed a massive conspiracy “robbed” him of votes in 2016. Were those same conspirators at work in 2020?

During his first week in office, in a bipartisan meeting with Congressional leaders on Monday, January 23, 2017, POTUS said that “millions of unauthorized immigrants had robbed him of a popular vote majority,” as told by members of both parties who attended the meeting.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017, at 1400 EST, Sean Spicer, Press Secretary for the POTUS, in a press conference stated that the POTUS personally believed that

Trump Supporters Ask Judge To Make 1+1 Equal 3

That was the first thought that occurred to me after reading this:

“Allies of President Donald Trump want a federal court in Michigan to force state leaders to set aside election results and award its 16 electoral votes to the president.

“A separate conservative group also wants the Michigan Supreme Court to invalidate the results that show President-elect Joe Biden won the state.

“The latest lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Michigan and before the state’s highest court, rely on unfounded allegations of widespread fraud and misconduct that judges in the state and across the country have previously rejected. Neither has a high likelihood of success.

“There is no evidence of mass fraud or wrongdoing that affected election operations in Michigan or elsewhere. Biden earned roughly 154,000 more votes than Trump in Michigan.”

– “Trump Allies To Michigan Judge: Force Gov. Whitmer To Overturn Biden’s Win, Give State To President,” by Dave Boucher, Detroit Free Press, Tuesday, December 1, 2020, 9:19 AM CST https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/01/trump-michigan-election-results/6474733002/

Of course, the only other alternative is this alt-headline:

Trump Supporters Ask Judge To Turn A Democratic Republic Into Banana Republic

Sadly, that is the essence of what the deranged – yes, mentally deranged and deluded – Trump supporters are asking.

Think that’s a stretch?

Let’s examine some additional information – which outgoing loser POS45 prefers to call “fake news.” Remember, though: “Fake news” is superior to (better than, for the POS45 goons reading this) alt-reality.

Dr. John Torpey, PhD, a 2010 Fulbright Distinguished Chair in American Studies, Presidential Professor of Sociology and History, and Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center, CUNY, wrote an OpEd for Forbes entitled “What Is A Banana Republic?” on February 12, 2020 which in part reads as follows:

“In banana republics, high government officials (who are sometimes lieutenant colonels) pressure other officials to carry out vendettas against political enemies and to defend their friends against harsh treatment by judicial institutions.

“President Trump has also repeatedly invoked the idea of the “deep state” to explain his troubles. The “deep state” is a notion that emerged from the days of pre-Erdoğan Turkey. It referred to networks of high officials in the government and military who were prepared to intervene if any group ever threatened the then-dominant politics of Kemalism—the secular, modernizing legacy of Mustapha Kemal, better known as Ataturk. The notion of a deep state, in other words, was a critique of forces who were prepared to use extra-legal and military means to protect the Turkish state against perceived enemies.

“What Trump calls the “deep state” in the contemporary United States, by contrast, the rest of us think of as the institutions of constitutional government. He seeks and expects from government officials one thing only: loyalty. Not to the Constitution, as their oath requires, but to him.

“What Trump calls the “deep state” in the contemporary United States, by contrast, the rest of us think of as the institutions of constitutional government. He seeks and expects from government officials one thing only: loyalty. Not to the Constitution, as their oath requires, but to him. Despite the fact that Jeff Sessions was the first senator to endorse his campaign, by recusing himself from the Russia investigation he showed that he was insufficiently loyal to the president; he therefore had to go. Trump wanted an Attorney General who would see his job as protecting the president from damaging investigations. He may have found his man in Bill Barr, who has advanced a theory of the chief executive that sees its occupant as having virtually limitless power—very much as Trump sees the office. Trump once asked, “Where’s My Roy Cohn?” He now seems to have found one.

“The term Trump invariably invokes when he is accused of serious wrongdoing in the exercise of his official duties is “hoax.” Until he came into office, a hoax was a scam perpetrated by someone trying to persuade people that some far-fetched claim was true, often to the claimer’s financial benefit. Trump tries to destroy our faith in institutions—and in the very idea of the truth–by insisting that elected and career officials who are loyal to the Constitution rather than to the occupant of the Oval Office are engaged in a “hoax” when they call him out for malfeasance. If one constantly insists they are engaged in a “hoax,” people may come to doubt that these officials are non-partisan. Invocation of the term is essential to Trump’s ability to survive the many scandals in which he is constantly involved.”

The history and development of the term “banana republic” has come to mean or refer to governments and their leaders that are: authoritarian; oligarchic, often at a local level; exert great power; corrupt; exploitative, often economically; politically unstable; function poorly for citizens and disproportionately benefit an elitist, often corrupt individual or group; conspiratorial, often with local government officials.

As we can already see, this President and his maladministration fit every one of those characteristics. But it is the last characteristic – “conspiratorial, often with local government officials” – which I wish to focus upon at it relates to this entry in particular.

The latest “developments” in the POS45 Liar in Chief saga are, that after