Claim Chowder Served, Piping Hot

Posted on February 13, 2021 by tengrain

Amply be-chinned #MoscowMitch McConnell

Told ya:

McConnell reveals he will vote to acquit Trump

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has told GOP colleagues in a letter that he will vote to acquit Donald Trump in the former president’s impeachment trial, according to sources familiar with the communication.

McConnell’s announcement ends a long period of silence over whether he would consider convicting Trump for incitement of insurrection and could pave the way for many other Republicans to follow in acquittal.

There was never any doubt in my mind.

Here’s the thing: Impeachment is NOT a criminal process, it is a political one. And like everything that else, ETTD. Impeachment as a remedy is dead and we might as well cut it out of whatever is left of the Constitution. The Imperial Presidency is here to stay.

Thanks a lot Mitch.

But here’s the OTHER thing: Lord Damp Nut the person is in a heap o’ trouble with the law, and for now at least, that still exists.

 

This entry was posted in Amply Be-Chinned #MoscowMitch McConnell, Insurrection, ITMFA, Lord Damp Nut, The Russian Usurper, The Coup Klux Klan (Republicans), The Stupid Coup. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Claim Chowder Served, Piping Hot

  1. skinnydennis says:
    February 13, 2021 at 7:50 am

    Trump is no longer president.
    He encited a riot.
    Arrest his ass.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Big Bad Bald Bastard says:
    February 13, 2021 at 8:20 am

    We all knew that.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. sos says:
    February 13, 2021 at 9:55 am

    He may look like a turtle, but he’s really more of a shell-less mollusk, you know a sea-slug.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. MDavis says:
    February 13, 2021 at 10:18 am

    I read that his reasoning was the impeachment was unconstitutional.
    I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer, but isn’t this upcoming vote (is that the correct term? Using it) meant to decide whether LDN is apparently guilty, regardless of whether the trial itself is unconstitutional? I mean, that was a separate question and already dealt with. So wouldn’t this mean the Russian turtle should be removed from deliberations because he has publicly stated he will refuse to vote on the issue under consideration and will, instead, vote on a different issue.
    It isn’t a regular trial. In a regular trial this juror would be removed because he has made this statement.
    Hey, look, I found a thumbnail definition from Wikipedia:

    Jury nullification
    Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway, because the jurors consider that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.