Roll Call Vote 117th Congress – 1st Session
Question: Guilty or Not Guilty (Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump)
Vote Number: 59
Vote Date: February 13, 2021, 03:39 PM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote
Result: Not Guilty
Measure Number: H.Res. 24 (A resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.)
Measure Title: A resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) released the following statement today after voting against the conviction of former President Donald Trump:
“I said before this trial started that I believe the constitutional purpose for presidential impeachment is to remove a president from office, not to punish a person after they have left office. None of the arguments presented changed my view that this was an unconstitutional proceeding. Impeachment is not a tool that should be used to settle political scores against a private citizen.”
“The most dangerous place to stand in Washington D.C. is any place between Senator Josh Hawley and a live microphone” – Charles P. Pierce
Senator Hawley Press Office @SenHawleyPress
“You’re not going to get anything but condemnation from me for what happened with those criminals at the Capitol,” Hawley says on @FaulknerFocus. “But that doesn’t make this trial any more legitimate than it is, which is totally illegitimate. No basis in the Constitution.”
[….] 11:54 AM · Feb 11, 2021
Some of the comments:
@YaleLawSch @abaesq @mobarnews @SenSchumer @LeaderMcConnell @HawleyMO is a seditionist who violated his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Revoke, disbar, expel. And prosecute.
Hawley didn’t address those who invaded the Capitol. He didn’t say,“Friends, I’m making your arguments on the floor, but what you’re doing is wrong. You must leave.” Why didn’t he speak to the crowd? Did he not understand his own people? Or did he understand them all too well?
Your colleagues voted, it is constitutional. Unless you’re not into democracy that is.
Raising your fist in solidarity to the violent mob and sitting in the gallery w your feet up while your colleagues describe the murder and destruction they committed and your refusal to hold trump accountable seems to say you don’t condemn it
He not only does not condemn it, he supports it.
@HawleyMO what do you know about constitutional legitimacy, when you spent all your time in the Senate saying “no” and playing Candy Crush?
Not true–it’s completely constitutional…would make no sense for it to be okay for a president to incite an insurrection but be let of the hook because he did it in January As Rep Raskin said there is no January exception!
That argument was put to bed 56-44. You were there, in the minority, but the question is settled and no longer an excuse to acquit.
By “condemnation” does Josh mean that wishy-washy “hey guys, we need to stop the violence” tweet from January? Because the only thing Josh has really condemned since he tried to overturn the election was the loss of his book deal.
As a member of congress it is more unconstitutional to argue the unconstitutionality of the Congress taking on it constitutional duties. The vote was made. The trial is ongoing. The VERY LEAST you can is care. You just want to be right.
The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachment.
The Constitution makes no exceptions to that power.
All means all.
Trump was impeached while in office.
The Senate is required to try it.
The Senate voted that it has Constitutional authority.
Senator, John Quincy Adams, Founders, & your law professors disagree. Can your staff not help you balance your response? Only the Senate can hold Trump and future presidents accountable. To acquit weakens the Senate’s power in the future and it encourages others to ignore the law
This is not a symbol of condemnation.
“Profiles in Cowardice”, a 2022 book about the US Senators who stood with the cop-killing seditionists and turned their backs on America.
The question of Constitutionality is resolved. The only question before you now is… guilty or not. [….]
Great game of what-aboutism! Thumbs up buddy! Good job inciting violence and for feeling no remorse. You’re a winner!
Joshie trying to pin the trial on a faux procedural point so he can excuse his failure as a senator.
I’m just glad you’ve copped to only representing Republicans.
I guess you won’t need to vote then. Wouldn’t want you participating in anything unconstitutional so as to give it credibility.
We don’t need anything from you because you incited the insurrection. Uh-oh.
Here’s Hawley condemning the mob.
Just saying things doesn’t make them true.
“The election was stolen!”
“No basis in the Constitution”
One false statement after another from @SenHawleyPress
He is just scared of offending Trump. Even though he has the ability to rid himself and the Republicans of Trump by disqualifying him from ever holding office again. Will he do it… probably not. Trump already castrated him and other long ago.
That sentence is mushy.
…not going to get anything but condemnation from me for what happened with those criminals?…
But I haven’t heard him condemn the Big Lie. Instead he continued with it on January 6, objecting to another state’s electoral votes.
@HawleyMO #Gaslighting as usual. As if WE THE PEOPLE don’t know HE knows full well that the #ImpeachmentTrial is in fact #Consitutional. One might even say it is #totallyappropriate.
This is like interviewing Al-Qaeda for their thoughts on 9/11.
56 to 44 vote that it was constitutional. Articles filed on 1/13. Trump was holding office. McConnell delayed trial. Clearly, Missouri deserves better!
Clearly, Hawley sees himself fundamentally as a party functionary, not a member of the representative government.
You left out the part about needing to find your soul.
Making quite a name for yourself. Not gonna be pretty.
Excuse me but your opportunism is showing. (Missouri resident that does not support you.)
The Senate, as a body, has considered this. In its sole power, it has determined it *does* have Constitutional authority. In our system of government, that decision is binding on you. Your vote on guilt is required. Your oath of office & your impeachment oath both require it.
To Hawley Staffers: Remember how you felt on Jan 6th? How you ran & hid from the mob? It’s your time to tell Josh to vote Guilty for the person who sent them. If you didn’t run & hide like other staffers, then you knew they weren’t coming for you, which makes Josh guilty too.
There Is No Defense—Only Complicity
As much as you try you will never play with the big boys Joshie.
Social media team…what does Josh think would actually be cause for impeachment and conviction?? Because if this doesn’t do it, I cannot fathom a situation that does. We should just eliminate from the Constitution.
Apparently lying about a blow job is impeachable to these nut cases
That’s not what every constitutional lawyer says.
So, SenHawley is rejecting the decision of the Senate who litigated the Constitutionality of the jurisdiction question and bipartisanly voted that they do have jurisdiction. Hawley should therefore be removed from the Senate immediately.
Hawley’s legal position represents a fringe view that is contrary to history, contrary to precedent and roundly rejected by legal authorities from both parties. It is a sham. Josh was for the seditious mob on Jan. 6. He remains for the seditious mob today. He should be removed
By now, if you hang out on the Interwebs at all, you’ve seen or heard about the latest NRA fundraising atrocity, a video featuring former St. Louisian, Dana Loesch. Normally, I’d think twice about directing traffic to such an abomination, but, it’s everywhere now – I’ve linked to it on Vox – and it should be. We need to know who it is we’re dealing with and what they’re capable of – which this video amply illustrates.
Here’s the script Loesch reads against a backdrop showing images of seething street violence:
They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse “the resistance.”
All to make them march. Make them protest. Make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.
And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.
I’m the National Rifle Association of America. And I’m freedom’s safest place.
In case you haven’t guessed, “they” are “us,” or at least a subset of the American “us,” the folks represented by the hated liberal trifecta of academia, entertainment and politics, all neatly “targeted” by the NRA in this fundraising exercise. As Zack Beauchamp observes in the Vox article, the message conveyed is that “the ‘only way’ to protect yourself from this surge in left-wing violence (a made-up threat, to be clear) is to donate to the NRA — an organization that exists solely to help people buy guns.”
So, was it money and/or notoriety that tempted the former St. Louis Tea Party maven, Loesch, to identify herself with this exercise in fascist rhetoric, or has she always been this toxic? She’s had her low moments to be sure – during her short-lived tenure as a “political analysist” on CNN, she once expressed her willingness to “drop trow” and defecate on a Koran – but the NRA ad which she narrates is not just distasteful, but crosses the line into incitement. It offers, as Richard Wolffe puts it, “the kind of argument made by the fascist paramilitaries and dictatorship who terrorized Latin America for several decades.”
Apart from whether or not Loesch is really a true-believer or just depraved, the video also suggests why efforts to claim that “both sides do it” fails to capture the dynamic that motivates the levels of political polarization that we are now experiencing. Beauchamp notes that:
The problem with this rhetoric isn’t, again, that it’s telling people to use violence against others. It’s that it functions as a kind of anti-politics — casting the NRA’s political opponents as devious enemies who can’t be opposed through normal politics. Republicans control all three branches of government and a large majority of statehouses nationwide. There is literally zero chance that any kind of major gun control passes in America in the foreseeable future.
The threat, instead, is from a kind of liberal-cultural fifth column: People who are acting outside of legitimate political channels to upend American freedoms, through protest and violence. It’s a paranoid vision of American life that encourages the NRA’s fans to see liberals not as political opponents, but as monsters.
In other words, the goal is to manufactures a hobgoblin for the gullible. There’s no there there, nothing but fake images used to ratchet up division and if it creates the potential for violent confrontation, well, that’s just collateral damage in the service of the almighty dollar. At this time, in this country, as Kurt Eichenwald pointed out in a report published in Newsweek, rightwing militias – Trump’s spiritual homeboys – pose a greater threat to public safety than Muslim terrorists. That’s the mindset that the NRA now serves.
The Loesch NRA ad may be one of the more overt manifestations of this false narrative, but it is not unique. It grew from the willingness of the Nixonian Republican Party to exploit white fear and racial resentment and culminated in the racially loaded, apocalyptic rhetoric employed by Donald Trump as he endeavored to aid the Russians in his election effort. It may have been a winning strategy in the past, but it’s not an invitation to the civility to which “moderate” Republicans and “centrist” Democrats pretend to aspire. Ads like this – and I suspect we’ll see worse – are the natural outcome of a trend that has been developing almost exclusively on the right over several years.
In contrast, the self-labeled resistance, the folks on the left who are making themselves heard in opposition to the current Republican power structure, may use harsh language and, given the ripe target presented by Trump and his cohorts, resort to ridicule as often as not, but they’re frightened too. The difference is that the object of their fear is real and immediate, not a tool for politicians or, as in the case of the NRA ad, a chimera manufactured by a lobbying organization intent on cashing in. It consists of more than turgid emotions. It reflects the intellectual apprehension of destructive policies that will be imposed if they – we, that is, don’t stand up and make our voices heard. Notice that I said voices, not “clenched fists” or guns – no NRA payola here.
Now we can also add to our list of things of which we are afraid the NRA’s cultural warriors, armed to the teeth and out to intimidate the outspoken. And what’s worst of all about the hate speech and lies promulgated by Loesch and the NRA is that they serve nothing but greed. No black bogeyman in the White House to drive up sales, how you gonna keep the good ‘ol boys and girls buying guns? You give ’em another target: their fellow Americans.
Addendum: Francine Prose makes an important point about the message of this video in today’s Guardian:
Interestingly, the video makes no mention of the NRA’s traditional role: to preserve the American citizen’s right to bear arms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps this is because Loesch is encouraging her viewers to deter other Americans from exercising their Constitutional rights.