Meghan McCain Blasts Katie Couric For Saying Republicans Need To Be ‘Deprogrammed’ – ‘Go To Hell’

Over the weekend, we reported that Katie Couric had questioned how those who supported can be “deprogrammed.” Now, Meghan McCain is firing back to tell Couric to “go to Hell.”

Meghan McCain Goes Off

McCain said on Monday’s episode of “The View:”

“If you don’t care about unity you should care about the politics of this, because right now there is a vacuum to pick up the four people — four in ten Republicans who feel very disenfranchised, and if President Biden and Democrats want to have a big tent party and include some of these people, great, and if we’re all just deplorable and need to be reprogrammed as Katie Couric said, then honestly they can go to hell, because I don’t need to be deprogrammed.”

“I just have a different perspective on how the government should be run,” she added.

Related: Katie Couric Asks How We’ll ‘Deprogram People Who Signed Up For The Cult Of Trump?’

Couric’s Anti-Trump Comments

This came after Couric told “Real Time” host Bill Maher that Trump voters will need to be “deprogrammed.”

“I mean, it’s really bizarre, isn’t it, when you think about how AWOL so many of these members of Congress have gotten. But I also think some of them are believing the garbage that they are being fed 24/7 on the internet, by their constituents, and they bought into this big lie,” Couric said to Maher.

“And the question is how are we going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump,” she added.

Related: Katie Couric’s Calls To ‘Deprogram’ Trump Supporters Come Back To Haunt Her As She Prepares To Host ‘Jeoparydy’

Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson told Fox News that “threats of ‘deprogramming’ Trump supporters have become “common among liberal journalists,” he added that Couric’s comments show she’s part of the “media complex” that deliberately stifled negative news about Joe Biden during his 2020 campaign against Trump.

Democrats can call for unity all they want to, but comments like Couric’s show that they are not really interested in that at all. Instead, “unity” in their minds just means silencing all the conservative voices that disagree with them politically.

This piece was written by James Samson on January 25, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Katie Couric’s Calls To ‘Deprogram’ Trump Supporters Come Back To Haunt Her As She Prepares To Host ‘Jeopardy’
Meghan McCain Unleashes On Biden, Fauci, And Amazon Over Hypocrisy – ‘I Was Lied To’
Democratic Senator Hirono Reveals Real Goal Behind Trump Impeachment Effort

The post Meghan McCain Blasts Katie Couric For Saying Republicans Need To Be ‘Deprogrammed’ – ‘Go To Hell’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Senate Republicans, still terrified of Trump, make up constitutional arguments to protect him

On Monday evening the House will transmit to the Senate the article of impeachment to prevent Donald Trump from ever being in a position to destroy democracy again. Senate leaders have reached an agreement to begin the hearings on February 8. Most Republicans there are not so sure that inciting a violent insurrection against the very body in which they sit is such an impeachable thing. Not that they want to argue about Trump, because they actually did live through that terror that left five people dead, but they need a straw to cling to to avoid dealing with him. And his supporters. So they've made up a new thing: it's unconstitutional to impeach him.

Never mind that there is precedent for impeaching a former federal officer, and that the weight of scholarship on the issue supports it, even though the Framers did not make it explicit in the document itself. Probably because they couldn't possibly envision a Senate so thoroughly corrupted they'd be on the side of Trump. So you have the likes of Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, who opines "The Senate lacks constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings against a former president. […] The Founders designed the impeachment process as a way to remove officeholders from public office—not an inquest against private citizens." He's presuming to speak for the Founders, who spoke for themselves, and that's not what they said.

For example, President John Quincy Adams: When the House was debating its authority to impeach Daniel Webster after the fact for conduct while he was secretary of state, Adams said "I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office." The reality is, the Framers left this ambiguous, but they also left the Senate the power to do what they need to do. One, at least, foresaw what could be coming someday.

Here's Alexander Hamilton: "When a man unprincipled in private life[,] desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper […] despotic in his ordinary demeanor—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'" There's one Framer who would surely want Trump cut off from any possibility of future office.

Of course, not all Republicans are making this bad faith argument. Others are trying to play the "unity" card. Like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio who got bogged down on Fox News, of all places, arguing that the impeachment is "stupid" even though Trump "bears responsibility for some of what happened." Which part he doesn't make clear. Maybe the five dead people? The one senator who voted to convict Trump last time around (that whole extorting Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden to throw the election for Trump—there's a theme developing here) says there's no question he should be impeached. "I believe that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense," Sen. Mitt Romney said Sunday. "If not, what is?"

Meanwhile, the trial doesn't start for another two weeks, and the evidence against Trump just keeps increasing, from his machinations in the Justice Department to try to overthrow Georgia's election to his campaign's orchestration of the rally that Trump whipped up into an insurrection. Five people were killed in the insurrection, a cop died by suicide in the aftermath, and 139 U.S. Capitol and D.C. police were assaulted and/or injured in the attack. That evidence, and more, will be presented to the Senate and the American people, along with hours of video of the attack. Republicans might think now that they can make vague arguments about the Constitution, but in the face of the horror inflicted on the nation, their arguments are going to prove pathetic at best, treasonous at worst.

Pelosi confirms House will send impeachment article to Senate on Monday, updates members on security

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirmed a dear colleague letter to Democrats that the House will send the article of impeachment of Donald Trump to the Senate on Monday, a "momentous and solemn day, as the House sadly transmits the Article of Impeachment."

"Our Constitution and country are well-served by our outstanding impeachment managers – lead manager Rep. Jamie Raskin and Reps. Diana DeGette, David Cicilline, Joaquin Castro, Eric Swalwell, Ted Lieu, Stacey Plaskett, Madeleine Dean, and Joe Neguse," she wrote. She also low-key slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had tried to dictate the timing of the impeachment by telling Pelosi to wait until the last half of February to start the process. "The House has been respectful of the Senate’s constitutional power over the trial and always attentive to the fairness of the process," she wrote. "When the Article of Impeachment is transmitted to the Senate, the former President will have had nearly two weeks since we passed the Article."

Friday, Jan 22, 2021 · 11:27:01 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

BREAKING: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says former President Trump's impeachment trial will start the week of Feb. 8.

— The Associated Press (@AP) January 22, 2021

Pelosi also informed her colleagues about security at the Capitol, informing them that "General Russel Honoré is preparing his assessment of the security of the campus, and we expect to have updates soon." She also reminded them that when they return, they'll vote on a rule change to impose fines on any member trying to bypass the metal detectors to get to the House chamber. The issue escalated this week when Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, tried to bring a concealed gun onto the House floor, which is a violation of House rules. A number of Republicans have blown off the detectors and disrespected Capitol Police trying to enforce the new protocols.

"It is sad that this step is necessary," Pelosi wrote of the fines, "but the disrespectful and dangerous refusal of some Republican Members to adhere to basic safety precautions for our Congressional Community—including our Capitol Police—is unacceptable." Any House member will face a $5,000 fine if they refuse to cooperate with the screening. If they do it again, they'll pay a $10,000 fine. That money will be withheld from their paychecks—they can't use campaign funds or their expense accounts to pay them. The precedent for this new rule is the mask rule passed last week, which fines members not wearing masks on the floor—$500 on a first offense and $2,500 for a second offense.

Pelosi ends her missive on a hopeful note. "I am confident that, strengthened by the new Biden-Harris Administration and Senate Democratic Majority, we can restore healing, unity and optimism to our nation, so that—as Joe Biden quotes Seamus Heaney—'The longed for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history can rhyme.'"

Starting Monday, Republican senators will have to face the fact that Trump tried to get them killed

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Friday morning that the impeachment of Donald Trump in the Senate is imminent. "I have spoken to Speaker Pelosi who informed me that the articles will be delivered to the Senate on Monday," and promised "It will be a full trial, it will be a fair trial." That's a rebuff to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who attempted to dictate the schedule to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer in a proposal released late Thursday. McConnell argued that Trump needed time to plan a defense and that "At this time of strong political passions, Senate Republicans believe it is absolutely imperative that we do not allow a half-baked process to short-circuit the due process that former President Trump deserves or damage the Senate or the presidency."

A reminder: Trump sent a mob to the Capitol to hunt leadership, including former Vice President Mike Pence, down and kill them. Which is what the House impeachment managers intend to keep at the forefront. A Democratic source told Washington Post's Greg Sargent that their presentation will include "a lot of video of the assault on the Capitol … to dramatize the former president’s incitement role in a way that even GOP senators cannot avoid grappling with." Maybe that will keep them awake during the proceeding.

Campaign Action

"If they‘re going to vote against it, they're going to vote against it knowing what actually happened," the aide told Sargent. "A lot of senators" were "very upset angry about what happened,” the aide continued, saying the managers' goal is to "remind them of why." Among those needing the reminder is Trump's caddy, Sen. Lindsey Graham. Remember Graham on January 6, in the aftermath of the attack when the Senate reconvened. He said the effort to challenge the Electoral College vote was "the most offensive concept in the world." He said that he and Trump had been on "a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh, my god, I hate it." He said Trump's attempt to challenge the result in Congress was "not going to do any good." That's Graham, essentially admitting that Trump set the insurrection in motion.

Here's what Graham said just two weeks later. "For the party to move forward, we got to move the party with Donald Trump." So much for the end of the journey. "There’s no way to be a successful Republican Party without having President Trump working with all of us and all of us working with him. […] [W]e got a decent chance of coming back in 2022. But we can't do it without the President." He's not alone. There'a a whole cadre of Republicans senators who are actually threatening McConnell's leadership if he votes to convict Trump.

They're not going to be able to hide from what Trump did, the House Democrats will make sure of that. "The president of the United States committed an act of incitement of insurrection," Pelosi reminded everyone Thursday. "Just because he's now gone—thank God—you don't say to a president, 'Do whatever you want in the last months of your administration. You're going to get a get-out-of-jail card free' because people think you should make nice, nice, and forget that people died here on Jan. 6."

The McConnell-Trump war reignites, as Republicans threaten his leadership over impeachment

The minority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is getting threats from his conference over what they perceive to be his abandonment of their one true leader, Donald Trump. Though only one is dumb enough to do so publicly, rather than anonymously.

"'No, no, no,' Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican and Trump ally, told CNN when asked if he could support McConnell if he voted to convict Trump, calling such a vote a 'dangerous precedent' and adding: 'I don't even think we should be having a trial.'" (You knew it was him, didn't you.) Another, asked the same question, told CNN "If he does, I don't know if he can stay as leader." This is after McConnell's remarks Tuesday on the floor, when he said "The mob was fed lies. […] They were provoked by the President and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like. But we pressed on."

Campaign Action

According to Sen. Mitt Romney, McConnell told Republicans to "vote your conscience." The Utah Republican said that McConnell "has not in any way tried to pressure folks to go one way or another." That's not enough for Johnson and the more circumspect Republicans who aren't showing their hands right now. They want him to fight the upcoming trial and protect their leader. So the old days of the Republican civil war between Trump and McConnell are back. Which is fun.

The part that isn't fun is that these Republicans are still downplaying the insurrectionist attack of January 6, when the lives of their colleagues—and former Vice President Mike Pence!—were very much threatened. Republican Rep. John Katko, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach, has hinted at just how dangerous the situation was without revealing any classified information he's received in intelligence briefings.

"I've had a lot of classified briefings on it, and it's deeply troubling," Katko said in an interview with local press this week. "I was left with a profound sense that it was much worse than people realized." Bad enough that he is behind the effort to create a 9/11 type commission that has subpoena power to investigate. "There are a lot of unanswered questions here, from possible security lapses to who was involved and when they were involved," Katko said. "We need to have a full stem to stern look back on this to see what happened, how it happened, the sequence of events, who contributed to it, and how we make sure it never happens again." McConnell would have also been getting these briefings, and so would Johnson, who is the outgoing chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

McConnell is smart enough to recognize the threat to the Republican Party—including losing lots and lots of funding from big donors who don't want to be associated with the rabble that tried to overthrow Congress—posed by the insurrection and its aftermath. There will be an aftermath because there will be a commission that investigates it. There will also be more arrests and more court proceedings that uncover what happened behind the scenes. Johnson hasn’t caught up with that eventuality yet.

Senate Republicans push to let Trump off the hook for inciting Capitol attack

Republicans want to move along and forget that whole thing where a mob of Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol, threatening the lives of lawmakers and killing one police officer and wounding others. Donald Trump isn’t in office anymore, the senators who would have to vote in his impeachment trial say, so there’s nothing to talk about anymore.

We should move on from the 15 police officers hospitalized and more than 100 injured as Trump-supporting domestic terrorists beat them with fire extinguishers and American flags and fists and whatever else was available, shot bear spray at them, massed in the hundreds if not thousands to force their way through doors and beat down windows, and in one case Tasered an officer in the neck until he had a heart attack.

Rep. John Katko, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and one of the 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment, said after classified briefings on the attack, “I was left with a profound sense that it was much worse than people realized.”

But Senate Republicans are strenuously looking for excuses not to hold Trump accountable. Sen. John Cornyn spent Thursday morning quoting former Trump impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz to suggest that holding Trump to account for his significant role in whipping up the mob that attacked the Capitol would be merely “seek[ing] revenge” and would “distract from President Biden’s agenda, and make it hard to heal the country.” 

”What good comes from impeaching a guy in Florida?” Sen. Lindsey Graham asked. But he made clear to CNN that his concern was not about “what good” but about what’s good for the Republican Party, saying: “There's no way to be a successful Republican Party without having President Trump working with all of us and all of us working with him. That's just a fact. And I think we got a decent chance of coming back in 2022. But we can't do it without the President.”

Trump told these people to come to Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, the day Congress met to count the electoral votes that made Joe Biden the president. “Will be wild,” he tweeted. That day, he told the crowd “we’re going to have to fight much harder,” and, “You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen.” Then, “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” And he told them he would be with them as they marched on the Capitol.

What good would come from impeaching him now that he’s a private citizen in Florida? You put a marker down that inciting violence against Congress specifically as it attempts to carry out the process of democracy is not acceptable. Do Cornyn or Graham treat a dirt-filled wound by slapping a bandage on it and pretending it’s not there? Because that’s a recipe for festering infection, just as refusing to address what happened at the Capitol, and Trump’s role in it, would worsen the already festering infection in U.S. politics. 

Republicans like Cornyn and Graham, though, don’t care about what’s good for the nation. They care about what’s good for the Republican Party.

McConnell finally blames Trump for insurrection, but that’s not enough. The Senate must convict

The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump in the U.S. Senate is likely to be a real trial, unlike the first time around when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans conducted a sham process, refusing to hear witnesses and refusing to consider the gravity of Trump's crimes. That's changed, now that their place of work—their essential home—has been defiled by an insurrectionist mob incited by Trump. That the impeachment hearings will go forward this time was made clear Tuesday by none other than McConnell, when he stated on the floor "The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people."

Despite McConnell's essential granting of the validity of the charges against Trump and recognition that the process will proceed, there will still be Republicans and Trump apologists who will argue that the Senate shouldn't continue because Trump is already gone—variations on the supposed "unity" theme we have been hearing since January 6 and the violent, armed, deadly insurrection Trump instigated. Some will argue that the Senate cannot try a former president for acts during his or her presidency. Most nonpartisan experts have called that idea bunk, but now we have the pretty darned definitive conclusion of the Congressional Research Service, which looks at all the scholarship and all the precedent, and concludes that it is well within the power of Congress to convict a departed official and that "even if an official is no longer in office, an impeachment conviction may still be viewed as necessary by Congress to clearly delineate the outer bounds of acceptable conduct in office for the future."

The attorneys writing at Congressional Research Service start at the beginning. "As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office," they write. "This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office." That's following the precedent of British law and practice, which included the impeachment of the former governor-general of Bengal Warren Hastings, impeached two years after his resignation and while the Constitutional Convention was actually happening. The Framers were aware of this while it was happening, and in crafting the impeachment articles did depart from some British precedent—for example requiring a two-thirds rather than simple majority vote for conviction—but they didn't explicitly restrict Congress's power to convict a departed official.

There's the plain text of the Constitution, however, which doesn't really definitively say one way or the other. "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment … and Conviction." Then there's the other part: "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 [emphasis added]," which follows from removal from office. How could you disqualify an already-departed and deserving official from holding future office if you couldn't impeach them first? As one scholar argued all the way back in the 1920s, "an official's resignation following an initial impeachment by the House but before conviction in the Senate may not 'deprive the people of the full measure of the protection afforded them' through the additional remedy of disqualification."

What was in the Framer's heads isn't too hard to divine, either. They told us. CRS relates this: "President John Quincy Adams, who, during debate on the House's authority to impeach Daniel Webster for conduct that occurred while he had been Secretary of State, said in relation to his own acts as President: 'I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.'" There's also the precedence of the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap for, essentially, bribery—accepting payments in return for making an appointment. Belknap resigned hours before a House committee determined there was "unquestioned evidence of malfeasance," but the committee recommended impeachment anyway, despite his resignation. The House debated moving forward, and ultimately approved the resolution, without objection. The Senate debated and deliberated on the issue of whether he could be tried in the Senate as a former official for more than two weeks, and ultimately "determined by a vote of 37 to 29 that Secretary Belknap was 'amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.'" That vote established the representation of an impeached former official being subject to a Senate trial. A majority voted to convict, but not a two-thirds majority.

What the CRS report does not go into deeply, and what would be the larger point of a Trump conviction, is the disqualification part. That would come in a simple majority vote following a successful conviction, and would prevent Trump from ever holding "any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States." They can't get to that part—the part that matters to McConnell and plenty of other Republicans—if they don't do the first part, convict.

McConnell's condemnation of Trump on Tuesday means little more than McConnell trying to create distance between himself and the man he—almost single-handedly—allowed to remain in a position in which he could raise an insurrection against McConnell's own branch. This could have been prevented if, one year ago, McConnell and Senate Republicans had offered even one word of rebuke to contain Trump. If at any point in the last four years McConnell had done anything to curtail Trump's worst instincts. Hell, if we wound the clock back to late summer 2016 when the entire intelligence community was warning congressional leadership that Russia was intervening in the election on Trump's behalf, when McConnell refused to let that information be made public. But I digress.

Yes, Trump can still be impeached, convicted, and barred from ever holding office again. That's if Senate Republicans care more about the country, about their own institution, about the future of their own party than about their next election and whether the MAGA crowd will primary them.

Freshman GOP Rep Admits Voting To Impeach Trump May Have Destroyed His Career

Freshman Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI) spoke out on Sunday to admit that voting in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump last week may have destroyed his political career.

Meijer Votes To Impeach Trump

The House voted to impeach Trump for a second time last week over the Capitol riots earlier this month, with the article of impeachment charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection.” The impeachment was approved by a vote of 232-197, with every Democrat and ten Republicans in the House voting in favor of it.

Meijer was one of the ten Republicans to vote in favor of impeaching Trump in a move that he himself admitted one day later that “may have been an act of political suicide.”

While appearing on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Meijer was asked by host George Stephanopolous, “Are you concerned you ended your career with that vote?”

“Oh, I may very well have,” Meijer responded. “But I think it’s also important that we have elected leaders who are not thinking solely about what’s in their individual self-interest, not what is going to be politically expedient, but what we actually need for country.”

Related: If Republicans Put America First, They’ll Remove Liz Cheney, Not Donald Trump

Meijer Explains His Reason For Voting To Impeach Trump

Earlier in the interview, the freshman Republican congressman explained his reasoning behind voting to impeach Trump.

“Impeaching a president, especially a president of my own party, was nothing that we ever hoped to do. Many of us deliberated deeply,” Meijer said.

“This was not as easy as just saying what is in our best political interest, but, frankly, looking at the evidence, looking at the facts of the case, reading the article and asking, ‘Is this true by our own experience, by our lived experience?’ And it was,” he continued. 

“You know, I think this is a time for reflection, but it’s also a time for accountability. And that’s something that I am deeply committed to,” he added.

Related: Ben Sasse And The GOP Aim To Purge Trumpism, Return To Bush-Era

“You know, I’m calling on my party to restore trust, to restore the trust of the voting public and to ensure that we never allow the actions that led up to Jan. 6 and what happened on Jan. 6, we never allow that outburst of political violence to occur in our name again,” Meijer said. 

A Senate impeachment trial against Trump is expected to take place after Joe Biden is inaugurated later this week.

This piece was written by James Samson on January 18, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Tucker Carlson Tells Hard Truths About The Assault On The Capitol
Cawthorn Targeted For No Reason
Masters of Projection and Deception. Democrats Don’t Want to Govern Us; They Want to Crush Us and Then Rule Us.

The post Freshman GOP Rep Admits Voting To Impeach Trump May Have Destroyed His Career appeared first on The Political Insider.

Rand Paul Issues Major Warning About Future Of GOP If Republicans Support Trump Impeachment

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke out on Friday to issue a major warning to the GOP, advising what will happen if Republicans continue to support the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Paul Issues Warning To Republicans

Paul told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that there will be a mass exodus from the Republican Party if enough Republican senators support impeachment to remove Trump from office.

“I don’t often get ask my advice from leadership how they should react. My unsolicited suggestion would be this: they will destroy the Republican Party if leadership is complicit with an impeachment or leadership votes for an impeachment, they will destroy the party,” Paul said, adding that the GOP could lose one-third of its party.

“Impeachment is purely a partisan thing. It’s for these moral, ‘Oh I’m so much better than you and you’re a bad person because I’m so moral’ — It’s for these kind of people to do this,” Paul explained.

Related: Top GOP Rep Calls Out Impeachment Effort – Says It Seems Like ‘Political Vengeance’

“I didn’t agree with the fight that happened last week, and I voted against overturning the election,” he continued. “But at the same time, the impeachment is a wrongheaded, partisan notion. But if Republicans go along with it, it will destroy the party — a third of the Republicans will leave the party.”

“This isn’t anymore about the Electoral College. It’s about the future of the party and whether you’re going to ostracize and ex-communicate President Trump from the party,” the Republican said. “Well, guess what? Millions of his fans will leave as well.”

Liz Cheney Supports Effort To Impeach Trump

This comes after Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the third-highest ranking Republican in the House, supported the left’s effort to impeach Trump.

“Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Cheney said.

“Everything that followed was his doing,” she added. “None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not.”

Read Next: If Republicans Put America First, They’ll Remove Liz Cheney, Not Donald Trump

This piece was written by James Samson on January 17, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Tucker Carlson Tells Hard Truths About The Assault On The Capitol
Masters of Projection and Deception. Democrats Don’t Want to Govern Us; They Want to Crush Us and Then Rule Us.
Chris Cuomo Defies CNN To Defend Trump Voters Who Didn’t Riot At Capitol In Debate With Don Lemon

The post Rand Paul Issues Major Warning About Future Of GOP If Republicans Support Trump Impeachment appeared first on The Political Insider.

Schumer, Pelosi grapple with uncertainty and ongoing threats in proceeding to Trump’s Senate trial

The timing of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump in the Senate remains uncertain as the week closes out. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked in her Friday press conference about when the impeachment article charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection," which was passed in the House on Wednesday, will go to the Senate. She didn't answer.

"Right now, our managers are solemnly and prayerfully preparing for the trial which they will take to the Senate," Pelosi said. "At the same time, we are in transition. With the COVID relief package President-elect Biden announced last night, he is delivering on what he said when he was elected, 'help is on the way.'" What that likely means is soon-to-be Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is still working out how it will proceed in consultation with the transition team for President-elect Joe Biden. Outgoing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused this week to work with Schumer to speed up the process and reconvene the Senate ahead of Tuesday's scheduled official session. Everything about this process from this point is novel for the Senate.

Campaign Action

There's the high level of physical danger surrounding the whole of the Capitol complex after the attack and for Biden's inauguration. There're the two Democratic senators from Georgia, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, whose election still hasn't been certified; the deadline for that is Jan. 22, though it could happen on Jan. 19, the same day the Senate comes back. This process in these circumstances is entirely new: "Everything we are talking about is being invented out of whole cloth," Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy told The New York Times. "We have never tried a president after they left office. We've never had an insurrection against the Capitol. We've never held a trial while we are confirming a cabinet. All of this is first impression."

But Democrats remain committed to figuring it out. "I can see no reason we cannot find a way with our archaic rules," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Working that out, at this moment, seems to look like splitting the Senate sessions, the Times reports. Schumer and McConnell met Thursday, with a "goal … to divide the Senate’s days so the chamber could work on confirming members of Mr. Biden’s cabinet and considering his stimulus package in the morning and then take up the impeachment trial in the afternoon." Until that is nailed down, it's not clear that Pelosi would initiate the process by formally sending the article over to the Senate.

The outcome there is also unclear, and again it depends a lot on McConnell. He's reportedly told associates that he's sick of Trump, supports the impeachment, wants him expunged from the Republican Party, and sees his impeachment as a way to do that. But that's hearsay right now; McConnell hasn't made those statements public. Maybe he's waiting to see if Trump does anything else between now and Wednesday, his last day in Washington. Maybe he's genuinely undecided. But if McConnell votes for conviction, there will very likely be 16 other Republicans joining him.

As of now, Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski is the closest to declaring her intent. On Thursday, she said that Trump's words on Jan. 6 "incited violence," which "briefly interfered with the government's ability to ensure a peaceful transfer of power." She continued: "Such unlawful actions cannot go without consequence and the House has responded swiftly, and I believe, appropriately, with impeachment." Others who have suggested they would vote to convince include Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Mitt Romney of Utah. If you had that many, surely Maine's Susan Collins would jump on, unless she's too bitter that Democrats had the effrontery to mount a challenge to her reelection. Again, whether enough decide that Trump has to be cut out of the body politic like a cancer depends much on McConnell.

All those Republicans need to heed Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, one of the 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach, even at potential physical harm to himself and his family. "I have colleagues who are now traveling with armed escorts, out of the fear for their safety. Many of us are altering our routines, working to get body armor, which is a reimbursable purchase that we can make. … It's sad that we have to get to that point," he said. "But, you know, our expectation is that someone may try to kill us."

However, "I think you have to set that aside," he said. "I don't believe in giving an assassin's veto, an insurrectionist's veto, a heckler's veto. If we let that guide decisions, then you're cowering to the mob. I mean, that's the definition of terrorism—is trying to achieve a political end using violence." How many senators will have that courage?