Congressional Confusion

I am totally confused!  I know, it doesn't take much, but the events of this past week regarding the 2nd Trump Impeachment vote has me scratching my head.  Whether you believe Trump was guilty or not, you have to question the thought process behind some Senator's voting to acquit.  If you are not familiar with the Impeachment process, please read last weeks post and it will give you all that you need to know in a few paragraphs.  What I am baffled by is the reasoning, other than partisan politics as usual, behind why almost every Republican except 7 voted Not Guilty.  I am also befuddled to their rhetoric afterwords regarding the former President.

One of the main sticking points Republicans had of this Impeachment process was that a President who is no longer in office cannot be Impeached.  The Constitution is not 100% clear on this point, however many constitutional scholars believe that you can Impeach a former President for transgressions he or she committed while in office.  This question came up early in the process and was voted on by the Senate.  If they voted that it was unconstitutional, then the remainder of the Impeachment would be a moot point and it would be dismissed.  If they voted that it was, then the proceedings would move forward.  The Senate upheld the constitutionality of the trial by a vote of 56-44.  All 48 Democrats along with 2 Independents and 6 Republicans voted in the affirmative.  At this point, the trial was able to move forward. 

Here is where it gets confusing.  After a few days of arguments from the House Managers and Trumps attorneys, the Senate voted 57 guilty to 43 not guilty.  Remember, 2/3's of the Senate must vote guilty for a conviction.  This did not happen so Trump got off again.  After the Impeachment hearing, several Republicans who voted to acquit faced the media and stated that they thought Trump was guilty of the Incitement of Insurrection charge, but voted they was they did because they thought it was unconstitutional since Trump was no longer in office.  WHAT!  WHAT!  ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME.  A few days earlier the Senate voted that it WAS constitutional which means that should not have factored into their votes.  The Top Republican in the Senate Mitch McConnell tore Trump a new one after the trial saying he was 100% guilty of inciting an insurrection and basically invited the private sector to file civil charges.  In his speech he stated, "There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.  The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president".  Guess what, Mitch voted Not Guilty!  This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.  What the hell is wrong with these people?  Either he was guilty or not and these clowns should have weighed the evidence and voted based on the evidence and not the constitutionality of the process.

Here is the Bottom Line as I see it.  If you look at why the Framers of the Constitution provided an Impeachment process, it was simple, to avoid one person becoming a monarch or king.  They came to America to escape the tyranny of the King of England and they did not want that here.  The argument that a President cannot be Impeached after he or she is out of office holds no water.  If this were the case, then any President would have a free pass on committing crimes, treason or sabotage during his final weeks in office.  I am confident that the Founding Fathers did not want this.  Regardless, the entire Impeachment process was a sham, a slap in the face to the American people who had to endure watching Trump incite his followers for months up to the siege of the Capitol.  To acquit based on this Impeachment being unconstitutional is laughable.  Whether you believe Trump was guilty or not, you have to question the logic used in the Senate or should I say the lack thereof.