Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Donald Trump Acquitted by Senate in Second Impeachment Trial

posted by chromas on Saturday February 13 2021, @09:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-die-is-cast dept.

martyb writes:

Donald Trump acquitted by Senate in second impeachment trial:

The Senate has voted to acquit the former president of the United States after the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump concluded Saturday. The vote came after a five-day trial where arguments centered around whether Trump incited the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, and whether it is constitutional to hear the impeachment trial of a former president who is now a private citizen.

Despite a compelling prosecution, an acquittal isn't unexpected. While the Senate is split 50/50, with Vice President Kamala Harris to cast a tie-break vote as president of the Senate when necessary, the impeachment trial required a two-thirds supermajority for conviction.

This meant 17 Republican senators would have had to vote to convict Trump, an unlikely ask from the beginning. This was indicated in a Jan. 25 vote led by Sen. Rand Paul on whether the impeachment trial of a former president was "unconstitutional," during which just five Republicans voted against the motion. The first day of the impeachment trial this week then saw a similar vote, during which six Republicans voted with Democrats to continue the trial.

In the end, the vote was 57-43 to convict Trump, with all 48 Democrats, two independents and seven Republicans finding Trump guilty. The only members of the GOP who voted alongside the Democrat senators were Sens. Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, Bill Cassidy and Richard Burr.

Also at: CNN, Al Jazera, Time, BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Acquitted by Senate in Second Impeachment Trial | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 287 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2021, @04:02AM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 14 2021, @04:02AM (#1112639) Journal

    George Floyd had a lethal level of fentanyl in his system

    Seems [archive.org] to have been somewhat below said level (11 ng per mL for Floyd, mean levels of 34 ng per mL loses conciousness though deaths have occured at doses as low as 3 ng per mL).

    It is reported that patients lost consciousness at mean plasma levels of fentanyl of 34 ng/mL when infused with75 mcg/Kg over a 15 min period; peak plasma levels averaged 50 ng/mL

    Signs associated with fentanyl toxicity include severe respiratory depression, seizures, hypotension, coma and death. In fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL.

    So in combination with the meth dose, one could make a case (and probably would in court) that death could occur due solely to this in a person who wasn't healthy (which again the defense would argue). But it remains that said police officer leaned on Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes without regard for Floyd's health condition.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 14 2021, @12:04PM (3 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Sunday February 14 2021, @12:04PM (#1112739) Journal
    The thing is, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit, legally or morally, if he /would have/ died of something else, later. What matters is what actually killed him, and there's no doubt whatsoever that what killed him was the thug standing on his neck, end of story.

    Anyone who even brings up such a bankrupt argument is clearly, in the most charitable interpretation, utterly ignorant of both law and morality. In the less charitable interpretation, they actively reject both, in favor of tribal loyalty.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday February 15 2021, @01:53AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 15 2021, @01:53AM (#1112991) Journal

      It doesn't matter one bit, legally or morally, if he /would have/ died of something else, later.

      Indeed. Else we're declaring open season on 90 year old grandmothers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15 2021, @11:46PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15 2021, @11:46PM (#1113345)

        Anyone who even brings up such a bankrupt argument is clearly, in the most charitable interpretation, utterly ignorant of both law and morality. In the less charitable interpretation, they actively reject both, in favor of tribal loyalty.

        That is you, bankrupt intellectually and morally. Identity politics is blinding you people that accuse everyone else of doing what you do.