The precedent the GOP is setting

[toreyj01]

@Paul_Thomson

@toreyj01

@Smyrna

@toreyj01

Yes, along with the fact that he was impeached by the House.

…and yet, not one single R voted this way. Seems the impeachment was rather partisan, wouldn’t you agree?

Of course, but the only side purely partisan was the GOP. Some Dems voted against impeachment but not a single GOP member voted for it. Same with Clinton, some Dems voted against him. Which side is acting more partisan if this is true?

Your post is a result of your leftist allegiance to quantities (ratios) over quality ( truth).

You think that a diversity of outcomes proves virtue and unprejudiced inputs, and a uniformity of outcomes proves collusion and prejudice. It could, however, be that this uniformity of outcome is a result of only one outcome being true, and the best quality result being chosen by all in that one group. The dissenters in the diverse group may simply be refusing to bow to demands of prejudice made by the rest of their group and be choosing truth over expediency.

You can certainly argue that, but you forget Justin Amash. Elected to Congress as a Republican this cycle. He spoke out against the President and even called for his impeachment and was summarily hounded out of the party.

Had he remained in the GOP he certainly would have made the vote bipartisan.

I would also like to point out that every single time a GOP member talked against the President they were quickly rebutted or rebuked by either the President or one of his enforcers. Even Matt Gaetz fell victim to this when he spoke out about the raid on Sulemani.

Let’s face it, from all accounts the President is hated by the GOP in the House and Senate for the most part. If the votes were confidential there are many that would vote against him but they dare not voice their concerns publicly for fear of retribution.