Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) argued Friday that impeachable actions don’t always mean a president should be convicted, saying lawmakers must also weigh the impact of removal from office.
“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office,” Rubio wrote in a Medium post.
“Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation,” he said.
Rubio also suggested that removing Trump from office would be a victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would,” Rubio wrote.
Rubio explained why, like most GOP senators, he would not support calling for witnesses at Trump’s impeachment trial, adding that he rejects “the argument that unless we call new witnesses this is not a fair trial.”
“Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true,” Rubio said.
……..
- Discussion
-
Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed https://t.co/Vji75ylEXe pic.twitter.com/O342yqIqde
— The Hill (@thehill) January 31, 2020
“Rubio also suggested that removing Trump from office would be a victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
Are you kidding me?
Remarkable: GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander, Rob Portman, and Marco Rubio (sort of, in his own sad little cowardly way) have all now openly admitted that Trump committed abuse of power. They think he’s guilty as charged, but that he should not be removed.
— Mark Follman (@markfollman) January 31, 2020
Translation: "I like being a Senator and you can't make me go back to Miami." https://t.co/vStwclCD7M
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 31, 2020
“He did it.”
“But I don’t want to upset him.”
This is an argument that is so paper-thin as to defy reason, but here we are.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) January 31, 2020
I'd have preferred if he made this point earlier. But it's a defensible position. https://t.co/cKd0j9EHXR
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) February 1, 2020
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.