adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Sports

Senate Republicans rally behind Trump on eve of impeachment trial – CBC.ca

Published

 on


Donald Trump’s defenders in the Senate on Sunday rallied around the former president before his impeachment trial, dismissing it as a waste of time and arguing that his fiery speech before the U.S. Capitol insurrection does not make him responsible for the violence of Jan. 6.

“If being held accountable means being impeached by the House and being convicted by the Senate, the answer to that is no,” said Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, making clear his belief that Trump should and will be acquitted. Asked if Congress could consider other punishment, such as censure, Wicker said the Democratic-led House had that option earlier but rejected it in favour of impeaching him.

“That ship has sailed,” he said.

300x250x1

The Senate is set to launch the impeachment trial on Tuesday to consider the charge that Trump’s fighting words to protesters at a Capitol rally, as well as weeks of falsehoods about what he called a stolen and rigged presidential election, provoked a mob to storm the Capitol. Five people died as a result of the melee, including a police officer.

Many senators, including Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, immediately denounced the violence and pointed a finger of blame at Trump. Following the riot, Wicker said Americans “will not stand for this kind of attack on the rule of law” and, without naming names, said “we must prosecute” those who undermine democracy.

But with Trump now gone from the presidency, Republicans have shown little political appetite to take further action, such as an impeachment conviction that could lead to barring him from running for future office. Those partisan divisions appear to be hardening ahead of Trump’s trial, a sign of his continuing grip on the Republican Party.

On Sunday, Wicker described Trump’s impeachment trial as a “meaningless messaging partisan exercise.” When asked if Trump’s conduct should be more deserving of impeachment than that of former president Bill Clinton, whom Wicker voted to impeach, he said: “I’m not conceding that President Trump incited an insurrection.” Clinton’s impeachment, in 1998, was sparked by his false denial in a deposition of a sexual relationship with a White House intern.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky dismissed Trump’s trial as a farce with “zero chance of conviction,” describing Trump’s words to protesters to “fight like hell” as Congress was voting to ratify Joe Biden’s presidential victory as “figurative” speech.

“If we’re going to criminalize speech, and somehow impeach everybody who says, `Go fight to hear your voices heard,’ I mean really, we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then,” Paul said, referring to the now Democratic Senate majority leader and his criticisms of Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court and said specifically, `Hey Gorsuch, Hey Kavanaugh, you’ve unleashed a whirlwind. And you’re going to pay the price.”‘

Republican Sen. Rand Paul speaks while Trump looks on during a campaign rally in Lexington, Ky., in November 2019. (Susan Walsh/The Associated Press)

Paul noted that Chief Justice John Roberts had declined to preside over this week’s impeachment proceeding because Trump was no longer president. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy will preside over the trial as Senate president pro tempore.

“It is a farce, it is unconstitutional. But more than anything, it’s unwise and going to divide the country,” Paul said.

Last month, Paul forced a vote to set aside the trial as unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office, which legal experts say is disputable. But the vote suggested the near impossibility in reaching a conviction in a Senate where Democrats hold 50 seats but a two-thirds vote — or 67 senators — would be needed to convict Trump.

Forty-four Republican senators sided with Paul and voted to oppose holding an impeachment trial at all. Five Republican senators joined with Democrats to reject Paul’s motion: Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

WATCH | Republicans face backlash for speaking out against Trump:

Although former U.S. president Donald Trump still has allies in the Republican Party, others are facing backlash for saying he should be punished for inciting the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol. 2:05

Some Republicans have said the vote doesn’t “bind” them into voting a particular way on conviction, with Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana saying Sunday he would listen carefully to the evidence. But even Trump’s sharper Republican critics on Sunday acknowledged the widely expected outcome.

“You did have 45 Republican senators vote to suggest that they didn’t think it was appropriate to conduct a trial, so you can infer how likely it is that those folks will vote to convict,” said Toomey, who has made clear he believes Trump committed “impeachable offences.”

“I still think the best outcome would have been for the president to resign” before he left office, Toomey said. “Obviously he chose not to do that.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of Trump’s ardent defenders, said he believes Trump’s actions were wrong and “he’s going to have a place in history for all of this,” but he insisted it’s not the Senate’s job to judge.

“It’s not a question of how the trial ends, it’s a question of when it ends,” Graham said. “Republicans are going to view this as an unconstitutional exercise, and the only question is, will they call witnesses, how long does the trial take? But the outcome is really not in doubt.”

Wicker spoke on ABC’s This Week, Paul was on Fox News Sunday, Toomey appeared on CNN’s State of the Union and Graham was on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Sports

Need to Know: Bruins at Maple Leafs | Game 3 | Boston Bruins – NHL.com

Published

 on


Familiar Territory

James van Riemsdyk has played his fair share of playoff contests here in Toronto – but all of them have come in blue and white. On Wednesday night, he would be on the other side for the first time if he indeed makes his Bruins postseason debut, which appeared to be a strong possibility based on the Black & Gold’s morning skate.

“It’s always special to play in this building,” said van Riemsdyk, who played in 20 postseason games with Toronto, including nine at Scotiabank Arena. “In this rivalry, it’s always a lot of fun. This time of year is always amazing, no matter where you’re at – if you’re at a 500-seat arena or a rink with all the tradition and history like this. It’s always fun and always a great opportunity to get in there.”

van Riemsdyk was a healthy scratch for the first two games of this series, following a trend across the second half of the regular season, during which he sat out several games.

300x250x1

“Playoff time of year is always the best time of year,” said van Riemsdyk, who has 20 goals and 31 points in 71 career playoff games between Philadelphia and Toronto. “Obviously, in this rivalry, it’s always a lot of fun – two fun buildings to play in. You cherish every opportunity you get.

“This time of year, you learn that along the way, it’s all about the team. Whatever the team’s asking you to do, that’s always got to be your mindset and approach…you stay at it every day and just take it one day at a time.”

Montgomery said that if van Riemsdyk does re-enter the lineup, he’ll be looking for the veteran winger to help the Bruins’ offensive game. He also complimented van Riemsdyk’s professionalism throughout a trying second half.

“I guess getting his stick on more pucks,” Montgomery said on what he wants to see from van Riemsdyk. “We’ve talked about it a lot of times internally. Him and [Kevin] Shattenkirk have been great. They’re true pros. Every day come to work, come to get better. It’s not an easy situation, but he’s been great.”

van Riemsdyk concurred with his coach’s sentiments about helping Boston’s offensive attack, saying that he’ll be aiming to be around the net as much as possible.

“I think you’ve got to stay true to who you are as a player and play with good details and manage the game well and play to your strengths as a player,” he said. “This time of year, being around the net is always an important trait. You see all the goals being scored, it’s all within 5-10 feet of the net. That’s an area that I pride myself on, so going to be doing my best to get there and have an impact there.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Sports

NHL teams, take note: Alexandar Georgiev is proof that anything can happen in the playoffs

Published

 on

It’s hard to say when, exactly, Alexandar Georgiev truly began to win some hearts and change some minds on Tuesday night.

Maybe it was in the back half of the second period; that was when the Colorado Avalanche, for the first time in their first-round Stanley Cup playoff series against the Winnipeg Jets, actually managed to hold a lead for more than, oh, two minutes or thereabouts. Maybe it was when the Avs walked into the locker room up 4-2 with 20 minutes to play.

Maybe it was midway through the third, when a series of saves by the Avalanche’s beleaguered starting goaltender helped preserve their two-goal buffer. Maybe it was when the buzzer sounded after their 5-2 win. Maybe it didn’t happen until the Avs made it into their locker room at Canada Life Centre, tied 1-1 with the Jets and headed for Denver.

At some point, though, it should’ve happened. If you were watching, you should’ve realized that Colorado — after a 7-6 Game 1 loss that had us all talking not just about all those goals, but at least one of the guys who’d allowed them — had squared things up, thanks in part to … well, that same guy.

300x250x1

Georgiev, indeed, was the story of Game 2, stopping 28 of 30 shots, improving as the game progressed and providing a lesson on how quickly things can change in the playoffs — series to series, game to game, period to period, moment to moment. The narrative doesn’t always hold. Facts don’t always cooperate. Alexandar Georgiev, for one night and counting, was not a problem for the Colorado Avalanche. He was, in direct opposition to the way he played in Game 1, a solution. How could we view him as anything else?

He had a few big-moment saves, and most of them came midway through the third period with his team up 4-2. There he was with 12:44 remaining, stopping a puck that had awkwardly rolled off Nino Niederreiter’s stick; two missed posts by the Avs at the other end had helped spring Niederreiter for a breakaway. Game 1 Georgiev doesn’t make that save.

There he was, stopping Nikolaj Ehlers from the circle a few minutes later. There wasn’t an Avs defender within five feet, and there was nothing awkward about the puck Ehlers fired at his shoulder. Game 1 Georgiev gets scored on twice.

(That one might’ve been poetic justice. It was Ehlers who’d put the first puck of the night on Georgiev — a chip from center ice that he stopped, and that the crowd in Winnipeg greeted with the ol’ mock cheer. Whoops.)

By the end of it all, Georgiev had stared down Connor Hellebuyck and won, saving nearly 0.5 goals more than expected according to Natural Stat Trick, giving the Avalanche precisely what they needed and looking almost nothing like the guy we’d seen a couple days before. Conventional wisdom coming into this series was twofold: That the Avs have firepower, high-end talent and an overall edge — slight as it may be — on Winnipeg, and that Georgiev is shaky enough to nuke the whole thing.

That wasn’t without merit, either. Georgiev’s .897 save percentage in the regular season was six percentage points below the league average, and he hadn’t broken even in expected goals allowed (minus-0.21). He’d been even worse down the stretch, putting up an .856 save percentage in his final eight appearances, and worse still in Game 1, allowing seven goals on 23 shots and more than five goals more than expected. That’s not bad; that’s an oil spill. Writing him off would’ve been understandable. Writing off Jared Bednar for rolling him out there in Game 2 would’ve been understandable. Writing the Avs off — for all of Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar’s greatness — would’ve been understandable.

It just wouldn’t have been correct.

The fact that this all went down now, four days into a two-month ordeal, is a gift — because the postseason thus far has been short on surprises, almost as a rule. The Rangers and Oilers are overwhelming the Capitals and Kings. The Hurricanes are halfway done with the Islanders. The Canucks are struggling with the Predators. PanthersLightning is tight, but one team is clearly better than the other. BruinsMaple Leafs is a close matchup featuring psychic baggage that we don’t have time to unpack. In Golden KnightsStars, Mark Stone came back and scored a huge goal.

None of that should shock you. None of that should make you blink.

Georgiev being good enough for Colorado, though? After what we saw in Game 1? Strange, surprising and completely true. For now.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Sports

"Laugh it off": Evander Kane says Oilers won’t take the bait against Kings | Offside

Published

 on

The LA Kings tried every trick in the book to get the Edmonton Oilers off their game last night.

Hacks after the whistle, punches to the face, and interference with line changes were just some of the things that the Oilers had to endure, and throughout it all, there was not an ounce of retaliation.

All that badgering by the Kings resulted in at least two penalties against them and fuelled a red-hot Oilers power play that made them pay with three goals on four chances. That was by design for Edmonton, who knew that LA was going to try to pester them as much as they could.

That may have worked on past Oilers teams, but not this one.

300x250x1

“We’ve been in a series now for the third year in a row with these guys,” Kane said after practice this morning. “We know them, they know us… it’s one of those things where maybe it makes it a little easier to kind of laugh it off, walk away, or take a shot.

“That type of stuff isn’t gonna affect us.”

Once upon a time, this type of play would get under the Oilers’ skin and result in retaliatory penalties. Yet, with a few hard-knock lessons handed down to them in the past few seasons, it seems like the team is as determined as ever to cut the extracurriculars and focus on getting revenge on the scoreboard.

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, the longest-tenured player on this Oilers team, had to keep his emotions in check with Kings defender Vladislav Gavrikov, who punched him in the face early in the game. The easy reaction would be to punch back, but the veteran Nugen-Hopkins took his licks and wound up scoring later in the game.

“It’s going to be physical, the emotions are high, and there’s probably going to be some stuff after the whistle,” Nugent-Hopkins told reporters this morning. “I think it’s important to stay poised out there and not retaliate and just play through the whistles and let the other stuff just kind of happen.”

Oilers head coach Kris Knoblauch also noticed his team’s discipline. Playoff hockey is full of emotion, and keeping those in check to focus on the larger goal is difficult. He was happy with how his team set the tone.

“It’s not necessarily easy to do,” Knoblauch said. “You get punched in the face and sometimes the referees feel it’s enough to call a penalty, sometimes it’s not… You just have to take them, and sometimes, you get rewarded with the power play.

“I liked our guy’s response and we want to be sticking up for each other, we want to have that pack mentality, but it’s really important that we’re not the ones taking that extra penalty.”

There is no doubt that the Kings will continue to poke and prod at the Oilers as the series continues. Keeping those retaliations in check will only get more difficult, but if the team can continue to succeed on the scoreboard, it could get easier.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending