Buffalo Sabres Head Coach Don Granato Ahead of Sabres At Maple Leafs

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) complained that Democrats had ignored Senate procedures after they voted down two articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

In a vote along party lines, Democrats managed to table the two articles of impeachment. Republicans cried foul because the move circumvented a Senate trial.

"We've set a very unfortunate precedent here," McConnell said following the vote. "This means that the Senate can ignore, in effect, the House's impeachment."

"And by doing what we just did, we have, in effect, ignored the directions of the House, which were to have a trial," he added. "No evidence, no procedure, this is a day that's not a proud day in the history of the Senate."

In a move that broke Senate precedent, then-Majority Leader McConnell refused to grant a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016. The decision marked a significant shift in the handling of Supreme Court nominations.

ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances

In August 2016, McConnell expressed pride in blocking Obama's nominee, a sentiment echoed by the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who also opposed any proceedings for Garland.

"One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy,'" McConnell said in a speech at the time.

Critics called the minority leader hypocritical after his remarks on Wednesday.

"Isn't Mitch McConnell being rather hypocritical in saying the Senate should have respected the wishes of the House for an impeachment trial?" Ben McCrory asked on X (formerly Twitter).

"McConnell can shove it on precedence and the institution. He’s done enough to break that body and this country," another commenter wrote.

Watch the video clip below or click the link.

A House Democrat has declared he is prepared to vote to save House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) job — should far-Right Republicans move to oust him.

Law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted that Donald Trump would be murdered in prison if he is stripped of his Secret Service protections.

Dershowitz made the remarks to Newsmax after Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) introduced a bill to revoke Secret Service benefits if the former president is convicted of a crime.

"So he would not have Secret Service if he's behind bars," a Newsmax host told Dershowitz.

"Well, that's ridiculous," the law professor replied. "That means that they want him killed, because he's obviously a target. We live in an age where everybody is in danger."

"Look, Bobby Kennedy ought to be getting Secret Service protection, but certainly Donald Trump needs to get a Secret Service protection," he insisted.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters

In the end, Dershowitz predicted Trump would never serve jail time.

"The judge is going to bluff and fine and threaten, but he's not going to throw Donald Trump in jail," he explained. "That would be a guaranteed victory."

"It would even get people like me, perhaps, to vote for him if he was thrown in jail on an unconstitutional charge," Dershowitz added. "So I don't think it's going to happen."

Watch the video below from Newsmax or at the link.

As Donald Trump sits in criminal court facing 34 felony charges for purported financial records violations stemming from an attempt to bury a story about an alleged affair with an adult film actress, he may also face a separate prosecutor seizing his real estate holdings, according to a legal expert.

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner published a "Justice Matters" video on Saturday in which he covers a recent filing by New York A.G. Letitia James, who sued Trump in a civil case for business fraud based on his chronic exaggeration of assets to get better loan terms. Specifically, the ex-prosecutor noted how James recently urged state Judge Arthur Engoron to reject the $175 million bond that Trump has posted in his civil fraud case, citing trustworthiness and competency concerns with the institution that agreed to bond him.

For Kirschner, this tells us a good amount about what might happen in the future as these cases move forward.

ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances

Kirschner first covers the three reasons James gives for doubting the validity of the bond, including that the company purportedly doesn't have the financial backing to provide such a large bond, and then goes on to explain what will happen if the judge agrees with her and Trump does nothing to cure the problem.

"At this rate, it looks like there is a fair chance that while Donald Trump is in that New York courtroom being prosecuted for 34 felony crimes, Attorney General Tish James might be up the street seizing Trump's properties," he said. "And I'm OK with that."

Watch the complete video below or click the link here.