Impeachment II thread

[southernhybrid]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Really? I heard that their defense is going to be that it's unconstitutional to impeach a former president. In other words, they have no defense for his behavior, so their just going with the impeachment isn't legal.

 

[Elixir]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Really? I heard that their defense is going to be that it's unconstitutional to impeach a former president. In other words, they have no defense for his behavior, so their just going with the impeachment isn't legal.

Right, that was their response to the overall article of impeachment. But they took an aside to contest that Trump "made false claims", insofar as he believed what he was saying.
It jumped out at me and I immediately thought of Giuliani's witness lady and the meme "You DO understand why that's worse, right?"

 

[Keith&Co.]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Really? I heard that their defense is going to be that it's unconstitutional to impeach a former president. In other words, they have no defense for his behavior, so their just going with the impeachment isn't legal.

That's the SENATORS' defense. "I won't convict, but don't take that as endorsement of his actions because this is not the right venue to hold him responsible."

HIS defense is whatever nutburger thought popped into his head that his lawyers won't say, "Sir, that'll get me disbarred."

 

[Gun Nut]

The latest, as of this hour, is that Trump's incitementing words over the past 2.5 months is "Free Speech".
Soooo... Trump raped me. I want an investigation and trial. If it is shown that I was lying, well then "free speech, buh bye".

 

[ZiprHead]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Really? I heard that their defense is going to be that it's unconstitutional to impeach a former president. In other words, they have no defense for his behavior, so their just going with the impeachment isn't legal.

So, if you commit crimes against the nation in the last few weeks of your office, no problem.

There's been two impeachments after the person has left office. No question of constitutionality was seriously entertained.

And Trump's new lawyers says that removing Trump's ability to run for office again is unconstitutional. Apparently this legal scholar has never read the 14th amendment.

 

[Shadowy Man]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Really? I heard that their defense is going to be that it's unconstitutional to impeach a former president. In other words, they have no defense for his behavior, so their just going with the impeachment isn't legal.

If that were true then no President can ever be convicted. They can simply resign before the final vote. One can argue that this is the same as removal, but then the other punishment, I.e., not being able hold office again, can never be accomplished. And if you’re lucky enough to commit your impeachable offenses with so little time left in office that a trial can’t (or won’t) be had then you get away with no political punishment at all. Impeachment means nothing if we can’t impeach Trump.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey, you know what? Maybe it's like Beetlejuice?

Gotta sayvote it THREE times.
Impeachment!
IMPEACHMENT!!
IMPEACHMENT!!!
Then he has to go!

 

[Patooka]

Hey, you know what? Maybe it's like Beetlejuice?

Gotta sayvote it THREE times.
Impeachment!
IMPEACHMENT!!
IMPEACHMENT!!!
Then he has to go!

Well, the cunt's already gone so it could be argued consequences most occur so no other cunt gets similar ideas in the future

 

[fromderinside]

Does one really want to set a precedent that insurrection is permissible by anyone while still in office, especially if that insurrection were aimed directly at denying to winner of electoral competition legitimacy. There is no way Trump-hole should be permitted to run for anything again.

Oh wait. Patooka just wrote that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Really? I heard that their defense is going to be that it's unconstitutional to impeach a former president. In other words, they have no defense for his behavior, so their just going with the impeachment isn't legal.

That is what the lawyers want to argue. Trump wants to argue it was justified... of which he is sealing his own guilt... if the GOP weren't a group of assholes.

 

[DrZoidberg]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Well, George Bush jr said he started the Iraq war because the voices in his head told him so. The Americans seem to be cool with nutcase presidents

 

[Worldtraveller]

MSNBC said this morning that Trump's defense against the charge that he "repeated false claims" about wiinning the election by a landslide and blah blah, is going to be that they weren't false claims.
The defense will argue that they were what Trump sincerely believed, so ...

.. *skroink*

They're basically pleading insanity.
I'd say that's a good argument for prohibiting Trump from running for any public office again.

Really? I heard that their defense is going to be that it's unconstitutional to impeach a former president. In other words, they have no defense for his behavior, so their just going with the impeachment isn't legal.

That is what the lawyers want to argue. Trump wants to argue it was justified... of which he is sealing his own guilt... if the GOP weren't a group of assholes.

I think I see the problem here....

 

[jab]

Hey, you know what? Maybe it's like Beetlejuice?

Gotta sayvote it THREE times.
Impeachment!
IMPEACHMENT!!
IMPEACHMENT!!!
Then he has to go!

Well, the cunt's already gone so it could be argued consequences most occur so no other cunt gets similar ideas in the future

What do you have against female genetalia?

 

[ZiprHead]

What do you have against female genetalia?

Male genitalia?

 

[lpetrich]

House Democrat cheers Gaetz's offer to resign, help Trump with trial | TheHill
That's Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-FL

Trump legal switch hints at larger problems | TheHill

Multiple sources familiar with the process of assembling Trump’s team described it as chaotic and dysfunctional. Trump met with Schoen and Castor on Saturday in Florida, but it’s unclear how well the former president knows the two attorneys.

“It’s a little crazy to me that you’ve got a former president of the United States who’s about to be tried for impeachment for a second time, and you can’t find an attorney to represent you,” one source said.

“This goes to a larger narrative, which is just like we saw during his administration, his post-administration is being advised by people who don’t know what they’re doing,” the source added.

Trump, with his "Office of the Ex-President", wants his post-presidential career to be a continuation of his presidency. This incompetence seems like another continuing feature of his presidency.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump's problem is he wants to argue the election was stolen. No lawyer wants to go in on that argument as it actually provides evidence for those impeaching Trump, and especially when the 'it is unconstitutional to impeach a President who isn't actually the President anymore' argument is full enough of gray to work as a viable defense for a GOP that has no problem covering up yet another crime of the Trump Presidency.

So Trump keeps going through lawyers when they realize what the hundreds to thousands of others have realized about their client/boss/coworker... the guy is unhinged and not capable of working with anyone else.

 

[Gospel]

Regardless of whether or not Trump get's impeached the GOP won't be able to keep the show on the road for long. Trump put them in a lose lose situation. Either they continue to procedurally turn up the crazy to keep Trump supporters as voters and as a result bleed more party members or they snap out of it, and still lose a large part of their voter block in all the rigmarole.

 

[lpetrich]

Five takeaways from Trump impeachment trial briefs | TheHill
1.

Briefs underscore different political worlds

... In fact, Democrats say it is imperative that Trump is punished to ensure that U.S. democracy is not threatened in this fashion ever again.

... In their legal brief, Trump’s attorneys argued that the trial proceedings are null and void because a former president cannot be impeached.

They argued there was no correlation between Trump’s rhetoric and the mob that later stormed the Capitol.

2.
"Trial to focus on First Amendment, incitement allegations"
3.
"Constitutionality debate rages"
4.
"Trump attorneys open door to election fraud debate"
5.
"Democrats hope to tap emotional aspects of Jan. 6 attack"

 

[lpetrich]

Impeachment managers say Trump conduct demands conviction | TheHill
noting
READ: Democrats say Trump incited mob in impeachment brief | TheHill

“President Trump’s conduct must be declared unacceptable in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. This is not a partisan matter. His actions directly threatened the very foundation on which all other political debates and disagreements unfold,” their impeachment trial brief states.

with an inlined copy of that 80-page brief. I'll use its table of contents to summarize it.
Facts:

• President Trump Refuses to Accept the Results of the 2020 Election
• President Trump Encourages His Followers to Come to Washington on January 6, 2021 and “Fight” to Overturn the Election Results
• Vice President Pence Refuses to Overturn the Election Results
• President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol
• Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol
• President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack
• The House Approves An Article of Impeachment with Bipartisan Support

Argument:

• PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
  • 
    President Trump Violated His Oath of Office
  • President Trump Attacked the Democratic Process
  • President Trump Imperiled Congress
  • President Trump Undermined National Security
• THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT
  • Fair Impeachment Process
  • Criminality
  • Election Results
  • Free Speech
• THE SENATE HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THIS IMPEACHMENT
  • Former Officials in England and the Early American States Were Subject to Impeachment and Disqualification for Abuses Committed in Office
  • The Framers Adhered to the Tradition That Former Officials Were Subject to Impeachment, Conviction, and Disqualification for Misconduct in Office
    1. The Constitutional Convention
    2. Constitutional Text and Structure
  • Congressional Precedent Supports Jurisdiction over President Trump

Then a conclusion.

 

[lpetrich]

Impeachment managers say Trump conduct demands conviction | TheHill

The Democrats’ 80-page trial brief describes Trump as unmistakably and singularly responsible for the events at the U.S. Capitol and states that his conduct “requires” that he be convicted and barred from holding office again.

“President Trump’s conduct must be declared unacceptable in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. This is not a partisan matter. His actions directly threatened the very foundation on which all other political debates and disagreements unfold,” the brief states. “They also threatened the constitutional system that protects the fundamental freedoms we cherish.”

Impeachment Managers File Trial Brief, Explain Senate’s Obligation to Hear Case against Donald Trump | by House Judiciary Dems | House Committee on the Judiciary | Feb, 2021 | Medium

he facts are compelling and the evidence is overwhelming. After months of spreading his Big Lie that he won a landslide victory in the 2020 election, leading up to and on January 6, 2021, President Trump summoned, assembled and incited a violent mob that attacked the Capitol, cost the lives of three police officers and four other people, threatened the Vice-President and Congress, and successfully halted the counting of the Electoral College vote. Trump’s responsibility for the vicious January 6 insurrection is unmistakable. Moreover, given the plain text of the Constitution, the intent and understanding of the Framers, and Senate precedent dating back more than two hundred years, the Senate’s responsibility to hear this case is clear and unavoidable. There is no ‘January exception’ to the Constitution that allows a President to organize a coup or incite an armed insurrection in his final weeks in office. The Senate must convict President Trump, who has already been impeached by the House of Representatives, and disqualify him from ever holding federal office again. We must protect the Republic from any future dangerous attacks he could level against our constitutional order.

HOUSE TRIAL BRIEF - house_trial_brief_final.pdf - another copy, at the House Judiciary Committee's site.