Impeachment II thread

[lpetrich]

Trump lawyers call impeachment trial unconstitutional in laying out defense | TheHill

Lawyers representing former President Trump on Tuesday detailed the defense they’ll lay out at next week’s impeachment trial, arguing that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president and that Trump’s speech did not directly lead to the deadly siege on the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6.

The defense brief argues that Trump’s speech before a group of supporters, some of whom later sacked the Capitol, was protected under the First Amendment. And it accuses Democrats of depriving Trump of due process by rushing impeachment through the House.

READ: Trump defense team's response to impeachment case | TheHill

The 14-page filing from Trump defense attorneys David Schoen and Bruce Castor argues that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president and that Trump's remarks were not directly to blame for the deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Inlined there also.

Jim Acosta on Twitter: "Trump impeachment response has been released. It argues constitution “requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached” and that Trump was exercising his First Amendment right to question election results. https://t.co/sc2U5r6Bed" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

More than 370 Democratic aides sign personal appeal for Trump conviction | TheHill

In a letter obtained by The New York Times, the staffers wrote that "Trump and his political allies, some of whom we pass every day in the hallways at work," were guilty of encouraging the mob that swarmed the building, overtaking security checkpoints, battling with police and killing one officer.

"Six people died. A Capitol Police officer — one of our co-workers who guards and greets us every day — was beaten to death. The attack on our workplace was inspired by lies told by the former president and others about the results of the election in a baseless, months-long effort to reject votes lawfully cast by the American people," the letter read.

And for our sake, and the sake of the country, we ask that they vote to convict the former president and bar him from ever holding office again," it concluded.

The letter itself

 

[jab]

Trump lawyers call impeachment trial unconstitutional in laying out defense | TheHill

Lawyers representing former President Trump on Tuesday detailed the defense they’ll lay out at next week’s impeachment trial, arguing that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president and that Trump’s speech did not directly lead to the deadly siege on the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6.

The defense brief argues that Trump’s speech before a group of supporters, some of whom later sacked the Capitol, was protected under the First Amendment. And it accuses Democrats of depriving Trump of due process by rushing impeachment through the House.

READ: Trump defense team's response to impeachment case | TheHill

The 14-page filing from Trump defense attorneys David Schoen and Bruce Castor argues that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president and that Trump's remarks were not directly to blame for the deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Inlined there also.

Jim Acosta on Twitter: "Trump impeachment response has been released. It argues constitution “requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached” and that Trump was exercising his First Amendment right to question election results. https://t.co/sc2U5r6Bed" / Twitter

He was impeached while still in office. The question is the trial--stalled by his own party--and conviction.

 

[starwater]

CNN is reporting that the Impeachment Managers are asking Trump to testify. No way he can not lie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

CNN is reporting that the Impeachment Managers are asking Trump to testify. No way he can not lie.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQGwrK_yDEg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TomC]

CNN is reporting that the Impeachment Managers are asking Trump to testify. No way he can not lie.

And then, like Clinton, lying under oath is a a whole new crime.
Perjury!

Get it done. Put Trump under oath and ask him questions.
Pelosi can do it.
Or maybe get Godzillary to do it. That would make excellent TV! Hillary Clinton asking Trump questions while Trump is under oath.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

CNN is reporting that the Impeachment Managers are asking Trump to testify. No way he can not lie.

BoldProgressives.org on Twitter: "NEW AD: Senate Repubs say it's "too late" to convict Trump — @RepRaskin makes a brilliant argument knocking that out of the ballpark! We put it in this ad!

Every Senator should hear Raskin's words & every Dem should repeat them! Donate to air this in DC: (link)" / Twitter
then
Irene Balas on Twitter: "@BoldProgressive @Rosie @RepRaskin First they said he couldn’t be tried because he was a “seated president” now they’re saying “it’s too late” because he’s no longer the president — they keep enabling him and appeasing him and catering to him. ENOUGH - do your jobs! Disgraceful!!" / Twitter
and
Big Tweety Pie on Twitter: "@BoldProgressive @Rosie @RepRaskin So an arsonist leaves the crime and he says the fire is out and people died and I am not an arsonist any more. So it is too late to charge me. (pic link)" / Twitter
I like that analogy. Seems like many Republicans are desperate to let him off the hook. What's going on here?

But whatever it is, it can't be anything that reflects well on them.

 

[lpetrich]

Lead Impeachment Manager Raskin Statement on Former President Trump's Refusal to Testify Under Oath | U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee

"Today, we offered President Trump the opportunity to testify about the events of January 6 and he refused to do so. Despite his lawyers’ rhetoric, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the government of the United States should welcome the chance to testify openly and honestly—that is, if the official had a defense. We will prove at trial that President Trump’s conduct was indefensible. His immediate refusal to testify speaks volumes and plainly establishes an adverse inference supporting his guilt."

I think that Rep. Raskin won't let Trump pull a Hitler and rant at length about how he only lost because of massive electoral fraud and how he only wanted to make America great again.

 

[Keith&Co.]

think that Rep. Raskin won't let Trump pull a Hitler and rant at length about how he only lost because of massive electoral fraud and how he only wanted to make America great again.

I would think Raskin would WANT that. Like in A Few Good Men. Get Trump to justify his actions, which becomes an admission for those actions, as well as making it clear he'd do it again.

If he gets away with sending a small army to riot because he didn't like the election, what's he going to do next time he's President and his SCOTUS nomination, Ivanka, is not confirmed? Or his budget gets rejected?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seems like many Republicans are desperate to let him off the hook.

No. It's letting THEM off the hook. Fuck Florida Man, sure. PLEASE. But don't make ME pull his pants down.
If the Dems could lock him away without any Rep help, that'd be fine by most of them.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, that's the real goal.

Picture this: these humans have an open exploit ,called "acceptance of insider authority". This exploit allows the injection of lies into their worldview; all it takes is an insider authority saying something and then they start believing that. Prior to Trump, the only people who had access to this exploit were the republican party, carefully curating a set of beneficial lies over the course of years to further their political aims. You could almost liken this to a large scale botnet running on an open exploit in a computer network. In fact, that's where I'm going to take this, as an analogy.

Suddenly, after years of careful maintanence, someone far more reckless and far less intelligent gets access to this exploit. Instead of quietly manipulating the worldview structures, though, the lies he injects are absolutely fucking crazy. Where the previously (and ironically) conservative manipulation had only involved minor lies like "trickle down", this new group of authority figures is now introducing shit like "they rape and eat babies".

This creates two problems for them. One is that to people that don't really display this exploit, the exploit itself is now painfully obvious and clearly problematic. But the second is far worse for the people who were previously using it: this new authority figure closed a lot of their own access, and pushed so much bullshit into the system that now, all their shit is broken and they have to play nice with this group that wrecked their shit.

They can't close the exploit either: it is still the only thing allowing them to hang onto their "useful idiots", whom they need to win elections and thus maintain any appearance of power.

They can't shut him out without shutting themselves out and they can't afford to shut themselves out, and any admission that they were lying or at fault will do exactly that

 

[lpetrich]

think that Rep. Raskin won't let Trump pull a Hitler and rant at length about how he only lost because of massive electoral fraud and how he only wanted to make America great again.

I would think Raskin would WANT that. Like in A Few Good Men. Get Trump to justify his actions, which becomes an admission for those actions, as well as making it clear he'd do it again.

I agree about getting him to answer questions about his conduct.

But what I'm concerned about is something like what Adolf Hitler's prosecutors let him do when he was tried for the Beer Hall Putsch in 1924. Rant at length about how was a simple German patriot and how the real traitors were the ones who stabbed Germany in the back by surrendering to the Western Allies in 1918: the "November criminals".

That's the sort of defense Trump seems to want: a long rant about how the Presidency was stolen from him by massive election fraud.

If he gets away with sending a small army to riot because he didn't like the election, what's he going to do next time he's President and his SCOTUS nomination, Ivanka, is not confirmed? Or his budget gets rejected?

I agree.

 

[Patooka]

think that Rep. Raskin won't let Trump pull a Hitler and rant at length about how he only lost because of massive electoral fraud and how he only wanted to make America great again.

I would think Raskin would WANT that. Like in A Few Good Men. Get Trump to justify his actions, which becomes an admission for those actions, as well as making it clear he'd do it again.

If he gets away with sending a small army to riot because he didn't like the election, what's he going to do next time he's President and his SCOTUS nomination, Ivanka, is not confirmed? Or his budget gets rejected?

I'm less worried about Trump's future political career than I am the people who wish to emulate him. Hypothetical Trump 2.0 might be competent in their fascistic intentions.

 

[hyzer]

Trump testimony we can all look forward to:

"Ahh, but the voting machines! That's - that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with - geometric logic - that a duplicate key to the voting machines DID exist! And I'd have PRODUCED that key if they hadn't've pulled the Trump out of action! I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers -

[breaks off in horror, becomes hesitant]

Umm... naturally, I can only cover these things roughly, from - memory... but if I've left anything out... why, you just ask me - specific questions and I'll be - perfectly happy to answer them... one by one."

 

[ideologyhunter]

There's never a Captain Queeg moment with Trump, because his carny instincts are unfailing. Interviewers who corner him into obvious lies meet with the basic Trump repertoire:
1. "Many people agree with me..."
2. "You should be asking what Antifa and the radical left are doing in cities run by Democrats..."
3. "I don't know him"/"I don't know anything about that."
4. "You don't know that. You can't prove that."
5. "You don't talk to a President like that. This is over."
Somehow this pleases his base. And it reduces me to screaming, "Fuck you!" at my television set, which wigs out the dogs and would probably please Trump if he could see it, because, yes, he owns me. Fuck you, Donald!!

 

[jab]

There's never a Captain Queeg moment with Trump, because his carny instincts are unfailing. Interviewers who corner him into obvious lies meet with the basic Trump repertoire:
1. "Many people agree with me..."
2. "You should be asking what Antifa and the radical left are doing in cities run by Democrats..."
3. "I don't know him"/"I don't know anything about that."
4. "You don't know that. You can't prove that."
5. "You don't talk to a President like that. This is over."
Somehow this pleases his base. And it reduces me to screaming, "Fuck you!" at my television set, which wigs out the dogs and would probably please Trump if he could see it, because, yes, he owns me. Fuck you, Donald!!

Have you seen Trump crossexamined under oath, though? Check out videos of depositions of him posted on youtube.

 

[laughing dog]

think that Rep. Raskin won't let Trump pull a Hitler and rant at length about how he only lost because of massive electoral fraud and how he only wanted to make America great again.

I would think Raskin would WANT that. Like in A Few Good Men. Get Trump to justify his actions, which becomes an admission for those actions, as well as making it clear he'd do it again.

If he gets away with sending a small army to riot because he didn't like the election, what's he going to do next time he's President and his SCOTUS nomination, Ivanka, is not confirmed? Or his budget gets rejected?

I'm less worried about Trump's future political career than I am the people who wish to emulate him. Hypothetical Trump 2.0 might be competent in their fascistic intentions.

That is a real fear.

 

[lpetrich]

Back to C-SPAN. At 4:23:48 the debate started on HRes 72 itself, to strip her of her committees.

One of the members mentions anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family and George Soros. This makes me wonder if some far right-wingers might say "The State of Israel makes me so happy. It's so good to see Jews defending Western civilization instead of trying to ruin it."

Republicans objected to the Democrats' "power grab". Also getting indignant about some of the things that Ilhan Omar said over the years. Also a reference to this:

FBI Briefs Pelosi And McCarthy On Rep. Swalwell's Ties To Suspected Chinese Spy : NPR
How a suspected Chinese spy gained access to California politics - Axios

Also to Rep. Maxine Waters calling for confronting Trump Admin people, supporting the "Russian conspiracy hoax", and objecting to Trump's electoral votes back in 2016. "Cancel culture" was another of the Republicans' villains.

Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Ron Johnson absurdly floats that Nancy Pelosi is somehow responsible for a MAGA mob descending on the Capitol for a deadly insurrection https://t.co/hUi6SydEe1" / Twitter - Sen. Ron Johnson R-WI on Fox News
then
Ilhan Omar on Twitter: ""If you are silent about your pain, they’ll kill you and say you enjoyed it."

Republicans are now trying to make people believe Speaker Pelosi summoned the mob that wanted her assassinated.

Unreal." / Twitter

Then
Mike Fairbanks * on Twitter: "@IlhanMN They are masters of misinformation.

They say the impeachment trial is unconstitutional, but he was impeached while he was still in office and could have been tried while still in office. McConnell postponed it, however, so here we are.

The trial will go forward." / Twitter
Victory by running out the clock?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Victory by running out the clock?

Statute of limitations less than Scarramucci's carton of milk....

 

[ZiprHead]

Georgia election officials formally launch investigation into Trump phone calls
The news comes a day before Trump's impeachment trial begins in the Senate.

The Georgia Secretary of State's office has formally launched an investigation into former President Donald Trump's phone calls to state election officials in which he sought help to overturn the results of the election after President Joe Biden's narrow victory was certified twice.

The investigation, which follows a series of formal complaints filed by a law professor alleging that Trump violated the law during those calls, marks the first formal investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the election in the state.

“The Secretary of State’s office investigates complaints it receives,” said Walter Jones, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's office. “The investigations are fact-finding and administrative in nature. Any further legal efforts will be left to the Attorney General.”