2 posts were split to a new topic: Trolling posts by jc45
A post was merged into an existing topic: Trolling posts by jc45
I hope his lawyers put up a good defense on those grounds.
Trump loses his impeachment team amid unfaltering loyalty from the GOP
Haha.
What happens if, hypothetically, there are no defense attorneys for Trump? Could he represent himself, however poorly? Although I don’t expect that he will appear in person, unless it’s absolutely required. In that case, could he just be convicted in absentia?
Don’t see why he could not represent himself. He was a President after all and should be well versed in Federal law. Hahaha.
And damn it he better appear in person, I’m stocked up on popcorn.
If we follow the line of thinking that he can’t be tried because he’s “just a citizen”, then it follows that he’s subject to a Congressional subpoena and could be arrested for contempt of Congress if he fails to comply.
I read someplace that the attorneys quit because he insisted they pursue the argument that there was massive election fraud and not the argument that as former president, he can’t be impeached. If he were smart enough to stay with the latter argument, I’m sure plenty of respectable lawyers would be willing to defend him. It is, after all, a legitimate question.
It’s really only “legitimate” when compared to arguing massive election fraud.
I thought the senate took a vote and the majority decided it was constitutional by 55 to 45 vote.
What a fabulous idea!
After being taken down, 30 January 1661, Cromwell’s head was severed with eight blows, placed on a wooden spike on a 20-foot (6.1 m) pole, and raised above Westminster Hall. Cromwell’s head remained on a spike above Westminster Hall until the late 1680s.
I think a contemporaneous example like this would really serve to show that trying to promote an insurrection to overturn an election because you are butt-hurt is a bad idea.
Fraudulent vote! The Democrats bussed in Senators from Mexico!
But still that does not prevent continuing to make the argument that at this point it is really no longer up to the Senators to judge him and that this is “another” show trial, and if there’s evidence of actual incitement to insurrection it should be taken to the regular courts with their higher standard of proof – and that argument is one that those who want to avoid voting to convict already signalled they wanted to use for cover, in the procedural vote.
Yet Trump being Trump, he’d deny those who would vote to NOT convict him an easy way out to do so, because he STILL wants to force the Senators to make their vote be over his being the real winner of the election. He wants to make the trial to be not of him but of everyone who did not support his election.
Yes but their argument is the same lame ass argument that Trump is making. I/we didn’t get the votes so I/we get to complain even if we are not in the majority. Complaining long and loud dosen’t make it right or a good defense. Its a way to show you really don’t think the Constitution applies to you. Which is what the trial is actually about, his and the senators failure to support the Constitution and the free and fair election that allow it to function.
Yes, because the extension of the “massive election fraud” defense is… “because of this massive election fraud, there was nothing wrong with me mustering an Army to attack Congress in order to prevent the fraudulent certification of the fraudulent votes. Anyone in my position would’ve done it.”
And we’re going to see 45 of the congressmen targeted in the attack accept this defense and find him not guilty. Because if they don’t, they’ll never work again and they and their families will be harassed mercilessly every time they leave their house. By crowds of other Republicans.
And the Republicans thought Democrats were mean because one random Democrat that wasn’t an elected official or public figure once refused to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders lunch. Both sides, you know.
As far as impeaching former presidents goes, the main point here seems to be depriving trump of the chance to run again. All but one of the living ex-presidents are two-termers and, as such, are already barred from running again. If they want to impeach Jimmy Carter, hey, go for it.
I hear Chump has somehow rustled up two more lawyers today to defend him. But even if he had not, he could defend himself despite not being a lawyer. Or he could just ignore the whole thing and depend on Senate Republikans to make his case for him.
I’m not so sure. They’re the ones pushing the idea that this is unconstitutional. They’re clearly trying not to be seen as saying they think the election was fraudulent. Trump making that the main issue is a problem for them.
They’re also trying to prevent witnesses from being called. That suggests they’re worried that the witnesses may say something that will force their hand.
They very much do not want to have to accept this defense. They know that doing so could also be detrimental to their political chances. And I wouldn’t count out harassment either.
I think the House managers should definitely call witnesses: the cop who was being crushed in the doors, the cop being beaten with a hockey stick, witnesses to the killing of the cop.
They should also play videos of Trump calling for insurrection, and Trump Jr., and Rudy.
And call horny furry guy, to testify that he interpreted Trump’s tweets and the speech at the Ellipse as a call to overturn the vote, with video of him howling in the Senate chambers.
Plus the gallows they set up, and any video of rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence”.
And the video of the cop who led the rioters away from Pence.
And the video of the rioters trampling on the “Don’t tread on me” rioter as the rioters rush to beat the cop with a hockey stick.
And put all that on C-SPAN.
And then call the vote.
If he were as smart as he likes to boast he’d just submit a very brief argument to the effect that this whole exercise is inofficious and moot and done only to put on a show, so nobody should lend their vote to it; maybe add a note that what happened on 6Jan was a bunch of idiots who’ve never heard of a joke and he hopes they get the book thown at them, just to add a final flounce of under-busing.
Then sit down and count on that the 35 to 45 persons who really really don’t want to be recorded voting on the merit of the case, will use the cover and vote “no” as a “jury nullification” of the process.
Yep. They know they are in a lose-lose position of their own making.
How are Democrats not actively pitching the premise that Donald Trump is hiding in Florida like a coward too afraid to face questioning? If that became the narrative, I have little doubt that he’d be unable to restrain himself from asking to be a witness.