Anybody surprised?
https://www.axios.com/trump-legal-fees-impeachment-trial-8f6578e6-0662-4aea-8edc-aee2530c5165.html
The notoriously stingy former president and his lead lawyer, Butch Bowers, wrangled over compensation during a series of tense phone calls, sources familiar with their conversations said. The argument came even though Trump has raised over $170 million from the public that could be used on his legal defenses…
Eh. Tomato, tomahto.
Agreed - a Republican vote to acquit confirms Trump’s irrelevant defense. At least it does for his donor base and that’s what counts. The Senate will have confirmed that the election was a fraud and Trump is the legal President of the US.
Trump stiffs everyone. He never pays. He will either ignore you or get another chump to pay your for him, if you’re lucky. Any lawyer who has paid any attention to him would demand money up front and walk if they don’t get it.
I do get a good laugh out of the idea that he could pay his upcoming bills with all the money he has raised. That’s not what that money is for.
This is absolutely correct. Trump wants a way to get back into the spotlight and to reconnect with his fan club. It might also give him an opportunity to explain why he didn’t pardon his supporters. “I looked into it; I was told I couldn’t do it (for reasons).”
Trump says election was stolen but he didn’t incite an insurrection. But some of the rioters are giving “he invited us” as their defense. Seems to me this is just evidence in support of the impeachment charge, and is going to complicate things even more for those spineless cravens in the Republican party who plan to acquit him anyway. Good. Let it be up and open for all the world and history to see what they are excusing.
I thought that once he was out of office Trump would aggravate me a lot less, but that just isn’t happening.
He won’t stop aggravating me until he’s dead or imprisoned for life.
Those are the ideal outcomes, but I would settle for “covered in angry paper wasps.”
Here’s a copy of the Answer to Article 1 of the Impeachment charges. I didn’t read much of it, as I couldn’t get past this:
To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate:
Yes, the ‘Unites’ State Senate.
Good grief.
Most of it (14) pp, is the senate can’t hold this trial. Fingers in the ears, lalalalalalalalalala.
This is a long and detailed analysis of Trump’s defense.
tl;dr – It’s a huge pile of bullshit.
Can Trump be subpoenaed to testify at his impeachment trial?
If so I think the Dems should do it. They could then, with Trump on the stand, play videos wherein some of the Capitol-stormers proclaim, while in the Capitol, that they are doing what they’re doing because Trump told them to do it. Prior to that they could call some of them to testify and reiterate same. Then ask Trump to respond. He would then be put in the position of either having to disown the insurrectionists (and the disownment could be intensified to condemnation by good questioning), or own them and what they did, thereby “admitting” that he incited them. They could also play videos of some of the pub Senators saying Trump bears responsibility for what happened, and do the same.
With a decently skilled trial lawyer (and the Dems should put their best one on it), it would seem Trump could be egged into right proper Captain Queeg mode in short order.
Of course, it could all backfire in spectacularly horrible fashion, which, given the way all the other Trump-exposing things have heretofore worked out for the Dems, is probably what would happen.
The Senate has to decide on the rules of the trial. In the past, witnesses have, by agreement, not been called. But I agree, if the House managers are able to call Trump as a witness, he could pretty easily be led to self-destruct under oath. I’m all for it.
If we follow the GOP argument to its logical outcome, it basically means that a president can do whatever he wants to try to stay in office at the end of the term and there is no fear of repercussions. If it happens at the end of the term, there isn’t time to impeach and convict before he leaves office, and then even if he leaves office, since the term is over, it’s too late to do anything after.
So, exactly why wouldn’t every president attempt a coup at the end of their term? If it succeeds, you stay in office. If it fails, no biggie. Every president gets one free coup attempt, apparently.
It just wouldn’t matter. Trump could openly admit to inciting the insurrection in order to steal an election that he knew he lost, say that he’d do it again in a heartbeat, take a shit on the American flag and then storm out, and Republicans would still vote to acquit. His supporters would pretend like they’ve always been in favor of presidents shitting on the American flag, and would praise him for it. Nothing matters at this point. This is not an exaggeration either.
Exactly what I’ve been thinking.
(When in office) Oh, you can’t do anything to a sitting president, even if he does criminal acts, because he’s president. (The Nixonian “It’s not a crime if the president does it” defense)
(When out of office) Oh, you can’t do anything because he’s no longer president, let’s all work together now in harmony for the good of the country.