Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2021 Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The 2021 Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

    The Seventeen GOP Senators Who Could Convict Trump


    Almost Certain to Convict (5)
    ·Mitt Romney, Utah. The 2012 GOP presidential nominee has become the conscience of the right, often critiquing Trump and the only GOP vote to impeach in 2019. Plus he is solid in Utah, where Trump is not terribly popular, and is not up for reelection until 2024.
    ·Lisa Murkowski, Alaska. The longstanding thorn in Trump’s side has all but announced she is going to vote to convict.
    · Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania. Toomey has announced he will not run for reelection in 2022. Like other Republicans before him who were on the verge of leaving office (see: Jeff Flake), Toomey has broken with Trump and has been openly supportive of impeachment.
    ·Susan Collins, Maine. Collins just won a surprisingly easy reelection in Maine over a well-funded opponent. She has long been lampooned for her “concern” with Trump, and vilified for her view that Trump had “learned his lesson’ in the Mueller investigation. It is time for her to shore up support from center-left Mainers and translate that concern into a conviction vote.
    ·Ben Sasse, Nebraska. Sasse has been unsparing of his critiques of Trump throughout the transition, and at times before then, and just won reelection, so he is a near certain conviction vote.

    Open to Impeachment and Possibly Waiting for McConnell (12)
    We’ve listed these Senators roughly in order of the likelihood they will support impeachment, with all of them more or less contingent on McConnell’s decision.
    ·Mitch McConnell, Kentucky. The Senate Leader just won his reelection and is concerned about regaining the Senate in 2022, and believes ridding the GOP of Trump is central to its future. He openly supported impeachment and has said he is on the fence about conviction. It is all up to him; if he votes to convict, enough GOP Senators will surely follow to get to 17. If he does not, it could be just the five above joining the Democrats.
    ·John Thune, South Dakota. Thune, the GOP Senate’s number two as Minority Whip, will surely follow McConnell. His claim to anti-Trump fame was memorably calling Trump’s efforts to overturn the Senate’s certification process “would go down like a shot dog.”
    ·Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia. She has indicated that Trump “owns” the insurrection and that his actions were “inexcusable.” And she was just reelected, so she will not face a threat for six years.
    ·John Cornyn, Texas. Cornyn just won reelection, and is widely known to hold Trump in utter contempt, and has broken with him on a few issues, notably the Wall, COVID and foreign policy. He knows Texas is turning purple and Trump has to be ejected as part of a GOP reinvention for him to survive there.
    ·Thom Tillis, North Carolina. Tillis just won a second-term in a close one in a purple state, and he’ll need a conviction vote to win again in 2026 in his state.
    ·Richard Burr, North Carolina. Burr has decided that he will not run for reelection in 2022. Like Toomey, he thus faces no electoral consequences for a conviction vote. He ran the Senate Intelligence Committee with surprising dignity in the Trump years.
    ·Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma. The Chair of the Armed Services Committee – succeeding John McCain – was furious over Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act. Trump was unhappy with the lack of provisions relating to social media and protections for military bases named for Confederate generals – and Inhofe was incensed Trump would veto legislation that had passed routinely for 60 consecutive years. He was just reelected and amply protected if he chooses to vote to convict.
    ·Mike Lee, Utah. Lee was surprisingly forceful in opposing Trump’s attempts to upend the certification process, especially since he has been a long-time ally of one of the ringleaders of the movement, Ted Cruz.
    ·Rob Portman, Ohio. Portman passes for a moderate these days in the GOP, and occasionally exhibits modest pangs of conscience with respect to Trump. He will likely convict with McConnell providing him cover, but it will be a tough one since he is up for reelection in 2022.
    ·Chuck Grassley, Iowa. The GOP Senate’s elder statesmen (at age 89) has been highly critical of Trump’s actions with respect to the insurrection, declaring that Trump has already disqualified himself. But he is up for reelection in 2022, and, despite his age, just may do it. And Iowa is becoming redder every election.
    ·Deb Fischer, Nebraska. Fischer is the quieter of the Nebraska Senators relative to Ben Sasse, but she issued a strong statement in support of the Biden certification, has been silent on the impeachment and thus appears to be open to the Senate process.
    ·Tom Cotton, Arkansas. Cotton, a deeply conservative Trump supporter, has 2024 presidential aspirations and already he has chosen a different path than his neighbor and fellow potential contender, Josh Hawley. Cotton chose to oppose Hawley in the certification battle, supporting Biden, and he may play his hand all the way with a conviction vote, which also helps him to clear the 2024 field of Trump. It’s a huge gamble for the young Arkansas Senator.

    Almost Certain to Acquit (32)
    These Senators have either announced their intention to oppose conviction or almost certainly will acquit Trump.
    ·Lindsey Graham, South Carolina. The longtime Trump apologist and BFF has taken the mantel for leading the pro-Trump charge in the Senate, informally whipping votes to acquit.
    ·Rand Paul, Kentucky. Paul is always a wild-card but he is more or less on the record opposing conviction, convinced that one-third of the current GOP will leave the party if the Senate convicts Trump.
    ·Ron Johnson, Wisconsin. Johnson has been such a vocal and visible Trump supporter it would be shocking if he did not vote to acquit him (even though he did switch his certification views after the insurrection and supported certifying Biden). Johnson is up for reelection in 2022 and will not risk a split with Trump voters now.
    ·Marco Rubio, Florida. One might think Rubio would be itching to get Trump out of the 2024 field, but he has publicly stated his opposition to impeachment and one would assume would be opposed to conviction.
    ·Rick Scott, Florida. Scott is using the now-conventional GOP line of opposing impeachment (and one would assume conviction) based on the need for “national unity.”
    ·Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee. Although she switched her announced certification vote (from opposition to support) after the insurrection, Blackburn is a very vocal and colorful Trump supporter and will certainly vote against conviction.
    ·Jodi Ernst, Iowa. Ernst just went through a difficult reelection in a state that is turning from purple to red. Six years from now she will not want a conviction vote on her record.
    ·Tim Scott, South Carolina. Scott expressed strong public aversion to impeachment and likely would feel the same about a Senate conviction.
    ·The Anti-Certification Six. The six Senators who stuck with their pre-riot anti-certification stances and voted against certifying Biden have essentially already acquitted him and, having pushed their chips on Trump to the center of the table in that manner, it would be shocking if they did otherwise. How they could march back into that room after fearing for their lives at the hands of a Trump-incited mob – which was well known at the time – is beyond the pale. Eight other Senators who had announced support for decertification changed their minds after the events of the day.

    o Josh Hawley, Missouri. The ringleader and enabler of the anti-certification movement, the ultimate ambition-at-any-cost conservative with an eye toward capturing the Trump wing in his own 2024 presidential bid.
    o Ted Cruz, Texas. He quickly signed on with Hawley and was his wingman, for essentially the exact same reasons.
    o Tommy Tuberville, Alabama. Trump and Giuliani were still calling the newly elected former Auburn football coach at 7 PM on January 6, begging him to challenge more states so the certification process could be delayed further, thus giving Trump more time to change the minds of state legislators.
    o John Kennedy, Louisiana. The rumpled conservative has become a darling of the Trumpsters.
    o Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi. The low profile Senator was a surprise “yes” vote against Biden’s certification since she was not on the original list of 14 supporters.
    o Roger Marshall, Kansas. No daylight has ever emanated between Marshall and Trump.

    The rest of the Senators in this bucket are low-profile Trump supporters from deep red western and southern states who have never broken with Trump or uttered a critical word about him. All but one are white men, and most are older (their average age is 66). They are the bland faces who represent the heart of Trump world, and they march in lockstep in Trump’s parade. If they have never once broken with Trump before – not even in the last few weeks, when so many others have done so for the first time -- it is unlikely they will suddenly find a conscience during the Senate trial. We’ve noted which of them indicated public opposition to certification, but changed their minds and supported it after the insurrection. As you peruse the list, ask yourself how many of them are completely unknown to you. Don't be surprised if it is most or all of the list.

    ·John Barasso, Wyoming.
    ·Roy Blunt, Missouri.
    ·John Boozman, Arkansas.
    ·Mike Braun, Indiana. Supported not certifying Trump but changed mind after insurrection.
    ·Bill Cassidy, Louisiana.
    ·Kevin Cramer, North Dakota.
    ·Mike Crapo, Idaho.
    ·Steve Daines, Montana. Supported not certifying Trump but changed mind after insurrection.
    ·Bill Hagerty, Tennessee. Supported not certifying Trump but changed mind after insurrection.
    ·John Hoeven, North Dakota.
    ·James Lankford, Oklahoma. Supported not certifying Trump but changed mind after insurrection.
    ·Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming. Supported not certifying Trump but changed mind after insurrection.
    ·Jerry Moran, Kansas.
    ·James Risch, Idaho.
    ·Mike Rounds, South Dakota.
    ·Richard Shelby, Alabama.
    ·Dan Sullivan, Alaska.
    ·Roger Wicker, Mississippi.
    ·Todd Young, Indiana.

    I offer three final caveats to this exercise:

    The first is that Donald Trump’s approval rating has not fallen very much over the last two weeks -- about five points. This drop may have been enough to loose his vicelike grip on the GOP, but not even to sever it, by any means. The drop may not be enough for more than a few to convict him.

    The second is that Mitch McConnell is now the most unpopular person in America. The Democrats have always hated him, and his favorability rating among Republicans has dropped significantly with his break from Trump -- the crazies hate him now, too. We may be overstating the willingness of GOP fence-sitters to follow him.

    The third is Joe Manchin. He is the most conservative Democratic Senator, from deep red West Virginia, and he is now, after Joe Biden, the second most powerful person in Washington, D.C. Manchin might very well vote against conviction, and then another GOP vote must be found from a seemingly intractable pool.
    _______
    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

  • #2
    McConnell reportedly believes Trump committed impeachable offenses

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has told associates he believes President Trump's actions related to last week's deadly riot at the United States Capitol are impeachable, The New York Times reports. And while he was ready to shoot down the House's first Trump impeachment last year, this time around he's reportedly happy the Democrats are moving forward.

    The Times' report doesn't clear up the question of whether McConnell would actually vote to convict Trump, whom he reportedly does not intend on speaking with again, but it does suggest he views a second impeachment trial — regardless of the outcome — as a way to weaken the outgoing president and "purge" him from the Republican Party. In addition to his anger about the riot, McConnell also blames Trump for costing the GOP its Senate majority for at least the next two years after the Democrats picked up both Georgia seats last week, per the Times.

    McConnell has indicated he won't bring the Senate back from recess until Jan. 19, which means an impeachment trial would almost certainly stretch into President-elect Joe Biden's term, but the revelations from the Times hint he's open to that possibility. Biden reportedly called McConnell on Monday and asked if the upper chamber would be able to juggle holding a trial and confirming his Cabinet nominees, officials briefed on the matter told the Times. McConnell reportedly said that was a question for the Senate parliamentarian, but added that he would get Biden an answer as quickly as possible.
    __________

    After enabling and shielding an obvious authoritarian with a sneering contempt for the Constitution, suddenly McConnell doesn't like Trump.
    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

    Comment


    • #3
      Donald Trump Impeached For Inciting Insurrection Against The United States

      222 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted in favor of impeachment.

      197 Republicans voted against impeachment
      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        Donald Trump Impeached For Inciting Insurrection Against The United States

        222 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted in favor of impeachment.

        197 Republicans voted against impeachment
        Does this suggest getting 17 republicans will be an uphill battle?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tantalus View Post

          Does this suggest getting 17 republicans will be an uphill battle?
          Pay close attention to Mitch McConnell. He's the canary in this particular coal mine.

          Thus far, Trump is directly responsible for:
          • The Republicans losing the House
          • The Republicans losing the White House
          • The Republicans losing the Senate
          • Mitch McConnell losing his position as Senate Majority Leader
          • Armed thugs bursting into McConnell's place of work, baying for blood

          There's a decent chance that McConnell has had more than enough of Donald Trump. And if McConnell says he'll vote to convict, then Trump is almost certainly deader than disco.
          Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
            Donald Trump Impeached For Inciting Insurrection Against The United States

            222 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted in favor of impeachment.

            197 Republicans voted against impeachment
            Now how many Republicans voted to impeach Clinton because he lied about getting a BJ from Monica.

            Obviously a BJ trumps an Insurrection. Bwahaha, couldn't resist that comment as they could be almost the same...

            Comment


            • #7
              17 Senators seems like a stretch. Mitch or someone close to him has leaked that he is pleased Trump is getting impeached, but Graham and Scott and possibly others are very loudly against it. Mitch can't pull committee assignments from the majority of the party, or else he won't even be Senate Minority Leader.

              What's probably more telling at the moment is the silence from folks like Cotton and Lee, who would be the critical defections. Not speaking indicates not making up their minds yet.

              I don't see GOP Senators voting to convict someone who isn't in office anymore if they think it will carry any political cost at all.
              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

              Comment


              • #8
                Doesn't appear to be as cut and dried as the last time.


                https://www.npr.org/2021/01/13/95650...peachment-vote

                GOP Strategist On Senate's Preparations For Impeachment Vote


                January 13, 20214:05 PM ET


                NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with Scott Jennings, an adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, about the state of play as the Senate prepares to consider President Trump's impeachment.

                MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

                That's right. The New York Times is reporting that privately, McConnell has come around to the idea of impeachment. The Times quotes people familiar with McConnell's thinking. Well, we're going to hear next from GOP strategist Scott Jennings, who is familiar with McConnell's thinking from having worked for him over the years.

                Mr. Jennings, welcome.

                SCOTT JENNINGS: Thank you. Good to be with you.

                KELLY: Why might Mitch McConnell now be on board with impeachment?

                JENNINGS: Well, his statement this afternoon made clear that he hadn't decided what to do. But I think, generally speaking, if you just look at the facts of what's happened over the last few weeks and certainly the last few days, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that if this is not impeachable, then what is?

                KELLY: How much of this is politics? Because we know that Senator McConnell has always got his eyes focused on the politics. This could help the party, presumably. If Trump, who has proven toxic, is out of the way, the GOP could move forward.

                JENNINGS: Well, I certainly think politicians make decisions based on some politics. But I also think in this moment, if I know Senator McConnell, and I do, he'd probably say something like, there are times when you can wet your finger and stick it up in the wind and see which way the wind is blowing, and there's times to just do what's right. And I think you're going to see some Republicans vote their conscience in that way. Again, he has said today he doesn't know what he's going to do yet. But he went to the floor last week and directly said that the vote to confirm the Electoral College was the most important vote he had cast in 36 years. And he's seen a lot of things and issues come and go. So the gravity of that statement, I think, today means more than ever.

                KELLY: Yeah. I mean, I want to underscore, it does look as though the majority of Republicans in the House are going to vote against impeachment. But I wonder, is another possible factor here that this is personal for Senator McConnell and for other lawmakers in a way that it was not with impeachment Round 1? Congress was physically attacked last week. The U.S. Senate chamber was vandalized.

                JENNINGS: Well, yes. I mean, it must be personal. They were attacked. Their staff was barricading themselves behind closed doors, using furniture to keep the mob out. I mean, I think we were, you know, just a few other different decisions on which way to turn in the Capitol away from members of Congress encountering very, very violent people. It could have been far worse, and it was already horrific as it stands.

                But I also think that Leader McConnell and other members of Congress take their duties under the Constitution very seriously. And the president tried to prevent the Congress from performing its constitutional duties, and he directly tried to prevent the vice president of the United States from doing that as well. So I think there's a - you know, that the Capitol was physically attacked, but also the Constitution was attacked because the Congress had a job to do, and the president tried to stop them from doing it.


                KELLY: He says, as you noted, that he has not made up his mind. But if Senator McConnell were to back impeachment, how big a game-changer would that be...

                JENNINGS: Well, I mean, he's...

                KELLY: ...In terms of turning the tide?

                JENNINGS: ...One of the most credible voices in our party, and he has obviously been a leader in the party for a very long time. And he was one of the chief implementers of President Trump's agenda. So I think it'd be a rather seismic decision if he decided to go in that direction.

                KELLY: Although, you need a two-thirds majority of senators present to convict. Do you see signs that enough other Republican senators might break rank?

                JENNINGS: I don't know. I think it would be close. But I also think that the Senate's different than the House in that a lot of the people in the Senate aren't in cycle every two years. These House members are on the ballot functionally all the time. But that's not true for the senators.

                KELLY: Yeah. So the dynamic in the Senate is a little bit different. Maybe senators might also be less afraid of a primary challenge from the right.

                JENNINGS: Yeah. I think they tend to be a little more self-confident (laughter) than the new members of the House.

                KELLY: So, big picture, how do you think this ends? Whatever might happen with a Senate trial, does President Trump disappear off into the sunset? What happens to the GOP?

                JENNINGS: I don't think so. But I do think that the Republican Party has to wrestle with the limits of Trumpism. Even setting aside the events of last Wednesday, the last several elections have shown the limits of Trump's electoral strength. And you throw what happened last Wednesday on top of it, and now those limits are even lower. So I would say the party needs to do some soul-searching about what it needs and has to be in order to be a functionally successful party at the national level.

                KELLY: That is Republican strategist Scott Jennings. He served as an adviser to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.

                Mr. Jennings, many thanks.

                JENNINGS: Thank you.
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #9
                  . And if McConnell says he'll vote to convict, then Trump is almost certainly deader than disco.
                  yeah, I can't see it either.

                  I can see UP TO six GOP Senate votes for conviction. Romney, Sasse, Toomey, Murkowski, Collins (?), McConnell (??).

                  if McConnell presses the issue -- and he has already said he won't whip it, he just won't OPPOSE it -- maybe Grassley, Portman, Burr...I dunno...Ernst?

                  bottom-line if McConnell really wanted to do this, and he felt like he had the votes for it, he would be arranging for it right now.

                  as it is, my guess is that he thinks he is making enough of a statement to Trump by stating that he won't defend him and might even vote for conviction, the saucy minx!

                  asshole.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "...saucy minx!" FTW
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post

                      yeah, I can't see it either.

                      I can see UP TO six GOP Senate votes for conviction. Romney, Sasse, Toomey, Murkowski, Collins (?), McConnell (??).

                      if McConnell presses the issue -- and he has already said he won't whip it, he just won't OPPOSE it -- maybe Grassley, Portman, Burr...I dunno...Ernst?

                      bottom-line if McConnell really wanted to do this, and he felt like he had the votes for it, he would be arranging for it right now.

                      as it is, my guess is that he thinks he is making enough of a statement to Trump by stating that he won't defend him and might even vote for conviction, the saucy minx!

                      asshole.
                      Oh nothing is ever set in stone, true. But if enough GOP Senators are set to retire, and thus suddenly find their balls, he'll be convicted. Also, god only know what kind of traitorous idiocy Trump will engage in between now and the trial. To say nothing of witness revelations. Because we'll probably have witnesses this time around.

                      As it is, with the shit storm of legal and financial problems Trump is going to face, starting in less than a week, the fat piece of shit might just do us all a favor and die from a massive Big Mac-induced coronary before then.
                      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Trump Struggles to Build Legal Team as Impeachment Trial Nears

                        President Donald Trump, on the eve of facing a historic second impeachment trial for inciting the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol last week, is having trouble finding a legal team to defend him.

                        Allies of the outgoing president have been canvassing Washington’s legal landscape looking for representation but so far are coming up short. Lawyers who defended him in the previous impeachment trial, including Jay Sekulow and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, have said no this time, according to people familiar with the matter.

                        Other lawyers who have defended Trump at times, including former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, Eric Herschmann, Pat Philbin and Marc Kasowitz aren’t interested in joining a team this time, the people said. Some of the lawyers who don’t want a role have privately said what Trump did was indefensible.

                        More broadly, a number of prominent law firms have refused to engage in any legal representation involving the president’s actions following the Nov. 6 election.

                        “I’m not terribly surprised that top tier conservative attorneys who a Republican president might normally turn to would not be interested in jumping on this particular grenade,” said Keith Whittington, a politics professor at Princeton University. “Those who might have been sympathetic to defending the president in other contexts such as his first impeachment don’t necessarily want to defend what he’s done here -- both because they aren’t easy to defend and they’ll tarnish people’s professional reputation down the road.”

                        It’s unclear when the Senate will hold a trial following the House vote Wednesday to impeach Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has some discretion on when she sends the impeachment article to the Senate, which Republican leader Mitch McConnell made clear won’t reconvene until Jan. 19. That means a trial can begin at the earliest the following day, when President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugrated.

                        Trump’s actions have caused significant fissures within the GOP with 10 House Republicans joining with Democrats in supporting the president’s impeachment. That includes Steven Calabresi, a founder of the influential Federalist Society, who co-authored an op-ed in the New York Times saying Trump should be disqualified from ever holding public office.

                        With less than a week before Trump exits the presidency, there’s little incentive for lawyers to take on an unpopular client accused of encouraging his supporters to maraud through the Capitol.

                        The defense team for Trump’s first impeachment trial in January 2020 included several notable lawyers, including Bondi and former independent counsels Ken Starr and Robert Ray. Several House Republicans also made presentations for Trump’s defense, including Jim Jordan, Trump’s current chief of staff Mark Meadows and John Ratcliffe, who is now the director of national intelligence

                        Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, also defended Trump the first time around. He isn’t planning to represent the president now, but added that Trump’s remarks to protesters are protected under the First Amendment and that the Constitution doesn’t allow an impeachment trial after a president has left office.

                        “The case will not be able to come to the Senate until after President Trump leaves office and then the Senate has no jurisdiction to try the case,” he said in an interview Monday.

                        There is talk among Republicans in Congress that Jordan and Representative Elise Stefanik may be among those defending Trump at a Senate impeachment trial, according to a person familiar with the matter. Others have suggested that John Eastman, a lawyer who spoke at the Jan. 6 rally near the White House, may be tapped. Eastman declined to comment.

                        “I think it’s reflective of where Trump’s own status is these days in which he has relatively little to offer and people don’t want to be associated with him generally,” Whittington said. “The fact is he’s not going to get the A team.”

                        Another reason for good lawyers remaining on the sidelines is the pressure being applied to law firms by interest groups such as the Lincoln Project, said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional-law professor at George Washington University Law School. Just days after the election was called for Biden, elite law firms such as Jones Day were being publicly berated for filing election challenges on behalf of Trump.

                        “The harassment and doxing of lawyers has been unprecedented,” Turley said. “What’s most concerning is that groups like the Lincoln Project have been funded heavily by lawyers who have supported the targeting of bar members for representing the president. It will be difficult for the president to assemble the legal team because of that intimidating environment.”

                        Trump has also made it harder for himself by suggesting Rudy Giuliani should be involved, but the controversial former New York mayor is unlikely to be on the president’s defense team, an administration official said. Giuliani is seen by lawyers as a toxic force and his conduct at the rally preceding the Capitol raid could be examined during an impeachment trial.

                        Being the first of its kind, the impeachment case against Trump in other circumstances would be the sort of case constitutional law experts would be fighting each other to take up.

                        For one, Trump could challenge the fact that the House didn’t hold a hearing where the language and implications of the article of impeachment was deliberated before lawmakers lodged their votes. Then there’s the meaty question of whether the Senate has the authority to conduct the trial of a former president. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who normally would preside over an impeachment trial, may be called upon to render that decision.

                        “This would be considered a strong defense case,” Turley said. He said the issue of him joining a Trump team “has been raised” though he declined to talk about it further saying “my role has been as a noncombatant and that’s how I’d prefer it to stay.”

                        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nt-trial-nears
                        So he won't get the pros from Dover and will have to rely on an double A team or maybe a pickup team...



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Interesting article in the NYT today re another looming problem for Trump which could impact both his impeachment hearing and potentially criminal charges independent of that process. In the aftermath of the storming of Capital Hill Trump supporters(and his lawyers) have insisted that Trump did not actually inflame or encourage the mob prior to the incident occurring. So far so typical.

                          However in the aftermath, as federal authorities commenced sweeping up participants of the riot with a big butterfly net that's exactly what some of them are stating on the record . They are claiming that they only went to Washington and participated in the riot because they honestly believed Trump wanted them to halt handover process. And its not just one or two its several of the people arrested so far. If I recall the article correctly.

                          My guess is Donald's lawyers will be getting a little anxious about the implications of such claims. Lets see if he suddenly starts offering to pay offers to pay for their legal representation. This could prove to be very 'interesting ' for Trump.
                          Last edited by Monash; 18 Jan 21,, 06:12.
                          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial
                            Constitutionally-speaking, Chief Justice John Roberts is meant to preside over President Trump's impeachment trial, but he apparently wants out, Politico reports.

                            Multiple Republican and Democratic sources have reportedly told Politico that Roberts is seeking a way to avoid the job because of how things played out when he oversaw Trump's first impeachment trial last year. Roberts, Politico notes, has worked hard to keep the Supreme Court apolitical during his tenure, so he was reportedly displeased that he "became a top target of the left" during the proceedings. "He wants no further part of this," one source told Politico, although there's been no official word from Roberts' camp about what he'll ultimately do.

                            Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. Historically, either the vice president or the longest-serving member of the Senate have taken up the mantle for lower-level impeachments, per Politico. That means Vice President-elect Kamala Harris or Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could be the choice.
                            _________

                            Sack up and do your job John. We're not talking about Watergate or Ukrainegate anymore. We're talking about an armed insurrection against the United States government to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Let's see if your "conservative principles" actually mean anything.
                            Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              On the other hand, having VP Kamala Harris presiding over this trial would be primetime friggin' television to say the least.
                              "Draft beer, not people."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X