Jump to content

Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo

Sawbonz

By Sawbonz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 


Does censure bar him from running again? That’s the first I’ve heard of that.

 

The specific proposal is a censure + barred from running. It would likely be constitutionally challenged 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

immamac
immamac

Fuck everyone in the senate. Trash american government for trash americans.  If you are a longhorn and support this, you need to find another site. I'm done fucking around with this absolute garb

tx 3 putt
tx 3 putt

he needs to be punished, not rewarded 

JohnnyRage
JohnnyRage

I’m 44 years old and have never been a member of a political party nor do I have a desire. But listening to this, God damnit, If I have to pick a fucking side and wear a badge upon my sleeve, I choose

Posted Images

Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14871

Posted
Posted
The specific proposal is a censure + barred from running. It would likely be constitutionally challenged 


Gotcha.

Was the other barred-from-running vote going to be challenged in court as well? I could see the SCOTUS not supporting the idea that Congress can tell some Americans who they can and can’t vote for.

Another question: does anyone know if there is a statute of limitations a on impeaching an already out of office president? Like if new shit came to light could they impeach W?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32341

Posted
Posted

Update: all 5 attorneys have quit.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/30/politics/butch-bowers-deborah-barbier-trump-impeachment-team/index.html

 

Quote

Five of former President Donald Trump's impeachment defense team attorneys have stepped aside a little more than a week before his Senate trial is set to begin, according to people familiar with the case, amid a disagreement over his legal strategy. 

It was a dramatic development in the second impeachment trial for Trump, who has struggled to find lawyers willing to take his case. And now, with legal briefs due next week and a trial set to begin only days later, Trump is clinging to his election fraud charade and suddenly finds himself without legal representation.

 

Quote

Josh Howard, a North Carolina attorney who was recently added to the team, has also left, according to another source familiar with the changes. Johnny Gasser and Greg Harris, also from South Carolina, are no longer involved with the case, either.

A person familiar with the departures told CNN that Trump wanted the attorneys to argue there was mass election fraud and that the election was stolen from him rather than focus on the legality of convicting a president after he's left office. Trump was not receptive to the discussions about how they should proceed in that regard.

The attorneys had not yet been paid any advance fees and a letter of intent was never signed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted

Yeah, he doesn’t need to prepare a defense. They don’t have the votes. The days of someone being compelled by their conscious are gone. They could show video of Trump stabbing a Capitol police officer and the Republicans would call for Unity. A President held a rally that inspired an insurrection where people died and they don’t have the votes to convict. We’re way past doing the right thing. 
 

His lawyers all quit because he probably wouldn’t pay them up front. They probably required it because Trump famously doesn’t pay his debts. So they walked. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21434

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, mdmost said:

Don't need to pay for Impeachment lawyers when Republicans aren't going to convict you under any circumstances

tenor.gif.9ab35d7bf034ea0aceca9c437de80efd.gif

Yup. Trump could have a Samuel L. Jackson moment on the stand--"Yes, you deserve to die, and I hope you all burn in hell!"--and almost half the room would stand and applaud his "tough-but-fair honesty."

Edited by aggie08
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34443

Posted
Posted

It’s a deep irony this impeachment trial is more likely to end up with another riot at the Capitol as opposed to a conviction of DJT. It’s almost certainly going to help him more than hurt him.

Senate Rs will not convict. Trump does not need to present a defense so instead he’s going to use the platform to rehash his fraudulent claims that the election was stolen. Multiple Rs will cheer him on and use their time to amplify those claims. 
 

Trump doesn’t have Twitter, but wall-to-wall coverage of this will be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Does it matter who represents Trump? His legal team could show up in bathrobes & present and answer any questions by cupping their hands together to make fart sounds and the GOP senators will vote to acquit.


 

That’s ridiculous.

 

Do you have any idea how many billable hours that would cost them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s a deep irony this impeachment trial is more likely to end up with another riot at the Capitol as opposed to a conviction of DJT. It’s almost certainly going to help him more than hurt him.

It will help decent, ethical people who respect the rule of law.

Fuck the rest.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagbard Celine

Hagbard Celine 10763

Posted
Posted
On 1/14/2021 at 8:20 PM, TexArcher said:

Exactly.  It's a pretty incredible achievement for a president to be given a massive public health crisis in the final year of his first term and fuck it up so badly that he's not re-elected even though the health crisis is still ongoing.

All he had to do was be presidential, and compassionate, and take decisive action.  Even if it hadn't done anything to slow the crisis down, even if it had only made people feel better or more cared about, it would've gotten him re-elected in a landslide.

It's ironic that Trump's narcissism and egomania led directly to all of this humiliation and shame at the end of his presidency, and it'll last forever in the history books.

All you had to do was be a human being and give one shit about anybody but yourself, jackass.

in the press conference on march 11th all he had to do was put on a mask and tell everyone to wear one.  every other lie after that would not have prevented his re-election.  masking up in the middle of march 2020 would have sliced the death toll in half, minimum.  he has the lives of hundreds of thousands of americans on his small, orange hands.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brakeman

brakeman 28248

Posted
Posted

November 9, 2020 — President* Trump fires Defense Secretary Esper and names Christopher Miller his Acting Defense Secretary.

January 4, 2021 — Acting Defense Secretary Miller orders the DC National Guard not to interfere with rioters.

 

what the fuck.

c'mon merica.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanker Bob

Wanker Bob 379

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Hearing this is the new guy 

 

  Hide contents

giphy.gif

 

If they hired Odenkirk to go full Saul character in Congress I'd watch every second. If the country is going to continue to die at this fast rate let's go ahead and make it as entertaining as possible. 

Edited by Wanker Bob
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/30/2021 at 11:02 PM, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

^^^ Yep. Mitch pulls the ball away once again. 

But let it be as embarrassing a debacle as possible for the R's to defend and tie their name to forever. Sadly, that's the best outcome the D's can muster now. There is no R party without Trump now, ever.

Trump does nothing for their party on the national stage--they lost the House, Senate and Executive office. They don't want to primary against him or a Trump backed candidate.  That's all it is.  They're cowards--along with their money, Trump took their nuts.  

Edited by Mdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8064

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/donald-trump-legal-team-impeachment-trial/index.html

Quote
The email subject line? "45th President Donald J. Trump Announces Legal Team."
It's first sentence? "45th President Donald J. Trump today announced that highly respected trial lawyers David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor, Jr., will head his impeachment defense legal team, bringing national profiles and significant trial experience in high-profile cases to the effort."
The second sentence? "Notably, Schoen has already been working with the 45th President and other advisors to prepare for the upcoming trial, and both Schoen and Castor agree that this impeachment is unconstitutional - a fact 45 Senators voted in agreement with last week."
The third sentence, which was a quote from Schoen: "'It is an honor to represent the 45th President, Donald J. Trump, and the United States Constitution,' said Schoen."

LOL, Trump refuses to call himself the former president

 

And Castor?  He sounds like the guy behind all the pedophilia and sex trafficking that Q is obsessed with.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/31/donald-trumps-impeachment-defence-in-disarray-as-lead-lawyers-quit-reports

Quote

Bruce Castor is a former acting attorney general of Pennsylvania and a prominent Republican who has been slammed by advocates for victims of sexual crimes because of his stance against reforms involving help for past victims of Catholic priests and in the case of university football coach and predator Jerry Sandusky.

And Castor gained notoriety for declining to prosecute Bill Cosby more than a decade before the entertainer was eventually convicted in 2018, and also sued Cosby’s victim, Andrea Constand, in a case that was dismissed, and then was sued by Constand for defamation, which was settled.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted

That wasn't a warning, it was a threat. A threat to obstruct and delay. I've heard people are saying that when you obstruct and delay, you have something to hide. Lindsey called the Georgia Secretary of State, maybe he should be a witness? People are saying that maybe he has something to say about you, Lindsey?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

so the argument from trump is that the election was stolen. the argument from the former attorneys is that the impeachment is unconstitutional. 

neither of these is a proper defense to counter this charge. and nobody gives a shit. 

Well, the unconstitutional argument is legit.

I think the "sure, I incited insurrection, but it's ok because the election was rigged, dammit" just makes him look like a fucking clown and those that vote not to convict equally giant clowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27464

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the unconstitutional argument is legit.

I think the "sure, I incited insurrection, but it's ok because the election was rigged, dammit" just makes him look like a fucking clown and those that vote not to convict equally giant clowns.

Looking like a clown has never stopped fascists from seizing power. They must be made to account for their evils, not mocked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the unconstitutional argument is legit.

Because he is no longer in office? That seems a little procedural wishy washy to me. I mean if I was like, I dunno, plaaaaaning an insurection, then sure, if it wasn't successful then I would want it to play out so that my BFF delayed the whole deal so that it had zero impact because "procedure" is like my arguing that my failed bank robbery shouldn't be prosecuted because "oops, the bank caught on fire a couple of days later so there's no money to steal." Or am I reading the room wrong?

I mean he only TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION SO HE COULD STAY IN OFFICE. Lives were lost. Why is this being allowed to be normalized?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Because he is no longer in office? That seems a little procedural wishy washy to me. I mean if I was like, I dunno, plaaaaaning an insurection, then sure, if it wasn't successful then I would want it to play out so that my BFF delayed the whole deal so that it had zero impact because "procedure" is like my arguing that my failed bank robbery shouldn't be prosecuted because "oops, the bank caught on fire a couple of days later so there's no money to steal." Or am I reading the room wrong?

I mean he only TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION SO HE COULD STAY IN OFFICE. Lives were lost. Why is this being allowed to be normalized?

Well, there's a serious question whether a President leaving office moots an impeachment/conviction.  

That's procedural, but about 50-75% of the "rule of law" is based on procedure.

The entire 4th amendment is basically procedural, as are the 5th, 6th, and 7th.

It doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the articles of impeachment, true, but it can't be casually dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, there's a serious question whether a President leaving office moots an impeachment/conviction.  

That's procedural, but about 50-75% of the "rule of law" is based on procedure.

The entire 4th amendment is basically procedural, as are the 5th, 6th, and 7th.

It doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the articles of impeachment, true, but it can't be casually dismissed.

Is there anything in the law that says I can't just punch him in the man parts in front of God and everybody and be done with it? Cause I'm ready to do that.

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Seriously, thanks for answering, I can see why it's procedural but the law is equal parts fascinating and frustrating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...