Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo

[bolverk 30323]

7 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.

Here's some good reading on the constitutionality of impeachment after office.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/29/961330810/there-is-precedent-for-trying-a-former-government-official-established-145-years

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1279]

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.

This fucking guy. “The rules still matter.” Anyone able to turn that into the Spongebob meme?

[TwiceHorn 32079]

1 minute ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

This fucking guy. “The rules still matter.” Anyone able to turn that into the Spongebob meme?

Either the rules matter or they don't.  You can't have it both ways.

[henrygandorf 29225]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the unconstitutional argument is legit.

 

my point is that he's accused of doing something, and two legal teams have different strategies, neither of which are, "no, he did not do this thing you're accusing him of doing."  that was the humorous part for me.

obviously the constitutionality argument is way better than the stolen election argument, but i wouldn't go so far as to call it legit, any more than a trial lawyer would call an insanity or self-defense plea legit in a case where it very clearly wasn't, but maybe was just the best and only option in a sea of shitty options.

there have been multiple instances where men have been impeached after leaving their particular offices, which leads to the question (especially for a one-termer), what's to stop a future president from doing this exact thing (or worse) in his last couple weeks in lame-duck limbo, and then just resigning if he hears the impeachment bells, so that he can run again 4 years later?

in fact, one of the two impeachments i'm referring to (and i'm sure you know this stuff way better than i do) included a former sec of war (i think) who was racing to resign to avoid impeachment, correct?  kinda sets a bad precedent, but here we are.

there's one positive thing for the gop about arguing constitutionality, is that they don't have to look the crime in the eyes and defend it.  we know he's not going to get convicted, regardless of the defense.  but now the gop has something to hide behind.  again.  like fucking always.

but i'm sure he's learned his lesson this time, around all these hot stoves.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by henrygandorf

[Francisco 2.0 32590]

Surprise!  It *was* money related.

 

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sneak-peek-e67d3c40-7ac6-4d62-96aa-a4e485dd7ee6.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiossneakpeek&stream=top

 

Quote

Disagreements over legal strategy weren't the only reason Donald Trump's defense team collapsed just days before his second impeachment trial, Axios' Alayna Treene has learned.

What we're hearing: 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.

 

Quote

The two initially agreed Bowers would be paid $250,000 for his individual services, a figure that "delighted" Trump, one of the sources said.

However, Trump didn't realize Bowers hadn't included additional expenses — including more lawyers, researchers and other legal fees that would be accrued on the job.

He was said to be livid when Bowers came back to him with a total budget of $3 million. Trump called the South Carolina attorney and eventually negotiated him down to $1 million. 

 

 

Quote

All of this infuriated Trump and his political team, who think the case will be straightforward, given 45 Republican senators already voted to dismiss the trial on the basis it's unconstitutional to convict a former president on impeachment charges.

Trump's political arm also was planning to pay separately for audiovisuals, a rapid-response team and legislative liaison.

In the end, the money dispute added to frustrations Bowers and the other lawyers felt about whether the former president's claims of election fraud should be central to their arguments. 

"I think there was some problems getting money for it, but it wasn't [just] that," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who helped Trump secure Bowers and other impeachment lawyers. "Just too many cooks in the kitchen."

 

Quote

What they're saying: "These guys are no longer relevant. We have our lawyers in place, we have a solid team, and we're looking ahead," Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, told Axios. 

Trump announced Sunday that David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor Jr. would be his new representation.

 

[brakeman 28750]

[TwiceHorn 32079]

9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Here's some good reading on the constitutionality of impeachment after office.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/29/961330810/there-is-precedent-for-trying-a-former-government-official-established-145-years

Personally, I subscribe to the interpretation that it is constitutional because the constitution provides a remedy other than removal from office.

I also think it might not be reviewed by a court as a political question decided by the rules of the House and Senate.

Nonetheless, it is an unresolved question. 

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Either the rules matter or they don't.  You can't have it both ways.

Unless you’re a Republican. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

One of the issues I noticed, is that the House Democrats were already talking impeachment prior to the events of January 6th for actions the former president had taken regarding the election results. That muddies that water (for me, as I'm not a lawyer) because of the planned events that the former president announced ahead of time that were to take place on the 6th. Mitch placing the Senate in recess was the cherry on the sedition sundae that nothing would happen. In a prior legislative calendar for Congress, the Senate was in Session beginning at some point in the first week in January and didn't take a break until MLK day. That is just bullshit even if it's legal and constitutional.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Was the Georgia phone call charge never voted on?

[TheStoicPaisano 9953]

32 minutes ago, brakeman said:

Lulz at SpazzoCruz.

[Scheiss Meister 8470]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Was the Georgia phone call charge never voted on?

I am amazed that it wasn't a second article of impeachment.  The only thing that makes sense to me is that there may be a bunch of folks with both D and R by their names who have placed similar calls.  No one in Congress is there because they are kind, sweet, and help little old ladies across the street when there aren't photographers around.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Scheiss Meister

[Biff Tannen 46165]

2 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

I am amazed that it wasn't a second article of impeachment.  The only thing that makes sense to me is that there may be a bunch of folks with both D and R by their names who have placed similar calls.  No one in Congress is there because they are kind, sweet, and help little old ladies across the street if there aren't photographers around.

There’s no way a “bunch of folks” have called up states after an election and told them to “find more votes”.  This was batshit. 

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

3 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

The only thing that makes sense to me is that there may be a bunch of folks with both D and R by their names who have placed similar calls.

I’d bet that no member of either party ever made a similar call. 

[Scheiss Meister 8470]

15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’d bet that no member of either party ever made a similar call. 

 

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

There’s no way a “bunch of folks” have called up states after an election and told them to “find more votes”.  This was batshit. 

I wish that I still believed that, but I don't think that's near the first time that's happened.  Tammany Hall, The Duke of Duval County, Box 13.  Do you think that LBJ never did anything like that?  Or Nixon?

ETA - And what makes you so sure that none of the current members have never made a similar call?  Hell, we already know that Lindsey Graham did just a few days before Trump did.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Scheiss Meister

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1314]

2 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

 

I wish that I still believed that, but I don't think that's near the first time that's happened.  Tammany Hall, The Duke of Duval County, Box 13.  Do you think that LBJ never did anything like that?  Or Nixon?

The loser tends to concede when the votes are still being counted.

[Scheiss Meister 8470]

1 minute ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

The loser tends to concede when the votes are still being counted.

That is usually true.  I hope that it returns to being the norm.

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

I wish that I still believed that, but I don't think that's near the first time that's happened.  Tammany Hall, The Duke of Duval County, Box 13.  Do you think that LBJ never did anything like that?  Or Nixon?

ETA - And what makes you so sure that none of the current members have never made a similar call?  Hell, we already know that Lindsey Graham did just a few days before Trump did.

Tammany Hall? I could dust off my copy of Plunkitt but I don’t think I could find anything to support the suggestion that voter fraud was a method used in the machine politics at the time, and how many politicians were even using the telephone at the turn of the 20th Century?

LBJ? Who assumed office when his predecessor was assassinated and who declined to run for re-election? Don’t be ridiculous. And Nixon? If he did then we’d have it on tape. Nixon was a Boy Scout compared to Trump. And we haven’t yet discovered all the corrupt shit that Trump did. 

That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. If you’ve got evidence that anyone ever did what Trump did in Georgia (or the Ukraine) then cough it up. Otherwise I think you’ve just become so numb to Trump’s blatant corruption committed right out in the open for all to see that you mistakenly assume that shit must happen all the time. It doesn’t. It hasn’t. It’s unprecedented.

Don’t be deceived. 

[Red Five 41738]

There’s no way a “bunch of folks” have called up states after an election and told them to “find more votes”.  This was batshit. 

“Find me 11,000 votes. Just say you miscounted.”

[Hookah Horns 3089]

3 hours 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.

I don't see how this argument makes any sense in light of the Framers giving congress the power to ban the impeached from holding office again.

What is the point of giving that power if it can be so easily circumvented by resigning when it's clear you don't have the votes? 

I guess congress could never levy such a ban, because the impeached would technically be removed from office by the time they voted on it. 

The constitutionality of trying and convicting a former officer is obvious. 

Edit: I see you personally agree with this, but what is the argument against this position that makes it a legit constitutional question? 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[lemonlime 5503]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

10 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Edit: I see you personally agree with this, but what is the argument against this position that makes it a legit constitutional question? 

About $1,500 an hour in legal fees. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

That's because not only is it not a criminal trial, it's incredibly hard to convict someone of inciting a riot in a court of law. 

District of Columbia. Willfully inciting or urging others to engage in a riot results in up to a six-month jail sentence. The penalty bumps up to a 10-year prison sentence if the riot results in serious bodily harm to a victim or more than $5,000 in property damage. (D.C. Code § 22-1322 (2020).)

Federal law also prohibits inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority, laws, or operations of the U.S. Government. To convict, the prosecutor must show the defendant knowingly committed an overt act to further insurrection. A conviction carries up to 10 years in federal prison. (18 U.S.C. § 2383 (2020); Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957).)

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. 

Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.

First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

That's because not only is it not a criminal trial, it's incredibly hard to convict someone of inciting a riot in a court of law. 

District of Columbia. Willfully inciting or urging others to engage in a riot results in up to a six-month jail sentence. The penalty bumps up to a 10-year prison sentence if the riot results in serious bodily harm to a victim or more than $5,000 in property damage. (D.C. Code § 22-1322 (2020).)

Federal law also prohibits inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority, laws, or operations of the U.S. Government. To convict, the prosecutor must show the defendant knowingly committed an overt act to further insurrection. A conviction carries up to 10 years in federal prison. (18 U.S.C. § 2383 (2020); Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957).)

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. 

Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.

First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)

 

 

Rudy’s fucked. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

Specifically, Brad Raffensperger identified Senator Graham was the one who called him, so when that didn't work, then Trump called. In Arizona, that position is held by Democrat Katie Hobbs. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, likewise, although Pennsylvania Democrat Boockvar is going to be stepping down due to a mistake made on an unrelated matter. Georgia was necessary for the wedge, and that is glossed over and forgotten in the aftermath of all that has occurred since. It was the credible lead up to the coup and that it was discovered and yet the coup pressed forward shows how intent they really were.

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

34 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Rudy’s fucked. 

In the head?  Yeah.  By the law?  Highly doubt it. 

[wildcat09 29579]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Personally, I subscribe to the interpretation that it is constitutional because the constitution provides a remedy other than removal from office.

I also think it might not be reviewed by a court as a political question decided by the rules of the House and Senate.

Nonetheless, it is an unresolved question. 

Yeah, it's unresolved but I think there must be a strong presumption that it's acceptable. What's the argument to the contrary? That the founders intended for a President who loses to attempt a coup during the lame duck period without repercussion?

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

10 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

In the head?  Yeah.  By the law?  Highly doubt it. 

“Let’s have trial by combat. “
 

If that’s not asking for violence then we might as well not even have that law on the books. 

[horn4life 3838]

I am sort of starting to believe the Dems should just let the trial go on and on and on.  Taking procedural votes to determine if there is any movement.  Meanwhile the country starts to see a glimmer of life and competence in distributing the vaccine.  Trump grows more and more frustrated not being able to Twitter whip the airwaves with his bullshit.  Get a relief bill through, and then sort of say "fuck it."  Pretend you are Mitch McConnell and the coronavirus is raging, from May to December.  And simply let the trail go on and on and on.  

I have to think that simply having to answer questions after seeing yet another day of Trump's insurrection designs, financing, messaging, will be draining.  I like the idea of just forcing the GOP to be seated day after day after day being forced to listen to the result of their endless promotion of lies.  While I have no doubt the GOP will ultimately be found lacking of basic decency and character, I would keep them fucking prisoner in the Senate Chamber... perhaps for weeks!  

Edited February 2, 2021 by horn4life

[Bama Chick 28596]

lol - Continuing a fine tradition.

[Guest Lobo]

So wait, what?  His counsel is saying his answering the charge because it's not a matter before the Senate?  Isn't that whole thing, that it's before the Senate right now with the trail starting next week?  Can you just get out of a trial by stating, "Uh sorry, not gonna answer or show up because even though there's charges, evidence, a date, a venue, a judge, and jurors already selected...I don't consider the charges against me to be before a court."  

[lemonlime 5503]

13 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

lol - Continuing a fine tradition.
 

The comparison of the House brief to trump's brief is stunning.   Given how many lawyers trump's gone through in the last few days, they didn't have much time to work on it.  But it's a bunch of nonsense on a page and poorly written.  The House brief is, unsurprisingly, very well written and damning.  Of course, the people who most need to read it won't.

[Wanker Bob 379]

16 hours 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.

That's what I was saying. At this point why is this even involving impeachment? This should be in the hands of the DOJ and Garland to prosecute Trump and his conspirators in federal court. 

[DDD Dad 14648]

1 minute ago, Wanker Bob said:

That's what I was saying. At this point why is this even involving impeachment? This should be in the hands of the DOJ and Garland to prosecute Trump and his conspirators in federal court. 

Impeachment is a political proceeding; DOJ/AG prosecution would be a criminal judicial proceeding.  There's no reason both can't be done, barring some sort of official immunity.

[Born to Run 6601]

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?

It's complete horseshit.

And allowing him to run for office in 4 years creates a scenario where an individual (1) has 4 years of immunity for being prosecuted for a crime, 4 years to stall, not cooperate, appeal and delay justice for those crimes then 4 more years of immunity?

[Wanker Bob 379]

56 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Impeachment is a political proceeding; DOJ/AG prosecution would be a criminal judicial proceeding.  There's no reason both can't be done, barring some sort of official immunity.

I guess but having another impeachment trial and then a prosecution risks the appearance to Joe blow american idiot of persecution of trump. Especially since the senate republicans won't convict on this due to political bullshit. He needs to be nailed to the wall for his crimes in criminal court at this point. That's the most important thing. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

“Let’s have trial by combat. “
 

If that’s not asking for violence then we might as well not even have that law on the books. 

I agree with your assessment; I truly hope he does get the book thrown at him, I just don't think it will happen.  I'm telling you right now, absolutely no one in the trump administration or congress will spend a second in jail for this.   Hell, I doubt you see a single charge brought against anyone of consequence.  They'll rack up charges on the great unwashed masses but no more. 

[lemonlime 5503]

29 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

I guess but having another impeachment trial and then a prosecution risks the appearance to Joe blow american idiot of persecution of trump. Especially since the senate republicans won't convict on this due to political bullshit. He needs to be nailed to the wall for his crimes in criminal court at this point. That's the most important thing. 

Prosecution would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.  Impeachment requires the Senators to decide he shouldn't hold office again and should stop him or his successors from attempting a coup again.  Or more likely, here, just puts the Senate GOP on record as being fine with treasonous behavior so long as it's being committed by Republicans.

[brakeman 28750]

[TexasEd 8266]

In Trump's filings and other memos, I think even his stationary...  He clearly identifies not as the former president but as the 45th President and Office of the 45th President.  He also claims that he won the election and has tried to position himself as a shadow government.

With that as his position the defense of "You can't impeach a president after he leaves office" should be called out for playing both sides. And of course he can still be convicted.

Just a nuance, but I want to see the consistent use of former President and to repudiate this bullshit shadow government position.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

8 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

In Trump's filings and other memos, I think even his stationary...  He clearly identifies not as the former president but as the 45th President and Office of the 45th President.  He also claims that he won the election and has tried to position himself as a shadow government.

With that as his position the defense of "You can't impeach a president after he leaves office" should be called out for playing both sides. And of course he can still be convicted.

Just a nuance, but I want to see the consistent use of former President and to repudiate this bullshit shadow government position.

 

I tried to rep your post, but something is borked today so if it doesn't show up, consider it virtual repped. I agree. He is a former President and should be called a former president. While he will always be the 45th president in the line of presidents, he is not an office holder in the Executive Branch.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins
Adding, that Trump is the first to use "President" in his office title, none of the other 'formers' did that so your shadow government comment is spot on.

[horn4life 3838]

Well... The Dems just requested that the $5th President of the United States show up and testify at his impeachment.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-trial-house-managers-trump-testify/

I wonder if he can actually do what's best for himself and refuse to testify.  HOWEVER... without the ability to tweet out his insane musings the opportunity to PROVE he won the election might overcome the very stable genius.  

[conVINCEd 21477]

[tx 3 putt 78677]

He has mountains of evidence, it might take him weeks to discuss it all ?

[Guest Lobo]

Considering that Trump called the 2016 campaign spying by Obama-Biden to be the greatest political crime in the history of our country, and that he then called the 2020 stolen election the other greatest political crime in the history of our country...I count (hold on, let me check my Slorch math here), the TWO greatest political crimes in the history of our country.  Both committed against Donald Trump, and both involving at the highest conspiratorial levels---Joseph R. Biden.  According to Trump, there are mountains of evidence and everybody knows it happened.  

You would think with that kind of locked-up case...that Trump would be happy to deliver the goods to the Senate later this month and put Joe and Obama away forever and rightfully take his place back in the Oval Office.  But let me guess Qanon, the long game to the great awakening suggests he won't.  

[Red Five 41738]

52 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Well... The Dems just requested that the $5th President of the United States show up and testify at his impeachment.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-trial-house-managers-trump-testify/

I wonder if he can actually do what's best for himself and refuse to testify.  HOWEVER... without the ability to tweet out his insane musings the opportunity to PROVE he won the election might overcome the very stable genius.  

It will be like the Colonel Jessup scene, if Jessup skipped straight to 'you're god damn right I did!' and then continued on from there. I will seriously take a day off work to watch this. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

56 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Well... The Dems just requested that the $5th President of the United States show up and testify at his impeachment.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-trial-house-managers-trump-testify/

I wonder if he can actually do what's best for himself and refuse to testify.  HOWEVER... without the ability to tweet out his insane musings the opportunity to PROVE he won the election might overcome the very stable genius.  

I like this move by democrats although it does come with the risk of Trump spontaneously inciting another insurrection/rebellion, which he would also not be fully held accountable.  

[Underdog 29186]

14 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It will be like the Colonel Jessup scene, if Jessup skipped straight to 'you're god damn right I did!' and then continued on from there. I will seriously take a day off work to watch this. 

With a bit of Capt. Queeg mixed in, Trump fondling marbles while going off half-cocked. 

[RPM 26628]

[TexasEd 8266]

30 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It will be like the Colonel Jessup scene, if Jessup skipped straight to 'you're god damn right I did!' and then continued on from there. I will seriously take a day off work to watch this. 

The ratings will be Uuuuge!  Highest ratings ever.  Should earn him an Emmy.