Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo

[Guest Lobo]

In a master stroke of 4-D ironical chess, Trump resigned from the Screen Actors Guild earlier today...just days before he is set to give the performance of his life on floor of the U.S. Senate.  

This Guy Fucks (Up)!!!

[WBT 20973]

If he's going to testify he should be wheeled into the chamber in a Hannibal Lecter style mask and straight jacket.  Just a thought.

[Captainant 28538]

Trump won't testify (without being compelled)

 

torbush.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34104]

jesus fuck, what amateurs

[Red Five 41738]

Golly, if only we had proof that he tried to overturn an election and organized a mob and sent them to the capitol to riot and then got a chubby watching it on tv while they searched for members of congress to kill.

[Pato del Muerto 53499]

Dear schoen,

this is the continuation of the impeachment process that began while mr Trump was potus, involving acts performed while he was potus.  So stfu about constititionality and try your best to defend your client’s actions. 

[Guest Lobo]

My god gentlemen.  He's also licensed in Alabama.  We are truly up against the best of the best.  

We're gonna need a bigger bird lawyer. 

[Brisketexan 106896]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

My god gentlemen.  He's also licensed in Alabama.  We are truly up against the best of the best.  

We're gonna need a bigger bird lawyer. 

Alabama?  We're gonna need even bigger than that....we're gonna need....

A JEW!

[staboner 5084]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

My god gentlemen.  He's also licensed in Alabama.  We are truly up against the best of the best.  

We're gonna need a bigger bird lawyer. 

[staboner 5084]

get that thing i sent ya?

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

My god gentlemen.  He's also licensed in Alabama.  We are truly up against the best of the best.  

We're gonna need a bigger bird lawyer. 

 

[Wanker Bob 379]

12 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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.  

After seeing what's happening to these idiots who did it already I seriously doubt he's going to get anyone other than the straight lunatics to show up and do anything like that. The realtors and house wives and such aren't showing up and ruining their careers/lives and dealing with federal charges after seeing the others get it and get abandoned by trump pardon wise. They'll just whine and bitch online and do nothing. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

11 hours ago, Captainant said:

Trump won't testify (without being compelled)

 

torbush.

Ha, these fucking guys. Purported impeachment proceeding. I'm rather surprised he didn't put "impeachment" in quotes. 

Kind of sending mixed signals. They say this is serious but act like it's trivial. 

No such thing as adverse inference, says who? The managers can certainly make that argument. It's a logical inference for senators to draw from dotard refusing to testify. There's nothing that says they can't. 

It's a bit confusing when they claim this is all unconstitutional but then scold them for "using our constitution."

Lastly, "attorneys to Donald Trump"? Kinda odd. I've never seen someone say they are an attorney "to" someone. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[Hookah Horns 3089]

I just read their answer. 

Quote

 Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states "judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor. . . " (emphasis added). Since removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent
 which must occur before, and jointly with, "disqualification" to hold future
 office, the fact that the Senate presently is unable to remove from office the 45th President whose term has expired, means that Averment I is therefore irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.

What kind of bullshit reading comprehension is this? So if a statute for some criminal offense says "punishment shall not exceed one year in jail and a $500 fine," these guys are saying you can't just be fined $500? And you have to serve the year in jail before you can be fined? Lulz. 

For any young lawyers on the board, "before and jointly with" isn't a turn of phrase you want to use. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[TwiceHorn 32079]

On 2/1/2021 at 9:25 PM, 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.

This initially sounds like a valid point.

But skilled polticogrifters like the ones you mention made sure they won the fucking election first.  They didn't have to go begging for votes afterward.

Those types "made calls" to insure that no extra votes were found, e.g. Ballot Box 13.  Which in the long run is in pari delicto, but Trump of course had to add his own brand of pathos to the whole mess.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I just read their answer. 

What kind of bullshit reading comprehension is this? So if a statute for some criminal offense says "punishment shall not exceed one year in jail and a $500 fine," these guys are saying you can't just be fined $500? And you have to serve the year in jail before you can be fined? Lulz. 

For any young lawyers on the board, "before and jointly with" isn't a turn of phrase you want to use. 

As Garner loves to point out, "and" covers and, and/or, and or.  Also, the use of "since" there annoys me.  There's no temporal relationship, just a causal one.  "Because" is the right word there.  I have become my father.

Edited February 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32079]

2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

No such thing as adverse inference, says who?

Yeah, that's stupid.

The 5th Amendment prohibition against compelled testimony is given full effect by forbidding the lawyers from arguing and the jury from making any adverse inference from the invocation of the 5th Amendment by the defendant in a criminal case.

That "rule" presumes that in any other kind of case, or without invocation of the 5th, an adverse inference can be argued to and drawn by the jury or fact finder when the defendant doesn't testify.

Edited February 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[hpslugga 4097]

2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I just read their answer. 

What kind of bullshit reading comprehension is this? So if a statute for some criminal offense says "punishment shall not exceed one year in jail and a $500 fine," these guys are saying you can't just be fined $500? And you have to serve the year in jail before you can be fined? Lulz. 

For any young lawyers on the board, "before and jointly with" isn't a turn of phrase you want to use. 

Not only that, I would implore anyone who’s even vaguely curious to review Nixon v United States.

Republicans in general get very confused on what an impeachment proceeding actually is. It’s a political proceeding; not a legal one. All this technical crap they’re trying to push with these tortured arguments and turns of phrase does not amount to a hill of shit when juxtaposed to what precedent SCOTUS case law says about it. 

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/rehnquist7/opinion_announcement_audio/19792

[TwiceHorn 32079]

4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Not only that, I would implore anyone who’s even vaguely curious to review Nixon v United States.

Republicans in general get very confused on what an impeachment proceeding actually is. It’s a political proceeding; not a legal one. All this technical crap they’re trying to push with these tortured arguments and turns of phrase does not amount to a hill of shit when juxtaposed to what precedent SCOTUS case law says about it. 

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/rehnquist7/opinion_announcement_audio/19792

To be fair, just about everyone is confused about the political vs. judicial nature of impeachment.  And, lawyers are going to use whichever "nature" favors their client.  No one ever accused litigators of being consistent.

That's an interesting opinion in a lot of ways.  It simultaneously holds that the impeachment clause's provisions regarding trial by the Senate are a non-justiciable political question, and then proceeds to adjudicate it.

I would expect something similar if this proceeds to adjudication on the issue of impeachment of officials out of office.

[hpslugga 4097]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To be fair, just about everyone is confused about the political vs. judicial nature of impeachment.  And, lawyers are going to use whichever "nature" favors their client.  No one ever accused litigators of being consistent.

That's an interesting opinion in a lot of ways.  It simultaneously holds that the impeachment clause's provisions regarding trial by the Senate are a non-justiciable political question, and then proceeds to adjudicate it.

I would expect something similar if this proceeds to adjudication on the issue of impeachment of officials out of office.

I don’t expect it to be adjudicated and precisely for what Rehnquist mentioned: “The first sentence is a grant of authority to the Senate and the presence of the word "sole" indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else. 

We reject Nixon's argument that the word "try" in the first sentence requires the Senate to conduct a judicial type trial...So we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” I’m sure that if Trump is found guilty (and I do not expect that to happen), and if he were to take his case to SCOTUS, they’ll do what they did in the election suits: either turn it down or agree to hear it, but turn it down with a one line ruling, perhaps even citing that specific case.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

37 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I don’t expect it to be adjudicated and precisely for what Rehnquist mentioned: “The first sentence is a grant of authority to the Senate and the presence of the word "sole" indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else. 

We reject Nixon's argument that the word "try" in the first sentence requires the Senate to conduct a judicial type trial...So we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” I’m sure that if Trump is found guilty (and I do not expect that to happen), and if he were to take his case to SCOTUS, they’ll do what they did in the election suits: either turn it down or agree to hear it, but turn it down with a one line ruling, perhaps even citing that specific case.

I actually expect that it would draw a short opinion.  Primarily a political question.  No limitation on ability to impeach out of office, not rendered entirely moot by the presence of "removal from office and disqualification."

[Hookah Horns 3089]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

As Garner loves to point out, "and" covers and, and/or, and or.  Also, the use of "since" there annoys me.  There's no temporal relationship, just a causal one.  "Because" is the right word there.  I have become my father.

If we're talking grammar, the rest of that clause is even worse imo:

Since removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent... 

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

To be fair, just about everyone is confused about the political vs. judicial nature of impeachment.  And, lawyers are going to use whichever "nature" favors their client.  No one ever accused litigators of being consistent.

Forgot to address this part earlier:

Well I think you need to throw in “legislators” to that last sentence as well because when I said Republicans get confused on impeachment, that’s not limited to Donald Trump. They also expressed such confusions, albeit in a very different way, in the Clinton impeachment. If you look at the rhetoric they were spewing, you’d come away thinking that Clinton had already been convicted of a crime and that Congress HAD to impeach him...like there was some sort of legal obligation on their part to impeach a guy who perjured himself regarding blowjobs.

They had complete discretion, but the thing was Republicans are gonna Republican and they had the votes to impeach even though they knew full well they were never going to get the 67 Senate votes to remove. My guess is that if they did, they wouldn’t have taken it that far because as much as they hated Bill Clinton, they would never have tolerated “President Al Gore.” It was a political stunt, not a legal proceeding. They knew it full well.

And the root of the confusion that you (and I) alluded to is that far too many people get way too hung up on the deliberately vague “high crimes and misdemeanors” terminology that’s expressed in Article II Section 4. That is not the guide as to the bounds of when someone can be impeached. That’s found in Article I Section 3.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

To a layperson such as myself, it appears that Trump and his allies are making a strong attempt to turn "political" law into a kangaroo court/joke in order to dismantle any real meaning or consequence. There never was much of one for the top tier of society, but taking it to a level where this is normal (to the rest of those outside the field) doesn't seem to be a good nor wise path. The Trump team has from the get-go treated any and all charges as a 'joke' or 'hoax' of sorts, like any good con artist would. But it's that approach that inures us to the difference between the serious of his offense and say what we might see in a banana republic or oppressive regime. Like locking up Navalny for example. That is what I see as their end goal: the ability when they are in power to do just that.

Hope the legal profession holds firm on proper and ethical procedure, form and substance.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20914]

Lee Harvey Oswald's defense team has one overarching goal for his trial: move the conversation away from a retelling of the events of Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas. 

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I hope that the questioners bring the whiteboard of doom and a power point.

Also, the rally that was at The Ellipse prior to the insurrection. I had seen this tweet by the Secret Service below, a 'reminder.' But many of the insurrectionists ignored that. Given the intel surrounding the event, the 'oh it's just white people' excuse only holds so much water. Many many people in the images had backpacks, etc, nevermind concealed weapons. No checkpoint? Did the militia types like Mr. Handcuffs join after the speech on the walk over?

 

[SquishMitten 10497]

I really want someone to go into this and propose the following: If Biden were to order the military to take control of the Senate, House, and each state Capitol and legislative offices tomorrow, declare himself emperor for life, but was ultimately unsuccessful and resigned, would that not be grounds to impeach him and remove the ability for him to hold office again in the future? What if Kamala then appointed Biden as her VP (or somehow got him into the line of succession), resigned, and allowed Biden to resume the role of president whereby he immediately issued the same orders again? Is that really what we think is permissible under the Constitution? You can do whatever you want, then resign to avoid any prohibition regarding future office?

[Brisketexan 106896]

7 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I really want someone to go into this and propose the following: If Biden were to order the military to take control of the Senate, House, and each state Capitol and legislative offices tomorrow, declare himself emperor for life, but was ultimately unsuccessful and resigned, would that not be grounds to impeach him and remove the ability for him to hold office again in the future? What if Kamala then appointed Biden as her VP (or somehow got him into the line of succession), resigned, and allowed Biden to resume the role of president whereby he immediately issued the same orders again? Is that really what we think is permissible under the Constitution? You can do whatever you want, then resign to avoid any prohibition regarding future office?

Yes.   That is what they think.  Well, they don't think about it in terms that complex.

Here's what they think: Trump can do whatever he wants, and there can be no consequences, because he is chosen by God.

It really isn't more complicated than that. Trump is SO awesome, and SO divine, that the mere notion of applying earthly rules to him is insulting.

[SquishMitten 10497]

^^ Oh, I totally get that. I'm just not sure most Trumpers realize what they're arguing. I know many of these folks are intellectually dishonest and would say the exact opposite if the tables were reversed, but I just want someone to shout this over and over in the Senate so some of the idiots might actually hear it. Not everyone is entirely broken. There have got to still be some people on that side capable of being saved. Letting the Rs frame this entirely as unconstitutional will work as a distraction unless Ds counter it directly by repeatedly highlighting exactly how this is one way impeachment and disqualification was intended to be used. Paint the picture of what a president could do if there are only upsides to sedition (you succeed) and zero downsides by resigning if you fail. 

[Red Five 41738]

I really wish there was a separate second article. "Attempting to overturn the election" or some such. You can make a somewhat decent argument that Trump didn't want the mob to commit violence. You can't argue that he didn't spend two months attempting to rig the election in his favor. He's on tape telling Georgia to lie about their election results FFS. 

[Macanudo 13323]

So if Trump is a private citizen, thanks makes him a former President.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

5 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

^^ Oh, I totally get that. I'm just not sure most Trumpers realize what they're arguing. I know many of these folks are intellectually dishonest and would say the exact opposite if the tables were reversed, but I just want someone to shout this over and over in the Senate so some of the idiots might actually hear it. Not everyone is entirely broken. There have got to still be some people on that side capable of being saved. Letting the Rs frame this entirely as unconstitutional will work as a distraction unless Ds counter it directly by repeatedly highlighting exactly how this is one way impeachment and disqualification was intended to be used. Paint the picture of what a president could do if there are only upsides to sedition (you succeed) and zero downsides by resigning if you fail. 

These are the same people who were incredulous that Obama nominated a justice with damn near a year left in his term and refused to even hold a hearing, justifying it with a made-up rule that you can't appoint justices in an election year, and then moved heaven and earth to confirm Trump's nominee like a week before the election, justifying it by saying "whateva, we do what we want." 

Get it through your head: this has ZERO to do with them not grasping the ramifications of such a precedent. None of them give a single rat fuck about that - or reason, intellectual consistency, honor, or the good of the country in general, for that matter. 

Edit- And they also know that if anyone is going to be declaring themselves emperor, it's going to be their team. And that's what a lot of them want. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[Hookah Horns 3089]

5 hours ago, Red Five said:

I really wish there was a separate second article. "Attempting to overturn the election" or some such. You can make a somewhat decent argument that Trump didn't want the mob to commit violence. You can't argue that he didn't spend two months attempting to rig the election in his favor. He's on tape telling Georgia to lie about their election results FFS. 

Yeah they definitely fucked that up in their haste to get an article passed. But it wouldn't have made any difference, so whatever. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

3 hours ago, Macanudo said:

So if Trump is a private citizen, thanks makes him a former President.

¿Que? 

[brakeman 28750]

From Trump’s Rally to Congress
This time-lapse animation shows smartphones as they moved from Donald Trump’s rally to the Capitol.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

SIAP, but it makes a companion to the post above:

 

[Guest Lobo]

Something Trumpers will have to consolidate in their heads is if he didn't incite and foment an insurrection on his own seat of Government...at the very least he suggested they all go there in peace.  And failed to show up.  Because he is a Coward.  Spineless Coward.  Through and Through.  The man you worship is not a criminal.  But he is a Coward.  Always has been.  Always will be.  He was a fine President.  He is not a criminal.  He did not commit treason.  But he is guilty of Cowardice.  

You kneel at the altar of a Coward.  Never forget that.  Let me tell your children every day of their lives.  "Your parents worship a Coward."  And because of that, you don't deserve a seat at our political table.  Stay outside, with the rest of the help.  

[Mole 4339]

On 2/1/2021 at 9:32 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Nonetheless, it is an unresolved question. 

I’m really tired of all of these unresolved questions. It took us a couple of centuries, but I think we’ve found the coup loophole. I miss norms.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Also. I know it's Super Bowl Weekend, but this is happening if anyone is interested:

Pretty decent list, I read these folks' comments frequently.

Panelists:

LAURENCE TRIBE - Constitutional Scholar, Harvard Law School

NORMAN EISEN - Former Special Counsel for Trump's First Impeachment and Trial

RICHARD PAINTER - Former Chief White House Counsel for George W. Bush

REP. GERRY CONNOLLY - Member, House Oversight Committee, and Chairman, House Subcommittee on Government Operations

CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN – Criminal Lawyer, University of Pennsylvania

RUTH BEN-GHIAT - Historian, New York University

BANDY LEE - Moderator and President, World Mental Health Coalition

They will take questions from reporters and the public afterwards, so chime in and ask your questions!

[TwiceHorn 32079]

On 2/5/2021 at 7:58 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

To a layperson such as myself, it appears that Trump and his allies are making a strong attempt to turn "political" law into a kangaroo court/joke in order to dismantle any real meaning or consequence. There never was much of one for the top tier of society, but taking it to a level where this is normal (to the rest of those outside the field) doesn't seem to be a good nor wise path. The Trump team has from the get-go treated any and all charges as a 'joke' or 'hoax' of sorts, like any good con artist would. But it's that approach that inures us to the difference between the serious of his offense and say what we might see in a banana republic or oppressive regime. Like locking up Navalny for example. That is what I see as their end goal: the ability when they are in power to do just that.

Hope the legal profession holds firm on proper and ethical procedure, form and substance.

Well, that is the heart of the problem.

It is a political process rather than a judicial one.   And that's not a cynical take on it, that is what it is, legally, and what it was intended to be.

It is, therefore, a kangaroo court by design.

The majority party (in either house), or even a close minority, can't "lose" an impeachment unless whatever the official did is so offensive that it cannot be tolerated, even by craven politicians.

We tend to engraft all of these sort of due process notions onto it, but that's really n/a.  It is, fundamentally, a political vote pretty much like any other.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, that is the heart of the problem.

It is a political process rather than a judicial one.   And that's not a cynical take on it, that is what it is, legally, and what it was intended to be.

It is, therefore, a kangaroo court by design.

The majority party (in either house), or even a close minority, can't "lose" an impeachment unless whatever the official did is so offensive that it cannot be tolerated, even by craven politicians.

We tend to engraft all of these sort of due process notions onto it, but that's really n/a.  It is, fundamentally, a political vote pretty much like any other.

I guess I need to hit the books again. It appears it is so dependent upon the morality of human beings that with the system eroded, has put the country in perilous times indeed.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

This seems bad, is it bad that this is coming to light now?

Quote

 

Former President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign reported paying $6,037 to a business owned by state Rep. Mark Finchem while the lawmaker pushed for the Legislature to overturn Joe Biden's victory in Arizona.

The campaign reported in its latest financial disclosure that it made a payment on Dec. 18 to “Mrk Finchem PLLC” and the address provided for the company is the lawmaker’s home. The campaign labeled the expense as “recount: legal consulting.”

Finchem, R-Oro Valley, said the payment was a reimbursement "for crowd control and security costs" at a meeting he convened at a downtown Phoenix hotel on Nov. 30 with the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, several other Republican legislators and various people alleging wrongdoing during the election.

Lawmakers are required to disclose each business in which they have a position or a fiduciary relationship. In an email, the lawmaker did not address why the company is not listed on his most recent financial disclosure, which covered all of 2020.

And Finchem is not a lawyer, but the University of Arizona confirmed he is enrolled in the Master of Legal Studies program at the James E. Rogers College of Law. He has described himself as a "legislative fellow in residence" at the school.

 

Rest of article at link above.

[Pato del Muerto 53499]

So trump campaign says it paid 6k to him for legal consulting even though he’s not a lawyer yet, and he himself says it was for security.  Way to be on the same page, morons. 
 

but again, this is like sec football openly cheating while the ncaa does nothing.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I guess I need to hit the books again. It appears it is so dependent upon the morality of human beings that with the system eroded, has put the country in perilous times indeed.

Definitely dependent on politicians to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing.

[TheStoicPaisano 9953]

Finchem is the asshole claiming the AZ Senate will arrest the Maricopa County supervisors on Monday. Bannon and his rentboy Kassam were tumescent over this news yesterday.

Also, Navarro is dumb but this would still provide entertainment:

 

[Biff Tannen 46165]

12 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Finchem is the asshole claiming the AZ Senate will arrest the Maricopa County supervisors on Monday. Bannon and his rentboy Kassam were tumescent over this news yesterday.

Also, Navarro is dumb but this would still provide entertainment:

 

Please let this happen. 

[Guest Lobo]

Just $6000?  Shit, maybe Trump isn't as crappy negotiator as I thought possible.  Finchem, however, appears to be not only stupid but headed off to  die in prison.  

We're gonna have to invent a new drinking game for Trump supporters/insurrectionists.  Whenever one of them dies in prison or under house arrest for th next 30 years.....we all get to do something special that night.  

Edited February 6, 2021 by Lobo

[Bama Chick 28596]

So trump campaign says it paid 6k to him for legal consulting even though he’s not a lawyer yet, and he himself says it was for security.  Way to be on the same page, morons. 
 
but again, this is like sec football openly cheating while the ncaa does nothing.

Pffffffft

The SEC is way better at hiding their tracks than these morons.

Well, except Tennessee but ya know. They’re Tennessee.

[Sawbonz 28220]

 

[Guest Lobo]

Mark it 45, dude!

Edited February 7, 2021 by Lobo