Impeachment Number Two

[Dandruff]

4 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I think even the stable genius realizes that having Rudy defend him is not a good idea. 

Isn't Rudy a non-option because he may be called as a witness?

There might also be some tiny issues associated with billing...

[Penny]

He might represent  himself. He can then go seek the attention he has not had for weeks. 

[clueliss]

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/31/962493398/trumps-top-impeachment-lawyers-leave-team-days-before-trial

[GreyhoundFan]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/17/1996540/-Ah-Rudy-you-can-t-charge-to-represent-people-in-court-your-bar-membership-expired

 

Rudy was suspended from the DC bar. I’m not sure if that would prohibit him from representing OFM for impeachment number two. 
 

 

[formergothardite]

22 minutes ago, Penny said:

He might represent  himself. He can then go seek the attention he has not had for weeks. 

I think he truly believes that if he can get back in the spotlight he can get control of the narrative and get his power back. Trump is in a delusional world. The GOP is only able to sort of defend him because no one can hear from him. He has no platform to spew his horrible beliefs. Trump going full on crazy conspiracy nut who justifies the insurrection in an impeachment trial is going to put the GOP in a spot where they feel pressured to do anything to shut him up. 
Trump is toxic. 

[Xan]

If I've been reading things correctly, it appears that Trump wanted his lawyers to use the "the election was rigged!" defense and they refused.  That means that he's sticking to the big lie.  He doesn't even want to have this argued on First Amendment rights or on whether this was supposed to be a peaceful rally.  He just wants to keep insisting that the election was stolen from him.

This would be good EXCEPT for the Republicans.  Will they let him run with it?  It all comes down to whether the GOP is willing to piss off the crazy contingent of their party.  If they were sane and decent, they'd disallow Trump using the big lie as his defense.  However, we all know that many are not sane and very few of them are decent.

This looks like it's going to be a shitshow of major proportions.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, clueliss said:

The former president has until this Tuesday, Feb. 2, to respond to the article of impeachment passed by the House charging him with "incitement of insurrection." 

What happens if he doesn't respond? Is that an automatic admission of guilt? If so, could the Senate then forgo the trial altogether and get on the with the sentencing part?

[formergothardite]

Part of me feels like the Democrats shouldn’t attempt to ban Trump from running again unless they get full support of the GOP. The republicans want the democrats to deal with their Trump problem while they also get to go bashing the dems for doing it. They will absolutely hold up Trump as a martyr and use the impeachment trial in future elections to stir up their base. But they don’t want to actually deal with Trump as a candidate. They know he is 100 percent insane and out of control. They want the idea of Trump but not the person. They need to be saddled with him and either come forward taking him down or the dems let him destroy their party. 
I actually don’t think Trump could get elected again. He is entirely too unhinged at this point. 

[Xan]

26 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

What happens if he doesn't respond? Is that an automatic admission of guilt? If so, could the Senate then forgo the trial altogether and get on the with the sentencing part?

If he doesn't respond, I think he is assumed to be entering a plea of "not guilty".  I'm not sure what the Senate will do if there's no one arguing in Trump's defense because I'm sure the Democrats already are shaping up the prosecution.  Will someone like Cruz step forward and argue for him?  And I doubt that Trump will stoop to even appearing before the Senate.  I've heard people say he could defend himself but I just don't see that happening.

I guess it will just be arguments being presented and debated and then a vote.  I doubt we'll have any chance to get the necessary two thirds.  At least, if he isn't convicted, he'll be an albatross around the neck of the GOP.

[fraurosena]

45 minutes ago, Xan said:

Will someone like Cruz step forward and argue for him?

Cruz is a member of the jury, so he won't be able to. Is there someone like him who would, and more importantly, could defend him? I don't know. Time's running real short here. Not much time to prepare any real arguments that have actual legal standing. 

Anyway, if Trump somehow manages to get someone willing to 'defend' him, we all know the defence is only going to be promoting the big lie. Which is not a defence against the accusations at all. 

However, the whole question of his defence argument is moot. We all know what the resulting verdict will be. Republicans will not convict.

[mamallama]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Part of me feels like the Democrats shouldn’t attempt to ban Trump from running again unless they get full support of the GOP. The republicans want the democrats to deal with their Trump problem while they also get to go bashing the dems for doing it. They will absolutely hold up Trump as a martyr and use the impeachment trial in future elections to stir up their base. But they don’t want to actually deal with Trump as a candidate. They know he is 100 percent insane and out of control. They want the idea of Trump but not the person. They need to be saddled with him and either come forward taking him down or the dems let him destroy their party. 
I actually don’t think Trump could get elected again. He is entirely too unhinged at this point. 

While I agree with this 100% my concern about him running is that I think it makes it a lot harder for social media to prevent him from posting.  If he's a private citizen breaking TOS it's one thing but if a presidential candidate is blocked that raises more questions.  

I also wonder what ever happend to Jay Sekulow.  It seemed like he was building his whole career for this moment but he kind of faded from view early in the Trump administration.

[sndral]

3 hours ago, Xan said:

If I've been reading things correctly, it appears that Trump wanted his lawyers to use the "the election was rigged!" defense and they refused.  That means that he's sticking to the big lie.  He doesn't even want to have this argued on First Amendment rights or on whether this was supposed to be a peaceful rally.  He just wants to keep insisting that the election was stolen from him.

This would be good EXCEPT for the Republicans.  Will they let him run with it?  It all comes down to whether the GOP is willing to piss off the crazy contingent of their party.  If they were sane and decent, they'd disallow Trump using the big lie as his defense.  However, we all know that many are not sane and very few of them are decent.

This looks like it's going to be a shitshow of major proportions.

I read the headlines that the impeachment defense lawyers w/drew from representation and my first thought was that they had an ethical obligation to do so https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/comment_on_rule_3_3/ IME (30+ years practicing) withdrawal by criminal defense counsel is rare. For all of Trump’s lawyers to do so is shocking and my suspicion is that Trump intends to present false evidence/commit perjury at the trial. Now I’m wondering if he can be prosecuted for perjury even if not convicted at his impeachment trial. Trump’s a compulsive liar, I think I’ll enjoy watching him be cross examined because, contrary to his belief, he’s no ‘stable genius.’

Edited January 31, 2021 by sndral

[Xan]

I know that I beat this particular drum on a regular basis but... I think Trump is absolutely convinced that the Democrats cheated because his team had put in place a cheating plan to win -- just like they did in 2016.  If it hadn't been for those mail in ballots with paper trails, he would've won again.   I almost expect him to blurt it out at some point.  They were going to flip just enough of the ES&S (owned by a Republican) electronic votes to flip the electoral college again.  

I know that we have a lot of people who vote Republican for their own reasons but the population that truly believes the Qanon nonsense is below 15%.  I still have trouble believing that 74 million people voted for Donny Dumbass.  We have no way of proving this because many states no longer have any way to check if the votes are recorded accurately.  What saved us this time was the paper trail and the presence in Georgia of the Dominion electronic system.

ETA:  One of the telling parts is that Donny started talking about how illegitimate the mail-in voting was weeks before the election.  If he was sure he was loved enough to win, he wouldn't have attacked mail-in ballots.  He knew he needed the voting to be electronic.  Winning was dependent on that electronic vote total.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Xan

[Shrubbery]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Rudy was suspended from the DC bar. I’m not sure if that would prohibit him from representing OFM for impeachment number two. 
 

 

Good to know! I must have known that, but I clearly forgot, I was just thinking, what desperate-for-attention person with a vaguely law-related background would be deluded enough to take on the orange one, who, although he sadly enough might get acquitted by Hawley and the other trainee fascists, might simultaneously incriminate himself for other high crimes and misdemeanours, trying to prove his stable genius innocence*, opening himself to more prosecution? The answer, clearly, was Rudy. 
 

*autocorrect here suggested incontinence and inconsistency, and I was tempted to leave either or both in.

[Howl]

4 hours ago, Xan said:

And I doubt that Trump will stoop to even appearing before the Senate. 

I'm 50 - 50 on this.  Likely he'll ignore the entire thing; he's been assured he'll be acquitted.   

Alternately, his ego might compel him to turn a Senate appearance into a rally.

He's obsessed w/ the Stop the Steal and I think actually believes it, or this:  He believes that he DESERVES to be re-elected and no one can  deny him that; then whether he won the actual vote becomes irrelevant.  

The Stop the Steal  narrative  was used to incite the insurrection and is  now embedded into the minds of his followers as the absolute truth. 

1 hour ago, Xan said:

They were going to flip just enough of the ES&S (owned by a Republican) electronic votes to flip the electoral college again.  

Do you follow @JennyCohn1 on twitter?  She has covered ES&S issues extensively. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Howl

[fraurosena]

58 minutes ago, Xan said:

I know that I beat this particular drum on a regular basis but... I think Trump is absolutely convinced that the Democrats cheated because his team had put in place a cheating plan to win -- just like they did in 2016.  If it hadn't been for those mail in ballots with paper trails, he would've won again. 

I'm so there with you on this. I even believe this is the reason that some House seats went over to the R's, and that, amongst others, Lindsey Graham managed to hang on to his Senate seat. 

As you say, they did not take the surge in mail in ballots into account-- or the massive turnout, period. Remember how Trump suddenly appointed Louis DeJoy as his postmaster general, who promptly did his utmost to stymie the mail in ballot options? 

5 minutes ago, Howl said:

I'm 50 - 50 on this.  Likely he'll ignore the entire thing; he's been assured he'll be acquitted.   

Alternately, his ego might compel him to turn a Senate appearance into a rally.

I'm 98,99% sure he will ignore it. He's too much of a coward to face accusations. And as he already knows what the verdict will be, why would he bother?

[Ozlsn]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Anyway, if Trump somehow manages to get someone willing to 'defend' him, we all know the defence is only going to be promoting the big lie. Which is not a defence against the accusations at all. 

Is that guy who is suing in Texas to declare the entire US government illegitimate still available? He's probably up for it, especially if it gets him out of charges. 

Also he'll probably bring the (incorrect) LoTR references, and I could watch that.

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

I'm so there with you on this. I even believe this is the reason that some House seats went over to the R's, and that, amongst others, Lindsey Graham managed to hang on to his Senate seat. 

As you say, they did not take the surge in mail in ballots into account-- or the massive turnout, period. Remember how Trump suddenly appointed Louis DeJoy as his postmaster general, who promptly did his utmost to stymie the mail in ballot options? 

I'm 98,99% sure he will ignore it. He's too much of a coward to face accusations. And as he already knows what the verdict will be, why would he bother?

He loves big ratings and thinks everything is a reality show. If he shows up it would be for his ego

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, Xan said:

know that I beat this particular drum on a regular basis but... I think Trump is absolutely convinced that the Democrats cheated because his team had put in place a cheating plan to win -- just like they did in 2016.  If it hadn't been for those mail in ballots with paper trails, he would've won again.   I almost expect him to blurt it out at some point.  They were going to flip just enough of the ES&S (owned by a Republican) electronic votes to flip the electoral college again.  

If there's one thing I would really like to see the Democrats do it's a full investigation into electronic voting. Call in people from Dominion, from ES&S and all of them - and get specific. Get in independent technical experts. Require them to hand over code and machines for review. Ask the hard questions. Because ballot scanners are one thing, but entirely electronic voting is quite another. 

[Shrubbery]

32 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

Is that guy who is suing in Texas to declare the entire US government illegitimate still available? He's probably up for it, especially if it gets him out of charges. 

Also he'll probably bring the (incorrect) LoTR references, and I could watch that.

I’ve pondered that and it sounds good, at first ... but if I understand his analogies correctly, he‘d start saying the orange one is Aragorn and I just ... well let’s just say I had a thing for Viggo Mortensen back in the day, and my brain refuses to take that thought any further.

[Ozlsn]

12 minutes ago, Shrubbery said:

I’ve pondered that and it sounds good, at first ... but if I understand his analogies correctly, he‘d start saying the orange one is Aragorn and I just ... well let’s just say I had a thing for Viggo Mortensen back in the day, and my brain refuses to take that thought any further.

I suspect he will try, but given he seems to think Gondor has no King who knows where his analogies will go?  

[Shrubbery]

14 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

I suspect he will try, but given he seems to think Gondor has no King who knows where his analogies will go?  

Great, and now I’m picturing him (poorly) imitating Boromir at the Council of Elrond ...

[Ozlsn]

27 minutes ago, Shrubbery said:

Great, and now I’m picturing him (poorly) imitating Boromir at the Council of Elrond ...

"See this magnificent man! Like Gollum, who has no king..."  

(You said poorly, heh)

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Ozlsn said:

If there's one thing I would really like to see the Democrats do it's a full investigation into electronic voting. Call in people from Dominion, from ES&S and all of them - and get specific. Get in independent technical experts. Require them to hand over code and machines for review. Ask the hard questions. Because ballot scanners are one thing, but entirely electronic voting is quite another. 

Or save yourself the expense of an investigation and ditch the electronic voting altogether. Go back to hand marked paper ballots. Much, much safer.

[Ozlsn]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Or save yourself the expense of an investigation and ditch the electronic voting altogether. Go back to hand marked paper ballots. Much, much safer.

True. But I want the corruption exposed, laid bare and made obvious to the general population. Might not change anything, but I want it in the open so Republicans will hopefully STFU.

Also convictions and prison terms relating to it would be good.