Impeachment Number Two

[SeekingAdventure]

i stopped listening to trumps lawyer for a bit to watch the video up top, and that was harrowing..

and that guy still hasn't got to a point, has he? legalese?! So far, all he's doing is trying to suck up to republican senators..

[GreyhoundFan]

I love this quote.

[fraurosena]

I just watched a few minutes, and he was going on about 'the majority in the House' are afraid of the American people choosing Trump a second time in 2024 so they're trying this tactic to prevent him from running... 

So, he has no constitutional arguments, and is -- like a good Trumpian always does -- making this political. 

Also, what personally bothers me about him is his manner of speaking. He stumbles constantly and has no fluency to his speech. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm incredibly particular in how people speak. (I can't stand listening to Pelosi or Leahy for this reason too, you can hear they have dentures and they lisp, and they stumble their words too). But in this guy's case, I also think it's because he's fully aware that it's drivel and nonsense that he's attempting to argue and that is what is causing him to not be able to be eloquent and persuasive.

[clueliss]

okay #2 Trump guy is making a bit more sense.  Or at least talks like he knows a bit about what he's talking about.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh goodie, we're on to OFM attorney number two, who had been Roger Stone and Jeffrey Epstein's attorney. In other words, a class act. /s

[clueliss]

They hired a MOVIE company.

Sounded a bit jealous they didn't think of that too.

[church_of_dog]

Is there any validity to OFM atty #1's claimed point about the 14th Amendment and the way the charges were worded in that it's "all or nothing" such that every element must be met in order to convict?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm so fucking sick of the argument that the Dems want to disenfranchise the 74 million people who voted for the OFM and then force them to live under Dem policies. Um, they had no problem disenfranchising the 65 million people who voted for Hillary in 2016 and had zero problem sticking it to the people for four years.

[fraurosena]

2 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

Is there any validity to OFM atty #1's claimed point about the 14th Amendment and the way the charges were worded in that it's "all or nothing" such that every element must be met in order to convict?

 

No, none at all. It was already thoroughly debunked by the impeachment managers (I believe it was either Neguse or Ciccelini) earlier, as they anticipated this argument from the defence's briefs filed yesterday. 

The argument this current defender is making has also been debunked by the managers too. He's saying that impeaching Trump after he's left office will open the door to anybody who wants to run for office to be impeached at any point after they have left office so they can't run. 

These really are fools who are up against the best of the best and they don't stand a chance of winning any legal arguments at all. 

[clueliss]

This guy makes me ragey.  I just pulled out my pink pussy hat and put it on in protest.

[onekidanddone]

I’m kinda sorry Orange puss pile is off Twitter. He would be live tweeting and incriminate himself in no time

[clueliss]

So what I'm getting here is:
 

He's a private citizen (and yet keeps reminding everyone he's former president)

He really wants to run again (because dang if that point wasn't made about OFM being able to run again)

It's not fair!  We didn't have time!  (because he fired his original setS of attorneys or they quit)
They rush except when they were dragging this out
It should be the chief justice  (because maybe Roberts will take pity on my client)

 

[fraurosena]

This is so weird.

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by fraurosena
stupid link to tweet won't work

[clueliss]

 

13 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

This is so weird.

 

I've seen it suggested he normally wears a kippah/yarmulke and is doing that out of habit.

[fraurosena]

12 minutes ago, clueliss said:

 

He's lost even more than Dershowitz!

 

[clueliss]

56-44 vote for going forward. 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by clueliss

[church_of_dog]

I was more listening than watching as OFM atty #2 was wrapping up and reading the poem -- at first it sounded like he got the giggles, which is weird enough, but then at almost the end of the poem, did he... ...YAWN?

 

[clueliss]

Here's what I was looking for

 

[thoughtful]

47 minutes ago, clueliss said:

I've seen it suggested he normally wears a kippah/yarmulke and is doing that out of habit.

That was my first thought, as well - I went to look up whether this is the frum guy who is asking them not to meet on Saturday, but I think that's the other one.

Edited February 9, 2021 by thoughtful

[church_of_dog]

10 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

I was more listening than watching as OFM atty #2 was wrapping up and reading the poem -- at first it sounded like he got the giggles, which is weird enough, but then at almost the end of the poem, did he... ...YAWN?

 

Quoting myself, just heard one of the CNN guys refer to him getting emotional during the poem -- maybe that's what happened instead, but with just listening it sounded more like the giggles at first, and he read the lines of the poem so fast, it felt like he was just going through the motions to get it over with, and then at the end when I glanced at his face it sure struck me more as a yawn.  If it was emotion then I retract my insult. (not sure I understand the strong emotion though)

[GreyhoundFan]

"4 takeaways from Day One of Trump’s second impeachment trial"

Quote

The second impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump is underway.

While Trump is no longer in office — which has led to an initial debate about the constitutionality of the proceedings — he could still be sanctioned and prevented from holding high office again.

Below are some takeaways from the first hours of the trial.

1. Democrats’ appeal to emotion

Democrats have decided to move things on a fast track, including likely not calling any witnesses. The best evidence, they maintain, is what has already been established — on video and otherwise — showing what happened before and during the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

Their early argument was heavy on that. To begin the debate over the proceedings, lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) played a well-produced, 13-minute video recapping the ugly scenes of Jan. 6. The video, which cable news and broadcast networks played in full, featured violent conduct and rhetoric, extensive vulgarity and even video of a Capitol rioter, Ashli Babbitt, being shot to death.

Raskin later closed by recounting his own experience during the Capitol siege, citing “a sound I will never forget: the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram, the most haunting sound I ever heard.” He mentioned the deaths and many injuries that occurred that day, and officers who took their own lives in the days afterward. He cited an officer who was “tortured” with an American flagpole. Raskin, who buried his son around the time of the Capitol siege, broke up repeatedly while recounting these things.

It was unquestionably moving, on an emotional level.

The question before the Senate, though, isn’t about whether what happened in Jan. 6 was bad — even historically so. It’s whether Trump incited it, as the impeachment article alleges. The 13-minute video showed some of Trump’s comments, including clips of his speech from a rally just beforehand, and his mealy-mouthed comments in the hours after it began. But it didn’t dwell too much on how Trump’s words might actually have fomented the scenes — either by mentioning rioters who have cited Trump’s invitation or the standard for incitement.

Trump’s team countered that such emotion shouldn’t obscure the culpability question. Trump lawyer Bruce Castor began his remarks by commending Raskin for his presentation and personal reflection, but arguing that emotion shouldn’t define the response.

“It’s natural to recoil. It’s an immediate thing that comes over you without your ability to stop it — the desire for retribution,” Castor said. “'Who caused this awful thing? How do we make them pay?' We recognize in the law … [ that] have a we have a specific body of law that deals with passion and rage, blinding logic and reason. That’s the difference between manslaughter and murder.”

There is little doubt that whatever Democrats put forward won’t be compelling to enough Republican senators, or at least the 17 who would be needed to convict Trump. All but 13 have already signaled they support Trump’s acquittal. But there is a real question about just how compelling it is to the broader American public. Polls show Americans favor his conviction, but generally only marginally.

Democrats will undoubtedly delve more into incitement in the hours and days to come. (One impeachment manager asked, for instance, “Does anyone in this chamber honestly believe that, but for the conduct of President Trump that’s charged in the article of impeachment, that that attack at the Capitol would have occurred?”)

There is a difference between saying “this thing involving Trump and his supporters was bad” and “Trump incited this thing.” The onus will be on Democrats to prove the latter.

2. Trump lawyer Bruce Castor’s thoroughly odd opening

I wrote earlier Tuesday about how Trump’s team probably didn’t need to do much to actually succeed in this case. I also wrote about how their brief filed Monday didn’t exactly suggest a coherent and well-considered case.

The first comments from his legal team didn’t do anything to correct that impression.

After initially dealing directly with Democrats’ arguments, Castor was all over the place. He tried to work the refs by sympathizing with senators who might have competing motivations in their upcoming votes. The comparison between manslaughter and murder for Trump’s conduct was perhaps ill-advised, given both involve culpability.

But more than anything, it seemed to be an exceedingly off-the-cuff commentary on the issues at hand. And Castor often struggled for specifics. One of the most notable examples came when he recounted a politician — he wasn’t sure who it was, or where they served, or when it happened — but he was sure that their apology for their comments was unwarranted:

I saw a headline: Representative So-and-so seeks to walk back comments about — I forget what was, something that bothered her. I was devastated when I saw that she thought it was necessary to go on television yesterday or the day before and say she needs to walk back her comments. She should be able to comment as much as she wants, and she should be able to say exactly how she feels. And if she feels that the supporters of then-President Trump are not worthy of having their ideas considered, she should be permitted to say that. …

I don’t expect and I don’t believe that the former president expects anybody to walk back any of the language. If that’s how they feel about the way things transpired over the last couple of years in this country, they should be allowed to say that. And I will go to court and defend them if anything happens to them as a result, if the government takes action against that state representative or that U.S. representative who wants to walk back her comments ... I have no problem going into court and defending those things, even though I don’t agree with them.

Got that? Me neither. Castor had notes, which makes it perplexing that he didn’t offer any specifics. But even so: What? He seemed to be arguing that a politician can say whatever they want regardless of the impact, even as there are well-established limits on speech, including incitement and defamation. (Trump’s lawyers have taken care not to delve into that meddling issue.)

While Castor also tried to empathize with senators facing a tough choice, including his home-state Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), he also took time to target a GOP senator who seems inclined toward convicting Trump: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

“But Nebraska, you’re going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place. And just maybe Sen. Sasse is on to something,” Castor said. “You’ll hear about what it is that the Nebraska courts have to say about the issue that you all are deciding this week. They seem to be some pretty smart jurists in Nebraska, and I can’t believe a United States senator doesn’t know that.”

Castor added, apparently referring to Sasse’s censure by the state GOP: “He faces the whirlwind, even though he knows what the judiciary in his state thinks.”

Maybe Sasse wasn’t a winnable vote, but again, it was certainly a novel strategy.

A Trump ally familiar with the legal strategy told The Washington Post that Castor’s presentation was meant to lower the temperature in the room “before dropping the hammer” on the constitutionality question, which Castor’s colleague David Schoen delved into in much greater detail. Castor himself admitted: “I’ll be quite frank with you: We changed what we were going to do on account that we thought the House managers’ presentation was well done. And I wanted you to know that we have responses to those things.”

3. The key vote

The day concluded with a significant vote on whether the Senate had jurisdiction to hold he trial. And brass tacks: It provided almost no indication the Trump’s conviction is any more likely today than it was yesterday.

Previously, 45 of 50 GOP senators voted that the trial was unconstitutional. That was somewhat surprising given some voting that it was unconstitutional had previously expressed reservations about Trump’s conduct, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had expressed an openness to convicting Trump.

The vote Tuesday, though, was pretty much the same. Only one GOP senator voted that the Senate had jurisdiction after previously voting the trial was unconstitutional: Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). McConnell voted that it didn’t. In the end, 44 GOP senators voted not to move forward.

Cassidy had previewed such a vote this weekend, indicating he was still open to hearing the evidence. He also suggested the previous vote was a hasty one in which senators didn’t have a chance to fully digest the arguments.

That apparently only applies to Cassidy. And while his vote is significant as a senator from a very conservative state, it still leaves Democrats needing the votes of 11 GOP senators who voted that the Senate didn’t even have jurisdiction to try a former president in the first place.

4. Democrats cite conservative scholars

One of the most compelling arguments about the issue at hand on day one — the constitutionality of proceeding with the trial — came from Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.)

Neguse cited the opinions of several conservative legal scholars and a past Trump impeachment witness assuring that impeaching — or at least trying, as the Senate is now doing — a former president is constitutional.

Neguse delved deep into the opinions of Reagan administration solicitor general Charles Fried, former federal judge Michael McConnell, Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi, renowned conservative lawyer Chuck Cooper and Jonathan Turley, whom Republicans called as a witness during Trump’s first impeachment.

Most interestingly, Neguse seemed to allow that there could be debate about impeachment itself occurring for a former official, but cited McConnell’s analysis that the House impeached Trump when he was still in office, and thus that the Senate is tasked with holding a trial.

“We laid it out step by step so that you could consider it, and so that opposing counsel could consider it as well,” Neguse said of the impeachment managers’ brief last week. “We received President Trump’s response yesterday, and the trial brief offers no rebuttal to this point — none. And in fairness, I can’t think of any convincing response. The Constitution is just exceptionally clear on this point.”

The Constitution might not be as clear as Neguse argues — even some of the men he cited acknowledge this situation isn’t directly addressed, nor have courts ruled conclusively on it — but he’s right that Trump’s team hasn’t dealt with this head-on. Instead, its brief Monday cited people who don’t actually agree with their conclusions.

Forty-five out of 50 Senate Republicans voted previously that the trial was unconstitutional, but some of them have also expressed an openness to conviction, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). While Trump almost definitely won’t be convicted, it will be interesting to see whether any of those 45 vote to proceed.

 

[onekidanddone]

30 minutes ago, clueliss said:

56-44 vote for going forward. 

 

Tally? Which ReThugs voted to continue?

[thoughtful]

5 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

Quoting myself, just heard one of the CNN guys refer to him getting emotional during the poem -- maybe that's what happened instead, but with just listening it sounded more like the giggles at first, and he read the lines of the poem so fast, it felt like he was just going through the motions to get it over with, and then at the end when I glanced at his face it sure struck me more as a yawn.  If it was emotion then I retract my insult. (not sure I understand the strong emotion though)

 I didn't see him live, because I was teaching, but I just watched the poem reading. I didn't see a yawn or emotion, just a moment when he couldn't catch his breath because he was rushing through it.

[fraurosena]

22 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

: “I’ll be quite frank with you: We changed what we were going to do on account that we thought the House managers’ presentation was well done. And I wanted you to know that we have responses to those things.”

In plainer terms: they got caught on their back foot by the excellent opening by the House managers.

 

[SassyPants]

Well, I missed day one. It is a very busy week here. I schedule all my annual and biannual medical/dental/lab appointments during the same 2 weeks, and today’s appointment went long. Getting old is hell. So it sounds like no one was impressed with Trump’s high paid legal geniuses? Well, they have quite a hole to dig out of, and yet, most of the Senate Republicans have already decided that Trump is innocent? They should let the citizens decide and majority rules. Trump’s ass would never see the light of day. What a bunch of Trump stooges.