Jump to content
IGNORED

Impeachment Number Two


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

So it sounds like no one was impressed with Trump’s high paid legal geniuses?

They haven't been paid and based on Trump's response watching them on TV (screaming incoherently) they will never be paid.  Not that he ever pays anyone anyway. 

My impression was that Trump demanded his original set of lawyers argue the  vote was stolen from him and they refused. 

Edited by Howl
  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

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.

Also, not being in the majority is not disenfranchisment. Preventing eligible people from lawfully voting, refusing to count lawful votes, trying to throw out lawfully cast votes on the other hand...

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

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. 

I am sincerely hoping that evidence is presented that makes the political cost of voting against impeachment higher than the political cost of voting in favour.  I hope a lot of people are contacting their senators right now to make that clear.

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I heard reports on tv this evening that OFM was extremely unhappy with lawyer #1’s performance 

 

 

  • Upvote 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asshole Fuck Face of America had a sad today

Quote

Trump expressed frustration with his defense's strategy right out of the gate Tuesday, according to a report in Politico.

"President Trump was not happy with the performance of his legal team in action," a person familiar with Trump's evaluation of the day told the outlet.

CNN reported that Trump and his team were confused by his team's last-minute change in speaking order, and that the former president was "borderline screaming" as attorney Bruce Castor delivered his opening argument, which was criticized by people on both sides of the aisle as rambling.

Castor also said during his comments that he was impressed with what the Democratic representation had presented, a remark unlikely to make the former president happy.

 

  • Upvote 11
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clueliss said:

So I heard reports on tv this evening that OFM was extremely unhappy with lawyer #1’s performance 

 

 

I’m not offended by his Judaism. His working for Orange puss bucket is offensive. 

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

I’m not offended by his Judaism. His working for Orange puss bucket is offensive. 

Really - why would wearing his kippa be offensive? I can't help feeling that his real motivation was a little more like cowardice.

Being a slimy lawyer who would work for Trump, and has no coherent argument - that's something to offend. Wearing a symbol of your religious belief or practice is not.

This reminds me - a cousin of mine happily, proudly, sent me pictures of himself and his wife and child with Joe Biden in the 1980s. He also sent an article about the Jews in Biden's cabinet. I was excited about his history with Biden, but "meh" about the article - I just don't do that "whose a Jew?" thing.

Well, I try not to, anyway, especially when it's good news. But when anyone who is like me in any way - Jewish by background, atheist, my age, female, etc. is one of the bad guys, I cringe.

I answered him that, if the Jews working with Biden can erase the stench left by Miller and Kushner, that would be great.

It's a painful fact of life that, whatever group you belong to, there are some villains in that group. There may also be heroes, and most are just trying to survive.

But the shitbags in some part of the venn diagram that encloses each of us do exist.

:sigh:

 

Edited by thoughtful
riffle
  • Upvote 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@thoughtful I usually follow your path of not really focusing on politicians' religion, as long as there isn't discrimination happening.

I do admit, though, that I was a little bit enthused about Doug Emhoff being the first (I think?) Jewish person among the first and second families.

Not as excited as I was about his being the first Second Gentleman, but still...

Also, about Schoen not being sure it was acceptable to wear a yarmulke -- I agree with whoever said it's sad that he even had to worry about that.  But I also recently saw a headline saying that it was only 1-2 years ago that Rep. Ilhan Omar succeeded in getting the House ban on headwear removed.  

https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/04/rep-ilhan-omar-succeeds-in-changing-u-s-house-ban-on-headwear/

So I suppose it might have been a reasonable concern that he wasn't sure of the rules in that regard.  But why not just ask?

It did occur to me that maybe he was more worried about Trump disapproving of it than of the Senate having any issue.

Side note, but wasn't Rep. Raskin also wearing a yarmulke?  (I assumed he was, although honestly, it was too close to skin colored for me to tell if it was a bald spot or a skullcap! :pb_lol:)

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think there might possibly be evidence of such egregious treason in those documents that it could lead to a third impeachment?

Although I believe that it would be better if Trump were to be tried for treason in a court of law, where there actually is a chance of conviction...

 

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't do illegal things, you don't have to worry about being on trial:

image.png.49777bb29243f4d698da679fe0f4e5b7.png

  • Upvote 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

@thoughtful I usually follow your path of not really focusing on politicians' religion, as long as there isn't discrimination happening.

I do admit, though, that I was a little bit enthused about Doug Emhoff being the first (I think?) Jewish person among the first and second families.

Not as excited as I was about his being the first Second Gentleman, but still...

Also, about Schoen not being sure it was acceptable to wear a yarmulke -- I agree with whoever said it's sad that he even had to worry about that.  But I also recently saw a headline saying that it was only 1-2 years ago that Rep. Ilhan Omar succeeded in getting the House ban on headwear removed.  

https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/04/rep-ilhan-omar-succeeds-in-changing-u-s-house-ban-on-headwear/

So I suppose it might have been a reasonable concern that he wasn't sure of the rules in that regard.  But why not just ask?

It did occur to me that maybe he was more worried about Trump disapproving of it than of the Senate having any issue.

Side note, but wasn't Rep. Raskin also wearing a yarmulke?  (I assumed he was, although honestly, it was too close to skin colored for me to tell if it was a bald spot or a skullcap! :pb_lol:)

I’ve seen him in person. Bald spot 

  • Thank You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This attorney is a real piece of work:

 

  • Upvote 12
  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good read from Robin Givhan: "In an avalanche of words, there’s no sign of regret from Trump"

Quote

The first day of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump began in silence and dignity. It ended with a tale of grievance and fury told by a team of last-minute lawyers who looked and sounded more than a little worse for wear.

On Tuesday afternoon, the Democratic House managers marched soberly through Statuary Hall and onto the Senate floor. The assembled legislators voted on the rules of the proceedings and then the managers, in their rainbow of tailored gray suits, took to the microphone to analyze, parse and massage a multitude of words focused on interpreting the intent of the Constitution, the mind-set of the former president and the meaning of the noun “person.” They even coined a new phrase for the occasion: January exception.

The House managers spent the bulk of their allotted time explaining precisely why Trump’s impeachment trial was constitutional. And in arguing their case, they quoted from the history books and from modern legal scholars. They appealed to a sense of logic, noting that if a former president could not be held to account by the Senate, then sitting presidents could simply save their most egregious behavior for the final weeks of their administration and then go wild without fear of repercussions.

Lawyers argued the law, which is a good and necessary thing. And even if the former president is acquitted, which will most likely be the case with so many partial senators, the impeachment process will have gone forward. Justice might not be served, but at least justice will still have a place at the table.

The case to the American people watching from home was not so much legal as it was emotional. “I hope this trial reminds Americans how personal democracy is,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), the lead impeachment manager.

The breaching of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 still resonates as a dire moment for the country. Democracy was on a precipice and was miraculously pulled back from the edge by heroism, determination and sheer luck. The impeachment managers wanted the American people to sit with that reality for a bit. And so their opening statement was accompanied by a graphic video that showed the manner in which the Capitol riot unfolded. Excerpts from Trump’s speech earlier on that day on the Ellipse, as well as his tweets, served as time stamps and guide posts. The video was not to remind the senators of what happened, because surely the chaotic and terrifying day is embedded in their memory. It was really aimed at the public. It was meant to tug on every heart string, to elicit every fear, to horrify the public.

The video refused to let citizens forget what happened and challenged them to reckon with that day instead of burying it in history, instead of letting it become another grotesquerie that further darkens the American story.

The pictures are a punch in the gut, but the former president’s words before and during the riot gnaw at the intellect. His words bring demented logic to the seemingly illogical actions unfolding in the video. They offer an explanation for the person bashing in the windows at the Capitol with a hunk of wood, for the men clambering over the walls and the rioters marauding through the historical hallways. These actions don’t make sense for most Americans until Trump explains them. He creates the narrative. His words and their actions fit together. Are they cause and effect? Or simply two strains of the same virus?

Trump has lawyers representing him. It might be an exaggeration to say they are defending him, perhaps because he doesn’t believe he requires protection or justification. He had a tag-team of lawyers who spoke words on his behalf, beginning with Bruce L. Castor Jr., who mistakenly introduced himself as the prosecutor that he once was. Castor, dressed in a gray-pinstriped suit that billowed around his torso and his arms and his shoulders, began the day by cracking open a very large can of nonsensical phrases and irrelevant sentences and dumping them on the Senate floor, leaving his co-counsel David Schoen to try to mop up the mess.

Castor, despite speaking for more than an hour, managed to avoid uttering a single ample paragraph in defense of the former president. He did manage, however, to muse about Athens and Rome, the history of republicanism, the temperament of the modern senator and the difficulty of navigating a car in the nation’s capital.

Schoen mostly yelled his remarks like a man who realizes that the Muses have failed him and so he must go it alone on sheer volume and dire warnings. He tossed around the word “radical” to describe the process of impeachment. He warned that a trial would create a precedent that would allow the House to reach back in time and start a flurry of retroactive impeaching of former officials. Schoen spoke at length in a magnificent display of vocal endurance helped along by big glub-glub-glubbing swigs from a plastic bottle of water.

These two lawyers, who signed on to the case less than a fortnight ago, seemed to be one with Trump’s most ardent apologists, who argue that his words shouldn’t be taken literally, that his words don’t matter, even though he is a man whose excessive verbiage propelled him to political success. Trump — as candidate and commander in chief — could speak for more than an hour at a time, tirelessly spewing grievance and anger. He had a seemingly bottomless well of vicious, mean and terrorizing words. He tweeted them, he called them into radio shows, he spoke them on video, he vomited them out at rallies. Trump’s words fed a hunger. His fans lovingly called him plain-spoken, even as his legal defenders argue that what he was speaking really had no influence on those who were listening.

The impeachment managers say Trump’s words had the power to nearly destroy our democracy. The former president’s lawyers have declared them hollow and impotent — but duly protected by the First Amendment. An impeachment trial may never satisfactorily solve that quandary. But this much is true: Among all the words that have been spoken, there’s no evidence thus far that after a mob of Trump’s supporters caused death and mayhem at the Capitol, the former president ever uttered the words, “I’m sorry it happened.”

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thoughtful said:

Really - why would wearing his kippa be offensive? I can't help feeling that his real motivation was a little more like cowardice.

Being a slimy lawyer who would work for Trump, and has no coherent argument - that's something to offend. Wearing a symbol of your religious belief or practice is not.

I think many people are barking up the wrong tree, here. He definitely wasn't worried that it would offend the Democrats in the senate... but the other side, however? I think there are enough racist, anti-semitic people on the R side that he didn't want to even go there just in case. No need to risk one of the Rs turning because of being barraged by anti-semitic Q-following crazy racist constituents urging them not to trust Trump's lawyer because of his religion.

These guys definitely have no sense of irony, but I could see him worrying that since he knows full well many R constituents are uncomfortable with seeing muslim dress they might be similarly uncomfortable with him wearing a yarmulke.

Kushner gets a pass, because Ivanka.

10 hours ago, thoughtful said:

It's a painful fact of life that, whatever group you belong to, there are some villains in that group. There may also be heroes, and most are just trying to survive.

Truer words have never been spoken. 

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice smackdown of a juror who is totally impartial:

image.png.8aa34f3e2e229670dfba2121a75dcb91.png

  • Upvote 14
  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, maybe OFM should have looked to see if that Public Defender with the severe stutter from My Cousin Vinny was available. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
  • WTF 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good representation of the defense:

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I think many people are barking up the wrong tree, here. He definitely wasn't worried that it would offend the Democrats in the senate... but the other side, however? I think there are enough racist, anti-semitic people on the R side that he didn't want to even go there just in case. No need to risk one of the Rs turning because of being barraged by anti-semitic Q-following crazy racist constituents urging them not to trust Trump's lawyer because of his religion.

These guys definitely have no sense of irony, but I could see him worrying that since he knows full well many R constituents are uncomfortable with seeing muslim dress they might be similarly uncomfortable with him wearing a yarmulke.

Kushner gets a pass, because Ivanka.

I find his behavior puzzling.  If he was worried about offending Rs then why even bother sticking his neck out to request the Sabbath off...then reneg?  If he's truly observant then why didn't he verify the Senate rules about wearing a kippah, then wear one?  To Jew or not to Jew?

The former resident of the WH had, and I'm sure still has, a lot of support among the ultra-Orthodox community and I can't help but wonder what they're thinking about his attorney's behavior.

The R's, IMO, can easily handle the appearance of an observant Jewish man - even the Q's.  If he's performing under the banner of Trump then I tend to not believe they'd have a problem with it.  He seems to be the one who decided there's a problem, or that some different posturing would be advantageous in some way, but why?

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, PreciousPantsofDoom said:

You know, maybe OFM should have looked to see if that Public Defender with the severe stutter from My Cousin Vinny was available. 

Yutes 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ticklish said:

Are they ever going to bring up that he told the Proud Boys to "stand down and stand by" during the debates? 

They did yesterday already...

  • Thank You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

They did yesterday already...

Thank you. I wasn't able to watch most of yesterday so was stumped that it wasn't coming up today. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the scene at the hair furor house yesterday looked like this?

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • GreyhoundFan unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.