Trump impeachment defense: Two attorneys leave team two weeks before trial - CNNPolitics

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom  •  one month ago  •  107 comments

By:   Gloria Borger and Kaitlan Collins (CNN)

Trump impeachment defense: Two attorneys leave team two weeks before trial - CNNPolitics
With a little more than a week before his impeachment trial is set to begin, President Trump's legal team is in tumult.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



(CNN)With a little more than a week before his impeachment trial is set to begin, President Trump's legal team is in tumult.

Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are no longer on the team. A source familiar with the changes said it was a mutual decision for both to leave the legal team. "The Democrats' efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional and so bad for our country. In fact, 45 Senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional. We have done much work, but have not made a final decision on our legal team, which will be made shortly," former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller told CNN. Bowers, a respected lawyer from Columbia, South Carolina, once worked in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush. Barbier, a South Carolina litigator, worked closely on several high-profile cases and was a former federal prosecutor for 15 years in the state before opening up her own boutique criminal defense firm. Read More This is a breaking story and will be updated.

CNN's Kara Scannell, Jeff Zeleny and Manu Raju contributed to this report.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    one month ago

Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are no longer on the team. A source familiar with the changes said it was a mutual decision for both to leave the legal team. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1  pat wilson  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    one month ago

A total of five attorneys have walked away. Rumor is that trump wanted them to focus on election fraud.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  pat wilson @1.1    one month ago

I just woke up and saw that three more quit.  I would say 'rats, ships, etc.', but I think this particular defense team was the most principled representation he has ever had.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.1    one month ago

I'm hoping trump ends up representing himself, while it's broadcast live on CSPAN.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.1    one month ago
but I think this particular defense team was the most principled representation he has ever had.  

Looks like the only lawyer he can get to represent him is his ever loyal Rudy. That is, if he isn't debarred by then and can't legally represent anyone.j But, that doesn't say he can't advise Trump as a 'friend' if the price is right. But, as everyone well knows, Trump never pays his debts, much less lawyers. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.1    one month ago

Trump has until Tuesday to submit his written argument to support acquittal to the Senate. Time is ticking away for him. 

Johnathan Turley is now saying that Trump shouldn't even send anyone to the Senate to defend him. Turley thinks that somehow that will show that the trial is 'extraconstitutional'. Turley posted a circular argument to support his bullshit. I guess that explains why Turley didn't step up to defend Trump after his lawyers bailed. 

I wonder what happened to John Dowd. Dowd made bank on his connections to Trump for pardon purposes so he kinda owes Trump his cut... 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    one month ago
I wonder what happened to ...

Johnathan Turley...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one month ago
I'm hoping trump ends up representing himself, while it's broadcast live on CSPAN.

I'd better check the storage on my DVR.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
1.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.1    one month ago

They realized that defending Trump would be a death knell for their careers.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.6    one month ago

I still think they should make this a pay-per-view....they could pay off the national debt. Or at least come close.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.8    one month ago

Whatever they charged, I'd pony up.  I only demand some good close-up shots, so I can watch his spray tan melting like Rudy's hair dye.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one month ago
I'm hoping trump ends up representing himself, while it's broadcast live on CSPAN.

Given his YUGE Ego, I think he'd like to. But he can't speak without inserting a lie every few minutes.

Which seem to work at campaign rallies with his cultish followers.

But if he testified in Congress he's be under oath-- and in that situation lying would have serious consequences!!!

(So it seems certain that his lawyers would do their best to keep him from appearing)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Krishna  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.3    one month ago
his ever loyal Rudy. That is, if he isn't debarred by then

Debarred-- or behind bars? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.9    one month ago

I've got a high definition TV...oh what fun!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.12    one month ago

Me, too.

Some popcorn, some beer, the dog cuddled up on my lap - I could settle in for hours of entertainment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.13    one month ago

I would have 3 cats vying for the sweet spot.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.14    one month ago

The dog is scrappy about who gets Mommy's attention.  There have been times I've had him and both cats on my lap, but he doesn't allow it often.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    one month ago

"The Democrats' efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional and so bad for our country. In fact, 45 Senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional.

It's not likely that this foolishness will go anywhere

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one month ago

45 gop senators?  They're all complicit.  

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one month ago

Re-quoting the likes of Jason Miller is foolishness. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.2.3  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one month ago

As I have stated to you on previous seeds/articles, Trump was impeached on January 13, 2020...while he was still president.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.4  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one month ago
It's not likely that this foolishness will go anywhere

It's almost like Trump can stand up in front of the entire Senate and say "prove I started an insurrection". You will see 50 democrat senators cringe and slowly slide down into their seats.

As of right this moment, I have never seen a leftist on here post EXACTLY what Trump said that started or supported the mostly peaceful "insurrection"

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.5  bugsy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2.3    one month ago
Trump was impeached on January 13, 2020...while he was still president.

So? He was impeached by hyper partisans because "Orange man bad and we can't get rid of him any other way" The Senate rightfully cleared him.

Same thing will happen now.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
1.2.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2.3    one month ago

True...but there is no Constitutional basis to convict a private citizen.

And the impeachment in the House was invalid. It lacked witnesses, evidence, testimony, etc.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.6    one month ago
It lacked witnesses, evidence, testimony, etc.

Don't forget facts and truth.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.7    one month ago

There were no facts or truth in his comment. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.9  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.6    one month ago
True...but there is no Constitutional basis to convict a private citizen.

What brought you to that ridiculous conclusion? You should go read Johnathan Truley's website. 

And the impeachment in the House was invalid.

Really Greg? How so?

It lacked witnesses, evidence, testimony, etc.

First of all, you seem to be under the delusion that an Impeachment in the House is a trial, it isn't. 

Secondly you know that EVERY member of the House was present at the Capitol as an eye witness on Jan. 6th right? 

You know that they all walked through the Capital just hours AFTER the insurrection and saw the damage for themselves, right? 

You know that they debated and voted AT the crime scene, right? 

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.11  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.2.10    one month ago
You know that they debated and voted AT the crime scene, right? 

Which is in itself rather interesting given that some believe it was the scene of a "domestic terrorist attack", yet thousands of people were cleared from the building/grounds and congress was back in the building going about their business in about 2 hours.  Seems odd given that Congress is still investigating the lapse in security that occurred that day.  Will be interesting to read the results of that investigation.

As for the impeachment proceedings, a more or less fair and balanced assessment of that HERE .  It would appear that if the Senate does move ahead with the trial and Trump were to be convicted in this case, it would be unprecedented given that he is already out of office and therefore cannot be "removed".   So no matter what happens, the result will set a new precedent, thus the reason for such widely varied opinions on this, even among legal experts.

And, generally, legal experts have split opinions on this. Some believe Congress cannot continue impeachment once the president leaves office, others believe a trial in the Senate can continue after the president leaves office as long as the House impeaches the president before then, and others believe impeachment is permissible at any time, even if the process doesn’t start until after the president has left office.
If the Senate chooses to move forward with an impeachment trial after Trump leaves office, there is precedent for a vote to be made on disqualification from future office. However, that vote typically takes place after a vote to convict and remove.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this turns out.  I couldn’t care less, just so long as we never have to see Trump's mug in Washington ever again.

Additional reading on this subject in this 2015 CRS Report on Impeachment and Removal .  Enjoy!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freewill @1.2.11    one month ago

Just ordinary tourists!

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.13  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.12    one month ago
Just ordinary tourists!

Yeah right.... who the hell said that?

I'm inclined to dub thee the master of strawman arguments my friend.... (-:

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.2.11    one month ago

It's interesting that you didn't choose to quote this from your link:

During the trial, Belknap’s counsel objected to the trial on the basis that Belknap was a private citizen following his resignation, claiming that it was outside the Senate’s jurisdiction. The Senate voted on the issue and the majority of the Senators believed the trial was still within their jurisdiction. That would presumably set a precedent that the Senate could continue an impeachment trial on Trump after he sets office.

So according to your link, it seems that the precedent has been set. Of course, they tried that again this time too and Rand Paul's motion was voted down. Trump's counsel will undoubtedly make the same objection, 'precedent' be damned. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.15  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.4    one month ago

Actually, you did and replied to it...

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.16  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.15    one month ago

I did? When was this, Dulay?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.17  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.16    one month ago

Last month. Review your comment about 'dog whistles'. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.18  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    one month ago
So according to your link, it seems that the precedent has been set.

"Presumably", as clearly indicated in the quote you cited.  Trump did not resign, presumably to avoid impeachment.  His term simply ended.  And if the Senate does find the Belknap case did set a precedent for Trump's case then that is fine with me.  Again, as I said, I couldn’t care less, just so long as we never have to see Trump's mug in Washington ever again.   

So I'm not quite sure why it is so interesting to you that I did not quote that specific sentence of the article.  Can you elaborate?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.2.18    one month ago

Sure. You stated that it was unprecedented and your link states there is precedent. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freewill @1.2.18    one month ago

What I want is some kind of censure that keeps him from holding any public office again.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.21  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.2.19    one month ago
You stated that it was unprecedented and your link states there is precedent

No I did not, and no it does not. 

I said. "... the result will set a new precedent, thus the reason for such widely varied opinions on this, even among legal experts."  The article to which I linked said that the Belknap case "presumably sets a precedent" in Trump's case but goes on to explain that the verdict among experts on that are all over the map.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  Indeed the very next paragraph after the quote you lifted says:

However, the CRS report also found a number of cases where the resignation of an official led to the end of an impeachment trial. No impeachment vote was taken by the House after Nixon’s resignation, even though the House Judiciary Committee had already reported articles of impeachment to the broader house. Impeachment proceedings were also ended following the resignations of three different judges who were subject to impeachment.

So if we want to split hairs, other cases indicate an opposite precedent than what the Belknap case "presumably" set.  If past examples rendered opposite results then technically neither has set a precedent.

I also pointed out that while Belknap resigned to avoid impeachment, Trump did not, so that is one factor that makes Trump's case a new development which will set its own precedent.  The same holds true of the other examples they gave where resignations were the reason for the person no longer holding the office.  In Trump's case there was no resignation, which is all I was inferring when I said his case will set a new precedent for the conditions of his specific case.

Is that clear enough?

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.22  Freewill  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.20    one month ago
What I want is some kind of censure that keeps him from holding any public office again.

Indeed.  I don't blame you and in fact I agree.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.2.23  Krishna  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one month ago
"The Democrats' efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional

Effort to Impeach him?

Its no longer an "effort"-- they've already successfully Impeached him!

After being Impeached by The House, the next step is to be tried in The Senate.

(BTW, you can easily familiarize yourself with the Constitution-- in fact, I believe there's some organization that will send you a  pocket sized booklet with The entire Constitution. And I believe its free?)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
1.2.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @1.2.23    one month ago
there's some organization that will send you a  pocket sized booklet 

I believe that the text of the Constitution may also be found online.

Also, commentary.

I'm just guessing, of course...

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.2.21    one month ago
No I did not, and no it does not. 

From YOUR 1.2.11 post:

As for the impeachment proceedings, a more or less fair and balanced assessment of that HERE .  It would appear that if the Senate does move ahead with the trial and Trump were to be convicted in this case, it would be unprecedented given that he is already out of office and therefore cannot be "removed".   

Yes you did. 

Again, from YOUR link: 

During the trial, Belknap’s counsel objected to the trial on the basis that Belknap was a private citizen following his resignation, claiming that it was outside the Senate’s jurisdiction. The Senate voted on the issue and the majority of the Senators believed the trial was still within their jurisdiction. That would presumably set a precedent that the Senate could continue an impeachment trial on Trump after he sets office.

Yes it does. 

So if we want to split hairs

I'd rather just state facts, which is what I did above. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.2.26  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @1.2.4    one month ago

Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol

Here is a closer look at what the president said at a rally of his supporters, which is a central focus of the impeachment case being prepared against him.

merlin_182045889_61b8f8f0-0340-4d15-9612-5d6aa82ff8d3-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/01/12/us/politics/10dc-speech/merlin_182045889_61b8f8f0-0340-4d15-9612-5d6aa82ff8d3-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 1024w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/01/12/us/politics/10dc-speech/merlin_182045889_61b8f8f0-0340-4d15-9612-5d6aa82ff8d3-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 2048w" sizes="((min-width: 600px) and (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 60vw, 100vw" >
In a speech just before the riot at the Capitol on Wednesday, President Trump told his supporters that they would have to “fight much harder.”
Credit.. Pete Marovich for The New York Times
  • Published   Jan. 10, 2021 Updated   Jan. 12, 2021

WASHINGTON — The speech that President Trump delivered to his supporters just before they attacked the Capitol last week is a central focus as House Democrats prepare an article of impeachment against him for inciting the deadly   riot .

Mr. Trump had urged supporters to come to Washington for a “Save America March” on Wednesday, when Congress would ceremonially count President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win, telling them to “ be there, will be wild! ” At a rally just before the violence, he repeated many of his falsehoods about how the election was stolen, then dispatched the marchers to the Capitol as those proceedings were about to start.

Here are some notable excerpts from Mr. Trump’s remarks, with analysis.

Trump urged his supporters to ‘fight much harder’ against ‘bad people’ and ‘show strength’ at the Capitol.

“Republicans are constantly   fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back . It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including   bad peopl e. And we’re going to have to   fight much harde r. … “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.   You have to show strength , and you have to be strong.”

The president’s speech was riddled with violent imagery and calls to fight harder than before. By contrast, he made only a passing suggestion that the protest should be nonviolent, saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

During Mr. Trump’s impeachment last year, one of his defenses was that the primary accusation against him — that he abused his power by withholding aid to Ukraine in an attempt to get its president to announce a corruption investigation into Mr. Biden — was not an ordinary crime, so it did not matter even if it were true. Most   legal specialists said that made no difference   for impeachment purposes, but in any case that argument would not be a defense here. Several laws clearly make it a crime to   incite a riot   or otherwise   try to get another person to engage in a violent crime   against property or people.

Trump told the crowd that ‘very different rules’ applied.
“When you catch somebody in a fraud,   you are allowed to go by very different rules . So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.”

Whipping up anger against Republicans who were not going along with his plan for subverting the election, like Vice President Mike Pence, Mr. Trump told the crowd that “different rules” now applied. At the most obvious level, the president was arguing that what he wanted Mr. Pence to do — reject the state-certified Electoral College results — would be legitimate, but the notion of “very different rules” applying carried broader overtones of extraordinary permission as well. (“RINO” is a term of abuse used by highly partisan Republicans against more moderate colleagues they deem to be “Republicans in Name Only.”)

Trump insinuated that Republican officials, including Pence, would endanger themselves by accepting Biden’s win.

“I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so, because   if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election . … And I actually — I just spoke to Mike. I said: ‘Mike, that doesn’t take courage.   What takes courage is to do nothing.   That takes courage.’” “I also want to thank our 13 most courageous members of the U.S. Senate, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Josh Hawley. … Senators have stepped up. We want to thank them. I actually think, though,   it takes, again, more courage not to step up, and I think a lot of those people are going to find that out.   And you better start looking at your leadership, because your leadership has led you down the tubes.”

Mr. Trump twice told the crowd that Republicans who did not go along with his effort to overturn the election — Mr. Pence as well as senators like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who did not join in the performative objections led by Mr. Hawley and Mr. Cruz — were actually the ones being courageous. In context, the president’s implication is that they were putting themselves at risk because it would be safer to go along with what he wanted. During the ensuing riot, the mob   chanted “Hang Mike Pence.”

Trump suggested that he wanted his supporters to stop the certification of Biden’s electoral win, not just protest it.

We will never give up . We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough.   We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about.   And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with,   we will stop the steal.  

“You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and   we can’t let that happen . These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …

“We fight like hell, and   if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Two months after he lost the election, Mr. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they could still stop Mr. Biden from becoming president if they “fight like hell,” a formulation that suggested they act and change things, not merely raise their voices in protest.

As he dispatched his supporters into what became deadly chaos, Trump falsely told them that he would come, too.

Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this,  we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you .   …  We are going to the Capitol , and we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote, but we are going to try — give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try — going to  try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country .”

As he sicced his supporters on Congress, Mr. Trump assured them that he would personally accompany them to the Capitol. In fact, as several of his followers and police officers were being injured or dying in the ensuing chaos, the president was watching the violence play out on television from the safety of the White House.

As of right this moment, I have never seen a supporter of the former occupant of the White House comment on him saying he would go with them to the Capitol and yet he didn't.  He fled to the safety of the White House to watch it all unfold on TV.  
 
 
 
Phaedrus
Freshman Silent
1.2.27  Phaedrus  replied to  bugsy @1.2.4    one month ago
the mostly peaceful "insurrection"

Mostly peaceful? FIVE PEOPLE DIED! So by your definition, Benghazi was mostly peaceful so why all the fuss, right? GTFOH.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.28  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.17    one month ago
Review your comment about 'dog whistles'. 

OK, so you admit that the former president did not say anything that actually started the riot, and that if most of the left wants to use things like, "go peacefully and patriotically" as a verbiage for a riot, then they have more problems than just being loony.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.29  bugsy  replied to  Phaedrus @1.2.27    one month ago
Mostly peaceful?

Yes...mostly peaceful. Only a few hundred out of close to a hundred thousand in attendance to Trump's speech stormed the Capitol.

Now, I am going to as you the same thing I asked of a member the other day, and have never received a response/

Do you condemn ANTIFA and BLM for the months long destruction of businesses, millions of dollars in stolen goods, and yes, the deaths of SEVERAL DOZEN people directly related to this violence.

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.30  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.2.25    one month ago
I'd rather just state facts, which is what I did above. 

LOL!  OK then - The facts in this matter are these:

1.  There is no precedent for the precise conditions of Trumps case, where he is out of office because his term ended and not because he resigned to avoid the Senate trial of an impeachment like all of the other cases that PRESUMABLY set a precedent in the CRS report. 

2.  The fact is that the article to which I linked made it clear that even in the case of those resignations the CRS found differing results as to whether the case was tried by the Senate or not.  It showed that many legal experts disagree on whether a precedent has actually been set and what should therefore happen in this case. 

3.   So while some might PRESUME that one case or the other looks like a precedent here, the fact remains that no precedent has actually been set precisely because there have been opposite results in previous cases that were only PRESUMED to be similar to Trump's situation in the first place.

Perhaps facts coupled with logic makes more sense? 

In any case, it is not up to you or me as to whether this case is tried by the Senate or not, and if so if he is acquitted or convicted as a result of that trial. Only the Senate can decide that.  So we can quibble about whether there is precedent for it or not, but it won't make a lick of difference.  We should know by Feb 9 when the trial is scheduled to begin, according to THIS article .

The   US Constitution lays out clear guidelines   for impeaching a sitting president and other officers for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Trump's trial is an unusual case, however. With his second impeachment, Trump, who as of Jan. 20 is a private citizen, is the first president to be impeached twice and the first to be tried after leaving office .
The Supreme Court Chief Justice would normally preside over the impeachment trial of a president. But because it's not a trial of a sitting president, it will instead be presided over by Leahy, the  new Senate President Pro Tempore , who as a senator is  also still expected to be able to vote  in the trial, too.

He is the " first to be tried after leaving office ".  Huh! So this IS unprecedented. Could have sworn somebody mentioned that might be the case before.... jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.2.31  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @1.2.30    one month ago

Just because there's no precedent, doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for inciting insurrection.  

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.32  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.31    one month ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.33  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.28    one month ago

Do you really think that misrepresenting [lying] about what I posted makes a point bugsy? 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.2.30    one month ago
LOL!  OK then - The facts in this matter are these:

Why deflect from the facts that I block quoted about YOUR comment and YOUR link? 

Perhaps facts coupled with logic makes more sense? 

Perhaps instead of deflecting, admitting that what you stated and what you posted is more adult. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.35  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.33    one month ago
Do you really think that misrepresenting [lying] about what I posted makes a point bugsy? 

Well, I didn;t but that;s OK. You believe what you want.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.36  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.35    one month ago
Well, I didn;t but that;s OK. You believe what you want.

Oh but you DID bugsy. It isn't a question of what I believe, it's about what I actually posted. I'll post the link and let those that want to see for themselves if your 1.2.28 comment was a lie or not. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
1.2.37  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @1.2.34    4 weeks ago
Perhaps instead of deflecting, admitting that what you stated and what you posted is more adult.

OK.  I will indeed admit that what I stated and what I posted is more adult.  Thank you for the discussion.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.38  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @1.2.37    4 weeks ago

The devolution of your comments is disappointing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  Freewill @1.2.37    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.40  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.36    4 weeks ago

OK, so you prove my post stands.

Which one of those quotes instigated a riot?

I bet you think "peacefully and patriotically" means the exact opposite of what it does.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.38    4 weeks ago

That's nothing new.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.2.42  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.36    4 weeks ago
"I'll post the link and let those that want to see for themselves if your 1.2.28 comment was a lie or not."

They all are.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.43  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.42    4 weeks ago
They all are.  

OK...where's YOUR proof of instigation.

BTW...I expect silence.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.44  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @1.2.37    4 weeks ago

Is there ANY evidence that Trump was, in real time,  surprised or disappointed that some of his followers broke into the Capitol Building and committed vandalism and violence? 

I have not seen or heard of any. In fact , after much of the damage had been done and he had watched it on tv for hours, Trump made a twitter message to his followers at the Capitol , "Remember this day forever".  

One of the things I find amusing about all this is the idea that Trump WANTED his crowd to stay peaceful.  What does Trump care if they stayed peaceful or not ? He is a psychologically disturbed malignant narcissist.  All he wanted was results , and Pence to cower with fear and do Trump's bidding.  Does anyone seriously believe Trump wanted a crowd of tens of thousands of people to go to the Capitol and hold hands and sing protest songs? 

Impeaching him with a dramatic trial is completely appropriate.  It is not necessarily with the expectation of convicting him, but more one of recording the travesty of Trump's Jan 6th behavior for history. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.45  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.44    4 weeks ago
Impeaching him with a dramatic trial

fueled by a bunch of drama queens.

How ironic

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.46  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @1.2.45    4 weeks ago

Does anyone seriously believe Trump wanted a crowd of tens of thousands of people to go to the Capitol and hold hands and sing protest songs? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.2.47  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @1.2.45    4 weeks ago

It is pretty dramatic when a mob of right wing domestic terrorists invade the Capitol at the urging of the former occupant of the White House - who said he would go with them - but did not - but turned tail and fled to the White House to watch it unfold on TV - and beat a police officer to death and trample one of their own

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.48  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.40    4 weeks ago
OK, so you prove my post stands.

I proved that your post was false. Letting it 'stand' merely illustrates a lack of credibility. 

Oh and BTFW, you loose that bet. Though I also recognize that wasn't an instruction. Do you? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.49  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.46    4 weeks ago
Does anyone seriously believe Trump wanted a crowd of tens of thousands of people to go to the Capitol and hold hands and sing protest songs? 

Well, the sane half of America does, and with the exception of a few hundred idiots, they did.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.50  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.48    4 weeks ago
I proved that your post was false

Well, you didn't. I asked the far left loons on here to post what was actually said by Trump that caused the riot. Now, you dutifully replied as asked, but did not show anything of substance.

You failed again.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.51  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.49    4 weeks ago

They DID?

Oh PLEASE post a link to a video of Jan. 6th that shows them holding hands and singing protest songs. I'll wait.

Oh and BTFW, 'YMCA' doesn't count...

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.52  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.47    4 weeks ago
It is pretty dramatic when a mob of right wing domestic terrorists invade the Capitol at the urging of the former occupant of the White House

OK, I'll ask you since none of your friends here can answer with any substance.

Post EXACTLY what was said by Trump that actually instigated the riot. Don't use your interpretation or your personal feelings against Trump to say "peacefully and peaceful" was a dog whistle for a riot.

Only those on the left hear these imaginary dog whistles.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.53  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.51    4 weeks ago

Never mind. Obviously context does not matter to you. I understand literal is key in an "I'm an expert in everything" world.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.54  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.50    4 weeks ago
Well, you didn't. I asked the far left loons on here to post what was actually said by Trump that caused the riot.

You know that we can all see what you actually said right? Here it is:

As of right this moment, I have never seen a leftist on here post EXACTLY what Trump said that started or supported the mostly peaceful "insurrection".

You didn't 'ask' anyone for anything. You made a statement which I proved wrong by posting the link to my comment that cites what Trump said that started the insurrection.  YOU posted another lie AND failed again.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
1.2.55  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.54    4 weeks ago
EXACTLY what Trump said that started or supported the mostly peaceful "insurrection".

OK [deleted.] I'll ask again......EXACTLY what did Trump say that started or supported the mostly peaceful "insurrection". You posted a bunch of things he SAID, but none of it is proof that WHAT he said started the riot.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.2.56  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.2.55    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     one month ago

It's time for Trump to bring in Rudy Four Seasons, the last of the last.

Rudy will have to promise not to fart in court and to keep his hands out of his pants. 

Other than that, all is well with the Trumpettes.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Kavika @2    one month ago
It's time for Trump to bring in Rudy Four Seasons, the last of the last.

Sorry, no Rudy.  He is a witness and possible accessory.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
2.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kavika @2    one month ago
Rudy will have to promise not to fart in court and to keep his hands out of his pants.

Impossible!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
2.3  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @2    one month ago
It's time for Trump to bring in Rudy Four Seasons, the last of the last.

I really hope he has Rudy defend him! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
3  Bob Nelson    one month ago

We want Rudy!

We want Rudy!

We want Rudy!

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1  Split Personality  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    one month ago

Rudy is the best of the rest, lol.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @3.1    one month ago

Now Schoen & Castor fist page of Trump's defense

Misspelled the United States, the Unites States

CMTSU

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    one month ago

Wasn't there a lawsuit where they stated 'under plenty of perjury'?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    one month ago

Well yes, Yes they did, lol.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.3    one month ago

12/03/2020...

“While the caption of the motion includes the word ‘emergency’ and the attached proposed order seeks an ‘expedited’ injunction, neither the motion nor the proposed order indicate whether the plaintiffs are asking the court to act more quickly or why,” Pamela Pepper, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, wrote in an order issued on Wednesday . “As indicated, the motion does not request a hearing. It does not propose a briefing schedule.”
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Trump doesn't need a legal team.  The spineless duplicitous Republican Senators won't convict Trump, and look what the Republicans are doing to their colleagues who DO have integrity, who DID put the good of the nation ahead of petty party politics, e.g. Cindy McCain, Liz Cheney, Tom Rice, Brad Raffensperger....etc

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
4.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago
and look what the Republicans are doing to their colleagues who DO have integrity, who DID put the good of the nation ahead of petty party politics

Yeah....and they are the party that calls itself the party of Justice and Law and Order. Another lie that the GOP shoves down the the throats of people stupid enough to believe them.

And if those same GOPers had any real balls they would vote to protect America from the blatant domestic terrorists threatening our Democracy, including Trump and his armed terrorists and Mafiosos, who gladly sold their souls to the Orange demon for less than a ha'penny just to keep their lying lips on the taxpayers teat.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.1.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Raven Wing @4.1    one month ago
And if those same GOPers had any real balls they would vote to protect America from the blatant domestic terrorists threatening our Democracy, including Trump and his armed terrorists and Mafiosos, who gladly sold their souls to the Orange demon for less than a ha'penny just to keep their lying lips on the taxpayers teat

At the very least!

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2  pat wilson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago
look what the Republicans are doing to their colleagues who DO have integrity

It's appalling... I don't even know what else to say.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     one month ago

He just lost three more for a total of five that will no longer defend him. The only one left that will defend him is Rudy Four Seasons...LOL you can't make this shit up. 

Trump Parts Ways With Five Lawyers Handling Impeachment Defense

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @5    one month ago

He doesn't need lawyers, Kavika.  He already has a fixed jury.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1    one month ago
He already has a fixed jury.

If that's not sobering, I don't know what would be.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.1    one month ago

Maybe what would be is for the Republicans to lose most of their lawmakerss who run in the next midterm elections, but I have little faith in the common sense of the Americans who are still bound to support those gutless cowards, and that little faith was earned by the fact that Trump was able to amass as many votes as he did.  America's Covid problem is minimal compared to its stupidity problem.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.2    one month ago
America's Covid problem is minimal compared to its stupidity problem.

The stupidity problem is what caused the Covid problem!

Saluting the Heroes of the Coronavirus Pandumbic | The Daily Show

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @5.1.3    one month ago
America's Covid problem is minimal compared to its stupidity problem.

The stupidity problem is what caused the Covid problem!

#DailyShow #Pandumbic #Coronavirus

Pandumbic 2 (The Sequel) | The Daily Show

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @5.1.4    one month ago

I have access to hundreds of Daily Shows but unfortunately they're described in Chinese so I can't readily find the ones you posted unless I spend days going through them individually, but I did find one I particularly liked:

.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1.6  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Krishna @5.1.3    one month ago

Every one of those people should be out of a job.  All of them.  What makes them horrible people is that they mock others with such nasty intent, and they do it to an international audience.  And Matt Gaetz is a rather clever multi-tasker.  His prop-of-the-day gas mask probably kept others from smelling the alcohol on his breath.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Sophomore Principal
7  Gsquared    one month ago

They realized that Trump destroys everything he touches, which would be very detrimental to their careers.  Also, he is likely to sue them.  And he doesn't pay.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     one month ago

You've heard of the ''Dream Team'', now Trump has assembled the 

NIGHTMARE TEAM

RUDY FOUR SEASONS

SIDNEY ''DOMINION'' POWELL

LIN ''FIRING SQUAD'' WOODS

Their motto,

WE'RE NOT ONLY BAD WE'RE FLAT OUT CRAZY.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
8.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago
WE'RE NOT ONLY BAD WE'RE FLAT OUT CRAZY.

Ha!!

I bet even Michael Cohen is looking pretty good to Trump at this point.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @8.1    one month ago

512

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
8.1.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    one month ago

The Holy Trinity!

And that's no joke.  It wouldn't be so globally embarrassing if the client wasn't the former president of the United States. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Sophomore Guide
8.1.3  Freewill  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    one month ago
I suspect we've got the holy trinity here.

Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch... as they say. (-:

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    one month ago

What I just read is that they quit because they refused to follow Trump's instructions that they were to continue with his fantasy that the election was stolen from him by massive fraud, and not use the defence of unconstitutional process that they wanted to argue.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.4    one month ago

What's the phrase? ''He who represents himself has a fool for lawyer.''

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    one month ago

More like the Unholy Trinity..or a trifecta

 
 
 
Gsquared
Sophomore Principal
9  Gsquared    one month ago

It was just announced that Trump hired two new attorneys today.  I bet they got paid upfront and by cashier's check, or they will never get paid.  If they didn't, they are fools.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
9.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gsquared @9    one month ago

I hope he does stiff them.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Texan1211
Gazoo


35 visitors