Modus or Media Operandi? CNN Runs Statement Of Anonymous "Senior Aide" Who Said Trump Loved Watching The Riot
By: JONATHAN TURLEY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
We recently discussed how House managers are claiming the right to use Trump's failure to testify at his trial as proof of guilt (despite the fact that presidents historically have not given such testimony at Senate trials). Now CNN has released (on the day before the start of arguments) an account from an unnamed former "senior aide" that Trump was watching the riot in the Capitol unfold and "loving watching the Capitol mob." The same pattern emerged in the first Trump trial. The story highlights the decision of the House not to call witnesses before or after its snap impeachment. The question is why the House would use implication, innuendo, and inference when it could have used direct evidence to seek the conviction of Donald Trump.
The CNN story highlights what has not occurred in the second trial of Donald Trump. No prosecutor would let weeks go by without seeking to lock in the testimony of witnesses who could offer direct evidence of the statements and actions of Trump during this period. The media has had no difficulty in locating these witnesses and about a dozen names are already known. We know them because many of them have already spoken publicly — an indication that they could have been easily called to appear before House committees without subpoenas (or would not contest subpoenas).
I have no problem accepting that Trump relished scenes of violent protest, but I would like that evidence come in the form of testimony, not media reports. It is the type of account that can shed light on Trump's state of mind but the House seems entirely content to be a mere pedestrian watching the media interview key witnesses.
The result is a trial that seems circumstantial by design. There is of course ample evidence of what occurred. No credible litigator leaves a record circumstantial if they can use direct evidence. Much of this evidence and many of these witnesses are known to the House. Yet, it has chosen largely to put on a circumstantial case.
The question is whether the House will highlight this failure by referencing the CNN story, relying on media reports rather than sworn testimony. It literally has no record in the House of an impeachment hearing, an impeachment investigation, or a formal response from the President. So it will either rely on videos of the rioters or it will seek to reference named and unnamed witnesses presented in the media rather hearings. The disconnect will only magnify prudential concerns raised by senators and commentators, including myself.
There is also a pattern to this belated release. We saw the same thing unfold before the first Trump trial. The House refused to subpoena or call witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee. The media then released stories just before the trial from some of the very same individuals who were not called to testify. Some individuals would clearly have testified while others said that they just wanted subpoenas. Later witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton accused the House of "malpractice" in its flimsy prosecution of the impeachment. Now we have the same late minute gotcha stories after weeks of inaction from the House.
This may be the bias of a criminal defense attorney but I prefer evidence of modus operandi to media operandi at impeachment trials.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
Still using unnamed sources.
What is the excuse now? Biden is president and whoever it is would be canonized as a saint.
There was an organized effort made which posed a credible threats to overthrow the sitting government of The United States of America. We, America, cannot just slough that off!
Why are you able to? Didn't you support the revolt?
Would you have supported Trump being imposed?
Before the President even made his speech.
Why are you able to?
Stand up for truth.
Didn't you support the revolt?
I've always been against riots, unlike others here.
Would you have supported Trump being imposed?
Do you mean opposed? As far as his claim that the election was stolen?
I wish he had let go of that.
I think JBB is saying that if Pence and the other Republicans had managed to reverse the election results and keep Trump as president for four more years by invalidating the votes of 27 million people, would you have accepted that result?
It is a silly idea. Something that could never happen.
would you have accepted that result?
Of course not.
corner the rat, get out the bat ...
An accusation (impeachment) is meaningless without a guilty verdict by the Senate. Another gigantic waste of time and resources that could have been applied to the welfare of people and covid.
Not at all. This impeachment will be more of the history of the Trump presidency than most of what you think he accomplished.
We often say "now I've seen it all", but usually that is hyperbole. But I think the phrase applies to the sad shock of watching countless "conservatives" excuse Trump's attempt to overthrow the government by having Pence reject the electoral vote. When they write the history books of this era that will be at the top of the list in the Trump chapters. Yet the right acts as if this momentous impeachment event is a mere annoyance. The dishonesty of these people is staggering.
oh you misunderstand, I want republicans on the record of kicking this can down the road. I want them to lose their self assumed patriotic high ground. I want them to think they have gotten away with an attempted insurrection, saved their fascist hero, and they get to go home to their families feeling safe and secure in their beds when it's all over. I want them to think contrary to the majority opinion of the rest of america, because they are contrary to the spirit and values of america. trumpsters now worship at the feet of autocracy and consider the US Constitution subject to their exclusive interpretation and final decree. have fun dragging that domestic terrorist ball and chain around for the next 2 years. I look forward to reading the list of gutless cowards that facilitated an imperial presidency when the senate renders it's verdict.
Just hope that it's only liberal historians that get to do all the writing, otherwise you'll find yourself on the wrong side of history.
But I think the phrase applies to the sad shock of watching countless "conservatives" excuse Trump's attempt to overthrow the government by having Pence reject the electoral vote.
I don't recall anyone excusing that. Mike Pence said it best - I can't do that! What does Trump's childish tantrums have to do with his performance as President? That's seems to be the problem with Trump haters. Their complaints don't make sense. Why don't we admit - the hard left hates what he accomplished!
When they write the history books of this era that will be at the top of the list in the Trump chapters.
No, John I think that history will record what became of our national press corps, which became opinion writers posing as news reporters and of the incredible hatred of the left and the ruling elite at the prospect of a man who got America fair trade deals and restored manufacturing & energy jobs and restored border security and prosperity to the middle class. Don't forget - that history can't be written yet because he may be back or maybe somebody even more effective will appear on the scene. I am certain that by 2022 the American public will be so fed up with all the far left policies of proxy Biden that congress will be turned over to the GOP. So stay tuned, there are more chapters to be written.
Wow. Just wow.....
You've told us what you want.
It isn't a waste of time to the Democratic party. It is accomplishing what they want it to.
Many conservatives live in an alternate reality.
Bla bla bla.
Before the election Trump said only a win for him would be legitimate. Then, when he lost, he scoured right wing social media for ammunition to use to claim he was robbed. He repeated false anecdotes about voter fraud. Not for a day or two but for over two months. Then, at long last he encouraged a throng of followers to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell". How do you fight like hell at a peaceful demonstration?
Then after most of the damage had been done and violence occurred and the congressional chambers violated, Trump tweeted "Remember this day forever" in full recognizance of the fact that people had committed violence in his name.
He's lucky impeachment is all he's getting.
Many progressives pursue an evil ideology
A few years ago Jonathan Turley was an interesting, if quirky, legal commentator that occasionally showed up on television to talk about legal issues in the news. Now he is a waste of time, ever since he became a conservative flack and Trump apologist.
All the right has in this Trump impeachment are "process" complaints.
Has Turley even attacked Donald Trump for 2 1/2 months of lies and conspiracy scheming over the election? That is the important thing about this impeachment, not who the source is for the statement that Trump watched the insurrection on tv.
He is no fan of Donald Trump. He is committed to the Constitution.
It is sad that people try and tarnish the reputations of anyone who isn't a progressive hack.
Has Turley even attacked Donald Trump for 2 1/2 months of lies and conspiracy scheming over the election? That is the important thing about this impeachment, not who the source is for the statement that Trump watched the insurrection on tv.
Oh, Is that the litmus test for normalcy in the world of progressives?
How about you condemn/apologize for the Russia hoax?
There was no Russia hoax. The FBI and Mueller were completely justified in investigating Trump's 2016 campaign.
Where is John Durham? Where is William Barr? You spent months telling everyone that they were going to blow the lid off the "Russia hoax".
What happened?
John Brennan was interviewed by Durham/Barr for something like 10 hours and in the end he was told he was not a person of interest.
Feel free to stop promoting this "Russia hoax" nonsense any time.
Give it up John. Most people have conceded that the FBI went rogue to get Trump. We even nailed the lawyer who falsified the FISA application.
Where is John Durham?
Conducting a criminal investigation.
Where is John Durham?
Comfortably retired. The best AG we ever had.
You spent months telling everyone that they were going to blow the lid off the "Russia hoax".
The Mueller Report did that.
What happened?
It got exposed for what it was. Only the most hardened progressives still cling to believing Trump was a Russian agent.
John Brennan was interviewed by Durham/Barr for something like 10 hours and in the end he was told he was not a person of interest.
Correct, but there is a criminal investigation of Obama's FBI still going on. An FBI lawyer was convicted already.
Feel free to stop promoting this "Russia hoax" nonsense any time.
You are in the minority, John. I'm sure even democrats know deep down that it was wrong. Some may not admit it. You seem to have yourself convinced.
The FBI lawyer changed a sentence related to one of the FISA applications.
Neither James Comey or Andrew McCabe have shown the slightest fear of Barr/Durham, and Brennan said "bring it on". There may have been some over enthusiasm to pursue the Trump campaign but it was explainable under the circumstances. Vic, Donald Trump lied to the nation about his interest in Russia. Of course that, and many other reasons, caught the FBI's attention.
Kind of a big change, don't you think?
Neither James Comey or Andrew McCabe have shown the slightest fear of Barr/Durham
McCabe had a criminal referral. The DOJ didn't think hey could get a conviction. Weissmann's team erased their phones during the IG inquiry. It's all there in black and white.
There may have been some over enthusiasm to pursue the Trump campaign
Just a little bit. As you once said He probably isn't guilty, but I want him gone.
Vic, Donald Trump lied to the nation about his interest in Russia.
Wha?
Of course that, and many other reasons, caught the FBI's attention.
Sorry, John there was pretext for any of those investigations, either the investigation of a political campaign, American citizens or the fishing expedition known as "the Mueller investigation."
Prove it
We? Were you working for Horowitz or the FBI when they fired him in ?
Must be part of the deep invisible state...
Wrong and wrong again.
I don't know anyone anywhere that believes Trump was a Russian agent by any definition of the word. A stooge maybe, but mainly just a guy who doesn't like to lose and bends all rules to win.
That Ex-FBI lawyer got one year probation.
Maybe the same way that deep down inside republicans (should) know that the Durham fishing expedition is wasting time the same way?
.
Kevin Clinesmith sentencing could be the last word from John Durham, conservatives fear - Washington Times
This is why it is fruitless to discuss with you. You lack information about Trump and because you approved of him you lack the interest in finding out about Trump.
Trump Lied About His Very Legal and Very Cool Russia Deals
Nov 30, 2018 · During the 2016 campaign, and for years after, Donald Trump insisted that he had no dealings with Russia whatsoever. He also assured the public that we could take his …
An opinion? I thought you might know better.
We? Were you working for Horowitz or the FBI when they fired him in ?
We means all the Americans seeking justice.
Must be part of the deep invisible state...
Oh, come on, all the lefties here told us to be patient with the Mueller Investigation. We waited.
Wrong and wrong again.
It seems like my comment was distorted:
Where is John Durham?
Conducting a criminal investigation.
Where is John Durham?
Comfortably retired. The best AG we ever had.
Obviously the second one pertained to William Barr. You took my mistake and deliberately used it. I'm not a bit surprised.
I don't know anyone anywhere that believes Trump was a Russian agent by any definition of the word.
Nice to finally here it after months or should I say years of some of our lefty members claiming just that!
That Ex-FBI lawyer got one year probation.
You bet! The Judge, whom Obama appointed to head up FISA claimed he really didn't mean it.
And you are proud of that? It goes to the heart of a thing called fairness! Obviously we have a double standard in this country.
Maybe the same way that deep down inside republicans (should) know that the Durham fishing expedition is wasting time the same way?
I'd say that question is still open.
Really? Then why all the interest when the topic actually relates to Donald Trump?
You lack information about Trump and because you approved of him you lack the interest in finding out about Trump.
I absolutely approve of his changing the trajectory of this country. We are now heading right back to hell again!
Legal deals with Russia....Just listen to yourself
Vic, Trump claimed over and over in 2016 that he had no business dealings with Russia. Trying to negotiate a hotel deal in Moscow while you are running for president is a business dealing. He lied. Repeatedly. That is one of the reasons the FBI had such an extended interest in his campaign.
John, that is not a pretext for an investigation!
Obama still living in your head?
Not an issue what my feelings are.
Can't tell you how many times I heard that from teenagers...
Judge felt that losing his FBI career and possible disbarment was almost enough. Added probation and 400 hours community service.
Evident since 1776. Still yearning for Utopia?
He did poison the well, didn't he?
Not an issue what my feelings are.
I'm sure of that
Can't tell you how many times I heard that from teenagers...
How about our members?
Judge felt that losing his FBI career and possible disbarment was almost enough.
Gee, what a generous Judge!
Added probation and 400 hours community service.
Um-hum
Evident since 1776.
Ahhh, that's the justification!
Trump's obvious dishonesty was part of the reason he was investigated, of course.
And probably why the investigators were sure they'd find something!
Nahh, that was Trump, McConnell and the Federalist stacking the judicial system with subjective conservatives
9 of whom were rated not qualified by the Bar, including 33 year old Kathryn Mizzelle.
While 85% of all appointees were white, 76% male, all 50 appointments to the appeals court were not black.
The Administration rammed through almost as many appellate judges in 4 years as Obama did in 8
(Trump 54/Obama 55)
The Biden Admin has said they were not going to use the ABA for preselection process but the ABA and Biden Administration will work together and the ABA will continue to issue it's recommendations.
There was nothing extraordinary or hypocritical about the elevation of Judge Thomas Kirk to the US Court of Appeals
on December 20, 2020
or the nomination of Fernando Lazaro Aenlle-Rocha to US District Court Central California
confirmed by an 80-8 vote by the Senate, also in December 20,2020.
Partly true. They will not have pre-nomination veto power which ended under GWBush in 2001.
Obama tried to use the ABA but was not pleased by how many rejections there were, which he honored.
Trump & McConnell almost doubled the pace. If it's politics as usual, expect no less from Biden and Klain.
For those with C-Span, here's Chuck Schumer
All you need to know for today's 1PM farce:
The Charge
Excerpts from the House impeachment resolution:
"The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives 'shall have the sole Power of Impeachment' and that the President 'shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'" says the single article of impeachment."Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against' the United States from 'hold[ing] any office ... under the United States.' In his conduct while President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States ...
"In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
"Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."
Read the full text here .
Players
The Prosecution
On Jan. 12, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named nine impeachment managers. "It is their constitutional and patriotic duty to present the case for the President's impeachment and removal," Pelosi said. "They will do so guided by their great love of country, determination to protect our democracy and loyalty to our oath to the Constitution. Our Managers will honor their duty to defend democracy For The People with great solemnity, prayerfulness and urgency.
The Impeachment Managers:
The Defense Team
Late last month, five lawyers who reports said would comprise Trump's defense team bailed. This month, Trump announced he had hired two "highly respected" trial lawyers.
David Schoen — According to his law firm's website, Schoen has "extensive complex litigation experience as lead counsel in trial and appellate courts throughout the country" after 30 years in practice.
Schoen served as a lawyer to longtime Trump ally Roger Stone, representing him during a sentence appeal last year. Stone was convicted in November 2019 for lying during the investigation into Russian election interference. Trump granted Stone a presidential pardon before leaving office
Schoen has also made headlines recently for meeting with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein the day before his death.
Bruce Castor Jr. — Castor is a former county commissioner and former district attorney for Montgomery County, Pa. Castor is mostly known for his decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby in 2005 after a Temple University employee accused Cosby of sexual assault.
Castor later sued Cosby's accuser for defamation, claiming she destroyed his political career in retaliation.
The two lawyers said it was an "honor" to serve the former president, with Castor adding: "The strength of our Constitution is about to be tested like never before in our history. It is strong and resilient. A document written for the ages, and it will triumph over partisanship yet again, and always."
Arguments
The House Managers
In a trial brief released on Feb. 2, the managers summarized their legal arguments:
"The facts are compelling and the evidence is overwhelming," they wrote. "After months of spreading his Big Lie that he won a landslide victory in the 2020 election, leading up to and on January 6, 2021, President Trump summoned, assembled and incited a violent mob that attacked the Capitol, cost the lives of three police officers and four other people, threatened the Vice-President and Congress, and successfully halted the counting of the Electoral College vote.
"Trump's responsibility for the vicious January 6 insurrection is unmistakable. Moreover, given the plain text of the Constitution, the intent and understanding of the Framers, and Senate precedent dating back more than two hundred years, the Senate's responsibility to hear this case is clear and unavoidable. There is no 'January exception' to the Constitution that allows a President to organize a coup or incite an armed insurrection in his final weeks in office. The Senate must convict President Trump, who has already been impeached by the House of Representatives, and disqualify him from ever holding federal office again. We must protect the Republic from any future dangerous attacks he could level against our constitutional order."
Anticipating the defense arguments, the managers said they still have jurisdiction over Trump, even though he has left office.
"President Trump committed this high crime and misdemeanor amid his final days in office," the managers wrote. "Given the clarity of the evidence and the egregiousness of his wrongdoing, the House approved an article of impeachment for incitement of insurrection. Now, merely weeks later, President Trump will argue that it serves no purpose to subject him to a trial and that the Senate lacks jurisdiction to do so. He is mistaken. As we explain at length below — and as scholars from diverse viewpoints have long recognized — the text and structure of the Constitution, as well as its original meaning and prior interpretations by Congress, overwhelmingly demonstrate that a former official remains subject to trial and conviction for abuses committed in office. Any other rule would make little sense.
"The Constitution governs the first day of the President's term, the last day, and every moment in between. Presidents do not get a free pass to commit high crimes and misdemeanors near the end of their term. The Framers of our Constitution feared more than anything a President who would abuse power to remain in office against the will of the electorate. Allowing Presidents to subvert elections without consequence would encourage the most dangerous of abuses."
Trump's Defense
Excerpts from the Trump defense trial memorandum :
"During the past four years, Democrat members of the Unites States House of Representatives have filed at least nine (9) resolutions ti impeach Donad J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, each containing more outlandish charges than the next. One might be excused for thinking the Democrats' fevered hatred for Citizen Trump and their "Trump Derangement Syndrome" would have broken by now, seeing as he is no longer the President , and yet for the second time in just over a year the United States Senate is preparing to sit as a Court of Impeachment, but this time over a private citizen who is a former President. In this Country, the Constitution — not a political party and not politicians — reigns supreme. But through this latest Article of Impeachment ... Democrat politicians seek to carve out a mechanism by which they can silence a political opponent and a minority party. The Senate must summarily reject this brazen political act.
"This rushed single article of impeachment ignores the very Constitution from which its power comes and is itself defectively drafted. In bringing this impeachment at all, the Members of the House leadership have debased the grave power of impeachment and disdained the solemn responsibility that this solemn power entails. In bringing this impeachment in the manner in which they did, namely via a process that violated every precedent and every principle of fairness followed in impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years, they offered the public a master's class in the art of political opportunism."
The defense team of Schoen and Castor will indeed argue that the impeachment clause in the Constitution applies only to sitting government officials.
"The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under our Constitution," the lawyers wrote in their defense memo.
The lawyers also said Trump upheld his oath of office.
"It is denied that the 45th president of the United States ever engaged in a violation of his oath of office," the defense attorneys wrote. "To the contrary, at all times Donald J. Trump fully and faithfully executed his duties as the president of the United States and at all times acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States while never engaging in any high crimes or misdemeanors."
They also denied that he was in any way responsible for the actions of rioters.
"It is denied that President Trump ever endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government," his lawyers wrote. "It is denied he threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch Government. It is denied he betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Rather, the 45th President of the United States performed admirably in his role as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the American people."
In their trial memo filed on Monday, the lawyers said: "The Article of Impeachment presented by the House is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, any of which alone would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Taken together, they demonstrate conclusively that indulging House Democrats hunger for this political theater is a danger to our Republic democracy and the rights that we hold dear."
They laid out seven "reasons for dismissal," including:
In conclusion, the lawyers wrote, "The Senate should dismiss these charges and acquit the President because this is clearly not what the Framers wanted or what the Constitution allows."
The Judge
In Trump's last impeachment, Chief Justice John Roberts presided, as set out in the Constitution. However, since this trial is of a former president and the chief justice has declined to preside, 80-year-old Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the longest-serving Democratic senator — who holds the title of president pro tempore — will preside.
The Timetable
Last time around, Trump's trial lasted three weeks before he was acquitted. But this time, all observers expect the trail to go much faster, as little as a week.
Right now, it's unknown whether the Senate will vote to allow the legal teams to call witnesses in person. But even if it does, Democrats are reportedly not planning to call witnesses, according to Politico. And last week, after Democrats demanded Trump testify under oath, he rejected the call.
"This is based on a public crime," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. "His intent was unhidden, and so I think there's a danger as there always is for a trial lawyer and prosecutor to overtry, to add more witnesses that prove the obvious."
While the trial's structure is fluid, it will open with up to four hours of debate and a vote over its constitutionality, according to The Hill. Opening arguments would begin at noon Wednesday, with both the House impeachment managers and Trump's legal team getting 16 hours to present their arguments.
Senators are also expected to get time to ask questions. In previous trials, the question-and-answer session has lasted two days.
The Outcome
While the House voted by a simple majority to impeach Trump, the Senate is different. There, a two-thirds vote is required. The chamber is split 50-50 among the two parties, which means Democrats need to pick up 17 Republicans to convict Trump.
Sen. Rand Paul last month called the trial "dead on arrival." He forced a vote on the constitutionality of such a trial, and the vote offered an indicator for how Republican senators feel about the trial.
Paul's motion was killed on a 55-45 vote, with five Republicans joining all Democrats, meaning 45 Republicans rejected the constitutionality of the trial and voted for Paul's effort. Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania crossed party lines to vote with Democrats.
If that same vote occurred after the trial, Trump would be easily acquitted. And that's the likely outcome, even if a few more Republicans are swayed by the Democrats' arguments.
Oh Raskin is crying! Oh, the humanity!
Such empathy the hater now has for police!