Trump’s weak defense will expose the depravity of GOP senators who acquit him
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump’s weak defense will expose the depravity of GOP senators who acquit him
As former president Donald Trump’s impeachment trial gets underway, the choice GOP senators face is being wildly mischaracterized. We keep hearing that they must choose between sticking with the former president or opposing him — between showing “loyalty” to Trump or not showing loyalty to him.
In one typical framing, the Associated Press reports that the Senate trial will test “the loyalty of Trump’s Republican allies.” A CNN analysis declares GOP senators must now decide whether to pay a price for “deserting an ex-president who still dominates his party.”
Either GOP senators are loyal to Trump, or they desert him and face the consequences: The choice is entirely framed as revolving around Trump.
But that isn’t the choice GOP senators actually face, and describing this choice accurately is of paramount importance.
The real choice they face is not between sticking with Trump or going against him. Rather, it’s between sticking with Trump or remaining faithful to their oath of office , which requires them to defend the Constitution against those who would undermine or destroy it, and to the oath of impartiality they take as impeachment jurors.
Trump tried to overthrow U.S. democracy to keep himself in power illegitimately, first through corrupt legal efforts, then through nakedly extralegal means , and then by inciting intimidation and violence to disrupt the constitutionally designated process for securing the peaceful conclusion of free and fair elections.
Trump fully intended to subvert the constitutional process designating how our elections unfold, and intended this every step of the way . GOP senators cannot remain “loyal” to Trump without breaking their oaths to execute their public positions faithfully.
The weakness of Trump’s own defense will reveal the true contours of this choice — and demonstrate how his defenders, both on his legal team and in the GOP Senate caucus, will try to bury the inescapable nature of this choice under mounds of obfuscation.
Trump’s laughably weak defense
Trump’s lawyers will first argue that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try Trump, on the grounds that he no longer holds office. This idea has been roundly debunked by lawyers across the political spectrum, including Chuck Cooper, a conservative legal icon.
As Cooper argued , the Constitution provides for a Senate vote not just on removal for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but also for “disqualification” from ever holding office again, which by definition must also apply to those who are no longer in office but might run again later.
But the larger thrust of this “defense” is pernicious in another way.
GOP senators hope to take refuge in the idea that former presidents are exempt to give themselves a rhetorical and political means of dodging a direct vote on whether what Trump actually did constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
This has been widely depicted as mere tactical maneuvering. But it’s much worse than that: It’s an active evasion of their own duty as public officials to defend the Constitution. This defense, then, actually unmasks their dereliction of this duty.
Trump incited violent insurrection
Trump’s lawyers will also argue he is not guilty of “incitement of insurrection.” They will say he didn’t “direct anyone” to carry out the attack, as he used the word “peacefully” while haranguing the mob on Jan. 6.
And they will say that because the riots were “preplanned by a small group of criminals,” then Trump cannot have “incited” them.
All this is pure baloney. Trump spent months urging his supporters to mobilize for war over the election results, which he said could not be legitimate if he lost, meaning a struggle to overturn them would inevitably be a righteous cause in their own defense. If some preplanned the attack, they did so at what they understood — correctly — as his direction, as their own language has confirmed .
What’s more, if some preplanned the attack well in advance, many did not , and people in this latter group also attacked the Capitol. They, too, were incited by Trump’s haranguing leading up to and on Jan. 6.
And if Trump intended them to be peaceful, it’s strange that he again whipped up rage at then-Vice President Mike Pence while the mob rampaged into the Capitol looking for Pence and lawmakers who were counting electoral votes. It’s also odd that as the rampage worsened, he refused entreaties to call for the very calm his lawyers claim he wanted to see.
Acquitting Trump means declaring that these known facts do not point to high crimes and misdemeanors.
Senators have a duty
Senators take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution.” When serving as impeachment jurors, they take another oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution.”
“That second oath doesn’t replace the first,” Brettschneider tells me. “It clarifies it.”
In acting as jurors, Brettschneider says, senators are supposed to answer “the specific question” of whether the president is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
“Trump tried to subvert a free and fair election by spreading disinformation, trying to force public officials to overturn the results and riling his supporters up to attack the Capitol,” Brettschneider continued. “That is about as paradigmatic a high crime as one can get.”
When senators are in the role of jurors, Brettschneider continues, the two oaths interlock to set the terms of their “constitutional duty,” which precludes operating out of “partisan loyalty to a president.”
In other words, it’s either the former or the latter. The choice is not just about whether they are going to be “loyal” to Trump or not. That idea actually undersells the extraordinary dereliction of duty GOP senators will be committing if and when they vote to acquit.
Tags
Who is online
678 visitors
The impeachment managers just showed about a 20 minute video that followed the events of the 6th.
None of it would have happened had Trump not lied about the election results and egged these people on for two months, culminating with his speech on the 6th.
He has to be held accountable.
Raskin's opening video was devastating to trumps defense.. It won't make any difference since trump supporters in congress will give him a pass no matter what he does.
They presented facts with video and laid out an excellent case. What did one of Trump's lawyers do, he read a poem.
The Dems have a weak and lame case
Care to say why?
Repube's have NO case.
That's repukes
One of Trump's lawyers just said that if Trump is barred from ever running again , millions of people who want to vote for him again would lose their right to vote for who they wish. Oh, thats interesting.
Does that mean that we should be able to vote Barack Obama back into office, because we want to, and shouldn't be deprived of our choice ?
That's a bit obtuse JR as he served two terms which is the limit by law. Point taken though.................sort of
It what alternate reality does that make one goddamned bit of sense?
Another poster said that pretty much exactly word for word so now I know where they got their talking points from.
Moronic.
It looks, smells and feels like a turd; but most Republicans will call it cake and eat it right down.
The GOP Senators have already proven that they intend to participate in jury nullification, AGAIN.
Republicans are a broken toy, their fans need to find a new one to play with.
Good old reliable MItch. As I said prevously, he makes a pendulum look like an amateur.
He played his cards wisely
In my opinion, now that the Republican Senators can no longer hide behind a technical defence ot Unconstitutionality they will expose themselves as being in favour of insurrection rather than good government as a message to the voters of their electorate, if they vote to support Turmp. Should the time come that they in fact be re-elected after supporting Trump, then the majority of their electorate will be as guilty of lacking integrity, principle and backbone as the Senators they support. If that happens, it would not be saying much good about that segment of the American people.
Where do you get that from? The Senators are always free to vote to acquit if they believe the charge is unconstitutional. That's what happened in the Belknap case that is all the rage to cite as precedent.
T
sounds a lot like the " deplorables argument" that was tried a few years back to me that led to a political defeat for one person..
They likely will be re elected what others think not withstanding , and since the way senators are elected changed from how it was origionally done , candidates will now and forever be playing to the majority voting base where ever they are running
Donald Trump will be acquitted of these ridiculous charges and by the time 2022 or 2024 rolls around the American people are going to be so fed up with all these destructive progressive policies they will elect anyone who is not a democrat.
You call these charges ridiculous. Not that the process is unconstitutional but rather that it is 'ridiculous' to accuse Trump (with the power of the presidency) of working his followers up into a frenzy based on months of demonstrable lies. Trump engaged in a massive con and you deem holding him accountable for this to be 'ridiculous'.
Unbelievable Vic.
You are going to hear something unbelievable T;G at some point in this "trial."
You are going to hear the words of Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris. We shall see what you think they were doing and if you think they should be impeached?
So the racoons came out to trash the system and the plan is to blame it on squirrels ... sheesh ... @!@
If we are going to impeach based upon our interpretation of political speech, nobody should be exempt.
In a trial of Trump, the actions and/or words of others are not relevant. If they did something wrong then they should be impeached and tried.
A defense of hypocrisy or 'two wrongs make a right' is no defense at all ... it is deflection.
I remain surprised that you apparently think it ridiculous to hold Trump accountable for working his supporters into a frenzy for months with unabashed and demonstrably false lies and then encouraging them to march to the Capitol and fight because their votes and their president have been stolen from them.
You better tell the Trump team. The focus will be the hypocrisy of those making the accusation.
A defense of hypocrisy or ' two wrongs make a right ' is no defense at all ... it is deflection.
No it's not. It's completely relevant in this case.
Here:
Starting with Waters, how can you even compare what she said to Trump's Jan 6th speech in which he said go peacefully?
I remain surprised that you apparently think it ridiculous to hold Trump accountable
Accountable? Don't you mean a chance to prevent him from being a candidate again? If that's all you care about, I'm hoping it's someone else in 2024 as well. Trump is too great a unifier and motivator for the democratic party. As I say, the dems will have alienated so many with their radical transformation of America, it may not make much difference by then.
You apparently agree with what they are doing.
See? ⇡ You agree with them. My original sentiments are still applicable.
Well given I wrote accountable I think you should take that as my position. But since you mentioned it, I am in favor of a vote to prevent him from running for any public office again. So holding him accountable for his actions and preventing him from the opportunity to repeat same are both actions that I support.
I despise Waters. But put that aside because she is not on trial, Trump is. So face the facts. You just cherry-picked from his statement to make it seem as though he did not incite this mob. Consider the entirety of what he said:
To not read the parts in blue is to engage in major league confirmation bias. Trump, while ostensibly telling his supporters to go home, justified their anger by telling them they are right to be angry because they have been wronged. He did not tell them to cease and desist, he told them that they were justified but now they must go home.
How can you possibly defend this guy?
I don't defend him for not accepting defeat.
I do defend him for his right to hold a rally.
I do defend him from being held responsible for what extremist groups planned in advance for what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. Sound familiar?
Good.
Well, of course he has the right to hold a rally/
You ignore the fact that Trump spent months using the influence of the presidency working his supporters up into a frenzy over the fiction that he won in an landslide and that their votes and their president has been stolen from them through fraud.
How do you ignore this Vic?
I'm not. Those are two separate issues. He never gave up on his belief that he was cheated. Perhaps it might have been better if we didn't have all those rule changes before the election.
On the other hand, he created a movement, which he gets to speak to. He can hold rallies and peaceful demonstrations. The old fashioned liberals used to regard that as our most basic right.
We already did Vic. It was ridiculous.
I presume that when you ask about Waters, Schumer and Harris being impeached, you are trying to imply that they are somehow guilty of incitement. Pray tell WHO did they incite and what crime did they commit?
If that were the case then you would be arguing that Trump is clearly guilty of encouraging / justifying an attack on the Capitol and not taking action to stop it until much later.
Is Trump guilty —while holding the highest office in the land with all of its rights, privileges and powers of influence— of telling his supporters that the election was stolen and that they should fight like hell for their rights and never give up and that they should go to the Capitol where the steal was being confirmed?
Again, please cite WHO they incited and what crime was committed.
Didn't he speak for over an hour? He did mention the word "peaceful" ...once.
Any person who had the misfortune of believing this man would have been outraged and ready to march to the Capitol. Unfortunately, several thousand people headed his call and did march, did overrun the perimeter that had been set up and besieged the Capitol with hundreds of invaders who actually went inside the Capitol building with the expressed intent of disrupting the congress.
There is no defending his actions or those of the mob that he engendered and set in motion. None what-so-ever. Anyone who attempts to defend against these actions is complicit with the lies and complicit with these seditious acts.
The only people I hold responsible were the groups who planned the attack - long before the speech you keep quoting from & interpreting:
Trump was setting the stage for the attack on the Capitol from Nov 4th on. At least. You could argue he was setting the stage even before the election when he repeatedly was saying the only way he could lose is if it was stolen from him.
By the same token, we can go back and look at all the claims by Trump that the only way he could lose is if the election was rigged. And he was claiming that the election was fraudulent during the year of 2020.
Do you not remember this? Do you (somehow) not see how Trump as PotUS is the instigator behind his supporters believing the election was stolen?
Too late John, everyone made it about the speech - it's in the charges.
Nope, it's not too late. Its all part of the same process.
So you believe that everyone involved in the insurrection who attacked the capital and attempted to stop the certification and transfer of power had "planned in advance" to do so? That position simply is not supported by the facts. Were there extremist groups who had pre-planned their attack and led the crowd of thousands in the insurrection? Yes, of course, but they would not have been able to do what they did without the large crowd that showed up after marching down to the Capital at Trumps behest, and the crowd would not have followed the insurrection leaders had they not been worked into a frenzy by Donald Trump saying over and over again that the election was rigged, his Presidency was being stolen and they needed to "fight like hell" if they wanted to save their country.
Many in the crowd who have now been arrested have attested to the fact that they felt they were under direct orders from the President, that they had his blessing to go to the capital and "stop the steal" which they believed meant to stop the certification. Trump even threw Mike Pence under the bus and the crowd listened and declared him a traitor and chanted "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" simply because he was attempting to do his constitutional duty and certify legitimate election results.
The time to contest the election results had passed, the dozens and dozens of legal court challenges had been tossed out for having ZERO evidence of any election fraud or "rigging" or "stealing", yet dishonest Donald continued the lie, continued to rile up his base his false claims, with dangerous rhetoric, right up to within minutes of the attack on the Capital. And then it was 3 hours into the attack before Trump came out and made a statement half condemning the attack while also telling the attackers "we love you" and "you're very special".
The fact is, if this had been a Democrat President who had done such things every single conservative here would be outraged and supporting his immediate impeachment to ensure that such a vile seditionist could never again hold public office. But sadly we live in such divided partisan times, the conservatives here consistently defend, deflect and twist the facts in an effort to protect their wannabe Dictator so that he has a chance in the future to rise back into power, and I have no doubt those who are so loyal to this scum bag as to refuse to accept the facts will not hesitate in the future to come to his call and commit such heinous acts once again.
I also remember long before that when Trump was warning the state legislatures in battle ground states about democrat lawyers filing hundreds of lawsuits to change election rules. The rule changes allowed things like PA allowing ballots to be counted up to the Friday after the election even if there’s wasn't a postmark. Nevada passed a bill requiring mail-in ballots to be sent to active, registered voters as a way to keep voters safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pennsylvania’s highest court gave the Democratic Party a series of victories, relaxing deadlines in its fledgling mail-in voting law, approving more ballot collection sites, and kicking the Green Party’s presidential candidate off the November ballot.
Did anyone heed the warning? Nope, the they sat back and the dems beat them.
Do you (somehow) not see how Trump as PotUS is the instigator behind his supporters believing the election was stolen?
He couldn't do it without the rule changes. Whether or not there was fraud, those rule changes favored democrats. Beyond that Time Magazine published a breathtaking story of what went on behind the scenes:
https://time.com/magazine/us/?fbclid=IwAR02kTXwD7PnzUdGPlzf8KOF_LUCextXSsYkK9k-N-iLyMs3T3z6LX6hBVEpage%2F2page%2F6page%2F7page%2F3page%2F3page%2F2page%2F2page%2F2page%2F3page%2F5page%2F4page/485
What rule changes?
You just can't stand that the former occupant of the White House essentially lost by a LANDSLIDE despite all their efforts to keep us from voting.
Biden won this election legitimately, right? Do you agree or not? Trump lied to the world claiming he had legitimately won when in fact, the opposite is true. Right?
Were they illegal? How exactly did they favor Democrats? Were not Republicans allowed to vote by mail or any of the ways that the new rules allowed? The rules were amended because of the Corona virus, not because anyone was trying to make sure Trump lost. Anyone who believes it was specifically to help Democrats should show their evidence, not just stating their blatantly partisan opinion. And when you say "Whether or not there was fraud" you're just ignoring the fact that there WAS NO FRAUD as found over and over again in every case. To make your statement factual it should have read "There was no fraud and those rules could be used by any eligible voter in any political party."
The only evidence courts have found in recent years of rule changes specifically intended to help one party were those that found Republican legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans" who Republicans know largely vote for Democrats "with almost surgical precision," according to the court. Now that's some racist disgusting election rule changes to favor one party over another. The rule changes made this year were made in an effort to help those who wanted to avoid crowds and possible exposure to a deadly virus to still be able to vote. And after dozens and dozens of court challenges they were found lawful and legitimate. Anyone still whining about the Corona virus election rule accommodations is just a sad sore loser.
False Vic. The Article of Impeachment cites Trump's 'prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election.'
Bullshit Vic. He said the same about the 2016 election, until he won...
Link?
YOU go look up 'burden of proof' and get back to me Tex.
I have no interest in following your assertion down a rabbit hole Tex.
Post a link.
As far as I know or anyone would know at this point.
Do you agree or not?
Trump lied to the world claiming he had legitimately won when in fact, the opposite is true. Right?
I wasn't thrilled with Trump’s speech at the time. I was against the challenge to the electoral votes and I thought the President’s false statements about the authority of Vice President Mike Pence to “send back” those votes did his cause a great disservice and misled people. However, I have to add that, without evidence of intent, this case of incitement should fail in the Senate. I've yet to see any evidence.
Whatever she said, did she say it 10 times a day for 60 days straight?
Trump is completely responsible for what happened on Jan 6th. Completely. Those people would not have even been there if Trump didnt ask them to come and "fight" to "save America" (aka him) .
They should convict him tonight. We dont need any more evidence.
You don't have any!
Wow Jim, you are so right! Hillary Clinton sayin that almost 3 YEARS AFTER the election is EXACTLY like Trump saying it from the day of the election until the day he left office. /s
Oh and BTFW, where's the part about Trump stealing the election from her? Did I miss it?
Thank him all you want but Jim didn't help you Tex.
His and your claim is a false equivalency.
But hey, cheer away...
No Tex, I saw Jim's post supporting your false equivalency.
Why would I do that? You have the burden of proof.
Oh and BTFW, still waiting for a link to Hillary Clinton saying that Trump stole the election from her. Tick tick tick.
Given the evidence (the lack of fraud evidence) and the actions Trump took (recorded, delivered) it is clear that Trump was lying to the world for months (and has never come clean). His rhetoric clearly was designed to motivate his supporters into believing his lie and to act on that belief. Not sure it is possible to offer better evidence than what has been presented thus far.
It is excuses like 'no evidence of intent' (as if it is ever possible to prove intent by going into another's mind) that will end up with Trump being acquitted due to partisan desires over-weighing objective reality.
Well gee Tex, since your cheered Jim, I'll presume that's all you've got.
Total fail.
[Deleted]
What Hillary did is much worse, of course. She had known for THREE YEARS that Trump was legitimately elected, and still lied about it.
the signs are all around you...
Sad.
Have you seen any evidence that, with a different outcome on 01/06/21, Donal Trump would have
refused a second term?
The evidence is all around you if you will look at it.
During the assault on the Capital, Trump & Giuliani both called Tommy Tubberville too ask him to
obstruct the certification process, not to ask about the security situation or the safety of Tubberville or Pence
or any other Congress person.
He only cared about winning at any cost, even if it cost the soul of our democracy.
So cute! Jim has his own cheerleader!
Texan, tell me what about all this you want to debate me on. Just you and me, in our own words, no trolling.
Donald Trump lied about the election every day, for more than 3 months. Every day, multiple times every day. It is ridiculously easy to prove that.
Is it your opinion that his doing that for three months didnt "incite" anyone?
People who were there that day SAID they were there because Trump asked them to be. He had been asking them for months to DO something to help him.
Is he guilty in a criminal sense? That will be up to prosecutors and juries.
Is he guilty of violating his oath of office, grievously ? Absolutely. The Senate is well within its rights to convict him.
What a lame excuse to run from a challenge.
no you prefer to make them
Sean, Hillary incited the sum total of ZERO people to commit crimes.
Well since the permit for the 'rally' SPECIFICALLY states that there would be NO MARCH, and the first fucking thing that Trump said in his speech is that they were going to MARCH to the Capitol, that sure as hell looks like intent to me.
Perhaps it would be more constructive if YOU learned that someone lying can incite people to commit crimes.
I believe Congresswomen Diane Degette addressed that yesterday.
When Trump got involved by picking the orators and the order and the music, he,
Trump sent the Women for America First back to modify the original permits to include the march to the Capital.
Even more intent by his own hand.
The 'superseding' permit issued on Jan. 5th states that:
The permit states that the 'rally' was supposed to last until 3:30.
NO ONE applied for or received a permit for a 'Rally' @ the United States Capitol.
It was called a March, not a rally.
What it was 'called' and what they were permitted to do are obviously 2 different things.
trump always knew he would push the "Stop the steal" button when it was needed.
trump started o rchestrating his "Stop the Steel" Power grab gambit before he was even elected in 2016.
Never Underestimate trump ... EVER !
Trump planned on rolling out the ‘rigged election’ playbook when he got beat by Hillary Clinton. Even he was shocked to learn that Americans were stupid enough to avoid that scenario by voting for the least qualified candidate to ever hold the office in that election.
So True ...
Then he had plenty of time to grow it and then use his plan on 01-06-21.
This man is and has been a true danger to our democracy since BEFORE he even announced he was running. "Stop the Steel" was trump's trump card.
AND was ignored by the masses.. Scarry !
IT backfired, trump trumped himself, the only way this could end !
[removed]
I would have liked to have seen and possibly addressed this.
Trump is a moron.
What you really mean is never underestimate how brainwashed many of his followers are.
No John, I meant what I said. If I wanted to say what you say I did, I would have.
I believe America needs liberals,conservatives,moderates and independents.
IMO: America is stronger when we really do work together. And John,
I think WE both can agree ... trumpetts we don't need.
trump ruled by intimidation and fear he still tries to, plans to and will.
Rightfully so, many republican politicians still fear what trump can, could and may still do to their careers.
Not to mention, trump always leaves a trail of tears in his wake.
Ask the inserectioners sitting in jail tonight.
trump trumped trump ... let it end here !!
Hey steve! It's good to see you here again. You have been sorely missed.
Given that kind of fear, I wonder how many more years those Republicans will be afraid of Trump and what they perceive what he can do to their careers. 5? 10? 20 years? IMHO, if they are that afraid of Trump they should just retire from their seats, or just not run for re-election again.
What those Republicans should fear far more than Trump are those who will be casting their votes in the future elections, because the voters carry a lot more power than a disgraced ex-President. So their caving to Trump out of fear for their careers can be a real turn off for the voters.
JMOO
Hello back to you Raven and Good to see you as well. I've missed being here. Thanks for the Welcome back.
"What those Republicans should fear far more than Trump are those who will be casting their votes in the future elections."
True True true... and at this time trump still has a great deal of influence on what those future voters do and who they will vote for.
To revise my post I may have should have said "afraid of trumpism"
Thanks Raven, Good point.
I totally agree, steve. That seems to be another divisive cult here in America, much like the Peoples Temple, Heavens Gate, Branch Dividian and other such radically extremist cults that seems to make the rounds ever so many years.
The biggest difference in my opinion, is these cults, such as White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, etc, are out to hurt and/or kill those who disagree with their extremist beliefs, unlike the religious cults that wind up hurting or killing their own.
In a similar way, Trump has become a cult leader whose supporters have also become as killers of those who refuse to accept him as their god. And they will only grow larger if the American people themselves do not stand up and refuse to accept it. The government can only do so much, and they will need the support of the true American people to bring these cults to a halt.
Again, just my own opinion.
True, however as a civilized society we can only do so much to influence others thoughts.
IMO: IF we can legally bar trump from ever taking power in America again at this time I think that would be a reasonable move.
Cults need a leader or they fracture and hold little power over the rest.
It is nice to see you Steve. It's been a long time.
I understand about the social media burnout. I sometimes spend way too much time here.
Good to see ya!