• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

Trump won't want to testify unless he controls the situation and can insult the Democrats and walk out when he gets mad.

I'm still curious what Graham was on about. I would have thought he thinks the lie Trump was spied on by Obama is true.

But this says something else and why would the Democrats care?

Independent
... threatened to call in the FBI to testify about security failures during the Capitol riots last month if Democrats try to call even one witness at Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. ...

Mr Graham, appearing on Fox News on Monday evening, warned Democrats against “opening that can of worms” of calling witnesses, arguing it would drag the trial out in a process that would be “bad” for America.

“To my Democrat colleagues, if you vote to call one witness, [when] none were called in the House, get ready for a long trial,” said the Republican senator.

“If you open that can of worms, we’ll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people pre-planned this attack and what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol. You open up Pandora's Box if you call one witness,” he said.
Click to expand...
It's a laughable threat. Not to mention of course Schumer is planning on witness testimony.

It would seem Graham is going with, you'll tarnish the country if you admit Trump is guilty.:boggled:

Maybe he imagines this is like Ford pardoning Nixon to save the country the specter of sending an ex-POTUS to jail. Hey Graham, this is not akin to spying on your political enemies.

Raw Story: Lindsey Graham bizarrely threatens to make impeachment trial a thorough investigation
Commenters on social media seemed confused as to why Graham's promise was a threat — with many impeachment-supporting pundits suggesting they were fully on board with the idea of a comprehensive, bipartisan impeachment trial that reviews all the evidence and expert opinions before arriving at a conclusion on the former president's guilt or innocence. ...
Click to expand...

This was an interesting Tweet:
Is @LindseyGrahamSC scared he'll be implicated?
Having dinner with the Leader of the Proud Boys Joe Biggs at Trump Hotel in DC screams guilty to me?
Click to expand...
Image is in the Tweet.

There are suggestions in the various Tweets that Graham might not be the only Senator implicated in the insurrection attempt. No wonder they didn't want to have the trial.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lindsey Graham on Fox says warns not to call witnesses during the trial.
He says if Democrats vote to call a single witness, “we’ll want the FBI to come in”

What is he on about?

(Video in link)

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1356403657370001408
Click to expand...

I think that what is going on is that most of the Senators want the Trump trial to go quickly so that they can forget about Trump and actually do some productive work for a change.

However, in his own weird way, Graham is threatening to drag out the Trump trial in order to de-rail both the Senate and the Biden Administration. And if the Biden Administration gets de-railed, then Graham will be able in a position to bitch and complain about the Biden Administration getting de-railed shortly after Biden became the President.
 
If he calls the FBI, would that not open Trump up to the charges that he knew or should have known the mob he invited to Washington was planning to storm the Capitol? I really don't see how this helps Trump.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
If he calls the FBI, would that not open Trump up to the charges that he knew or should have known the mob he invited to Washington was planning to storm the Capitol. I really don't see how this helps Trump.
Click to expand...
It doesn't, it helps Graham feel like the big man in town. These GOP Senators have been in charge for so long they don't know how to act when they aren't.

Graham is threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue.

Of course the underlying goal is to move this along, get it over with, there aren't 60 Senators now that will convict Trump. Drag it out too long and public pressure might just change a few more GOP Senator's minds.
 
Graham appears to be under the impression that the Dems also want a quick show trial followed by an acquittal
 
Trump’s formal response to the Article of Impeachment started by misspelling “United States”.
 

Attachments

  • B03DEDDA-6FB3-401B-A1F1-ED44DA374C12.jpeg
    B03DEDDA-6FB3-401B-A1F1-ED44DA374C12.jpeg
    82.2 KB · Views: 46
I know it sounds petty, but reading Graham;s usual tripe, I wish some prominent Democratic legislator would come right out and say to him and his colleagues that there is no such thing as the Democrat party, and they are not Graham's Democrat colleagues. If he cannot, after all these years, say the name of the opposing party correctly, he is either an idiot or a liar, and we are entitled not to bother to heed anything else he says.

I know it's kind of trivial after all these years, but it's a very nasty habit, adopted long ago by partisan Republicans as an explicit insult, coming from a bunch of hypocrites who harp so on removing divisiveness. Let them start with that one tiny thing.
 
sts60 said:
Trump’s formal response to the Article of Impeachment started by misspelling “United States”.
Click to expand...

Oh bloody hell!

This is just the type of response that one should expect from Trump, but never the less, one is still amazed to actually see such a response.
 
sts60 said:
Trump’s formal response to the Article of Impeachment started by misspelling “United States”.
Click to expand...

Crossbow said:
Oh bloody hell!

This is just the type of response that one should expect from Trump, but never the less, one is still amazed to actually see such a response.
Click to expand...
Indicative of a VERY rushed response with no proofreading. I.e. typical Team Trump professionalism.
 
sts60 said:
Trump’s formal response to the Article of Impeachment started by misspelling “United States”.
Click to expand...

Sidney, is that you?

At least this is a keyboard error that passes a spellcheck and not "DISTRCOICT". But still...

Also has "lawless action at then Capitol".
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
I think that what is going on is that most of the Senators want the Trump trial to go quickly so that they can forget about Trump and actually do some productive work for a change.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Why would they want to start now? They certainly haven't shown any inclination in the past.

Unless you count getting tax breaks for the ultra-rich passed or approving the appointments of government officials whose goal is to screw up the country.

They're pretty productive when it comes to that sort of work.
 
Norman Alexander said:
In other words, he's certifiably insane.

Could insanity be a defence? That has been mentioned seriously more than once...
Click to expand...


One thing people have a lot of trouble wrapping their minds around (and I certainly don't blame them) is that even though crimes are the subject of this impeachment trial (and even though it is a trial in the strictest definition of the term), it is not a criminal trial.

It is a political trial. Yes, a show. Normal rules one might expect in a criminal court are not necessarily relevant. Actual criminal statutes are only relevant in passing.

And since he's already out of office the worst penalty that he can be given is to be banned from holding future offices. His sanity or lack thereof is not an impediment to such a penalty.

Now, if somebody can get his sorry ass into a real criminal court then the question may become relevant. I doubt it would work as a defense since such defenses rarely do, but that's where it would need to happen.
 
quadraginta said:
One thing people have a lot of trouble wrapping their minds around (and I certainly don't blame them) is that even though crimes are the subject of this impeachment trial (and even though it is a trial in the strictest definition of the term), it is not a criminal trial.

It is a political trial. Yes, a show. Normal rules one might expect in a criminal court are not necessarily relevant. Actual criminal statutes are only relevant in passing.

And since he's already out of office the worst penalty that he can be given is to be banned from holding future offices. His sanity or lack thereof is not an impediment to such a penalty.

Now, if somebody can get his sorry ass into a real criminal court then the question may become relevant. I doubt it would work as a defense since such defenses rarely do, but that's where it would need to happen.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And regardless of the outcome of the impeachment trial, there are a bunch of criminal trials all jostling to be the first to have another go at him immediately afterwards.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Sidney, is that you?

At least this is a keyboard error that passes a spellcheck and not "DISTRCOICT". But still...

Also has "lawless action at then Capitol".
Click to expand...


Sort of.

My spell checker didn't give it the red flag underline of a blatantly misspelled (in its opinion) word, but it did get the blue of a questionable usage and suggested the proper spelling.
 
So the defense argument to the claim that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors is basically "Nuh uh!! And you can't bar him from office cause he ain't the Pres no more."

One thing that I did not see that I was expecting was an argument that the actions he is alleged to have committed are not high crimes or misdemeanors because they were not dependent on his holding office.

In this context a "high crime" does not mean something like a felony and a "misdemeanor" does not mean what we usually mean when we talk about a crime lower than a felony. A "high crime" means something like a crime committed by virtue of holding a high office. It's something like corruption or abuse of power. It has to be related to the office. For example, they tried to impeach Nixon over unpaid taxes but decided that is a personal matter not a "high crime".

A misdemeanor means something like the original meaning: "mis" meaning bad or wrong and "demeanor" meaning outward behavior. But that doesn't mean bad personal behavior or conduct unbecoming a President. It means something more like "maladministration" which was a term that had previously been considered to be used but was rejected because that term could be construed to mean that Congress simply doesn't like the way a President is administer the office. Misdemeanors here means wrong or improper actions in carrying out the duty of the office. People have been impeached for things like drunkenness, but only because that affects their abilities to carry out their duties.

Of course the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't really exactly mean what it's constituent parts mean. The phrase at the time was a term of art that had come to have its own particular meaning that isn't precisely articulated.

It could be argued that the alleged actions by Trump are not high crimes or misdemeanors because they are not dependent on his holding office. For example, imagine if he had lost the election in 2016 and did the same thing he did this year resulting in a mob storming the Capitol. He could not have been impeached and barred from running in 2020 because he wasn't President or Vice President or holding any other federal office. Why would the action of a person not subject to being barred from holding office be able to be barred for exactly the same actions simply because they happened to be in office at the time?

For a "jury" of Senators who are mostly lawyers, that argument may have some resonance. But it might be risky because the House "prosecution" would jump on the fact that this was a betrayal to the country and Constitution, which would be a violation of the oath of office, which would certainly seem fall within "high crimes and misdemeanors".

But it does seem like an argument that should be considered, especially considering that removal from office is not an option and this is only about barring from holding future office, which means that Congress would be potentially overriding the free will of the people to reelect him, if they should choose, knowing his past actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom