• 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

I thought the video was quite powerful, especially the Trump rioters calling cops faggots and other obscenities, and beating them on the head.
 
EastBayTimes: Read: Trump team’s pretrial brief — which the expert [Brian Kalt] it cites calls inaccurate
Kalt’s name is mentioned 15 times in Trump’s pretrial brief, despite Kalt last month having signed an open letter from 150 legal experts that explained why the impeachment proceeding against Trump is supported by the U.S. Constitution.

Kalt said he was especially surprised to see a law review article he wrote cited as supporting the following claim by Trump’s lawyers: “When a President is no longer in office, the objective of an impeachment ceases.”

Kalt said in an email that the section of his article cited by Trump “actually says the opposite.”
Click to expand...

Trump is down to incompetent lawyers.

The Hill: The constitutional case for allowing late impeachment trials by Brian Kalt

So Trump lawyers missed the article's title?

Advocates making constitutional-law arguments like to say the Constitution is clear. Saying this doesn’t make it so. Case in point: the question of whether an impeachment case must be dismissed when the offender’s term expires. The Constitution is confusing here, not clear. There is a lot to weigh (I wrote a lengthy article on the subject in 2001). But on balance, the evidence firmly supports allowing impeachment proceedings against ex-officials.
Click to expand...

If that's the article cited it's blatantly misquoted, or should I say incompetently misquoted.
 
Last edited:
It was effective that Trump's tweets were inserted into the 'video nasty' in chronological sequence and it became clear the violence escalated at Trump's incitement and encouragement.

ETA: For example, whilst the Senators in Congress were crouching under their desks and the rioters were banging on the doors, Trump sent out the Pence tweet.
 

Attachments

  • trump pence tweet at 2.24pm.jpg
    trump pence tweet at 2.24pm.jpg
    36.2 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
What the actual **** is T****'s defense lawyer babbling about?

Eta: Ninja'd by Shemp. Damn you straight to hell!!!
 
Last edited:
rdaneel said:
Do you have more information on how to find this part?
Click to expand...

I suggest that you review this article on the subject since the article was written by the person whom the Trump lawyers are incorrectly using as a defense of Trump.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/trump-late-impeachment-brief-research-wrong.html

Trump Claims My Research Supports His Case Against Impeachment
He’s wrong.
By BRIAN KALT
FEB 09, 202112:45 PM

Back in 2001, I wrote a long law review article exploring an abstract question: Can Congress impeach and try ex-officials for their misconduct in office? The issue of what I labeled “late impeachment” was just a hypothetical back then. It was still only a hypothetical when I wrote a book on weird presidential constitutional issues in 2012 and included a chapter on impeaching ex-presidents. Then last month … well, you know.

...

In several places, they cited me as though I had concluded something when in fact I had concluded the opposite. For instance, they said:

...

This was disingenuous. In that part of the article, I wrote about Hamilton’s impeachment proposals to the Constitutional Convention—proposals that were modified or rejected. And in the next breath I wrote, “On the other hand, Hamilton’s later writings on impeachment in the Federalist Papers—construing the Constitution as actually written and not his own unadopted proposals—can be construed more favorably to late impeachment.”

...

I could go on like this for longer than a Slate article allows, pointing out other errors, omissions, and misrepresentations—as well as a couple of places where their citations were fair—but I’ll give just one more example from the first place they cited me:

...

How senators feel about it is less clear. While I do not envy Trump’s lawyers, picking up a very complicated case at the last minute, they do have a tremendous advantage. Well before they started writing this brief, it was already apparent that they were going to win their case. There do not seem to be nearly enough senators willing to vote to convict, whatever the brief said. Instead of piggybacking off the credibility of my article, Trump’s lawyers could have cited any one of a number of op-eds and blog posts. I wish they had.
 
Crossbow said:
I suggest that you review this article on the subject since the article was written by the person whom the Trump lawyers are incorrectly using as a defense of Trump.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/trump-late-impeachment-brief-research-wrong.html

Trump Claims My Research Supports His Case Against Impeachment
He’s wrong.
By BRIAN KALT
FEB 09, 202112:45 PM

Back in 2001, I wrote a long law review article exploring an abstract question: Can Congress impeach and try ex-officials for their misconduct in office? The issue of what I labeled “late impeachment” was just a hypothetical back then. It was still only a hypothetical when I wrote a book on weird presidential constitutional issues in 2012 and included a chapter on impeaching ex-presidents. Then last month … well, you know.

...

In several places, they cited me as though I had concluded something when in fact I had concluded the opposite. For instance, they said:

...

This was disingenuous. In that part of the article, I wrote about Hamilton’s impeachment proposals to the Constitutional Convention—proposals that were modified or rejected. And in the next breath I wrote, “On the other hand, Hamilton’s later writings on impeachment in the Federalist Papers—construing the Constitution as actually written and not his own unadopted proposals—can be construed more favorably to late impeachment.”

...

I could go on like this for longer than a Slate article allows, pointing out other errors, omissions, and misrepresentations—as well as a couple of places where their citations were fair—but I’ll give just one more example from the first place they cited me:

...

How senators feel about it is less clear. While I do not envy Trump’s lawyers, picking up a very complicated case at the last minute, they do have a tremendous advantage. Well before they started writing this brief, it was already apparent that they were going to win their case. There do not seem to be nearly enough senators willing to vote to convict, whatever the brief said. Instead of piggybacking off the credibility of my article, Trump’s lawyers could have cited any one of a number of op-eds and blog posts. I wish they had.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This means Kalt's Hill OpEd on Jan 29th was before the Trump defense turned in their brief. They had time to change it.
 
Castor is just blabbing on about jack crap all to do with anything. Is this really the best opening statement they can come up with? Doesn't portend well for their case. He should be embarrassed and just shut up and sit down.
 
"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
 
It's perfect and exactly what they are intending to do.

They don't care. They know the Republicans aren't going to vote to convict him. They know this is already over. Now it's about doing damage to the system itself by making it a farce.
 
"Nothing can change my mind, just as nothing can change the Democrats mind." - Some random GOP Senator Loon.

"Okay but what about the fact that the Democrats are factually correct?"

"Well I hardly think that matters."
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's perfect and exactly what they are intending to do.

They don't care. They know the Republicans aren't going to vote to convict him. They know this is already over. Now it's about doing damage to the system itself by making it a farce.
Click to expand...
Yep, collect a paycheck and take a nap. Wake up and throw a speech together. :p

They are failing at making an impression on the US public except for the Trump sycophants. If the fix was in as we think it is, then the Democrats are succeeding at impressing the gravity of Trump's actions upon the public.


Now the guy is making an attempt at the slippery slope argument.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom