Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[acbytesla]

Some Republicans are trying to argue from the Constitution, but Trump's actions were the kind of thing the authors had in mind when they introduced impeachment. They didn't have our long experience of US Presidencies, of course, they were inventing the role, they were less than unanimous about it, and they had sensible doubts. Trump's behaviour is exactly what impeachment is meant to squash.

Here is an article about how the impeachment is absolutely Constitutional. It includes links to further in depth articles.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/2...SaKALmdd5x0UJT-3ESzmgRTINbQizhgl-2S4e1BSE&amp

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's being reported that Trump tried to oust AG Jeffrey Rosen to install someone who would work towards overturning the Georgia election results

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It's being reported that Trump tried to oust AG Jeffrey Rosen to install someone who would work towards overturning the Georgia election results

Discussed last night on Rachel Maddow’s show as “Breaking News” - which in this case it seemed to be.

The Articles of Impeachment are rather narrow in scope. Still, I think such shenanigans should be brought forward to establish Trump’s state of mind.

Again, to me the purpose of the Senate trial is not necessarily to convict - though a conviction would please me. It’s to illustrate what a proper Senate impeachment trial is supposed to look like, with witnesses and testimony, unlike the last charade. And to record for history the objective depths of Trump’s misdeeds. And it will clarify how McConnell himself obstructed justice in the manner the prior impeachment trial was handled, without witnesses or testimony.

I, for one, will be tuned in.

 

[Darat]

Discussed last night on Rachel Maddow’s show as “Breaking News” - which in this case it seemed to be.

The Articles of Impeachment are rather narrow in scope. Still, I think such shenanigans should be brought forward to establish Trump’s state of mind.
Again, to me the purpose of the Senate trial is not necessarily to convict - though a conviction would please me. It’s to illustrate what a proper Senate impeachment trial is supposed to look like, with witnesses and testimony, unlike the last charade. And to record for history the objective depths of Trump’s misdeeds. And it will clarify how McConnell himself obstructed justice in the manner the prior impeachment trial was handled, without witnesses or testimony.

I, for one, will be tuned in.

I think they should avoid getting into that.

All that is needed in this impeachment is to see or read his speech, then see what happened and if they believe his speech was incitement.

It really is that narrow.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I think they should avoid getting into that.



All that is needed in this impeachment is to see or read his speech, then see what happened and if they believe his speech was incitement.



It really is that narrow.

I'd say everything relevant from the Georgia phone call to the mob storming can be condensed into about a 15-minute summary. Could just cue one of many news channel retrospective pieces that have come out in the last few days to that point and it would be a great introductory argument. They could even use the PBS one. Look, this is government-produced research!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think they should avoid getting into that.

I think the purpose would be to bring to light the extent to which Trump showed he would go to subvert the election, the insurrection at the Capitol being only one aspect.

All that is needed in this impeachment is to see or read his speech, then see what happened and if they believe his speech was incitement.

And all that was needed in the first impeachment was to read the transcript of the phone call. That narrow approach didn’t work, did it?

I say expose as much malfeasance as possible, if only for the history books.
.

 

[Paul2]

I think they should avoid getting into that.

All that is needed in this impeachment is to see or read his speech, then see what happened and if they believe his speech was incitement.

It really is that narrow.

The article of impeachment references "the months preceding the Joint Session" [Jan. 6] in which trump lied about the election, so it is not as narrow as the speech on the Elipse.

 

[Ladewig]

I wonder if getting Trump to testify would be useful to the Dems.

Would Trump be too prideful to plead the Fifth?
Would Trump be too arrogant to turn down a chance to tell his side of the story?
Would Trump be too childish and impulsive in his reasoning to not conclude that lawyers’ advice is useless because every lawyer has failed him in the past three months?

Might he be so simple-minded that if someone said “people are saying, the very best people, that President Trump should be found not guilty because he is not persuasive enough or powerful enough to get an audience to unify and carry out a specific task. Is that true, Mr. President?” he would insist that he had that power and that he used that power?

 

[Pixel42]

I think they should avoid getting into that.

All that is needed in this impeachment is to see or read his speech, then see what happened and if they believe his speech was incitement.

It really is that narrow.

But Trump was laying the groundwork long before that. That crowd was convinced the election was stolen before they even got there. The barrel of gunpowder was created by his lies, the speech just lit the fuse.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I wonder if getting Trump to testify would be useful to the Dems.

Would Trump be too prideful to plead the Fifth?
Would Trump be too arrogant to turn down a chance to tell his side of the story?
Would Trump be too childish and impulsive in his reasoning to not conclude that lawyers’ advice is useless because every lawyer has failed him in the past three months?

Might he be so simple-minded that if someone said “people are saying, the very best people, that President Trump should be found not guilty because he is not persuasive enough or powerful enough to get an audience to unify and carry out a specific task. Is that true, Mr. President?” he would insist that he had that power and that he used that power?

Not unless they're willing to hold him in contempt. Trump has a rare medical condition that gives him total amnesia in the vicinity of witness stands. As soon as you swear him in he won't even be able to recall his own name for the rest of the day, the poor guy.

 

[eerok]

But Trump was laying the groundwork long before that. That crowd was convinced the election was stolen before they even got there. The barrel of gunpowder was created by his lies, the speech just lit the fuse.

Yes, this is all context, and it needs to be addressed in the impeachment. Trump spent a full two months constantly lying and provoking doubt and anger about the election before he sent his followers to the Capitol. His abominable behavior with Georgia was all part of his plan to steal the election from Biden. All of this is relevant to the larger picture of Trump's failed coup, and his impeachment.

 

[Darat]

Yes, this is all context, and it needs to be addressed in the impeachment. Trump spent a full two months constantly lying and provoking doubt and anger about the election before he sent his followers to the Capitol. His abominable behavior with Georgia was all part of his plan to steal the election from Biden. All of this is relevant to the larger picture of Trump's failed coup, and his impeachment.

It goes back much further than that. He was talking about how the election was rigged before he had his “historic” “landslide” victory in the EC, and even after that he claimed that he won the popular vote as well because there were millions of illegal votes cast for Clinton.

 

[Darat]

Not unless they're willing to hold him in contempt. Trump has a rare medical condition that gives him total amnesia in the vicinity of witness stands. As soon as you swear him in he won't even be able to recall his own name for the rest of the day, the poor guy.

His eyesight also becomes very poor and he doesn’t have his glasses with him.

(For those not knowing despite the sarcasm from Beelzebuddy and me our posts accurately describe Trump’s testimony under oath.)

 

[eerok]

It goes back much further than that. He was talking about how the election was rigged before he had his “historic” “landslide” victory in the EC, and even after that he claimed that he won the popular vote as well because there were millions of illegal votes cast for Clinton.

Yes, IIRC Roger Stone registered the Stop the Steal website in 2016. Trump challenged the election he won in 2016 because everything was in place for his expected loss. When it comes to elections, he's pure scam. Same as with everything else.

Trump planned to attempt to steal the 2020 election long before election day, because this time it looked like he was really going to lose.

I think all of this is relevant to his impeachment.

 

[dudalb]

And even if Trump is acquited in the Impeachment trial he is going to face a slew of charges in chriminal courts.
I cuuld be wrong but I think that he could even be charges with the same "inciting to riot" charge ;it would not be considred double jeopardy since the senate trial is not technically a criminal court.

 

[Stacyhs]

We also have the claims of several lawyers representing rioters from Jan. 6 that their clients believed they were just following Trump's instructions. There are also the statements of the rioters themselves:

A man from Kentucky told the FBI that he and his cousin began marching toward the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 because “President Trump said to do so.” Chanting “Stop the steal,” the two men tramped through the building and snapped a photo of themselves with their middle fingers raised, according to court documents.

A video clip of another group of rioters mobbing the steps of the Capitol caught one man screaming at a police officer: “We were invited here! We were invited by the president of the United States!”

A retired firefighter from Pennsylvania who has been charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police officers felt he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, a tipster told the FBI, according to court documents.

Some have said they felt called to Washington by Trump and his false message that the election had been stolen, as well as by his efforts to pressure Congress and Vice President Pence to overturn the result.

But others drew an even more direct link — telling the FBI or news organizations that they headed to the Capitol on what they believed were direct orders from the president issued at a rally that day.

Jenna Ryan, a Texas realtor who has been charged with illegally entering the Capitol:

“I thought I was following my president,” she said. “I thought I was following what we were called to do. . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.”

 

[alfaniner]

And even if Trump is acquited in the Impeachment trial he is going to face a slew of charges in chriminal courts.I cuuld be wrong but I think that he could even be charges with the same "inciting to riot" charge ;it would not be considred double jeopardy since the senate trial is not technically a criminal court.

I wish they'd get going on that. What are they waiting for?

 

[Stacyhs]

If the GOP senators do not vote to convict, it's not because there is not sufficient evidence to do so, it will be because they are putting partisan politics and/or their own ambitions ahead of the good of the country once again.

 

[dudalb]

I wish they'd get going on that. What are they waiting for?

It takes time too prepare a criminal case, and there is so much to invesrigate.
You can't have everything yesterday...

 

[dudalb]

If the GOP senators do not vote to convict, it's not because there is not sufficient evidence to do so, it will be because they are putting partisan politics and/or their own ambitions ahead of the good of the country once again.

it's fear of the Trump base.
I think, long term, an acquittal might be the death warrent of the GOP.