Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Symmetry said:

Try to keep up.

Trump’s lawyers, and others here, argued that the Constitution does not provide for impeachment of a former president. The Senate voted 56-44 that the trial is constitutional.  Just like I said it was, fancy that...

Do I need to spell it out more for you?  Trumps legal team lost their first line of defence.

 

Guess which branch of government doesn't get to decide what's constitutional? That's right, Congress. They've just thumbed their nose at SCOTUS. But I'm fine with this charade continuing. It will be amusing to watch the "judge" who has already removed any semblance of impartiality work overtime to deny evidence entering into the "trial". I'm beginning to think Schoen mailed it in just to allow for this eventuality. Trump fired the other lawyers because they only wanted to argue on procedural grounds. Schoen isn't afraid of a fight, and SCOTUS has already signaled how they'll vote if Trump appeals. Since you're the one ignorant of the law it is only the judicial branch who gets to decide what is constitutional or not. 

[JoMack + 549]

Really, I hope this drags on for 4 years and then Trump can run in 2024. Or,  I want them to make him President again, bring him back to D.C., redo the impeachment, have Pelosi march her majority votes to the Senate with her sycophants in tow, bring it to the Senate, they'll acquit him and that's that.  President Trump has returned!  YEY!!!  

[turbguy + 1,554]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Guess which branch of government doesn't get to decide what's constitutional? That's right, Congress. They've just thumbed their nose at SCOTUS. But I'm fine with this charade continuing. It will be amusing to watch the "judge" who has already removed any semblance of impartiality work overtime to deny evidence entering into the "trial". I'm beginning to think Schoen mailed it in just to allow for this eventuality. Trump fired the other lawyers because they only wanted to argue on procedural grounds. Schoen isn't afraid of a fight, and SCOTUS has already signaled how they'll vote if Trump appeals. Since you're the one ignorant of the law it is only the judicial branch who gets to decide what is constitutional or not. Back to your masturbation, enjoy. Pretend Barry Wood is with you

The Senate just DID decide.  And nothing, absolutely NOTHING you can say makes that otherwise. 

Go ahead, argue all you wish. 

The FACT remains, the Senate voted, and thus decided.

If some party wishes to bring a case against the Senate before SCOTUS to also decide (or not), so be it. 

Just so you know, The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).  So we are dealing with past-practice, established by the SCOTUS itself.  Similar to the "peaceful transfer of power", which also is not mentioned in our Constitution.

At some point in the future, some party could bring a case against SCOTUS itself arguing the Constitution does not grant them this power.  THAT would be interesting...

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by turbguy

[Symmetry + 109]

Seriously if we could get back to logic and not personal attacks...

Look at reality people!

[El Gato + 254]

6 hours ago, Symmetry said:

Wrong again.  Impeachment happens in one side, the other can overturn.  Trump has been impeached twice, this is fact.

Farce is your ally remember? Trump won?

No Ward is right. Congress votes to impeach, the Senate holds the trial to either uphold Impeachment or Dismiss. Read your Constitution

[Selva + 252]

Gentlemen, 

Off the topic. Again. If you are wondering again, yes, I have deleted many posts in this thread due to awful insults and posts that have nothing to do with this topic. 

Can we now try to continue in more civil manner? 

[Symmetry + 109]

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Can't keep track of what the other sock puppets said? After all, if he's not the President, why is he getting impeached? Low IQ people like Enthalpic and you (likely the same person, who am I kidding) can't use the argument that he was still President when impeachment started but he's a nobody now. Either he is or he isn't. The remedy under the constitution is that a president can be removed. So which is it loser? Either they're tacitly admitting he's the rightful President and they're trying other means to get rid of him or… 

Did you get your education today Mr Wrong?

The "or" is you are wrong, as usual. 

I bet you loved the portion where they said trump was voted out.

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Symmetry

[Symmetry + 109]

12 minutes ago, Selva said:

Gentlemen, 

Off the topic. Again. If you are wondering again, yes, I have deleted many posts in this thread due to awful insults and posts that have nothing to do with this topic. 

Can we now try to continue in more civil manner? 

Do not call the people using repetitive homophobic and fat-shaming insults gentlemen.

Deletion of calling them out on their obscenity is an insult to those of use who are more refined.

Remove the insults, but not the reason the posts were removed!

Retain facts like trump lost.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Symmetry

[Symmetry + 109]

25 minutes ago, El Gato said:

No Ward is right. Congress votes to impeach, the Senate holds the trial to either uphold Impeachment or Dismiss. Read your Constitution

 

"Uphold the impeachment" means the impeachment has already happened.

 

 

[Selva + 252]

9 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Do not call the people using repetitive homophobic and fat-shaming insults gentlemen.

Deletion of calling them out on their obscenity is an insult to those of use who are more refined.

Remove the insults, but not the reason the posts were removed!

Retain facts like trump lost.

Let me say this one more time. Every post repeating the same thing all over again, every post containing insults, every post that has nothing to do with topic and every post that says nothing but is written just to provoke others, will be deleted. 

And your last post has been edited for one of the reasons listed above. 

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

An interesting What, if . . . 

If the GOP had convicted Trump after Impeachment #1 and made Pence the President,  it's a reasonable possibility that the GOP would still be in control of the Senate and the White House, with a reasonable possibility that the GOP would also be in control of the House. 

Instead, the GOP's slavish devotion to Trump has resulted in a triple play loss--the White House, the Senate and the House. 

The country would also have almost certainly been better off with Pence in charge during the pandemic, because I don't see how anyone could have done worse the Trump.   Pence was of course technically in charge of the White House task force, but there wasn't any doubt about who was actually calling the shots--and spreading misinformation far and wide. 

In any case, the GOP has one final chance to rid themselves of the Trump cancer that is destroying the Republican Party, but the most likely scenario is that to quote Senator Ben Sasse, the "Weird worship of one dude" will continue to destroy the Republican Party. 

 

Senator Ben Sasse on the "Weird worship of one dude"

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/02/05/ben-sasse-censure-message-gop-trump-ath-vpx.cnn

Edited February 10, 2021 by Jeffrey Brown

[turbguy + 1,554]

37 minutes ago, Selva said:

Let me say this one more time. Every post repeating the same thing all over again, every post containing insults, every post that has nothing to do with topic and every post that says nothing but is written just to provoke others, will be deleted. 

And your last post has been edited for one of the reasons listed above. 

Whew! Thank you.

Edited February 10, 2021 by turbguy

[Symmetry + 109]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Whew! Thank you.

Indeed.  Let's see the moderation follow through with regards to Ward's posts.

[notsonice + 1,266]

14 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Can't keep track of what the other sock puppets said? After all, if he's not the President, why is he getting impeached? Low IQ people like Enthalpic and you (likely the same person, who am I kidding) can't use the argument that he was still President when impeachment started but he's a nobody now. Either he is or he isn't. The remedy under the constitution is that a president can be removed. So which is it loser? Either they're tacitly admitting he's the rightful President and they're trying other means to get rid of him or… 

Sock  Puppet? is that all you have? your obsession with Enthalpic shows that he won.  Low IQ? are you still babbling BS. Even Trumps lawyer stated on 2/9/2021

“The people… are smart enough to pick a new administration if they don’t like the old one. And they just did.”

 

Trumps lawyer are crediting those who voted Trump out as being smart enough to pick a new administration

 

Keep up with your insults and trying to demean others, it just shows you can not handle losing.

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

Trump loyalist Josh Hawley ignores impeachment trial evidence by sitting in gallery to review paperwork

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-loyalist-josh-hawley-ignores-impeachment-trial-evidence-by-sitting-in-gallery-to-review-paperwork/ar-BB1dzR2i

Excerpt:

Senator Josh Hawley, a bellwether of Donald Trump's "stop the steal" movement to overturn the 2020 election results, was watching the second day of impeachment proceedings against the former president from the gallery above the chamber.

The Trump loyalist, a first-term Missouri Republican, was seen at various points with his legs crossed, his feet propped up on the chair in front of him, and reviewing some sort of paperwork in a manila folder, according to several reporters with a view of the room from their seats in the press gallery.

 

But the majority of Senators appeared to be paying attention.  From Axios:

Yesterday's presentation by House Democratic impeachment managers — methodical and time-stamped — left senators from both parties visibly shaken.

•They watched harrowing scenes of rioters tearing apart the very desks where they sat,

In the halls outside the chamber during short breaks, GOP lawmakers had difficulty defending their stubborn stance on acquittal.

•It was clearly more of a challenge for them to justify than it was during Trump's first impeachment trial, when so many were eager to share their disdain for the proceedings with reporters.

The new evidence presented yesterday included Capitol security videos that showed Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer narrowly escaping the mob, and Vice President Pence evacuating the Senate chamber as insurrectionists chanted for his death.

•The rioters were "58 steps" from senators, impeachment manager Eric Swalwell told them.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Jeffrey Brown

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

WSJ* Editorial:  The Trump Impeachment Evidence
He might be acquitted, but he won’t live down his disgraceful conduct.

Excerpt:

Whether a former President ought to be subject to an impeachment trial is a matter of constitutional debate. Whether it’s prudent, if acquittal appears likely, is a related question. But wherever you come down on those issues, the House impeachment managers this week are laying out a visceral case that the Capitol riot of Jan. 6 was a disgrace for which President Trump bears responsibility.

Long before November, Mr. Trump was saying that the only way he could lose the election was if it were rigged. On the night of the vote, he tweeted, “they are trying to STEAL the election.” In his speech that night, he called it “a fraud on the American public,” and said, “frankly we did win.” Is it a surprise that some of his fans took his words to heart?

Instead of bowing to dozens of court defeats, Mr. Trump escalated. He falsely claimed that Vice President Mike Pence, if only he had the courage, could reject electoral votes and stop Democrats from hijacking democracy. He called his supporters to attend a rally on Jan. 6, when Congress would do the counting. “Be there, will be wild!” Mr. Trump tweeted. His speech that day was timed to coincide with the action in the Capitol, and then he directed the crowd down Pennsylvania Avenue. . . .

There’s no defense for Mr. Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 and before. Mitch McConnell is reportedly telling his GOP colleagues that the decision to convict or acquit is a vote of conscience, and that’s appropriate. After the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, Mr. Trump could have conceded defeat and touted his accomplishments.

Now his legacy will be forever stained by this violence, and by his betrayal of his supporters in refusing to tell them the truth. Whatever the result of the impeachment trial, Republicans should remember the betrayal if Mr. Trump decides to run again in 2024.

*During Trump's four-year term, there was no stronger supporter of Trump than the WSJ Editorial Page
 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Jeffrey Brown

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/8/2021 at 5:45 PM, Ward Smith said:

Pay a lawyer enough and he/she will say anything you want. That doesn't make it so. Between this hack and Alan Dershowitz, I know where I'll put my money.

The 'Honest Lawyer' is popular pub name in the UK

Its a play on archetypal  British Sarcasm. 

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

Trump’s lawyers say he was immediately ‘horrified’ by the Capitol attack. Here’s what his allies and aides said really happened that day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-actions-capitol-attacks/2021/02/09/6dada250-6a3b-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html

Excerpt:

President Donald Trump was “horrified” when violence broke out at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, as a joint session of Congress convened to confirm that he lost the election, according to his defense attorneys. Trump tweeted calls for peace “upon hearing of the reports of violence” and took “immediate steps” to mobilize resources to counter the rioters storming the building, his lawyers argued in a brief filed Monday in advance of Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. It is “absolutely not true,” they wrote, that Trump failed to act swiftly to quell the riot.

But that revisionist history conflicts with the timeline of events on the day of the Capitol riot, as well as accounts of multiple people in contact with the president that day, who have said Trump was initially pleased to see a halt in the counting of the electoral college votes. Some former White House officials have acknowledged that he only belatedly and reluctantly issued calls for peace, after first ignoring public and private entreaties to do so. . . .

“It took him awhile to appreciate the gravity of the situation,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, said in an interview with The Washington Post two days after the riot. “The president saw these people as allies in his journey and sympathetic to the idea that the election was stolen.”

That same day, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) told conservative radio broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that it was “not an open question” as to whether Trump had been “derelict in his duty,” saying there had been a delay in the deployment of the National Guard to help the Capitol Police repel rioters. “As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building,” he said, indicating that he had learned of Trump’s reaction from “senior White House officials.” . . . .

For many White House aides, lawmakers and others who had been ensconced in the Capitol, Trump’s actions after the riots began were particularly offensive — even more objectionable, some said, than what he did to incite the crowd. “President Trump did not take swift action to stop the violence,” the nine House impeachment managers wrote in their opening brief submitted last week, adding: “This dereliction of President Trump’s responsibility for the events of January 6 is unmistakable.”

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

NYT:  ‘We Have to Relive It’: Images Revive Painful Memories in Senate
The nation’s most powerful lawmakers became a captive audience at Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, as video footage forced them to absorb the enormity of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/politics/impeachment-violence-senate.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Excerpt:

Nearly 140 police officers from two departments were injured during the violence, including officers who sustained brain injuries, smashed spinal disks and one who is likely to lose his eye. Five people died during the rioting.

Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, who had planned to question the election results before backing off after the mob attack, appeared to grow emotional in the chamber as he watched video of an officer being crushed in a door. Afterward, he called the video “painful to see.”

“Who in God’s name thinks, ‘I am going to show that I am right by smashing into the Capitol’?” Mr. Lankford asked.

As they revisited the horrors of the day, senators said they would not be swayed by emotion and would allow facts and logic to dictate their decisions — even as they acknowledged the visceral impact of the images.

Susan Collins of Maine, one of six Republicans who joined 50 Democrats to move forward with the trial, said the presentation “reinforces my belief that it was a terrible day for our country and that there’s no doubt that it was an attempt to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes.”

She added that she was “proud of the fact that we came back that night and finished our constitutional duty — we did not let the rioters accomplish their goal of disrupting the vote.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat, said the videos shown in the Senate were “more explicit than anything I’ve ever seen on television.”

But Mr. Durbin said no video would ever be as emotionally taxing for him as attending the service last week of Brian D. Sicknick, the Capitol Police officer who died from injuries sustained during the riot.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

The Sham Wow show continues

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

Tuberville comments help fuel House case against Trump
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/trump-impeachment-trial-day-3-468588

Sen. Tommy Tuberville revealed late Wednesday that he spoke to then-President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, just as a violent mob closed in on the Senate, and informed Trump that then-Vice President Mike Pence had just been evacuated from the chamber.

“I said ‘Mr. President, they just took the vice president out, I’ve got to go,'” the Alabama Republican told POLITICO on Capitol Hill, saying he cut the phone call short amid the chaos.

Tuberville’s recollection is a new and potentially significant addition to the timeline of Trump’s reaction to the violent mob of his supporters as it stormed the Capitol. Aides to the House impeachment managers, entering the second day of opening arguments, indicated the new details may come up before they rest their case Thursday and turn the trial over to Trump's defense team.

House Democrats prosecuting Trump’s case in a Senate impeachment trial have emphasized that Trump took little action to address the rioters despite desperate entreaties from his allies. Tuberville’s recollection of the call is the first indication that Trump was specifically aware of the danger Pence faced as the mob encroached on the Senate chamber.

Just as significantly, the call occurred at virtually the same moment Trump fired off a tweet attacking Pence for lacking “courage” to unilaterally attempt to overturn the presidential election results — a tweet that came after Pence and his family were rushed from the Senate chamber.

Senior aides to the House impeachment managers said Thursday that they considered Tuberville’s comments to be new information that confirms their case that Trump abandoned Pence and Congress to the mob rather than attempting to quell the violence.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

I find this impeachment extraordinary, this party of Democratic leadership is opening up Pandoras box. 

Impeachment trial not at all. A political persecution presented by leaps in causality Is extraordinary. It is now apparent why the chief justice would not sit in this impeachment,it is devoid of any structure of law.

Be that as it may Trumps team has now had the door opened to make a case of insurrection since the day of his inauguration. 

Yet based upon the lead attorneys opening statements I sense a lynching is being portrayed here. It is what it is, if Trumps team actually engages the Dems with similar tatical words and imagary... one can expect national turmoil on unprecedented levels.

 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

On 2/9/2021 at 5:08 PM, turbguy said:

The Senate just DID decide.  And nothing, absolutely NOTHING you can say makes that otherwise. 

Go ahead, argue all you wish. 

The FACT remains, the Senate voted, and thus decided.

If some party wishes to bring a case against the Senate before SCOTUS to also decide (or not), so be it. 

Just so you know, The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).  So we are dealing with past-practice, established by the SCOTUS itself.  Similar to the "peaceful transfer of power", which also is not mentioned in our Constitution.

At some point in the future, some party could bring a case against SCOTUS itself arguing the Constitution does not grant them this power.  THAT would be interesting...

 

 

 

 

I must ask, are you inferring the SURPEME Court does not decide the constitutionality of law or or was not empowered by the Constitution to decide the constitutionality of congressional law or judgements rendered by lower courts?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Comedy gold. "Fact Checkers" are calling these quotes false when there are videos proving it. Total clown world. 

[turbguy + 1,554]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I must ask, are you inferring the SURPEME Court does not decide the constitutionality of law or or was not empowered by the Constitution to decide the constitutionality of congressional law or judgements rendered by lower courts?

I am saying that SCOTUS decided to award that power to themselves, and it has been accepted as convention. 

That specific power is not explicit in the text of our Constitution.