Think about the stakes: What does Trump risk if he loses? Disqualification from running for office again? The real stakes are history — who writes it and whether Trump, in this next chapter, is a has-been holed up in Florida or the biggest, ballsiest man in American history, fighting 100 pompous politicos on the floor of the Senate. What a wildly entertaining movie! You say he's a narcissist? A reality-show star who somehow burst into the highest level of politics, where he boldly, recklessly proceeds on instinct and optimism?
I'm sketching out these thoughts after seeing this glaring headline at Drudge this morning:
That links to a milder headline I'd seen yesterday: "First on CNN: Trump's impeachment defense team leaves less than two weeks before trial" (CNN).
Why do you think he's using these lawyers, then sending them on their way? Do you think they are abandoning him because he wants them to do things that they can't ethically do?
Former President Donald Trump's five impeachment defense attorneys have left a little more than a week before his trial is set to begin, according to people familiar with the case, amid a disagreement over his legal strategy. It was a dramatic development in the second impeachment trial for Trump, who has struggled to find lawyers willing to take his case....
He's down. His enemies see him as already defeated. Pathetic. Even his lawyers won't touch him. The 100 Senators are setting up to destroy his reputation, to write him down in history as The Worst President....
पोस्ट्स
१६० टिप्पण्या:
What attorney could afford to represent Trump. They would never work in this town again.
I forget. Didn't Paul Scofield represent himself? I'll have to look it up.
Go Trump, go!
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/you_will_be_made_to_believe_implausible_things.html
Well, this is really misleading. The headline makes it sound like Trump has no lawyers, when it is a few who left, who disagree with his main strategy (that the election results are false, the election was stolen) have backed out.
The lawyers who left decided that this strategy is not a winner, and don't want to be on the losing side. Lawyers do this all the time. Lawyers are in it for the money and for their reputation. In this cancel culture, they probably are afraid for their own reptilian skins.
Trump still has lawyers.
Really? We are supposed to believe a CNN headline? CNN.
"...or the biggest, ballsiest man in American history, fighting 100 pompous politicos on the floor of the Senate."
Considering the reputation and approval most Americans have of congress, this nails it on the head. Then, now, 100 years in the future, people will see this for what it was.
Mr. Trump went to Washington. He was not welcome. Duh. That's why we sent him.
You cannot impeach a private citizen like this., It's a show trial for the hate filled left.
Trump should ignore it.
I got word on the street thru some people I know in high places that law firms were threatened if they help Trump.
It's the leftwing soviet atmosphere.
Drudge is an unreadable tabloid for the left now. Did he get paid off?
Banana republic status: confirmed.
A real republic where viters have any power at all wouldn’t be purposely pissing off 75M voters with a sideshow of very iffy legality for fear of getting absolutely destroyed in 2022.
If there ever is another Republican president, he will be impeached within six months of his election.
There are now many examples of what happens to those who help Trump.
The Left continues to set up the lowest expectations imaginable for Trump. You'd think by now they'd recognize their compulsion and adjust.
“voters” (this iPad show fonts very tiny on your site for the comment box)
Roll in a giant screen and run a reel loop of all the democrats calling for rioting in the streets - and that rioting materializing in major blue cities all over the US - for months on end. Police told to stand down.
An editor was deplatformed for publishing cottons modest proposal.
NPR fakenews is salivating over the "insurrection" and Trump's lack of lawyers.
I’m not certain that Trump can be disqualified from running again. Article I refers to “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States“. That may refer to a number of jobs, but I doubt that it applies to elective office given the way that phrase was used at the time it was drafted. Of course, the lefties want to assure us that the science is settled on the point.
- Krumhorn
Trump's time will not be televised.
I suspect some combination of Democrat threats against the lawyers and Trump being an uncooperative client.
I forget. Didn't Paul Scofield represent himself? I'll have to look it up.
Yes he did. It didn't turn out well for him in the end. (at least as far as we know)
So Biden is Robert Shaw, and the MSM is Orson Welles? The American people are Corin Redgrave?
(I love the movie, and admire the real life Thomas More.)
https://technofog.substack.com/p/judge-boasberg-the-clinesmith-lies
It would be nice if he zingered the Senators, a comic riff on their individual uselessness and low character. He'd even get democrat support.
Trump's time will not be televised.
They might just pull out his tongue.
The real question is will the execution be live streamed?
The first rule of election fraud is, you don't talk about election fraud.
The decree has been issued. Don't say the F-word.
Move from Senators' low character to the low character of the news media and the uselessness of the courts.
Hit all the voter support bases.
What would happen if Trump just ignored this sham, and did not show up? Would the Senators feel affronted and convict? Or do the 45 stay firm and acquit based on the unconstitutionality of it all? Could there even be a vote, if no trial actually took place? Supposedly the vote is what Schumer wants, so he can use against all Rs up for re-election next year...
That may refer to a number of jobs, but I doubt that it applies to elective office given the way that phrase was used at the time it was drafted.
So? Did you think the men who drafted the 14th Amendment intended to legalize abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration? The Constitution means what it can be manipulated to mean, not what the writers intended.
The fact that 45 Senators have already voted that the impeachment is unconstitutional is a pretty solid starting point for President Trump's defense.
Gahrie said...
"If there ever is another Republican president, he will be impeached within six months of his election."
Why wait so long. If they act fast, they can get the trial over with before the Inauguration.
Make the argument that the Senators are just protecting their corrupt lobbyiest donors in trying to take Trump and anyone as talented out of the candidate pool. Make it risky go convict.
Some choice words for Romney would be nice, in a personal level. Moral failure dressed as moral rectitude.
Donald Trump is a private citizen. The Senate has no authority to try private citizens. Any attempt to do so s a violation of the Constitution, and any Senator who demands they go forward with this unconstitutional trial should be removed from office for violating their oath. If they can try Trump, who else will they attempt to prosecute?
I am afraid though that Trump will pick the wrong line. Voters accept that there was election fraud and want to know what they can do about it. Anything that looks like whining about it will lose because a whiner can't help.
Way forward is destroy the reputations of the jerkoffs in congress.
They traffic in lies, see the klinesmith snowjob right out of enemy of the state
They left because they didn’t want to argue the election was stolen and continue Trump delusion. Yes let Trump represent himself and once again hang himself with his own words.
Just like the uk or south african variants are just pretexts to lock down.
Gahrie, your point is nerfed by Marjory Taylor Green attempting to do the same to Biden day 1.
Now anyone who does that is just repeating what the Republicans did.
Sorry that the Republican Rep from Q Anon just shat thd bed, but she did.
Any GOP Senator who votes to convict Trump will never win another election.
If a robber breaks into your house and you shoot him, and he’s writhing on the floor, can you ask him if he’s a republican or a democrat? Because if he’s the former, you can continue shooting him, because he may try to rob you again in the future if you let him live.
The Constitution states that the Chief Justice must preside.
Where is the Chief Justice? Without him, there can be no legitimate trial.
It's illegitimate anyway because Trump is a private citizen.
Why should Trump play their game?
Blogger BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...
You cannot impeach a private citizen like this., It's a show trial for the hate filled left.
Trump should ignore it.
...............
There could be no worse response to a kangaroo court show-trying a bill of attainder than to legitimize it by appearing want to defend oneself against it with counsel.
The farce's conclusion - "conviction" or "acquittal" - has already been decided in the Senate. Trump's best move is to favor someone with an interview during the opening of the Senate's proceedings, rubbing their faces in their impotent irrelevancy.
Private citizens may need to defend themselves after the fact from downstream predations stemming from unconstitutional government kangaroo courts, but they have no more obligation than Chief Justice Rogers to participate in them.
But here's the real question: if the Senate votes to prohibit Trump from holding public office in the future, who will enforce such a vote - under what imprimatur?
When Sasse voted with the Dems on Rand Paul’s motion, lots of NE Dems on Twitter excoriated Sasse for not voting to convict Trump the first time.
This impeachment trial is unmoored from the Constitution, law and facts. The Dems are lawless. Pure hate.
"Chief Justice Rogers"
Who is that?
I am all in on Trump representing himself. The defense (i.e. Trump) would never rest. Trump can and should point every sin every democrat committed against him during his 4 years in office - Spymaster Barack, Crooked Hillary, Hunter etc. He could talk for hours on end. Mumbles Leahy would be befuddled. You want a show trial? Trump will give you one.
This all just more civil war fodder. I know which side I'm on.
Gahrie, your point is nerfed by Marjory Taylor Green attempting to do the same to Biden day 1.
I get your point. One powerless Republican Congresswoman is a threat equal to the entire Democratic Party and MSM.
How quickly they forget:
Actually, Democrats, along with others, have been talking about impeaching Donald Trump since before he even took office. Since before he was even inaugurated.
There was this racy headline, from Vanity Fair on Nov. 14, 2016: “Will Trump Be Impeached?”
Then this, yet another Vanity Fair piece, on Dec. 15, 2016: “Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.”
There was this, from The New York Times, in an opinion headline from Nov. 3, 2016: “Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat.”
Remember: Trump wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20, 2017. He wasn’t even elected president until Nov. 8, 2016.
Remember, too: The Republican Party primaries didn’t wrap until June 2016. And Trump wasn’t formally nominated at the Republican National Convention as the Republican Party’s candidate for president until July 19, 2016.
Yet Politico, on April 17, 2016, posed this in a headline: “Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?” The piece went on to state that “It’s highly improbable, but everyone from law scholars to political junkies are speculating about it.”
April 17, 2016.
Before Trump was even the GOP’s chosen one.
And definitely before Trump was even the elected one.
“Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet,” as Politico wrote at the time. “But his incendiary rhetoric … has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.”
The Trump trial is just a head fake so the people won’t see the cementing of all those beautiful voting provisions that will be nationwide when the Democrats pass the covid relief bill. Which will put an end to the sham two party system.
Exhibit 23
https://dossier.substack.com/p/silencing-dissent-how-social-media?r=6a3x3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter
Who Is John Sullivan, Who Was the Woman With Him and Their Appearance on CNN After the Capitol
Richard Shelby, who was first elected to the senate in 1987, will be primaried in 2022 and will no longer be a senator because he initially stated that "“we need to wait and hear the evidence” before voting whether to convict President Trump.
https://www.al.com/news/2021/01/senator-richard-shelby-on-impeachment-wait-and-hear-evidence.html
He later backed off that, probably after seeing a poll that showed that if Donald Trump started a new political party it would be bigger than the GOP. But its too late. Whoever Trump endorses in the primary will win the Republican nomination. If Richard Shelby wants to remain a senator he will have to kiss Trump's ass.
All this talk of "getting Trump" is just wish casting. Nobody who supports Trump is going to stop supporting Trump. And if the Democrat party continues as it is, they are going to drive a surprising number of Democrats to support him. There is a reason the founder of the Walk Away movement was arrested. Trump is not a has been. He is still the leader of the GOP, as much as the GOPe may hate that. Trump actually is the leader of the resistance.
Trump talked about both election fraud and peaceful and patriotic protests on Jan 6th. The impeachment trial is an opportunity for both him and the Republican Senators (those with balls) to talk about those, detailing the various fraud allegations and theories and repeating over and over his call for peaceful and patriotic protest.
Gonna fly now...
Did Trump’s legal team really quit over a difference of opinion on legal strategy, or were they doxxed and threatened with violence against their families, as happened to his election fraud team?
Delusional if any of you think the media will treat this farce with fairness.
it will be talking points for corruptocrats all day and night.
busdriver 8:29 for the thread win.
Supposedly the vote is what Schumer wants, so he can use against all Rs up for re-election next year...
Then he is an idiot. Once again, nobody who supports Trump is going to change their mind and there just aren't that many fence sitters.
Blogger BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...
You cannot impeach a private citizen like this., It's a show trial for the hate filled left.
Trump should ignore it.
I agree with this. This is a kangaroo court and should have no standing.
Q for lawyerly personages in all shapes and forms
Howard Roark and Hank Rearden defend (not represent) themselves in Ayn Rand tales about them.
How did you personally view those plot scenarios?
Did Trump’s legal team really quit over a difference of opinion on legal strategy, or were they doxxed and threatened with violence against their families, as happened to his election fraud team?
Big Mike - that's is what I wonder.
Like I said - and I know this is hearsay - but I happen to know someone locally who said a certain law firm here -the people who work at the firm were threatened if they agreed to aid Trump.
I cannot verify this and I do not know the participants, the law firm or the particulars. . But - the person who said it is a big deal, and I doubt he would lie.
Q: can any of the Senators present allow themselves to rise up and praise-defend /Caesar/ instead of knifing him?
Trump should let it be 'in absentia' or will that be 'ex parte' or he could send a piñata in his shape. filled with MAGA stuff
Trump doesn’t have the focus to represent himself well. This will be a campaign rally ramble with the cable networks providing objections at every assertion. Anyone watching CSPAN will see an ultimately boring monologue that is largely fact free.
The GOP Senators are going to have to fall back on “we already said this whole thing is unconstitutional.” He isn’t going to give them any lucid reasons to acquit.
In the very near future you wii need to make a distinction between Trump and the Republican Party which will begin to focus on conservative, populist values leaving behind the Orange peel of egotism that suffocated the constitution.
Trump should ignore it.
This. He should not dignify this kangaroo court by participating in any way. The Senate has no authority to try or punish a private citizen.
shorter Democratic: 'We must restore the Constitution by abusing it with an unconstitutional trial.'
What does Trump risk if he loses? Disqualification from running for office again?
Even that penalty is subject to change later, due to the technicalities involved.
The real stakes are history — who writes it and whether Trump, in this next chapter, is a has-been holed up in Florida or the biggest, ballsiest man in American history
This is not a criminal trial. It's a political trial.
You have to remember to, that history will know at some point whether there was election fraud. Something that large cannot remain secret forever. People will brag, they will demand their payment. We know about the 1960 election fraud.
r/v still doesn't get it, absent Trump the GOPe would have just kept up the failure theater and lining their pockets with donor and CCP cash. I don't support Trump because he is Trump, I support him because he support me.
None of this would have happened if Lance Ito had been made chief justice.
Blogger BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...
"Chief Justice Rogers"
Who is that?
Roberts, of course. A typo, obviously. My bad.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why does Trump need a lawyer?
The law is about rules, which are written and followed, so it makes sense to have someone who knows the rules--if you're in a legal setting. In this case, the Senate is apparently just making it up as they go, so what difference does it make to have someone who knows the law by your side?
In fact. If the best option is to represent yourself, maybe the second best is to simply not show up at all. Have your "trial", I'll be on the links.
Those who are called "deplorables" will hate the "Democrats" with the fury of a million suns.
Lawyers making legal arguments only provide legitimacy to a lynch mob. There is no impartial judge presiding to hear and rule on legal arguments. Why pretend there is?
This is a political lynching, pure and simple. Trump should tell the American people exactly what kind of scumbags the Schumers and Pelosi's and Romneys really are, in unvarnished terms. Somehow, I think as the prospect of that defense sinks in for Schumer and Leahy, we will never see an impeachment "trial" on the floor of the Senate.
But, seriously, what agency of the U.S. from SCOTUS on down would enforce any consequences the current Senate might levy - and how?
No longer a nation of laws. Did I spell fascism correctly?
So tell me, Althouse, is this what democracy looks like to you?
@Clayton Hennesey, you must be new here. Learn to blame autocorrect.
A few thoughts on the whole rigmarole...
(1) I think the question of the Senate's ability to try a president after he has left office is a murky one.
(2) It's kind of a moot point given that a convection in the Senate is extraordinarily unlikely.
(3) The worst part about all of this is it keeps Trump in the conversation, in the headlines, and on peoples' minds. That's the last thing we need. Trump needs to go away for a while, and Republicans need to start the hard work of building a post-Trump Republican Party.
This is not a criminal trial. It's a political trial.
Yes. It is not really a trial anyway. It is a Democrat lynch mob.
I still believe that this is meant as a distraction from the unfolding disaster know as the Biden-DNC Administration.
It is also a convenient way to bring RINOS to the fore so that the 2022 elections are not as disastrous for the Dems as many expect.
It's not enough that Trump be disqualified from running again.
They must make an example of Trump.
They want anyone who would aspire to picking up the torch to say to himself, "It's hopeless. Look what happened to Trump...and he was a billionaire!...with 75 million supporters! What chance would I have? Do I need that? Do I want to put my family through that?"
It's what the Dems and the GOPe have been doing since Trump was inaugurated. This just the continuation of it.
“ Disqualification from running for office again?”
Krumhorn mentioned this: the prohibition isn’t against running, it is against holding office.
Assume a couple hypotheticals: 2023, Pres Harris is runs on a revolting personality and a record of epic progressive policy failure. The GOP puts up a Bush/Romney chimera. And Trump runs again.
There is no way the Federal government can keep Trump off state ballots where he qualifies, and even if states refuse to put him on the ballot, there’s no way to prevent voters writing him in.
Trump wins.
Now what? The democratic senators going to refuse certifying states’ electoral votes?
This is the fundamental stupidity of this trial. It is either completely unnecessary, or the perfect example of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.
@Ron Winkleheimer:
r/v still doesn't get it, absent Trump the GOPe would have just kept up the failure theater and lining their pockets with donor and CCP cash. I don't support Trump because he is Trump, I support him because he support me.
I agree that Trump's 2016 win was historically important. But if it does not result in a realignment of the Republican Party, then it will be for nothing. You cannot build a political movement on the shoulders of a single personality.
@J. Farmer
I think Trump is the catalyst for the realignment, and he is still needed for it to continue. Fifteen GOP senators were fine with a unconstitutional, kangaroo court, show trail in the senate until they realized that Trump was still politically powerful.
J Farmer has it right. And how can we miss Trump if he won’t go away?
a realignment won't matter if vote fraud is established and set in concrete.
>>Humperdink said...
I am all in on Trump representing himself. The defense (i.e. Trump) would never rest. Trump can and should point every sin every democrat committed against him during his 4 years in office - Spymaster Barack, Crooked Hillary, Hunter etc. He could talk for hours on end. Mumbles Leahy would be befuddled.<<
I don't think so. Leahy is the "judge" and Trump is a private citizen. Leahy would have control of everything that went on in the kangaroo court. He would have Trump forcibly removed from the Senate chamber at the first sign of misbehavior by Trump. Misbehavior would include any mention of any facts favorable to himself, of course.
Also, Trump may not be to your liking, but he is an ally, one who fought hard and risked it all doing something that he did not have to do. If he "goes away" then we end up going back to the status quo, at best.
Hmm...
Trump manages to get out the message about voter fraud through the media and tech censorship.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence this happened.
Reminds me of hank reardon's trial and defense
COURT: "But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
HR:"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it."
COURT:"Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
HR:"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
That's the key but doesn't really do justice to hank reardon's trial. More complete extract here
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926478/posts
John Henry
Also, Trump may not be to your liking, but he is an ally, one who fought hard and risked it all doing something that he did not have to do. If he "goes away" then we end up going back to the status quo, at best.
It won't go back. Whomever comes next will be worse than Trump, because he'll have learned from Trump's mistakes.
Lindsey Graham recommend this batch of lawyers. They were recommending that Trump lay low, only bring up procedural issues and he (Trump) will do fine. This is Lindsey's last back stab of Trump. Whatever comes of this "trial" will be the history remembered years to come. I don't think they will allow Trump to finally present his evidence of election fraud. I think he will have a new set of lawyers who will try to vigorously defend Trump. Remember, they are now using the idea that Trump, by falsely claiming fraud, stirred up the " on Jan. 6th. crowd". This narrative will be forever cemented in history if Trump doesn't defend himself. Yes, there are risks in doing this.
indsey Graham recommend this batch of lawyers. They were recommending that Trump lay low, only bring up procedural issues and he (Trump) will do fine. This is Lindsey's last back stab of Trump.
I don't see it as a backstab, but illustrative of the fundamental difference between the Grahams/McConnells of the party, and Trump: the former are more concerned with not losing, while Trump is concerned with not winning.
If I was his legal team, my advice would be to draw this out and avoid the trail. I imagine Trump wanting to go on offense and take on the Senate. As this isn't an unbias jury, Trump's nominal approach is dumb because the stakes are high (losing a very visible case, even if the punishment is questionable whether it is handed down) and the possibility of losing is good.
I doubt Trump is taking the legal team's advice, and if he's isn't, why provide it? As DBQ notes earlier, if Trump disagrees with their strategy, then they move on. I have no doubt others would enjoy representing Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if a few state AG's would like to represent Trump, since SCOTUS didn't give them a day in court.
Even better is this YouTube clip of the trial from the movie. About 4 minutes and worth every second.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KR3MgIPxb38
Just realized hank Reardon is also hank Voight from Chicago PD series. He does a great job in both roles
John Henry
Trump wanted to speak at the Supreme Court hearing on the elections lawsuit, but the court refused to hear the case. So this is his chance to make the speech he wanted to make then.
Maybe Trump wants to talk about the forbidden subject and make the Dems gavel him down and shut him up over and over again on live TV.
>>Clayton Hennesey said...
But, seriously, what agency of the U.S. from SCOTUS on down would enforce any consequences the current Senate might levy - and how?<<
Every agency of the US - now owned by the Democrats. Which is all of them but for the SCOTUS, which they will also own by this time next year.
How? Any way they see fit. If that answer is unclear, I suggest you take a look at that sea of green surrounding the Federal buildings in DC right now.
J. said, " But if it does not result in a realignment of the Republican Party, then it will be for nothing. You cannot build a political movement on the shoulders of a single personality."
We're not. There are 75+ million of us. We are now the republican party. We're going to show up at all their primaries, we're going to decide who we want to be our candidates.
You have absolutely no idea how pissed off we are. And unlit the dimwit dems we don't get violent we get even.
"Tom Cotton's modest proposal" Narciso. Interesting choice of words which swiftly brought this to mind:
A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick,
" The essay suggests that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food to rich gentlemen and ladies."
Wikipedia
I can see us on a road leading in that direction eventually. Ann posted about Maoists yesterday, who did cause cannabalism under their great reset/leap forward.
On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Am I reading too much into your brief and cryptic comment?
John Henry
Whomever comes next will be worse than Trump
True. And Trump has them putting up unclimbable fences topped with razor wire.
@Ron Winkleheimer:
I think Trump is the catalyst for the realignment, and he is still needed for it to continue. Fifteen GOP senators were fine with a unconstitutional, kangaroo court, show trail in the senate until they realized that Trump was still politically powerful.
The problem with that is Trump does not understand Trumpism. He fell ass backwards into it, which is why he could so easily abandon it in favor of Ryanism. What is Trump's position on Medicare? On Social Security? Tax cuts and Pentagon boondoggles isn't exactly cutting-edge domestic policy for the GOP.
The establishment of both parties have more at stake in this trial than does Trump.
I didn't put in quotes, precisely not to reference swift, now we have 25,000 troops and a barrier out of the hunger games to preclude the next catiline conspiracy,
John henry said...Even better is this YouTube clip of the trial from the movie. About 4 minutes and worth every second.
I enjoyed seeing that clip again. It is probably just a fantasy that Trump could pull off a Hank Reardon moment at his "trial".
Maybe his lawyers quit because they understand that Trump will try to play Hank Reardon, "I do not recognize the legitimacy of these proceedings. This is a kangaroo court staffed by corrupt authoritarians who stole the election with the mass manufacturing of mail-in votes. If you say I encourage sedition by stating this, then execute me now as an enemy of the State you are trying to create."
The audience breaks into wild applause
@Rusty:
You have absolutely no idea how pissed off we are. And unlit the dimwit dems we don't get violent we get even.
I don't find that very reassuring. One of the reasons for the anxiety is that in the course of my lifetime, the deplorables have become a minority. While the white working-class was about 70% of the US population in 1980, it is about 40% today. Not only has it declined in share of population but in absolute numbers as well, along with their social, cultural, and economic power.
"If there ever is another Republican president, he will be impeached within six months of his election."
"Why wait so long. If they act fast, they can get the trial over with before the Inauguration."
Maybe they should start now.
Did anyone see this Washington Post article? It describes several examples of the Capitol riot being planned days or even weeks in advance. If this is true, how could Donald Trump have incited it with his speech on January 6?
"When die-hard supporters of President Donald Trump showed up at rally point 'Cowboy' in Louisville on the morning of Jan. 5, they found the shopping mall’s parking lot was closed to cars, so they assembled their 50 or so vehicles outside a nearby Kohl’s department store. Hundreds of miles away in Columbia, S.C., at a mall designated rally point 'Rebel,' other Trump supporters gathered to form another caravan to Washington. A similar meetup — dubbed 'Minuteman' — was planned for Springfield, Mass."
"That same day, FBI personnel in Norfolk were increasingly alarmed by the online conversations they were seeing, including warlike talk around the convoys headed to the nation’s capital. One map posted online described the rally points, declaring them a 'MAGA Cavalry To Connect Patriot Caravans to StopTheSteal in D.C.' Another map showed the U.S. Congress, indicating tunnels connecting different parts of the complex. The map was headlined, 'CREATE PERIMETER,' according to the FBI report, which was reviewed by The Washington Post."
“'Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in,' read one posting, according to the report."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-capitol-riot-coordination-planning/2021/01/30/c5ef346e-6258-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html
Same day he calls MTG to give support.
Very stable genius.
The entire Trump election and Presidency is seen as an insurrection by the Uniparty.
"...it is about 40% today."
It's a motivated 40% that will vote in disproportionate numbers. The is the same phenomena that gave Gays power in the 90's. They donated in large numbers to the Democrats, as well as they voted disproportionately. In their case it was the money that got the Democrats attention. There also is a growing number of working class minorities that are attracted to "Trumpism". The Republicans allowed the Democrats to place the stink of racism on the Party. Trump, because of his popularity before his journey in politics, transcended that label. I think that is his greatest potential for changing politics.
"Pathetic."
It's nice Althouse feels bad about it. It's also irrelevant. Progs gonna prog.
Anyone ever figure out who purchased Drudgereport?
It went super-left during the Trump years...
It's probably a dumb idea. Trump lacks the discipline to not say something that will lead to a bona fide criminal perjury charge. Unless you think his opponents won't try to twist every word he says and trap him? It will be like Al Capone getting nailed for tax evasion. Trump is dumb. Trumps supporters are dumb. Trumps opponents are dumb. The media is dumb. This blog is dumb. I am dumb. This whole show has become way too dumb. I need to find something else to watch.
Trump needs to go away for a while, and Republicans need to start the hard work of building a post-Trump Republican Party.
@Farmer, your mistake is in assuming that there is any such thing as a post-Trump GOP. Your blunder Is in assuming that Trumpism is about Trump’s outsized personality. Trumpism is about America Firstl. It’s about supporting small businesses instead of promulgating regulations that benefit huge corporations at the expense of small companies (look up “regulatory capture”). It’s about respecting American working men and women. It’s about getting out of optional wars when there is no plausible strategy for victory (i note that the US is back in Syria). And more.
Given Trump's track record (He did not even acknowledge and refute the Charlottesville lie in the debates) I do not trust that he would list the Democrat smears against him for 4 years. He would probably drone on about lowest black unemployment or something.
The approach I would like to see Trump take is to agree to provide a network with exclusive, live commentary and analysis of the trial as it occurs. Can you imagine the audience share that would get? Wouldn't it be grand to hear Trump ridicule the puffed-up senate participants in real time as they speak? Better yet, he should do it on pay-per-view so the networks audience share would be miniscule and he'd be making money off the senate clowns in real time. I'd drop a few c notes to watch that show.
Omaha1 said...
Did anyone see this Washington Post article? It describes several examples of the Capitol riot being planned days or even weeks in advance. If this is true, how could Donald Trump have incited it with his speech on January 6?
Yeah, and the FBI has come out and said that they pipe bombs found near the Capitol were planted the night before the rally. Doesn't matter. They're going to get together and declare Trump guilty no matter what because they are terrified of what happened on Jan 6.
“What attorney could afford to represent Trump. They would never work in this town again.”
Oh, please. I bet they’re lining up around the block to be part of Trump’s team. What do you want in an attorney? A single-minded shark or an easily intimidated squish? This is exactly the kind of opportunity that could give you a nation-wide reputation as the former. And if the media wants to lash you with notoriety as well, so much the better.
Francisco,
Yes, probably just a fantasy but I can dream, can't I?
I am torn between a Reardon defense and a full on "airing of the grievances" which I suspect cspan would carry in full.
President Trump has the speaking ability and presence to do either that few people do.
The worst thing for him to do would be to not show up. That would be portrayed as cowardice, admission of guilt, laziness or a dozen other negative things.
If he is going to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy, he needs to do it in person, himself, to their face.
John Henry
Johnnie Cochran is dead.
He’s the only lawyer worthy to represent Trump in a second impeachment trial.
Better to not show up and let the show go nowhere.
Trump should fly over the trial in his jet and flush the toilet.
The debate and the beat goes on.
Without Trump, all politics is a lighter shade of pale.
The people's champion versus the corrupt military industrial political complex.
The new David takes on the vile,bellowing Goliath using a slingshot loaded with the Rock of Ages.
Remember when the raided Trump’s earlier lawyer’s office at dawn and took all of his files and then went after him on process charges, and remember when that same lawyer was represented by Clinton hack Lanny Davis, who said publicly that he was guilty? Good times... good times.
“Look what you made us do!” said the Demcorats, “Destroy all of the norms of our democracy!”
Democrats do not like to lose elections, so all of you Republicans take heed, if you dare to beat Harris, you are next, whosoever you might be!
No, Trump won't be show up in Congress. The one thing he should have learned by now is that he's not that good with the little political ins-and-outs, the nuances and technicalities. He's more of a "big picture" guy. I hope he's learned by now that he can't beat the Washington crowd at their own little games (because they are the ones who make and change the rules of the game), but people in politics don't always learn from experiene, and with Trump one does expect the unexpected.
What do you want in an attorney? A single-minded shark or an easily intimidated squish? This is exactly the kind of opportunity that could give you a nation-wide reputation as the former.
Or not. A skilled team of professionals can do a better job than some wackjob who just wants publicity. Look at what happened with Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. This isn't some LA jury that responds to showmanship. Assholery and bizarre random tweets aren't going to do much for Trump's case and cause.
"That may refer to a number of jobs, but I doubt that it applies to elective office given the way that phrase was used at the time it was drafted. Of course, the lefties want to assure us that the science is settled on the point. “
When there was the possibility that Hillary would be convicted of the stuff she was clearly guilty of, I mean Huma testified under oath that Hillary destroyed Federal records of her meetings as Secretary of State with foreigners who collectively gave her hundreds of millions of dollars, when it looked like she might be convicted, the stories were that the following text did not apply to the presidency.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
But that was a Democrat and this is a Republican, so reasons.
Big Mike is right. Many Dems and whatever J. Farmer may or may not identify as assume that people who who voted for Trump did so because we “worship” him. Except the majority of us do not and it’s another example of Democrat projection or accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing. I suspect Democrats really do worship their politicians, and politics is their religion which supersedes all else including family. How many of those Hilary voters lost their minds when she lost? How many Democrats have cut off family members who vote differently from them? I have a sister and 2 nieces who have totally cut off all contact with me because I voted for Trump.
I was a reluctant Trump voter in 2016. I am an enthusiastic Trump supporter in 2020 and beyond. Why? It’s because of his America first policies! And I’m definitely not part of that 40% white working class! Both my husband and I will be supporting with money & time the candidates who will push America first policies regardless of party affiliation. Although I suspect there won’t be any Democrats amongst those.
David Begley said...
This impeachment trial is unmoored from the Constitution, law and facts
This is all that needs to be said. Too many are debating the law and Constitution, while also ignoring the facts, giving this trial a sense of legitimacy.
Always playing by democrat rules; always on defense.
Worship Biden? Held my nose more like it.
Gahrie, your point is nerfed by Marjory Taylor Green attempting to do the same to Biden day 1.
Now anyone who does that is just repeating what the Republicans did.
Sorry that the Republican Rep from Q Anon just shat thd bed, but she did.
Reclaiming my time! Thousands of examples of wild eyed Democrats doing much, much worse than that overly-enthusiastic woman.
Bullshit Artist, heal thyself.
Or not. A skilled team of professionals can do a better job than some wackjob who just wants publicity. Look at what happened with Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. This isn't some LA jury that responds to showmanship. Assholery and bizarre random tweets aren't going to do much for Trump's case and cause.
You said that like it makes any difference whatsoever in this shit show.
@Big Mike:
@Farmer, your mistake is in assuming that there is any such thing as a post-Trump GOP. Your blunder Is in assuming that Trumpism is about Trump’s outsized personality. Trumpism is about America Firstl.
What you describe as my "blunder" is the opposite of what I've been doing for the last four years. I've repeatedly said that supporting Trumpism is more important than supporting Trump, and I've advocated that for 20 years. Namely, Trump distinguished himself in the primary on three issues: trade, immigration, and war. Deregulation isn't a new idea for the Republican Party.
I could represent Trump, and I've never seen the inside of a law book.
"The plain language of the Constitution precludes impeaching a president who is out of office. I rest my case"
@MartieD:
Big Mike is right. Many Dems and whatever J. Farmer may or may not identify as assume that people who who voted for Trump did so because we “worship” him.
I identify as a conservative, or if I'm being especially ontological, a conservative communitarian. I am not a member of a political party. I do not make the assumption about people who voted for Trump. I voted for him, and I certainly don't "worship" him or any politician. It was Trump who summed up his support as, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
That said, I do think that a kind of tribal partisanship that promulgates a very inaccurate view of Trump.
“Or not. A skilled team of professionals can do a better job than some wackjob who just wants publicity.”
Good heavens, no! Did you think this was about legalities? It’s theater and great theater needs some scene-stealers.
"The plain language of the Constitution precludes impeaching a president who is out of office. I rest my case"
How about:
There was no incitement. I rest my case.
If all that matters is power, why do we need lawyers?
Every Republican Senator who votes against Trump is signing their own political death warrant. With the exception of a few RINO's like Collins. I'm probably giving voters in Utah and Nebraska and elsewhere too much credit.
But anyone Republican Senator who votes for this farcical, partisan, impeachment is going against the Constitution and every norm and tradition for the last 120 years. Their only possible motivation is Personal hatred of Trump or a desire to be rewarded by Goldman Sachs or some rich K street lobbying firm after they leave office.
We're all taking this clown show seriously. But we're talking about an impeachment that was based on 2 hours of debate and was written up over a weekend. There is no "High crime or misdemeanor" as described by the founding fathers or historical norms. Its even more bogus then the "Ukrainian phone call". The vote in the house was 220 D's voting to impeach, and 200 R's voting no. These thing impeachments are supposed to be serious constitutional matter, not partisan weapons for the House Speaker to gin up anytime she wishes.
Someone mentioned Shelby from Alabama. He used to be Democrat and voted against Bork. He's pure pond scum. He also was instrumental in losing the republican's a senate seat in 2017. I wouldn't trust him with $20. He's probably steal it.
"There's obviously no case for convicting Trump". Say people upthread.
So what? The D's and Mitt Romney DO NOT CARE. This is a stalinist Show trial. And arguing about the evidence is a waste of time. Every single D is going to vote against Trump. Period. Mitt Romney will vote against Trump. Sasse will vote against Trump. The evidence DOES NOT MATTER.
All I see is how badly I'm going to be treated very shortly unless Trump wins.
"It was Trump who summed up his support as, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
why don't you go look up that quote on Youtube? Ever hear of humor? Or comic hyperbole? This quote, that you confidently use, is from Jan 2016. Yes, that's right. It was a year before Trump was even inaugurated. And it was used by Trump in a talk about he had 70% loyalty poll rating among his voters, and Cruz and Jeb had much lower numbers.
But you act that its some serious quote, and as an evidence of "Tribalism". What bullshit. No one talks about "Tribalism" except liberals and Never-trumpers. Biden got 95% of black women, now that's "Tribalism". he got 70% of Jews (the richest demographic in the USA) that's "Tribalism". The numbers for Gays and some other minorities are the same. These are tribes, voting D because the D's are good for their "tribe". People just like Trump - that's NOT "tribalism".
And stop with fake labels. You're not some special snowflake "conservative". You sound like Andrew Sullivan who supports the liberal position and Democratic Politicians 95% of the time, and then claims he's some sort of "Conservative"
Get yourself a new, more honest label.
You said that like it makes any difference whatsoever in this shit show.
In the sense that it's a political show trial it is a shit show, and in the sense that Trump will be acquitted if his team doesn't screw up, it may not make any difference who represents him. But don't underestimate the possibility that incompetent counsel or nutty allies or Trump himself could screw things up and make them worse.
Like Nancy says, "People are going to do what people are going to do." The purges, the witch hunts, cancel culture are all going to continue, but if there's any hope for Trump or Trumpism or the country going forward the wildlings and wackos have to be kept under control.
Powell and Wood may have cost Republicans the Senate. Marjorie What's her name What's her name isn't doing Republicans much good now. One has to believe that eventually the country will come back to its senses, and encouraging the nutters just puts off that day.
Always playing by democrat rules; always on defense.
Exactly. One of the reasons people voted for Trump is because he follows Sun Tzu's insight:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
To that end, he does not operate in the frame of reference imagined and manufactured by his enemies... competitors: semantic games, conceptual corruption, conflation of logical domains. He stands where others would kneel.
The left wants war. They should be careful what they wish for.
Trump would do a great job stating his case until they turn off his mic.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
I forget. Didn't Paul Scofield represent himself? I'll have to look it up.
The trial of Thomas More in 1535 (played by Paul Schofield in "A Man for All Seasons") for treason against King Henry VIII indicates that More defended himself. When Solicitor General Richard Rich testified that More had, in his presence, denied that the King was the legitimate head of the Church, it was Thomas More himself who answered in his own defense:
"Can it therefore seem likely to your Lordships, that I should in so weighty an Affair as this, act so unadvisedly, as to trust Mr. Rich, a Man I had always so mean an Opinion of, in reference to his Truth and Honesty, … that I should only impart to Mr. Rich the Secrets of my Conscience in respect to the King's Supremacy, the particular Secrets, and only Point about which I have been so long pressed to explain my self? which I never did, nor never would reveal; when the Act was once made, either to the King himself, or any of his Privy Councillors, as is well known to your Honours, who have been sent upon no other account at several times by his Majesty to me in the Tower. I refer it to your Judgments, my Lords, whether this can seem credible to any of your Lordships."
Thomas More being found guilty and beheaded - not a good sign for the now lawyerless guy who believes himself to be the smartest man to have ever lived.
When it's all over, if Trump loses, we all lose.
@rcocean:
why don't you go look up that quote on Youtube? Ever hear of humor? Or comic hyperbole?
Clearly, it's a joke. I was being wry. I don't think Trump actually believed he could commit murder without any loss of support. But thank you, Captain Obvious.
But you act that its some serious quote, and as an evidence of "Tribalism".
I don't use it as evidence. That's why the next sentence starts, "That said." The evidence of tribalism is the human condition. Humans are tribal. As for our current partisan tribalism, it has to do with several developments over the past half-century, including integration, civil rights, voting rights, changes to how the parties nominate candidates, the rise of a neoliberal consensus within both parties during the 1980s, the culture war clashes, and the end of the Cold War.
And stop with fake labels. You're not some special snowflake "conservative". You sound like Andrew Sullivan who supports the liberal position and Democratic Politicians 95% of the time, and then claims he's some sort of "Conservative"
Now there's a devastating critique. I "sound like" Andrew Sullivan because we both use describe ourselves as conservative. Hell, I sound like Roger Scruton, too. When exactly have I supported "the liberal position and Democratic Politicians 95% of the time"?
Get yourself a new, more honest label.
I describe myself as a conservative communitarian because I think it's the most concise and accurate summation of my worldview. That you don't agree means fuck all to me.
Blogger rcocean said...
"It was Trump who summed up his support as, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
why don't you go look up that quote on Youtube? Ever hear of humor? Or comic hyperbole?
Have you ever heard of the term "malignant narcissism" describing as a "severe mental sickness" representing "the quintessence of evil". The condition is "the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity". Malignant narcissism has also been called a "regressive escape from frustration by distortion and denial of reality" and "a disturbing form of narcissistic personality where grandiosity is built around aggression and the destructive aspects of the self becoming idealized."
Trump wasn't laughing or even smiling back then and he didn't laugh or smile during his January 6 rally when he riled up his blind followers to kill, wound and destroy property after lying about the vote and his intent to accompany those who will eventually serve time for invading the capitol. Someone else always pays for Trump's misdeeds - as did Michael Cohen and anyone else who failed or badmouthed his majesty.
It won’t be the first time Trump plunged the plane straight into the ground only to rise phoenix-like from the ashes.
Trump should not attend - until the final hour. Then he should enter chamber and demand to be heard. Give a prepared speech listing dem incitement statements, detailing the 4-year dem anti-Trump crusade, and instead of defending himself from the incitement charge (never defend!) ask Congress what they will do to stop the fraud from happening again.
gadfly said...
Trump wasn't laughing or even smiling back then and he didn't laugh or smile during his January 6
Was Obama laughing or smiling when he threatened to murder the Jonas Brothers with a Predator drone?
As far as I know donald trump has never actually shot anyone, has he?
Unlike Obama who did use a predator drone to murder (there's no other word for it) a native born American citizen about the same age as the jonas Brothers.
Having already murdered th boy's native born American citizen father via drone.
John Henry
The headline assumes facts not only not in evidence but not even true.
First on CNN: Trump's impeachment defense team leaves less than two weeks before trial
In the article is this.
The attorneys had not yet been paid any advance fees and a letter of intent was never signed.
So if a baseball player tries out for the Milwaukee Brewers and is not selected can we say that he leaves the team, let alone that the team has left?
The headline assumes facts not only not in evidence but not even true.
First on CNN: Trump's impeachment defense team leaves less than two weeks before trial
In the article is this.
The attorneys had not yet been paid any advance fees and a letter of intent was never signed.
So if a baseball player tries out for the Milwaukee Brewers and is not selected can we say that he leaves the team, let alone that the team has left?
In tonight's VivaFrei-Robt Barnes livestream (available on YouTube), Barnes said that the former legal team, retained at the advice of Lindsey Graham, (never a fan of Trump) wanted to limit the defense to arguing that Trump could not be convicted because he is already out of office, and to not present any other arguments or evidence. Trump decided he wanted a more aggressive defense, getting into election fraud that has nver been adjudicated or even fairly made public (establishing his state of mind), previous instances where electoral votes had been challenged when Congress convened to hear the tally (not infrequent), and so on. The attorneys refused, so they parted company.
أفضل شركة تنظيف منازل بالقطيف بأقل الأسعار 0550171619 | خصومات تصل إلى 50%
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالدمام
شركة تعقيم منازل بالخبر
شركة تعقيم مساجد بالخبر
John henry said...
gadfly said...
Trump wasn't laughing or even smiling back then
I think some people do not understand 'deadpan'. Sad! :)
Gahrie writes: I love the movie, and admire the real-life Thomas More.
Robert Bolt's More was wise, liberal, kindly, and discrete until that last dramatic moment in Westminster Hall, I would not consent to the marriage!
The real-life Thomas More was a bloody-minded bigot. Gahrie should read his correspondence regarding the burning of the Dutch reformer Ulrich Wender.
Malignant narcissism was and remains the fatal flaw of Barack Hussein Obama and especially Bill Clinton. Trump's tragic flaw was his underestimation of the viciousness of the oligarchs who are crushing what remains of our former constitutional republic.
Trump is Winston Smith before Room 101. The Democrats hope to apply the rats.
Much disagreement about Thomas More. The new Hilary Mantle negative version may not be any closer to the truth than Robert Bolt's positive version. Mantle's view of her hero, Thomas Cromwell, has also been called into question.
___
Everybody in politics and showbiz is more or less a narcissist. A degree of narcissism may be behind their successes. Truly malignant narcissists may have trouble in public roles, since they can't always control their impulses. At this point, I wish we could just drop the idea or at least the word.
You know what? Most Democrat voters don't like the Democratic Party. You know what else? Most Republican voters don't like the Republican Party.
If you peel off the top of the sacred US Capitol...parasites. It's just an infestation of parasites.
Keep this in mind. They are us. Not bad people, just people gone bad.
Trump was a Democrat. Ran as a Republican. A sacrificial lamb to the diseased State. He peeled the top off of the cesspit that is our Capitol City, to show it to us.
This wasn't about Trump. Man, that guy was a wrecking ball! The bull in the China shop.
It was always about us.
Father in heaven, please make more Donald Js. Bless the next one with a supermodel helpmeet. Do not let that SHE appear on any Progressive Satanic Fashion Magazines.
I'm just playin'. We're all just kids, playin' on a playground.
CRACK...we goin' fishin', or what. Get it together Brother, this summer.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा