|
Thom12255 posted:
How can anyone in academics take Turley seriously at this point? When your best, most educated and erudite opinion is mutable with the political winds basically all your work should be disqualified as reference material.
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
The republican party, where threats to their person are an effective means of political argument. The new republican motto is, "Why yes, we do appease terrorists, why do you ask?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1359238199802028035 What these two impeachments have taught me is that the law, or even truth are irrelevant. They are political trials and so must be made with political arguments and political consequences. Arguing legal precedent is irrelevant if it can be ignored because your constituents don't give a gently caress and you won't lose your seat over it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Man this sucks. The only interesting thing that will happen today is that we will find out if there are still 5 republican senators who are sane or if they've all given up. It would be a miracle if more than 5 voted that the trial is constitutional even with what is essentially overwhelming evidence, and no real defense, that it is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Let's just remember that both Cruz and Hawley are Ivy League, top of their class, lawyers. I'll bet a post covid steak dinner at Abe and Louie's that neither one of them votes that the trial is constitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:...Did they just like find this dude in a dumpster or something and be like "Hey you boy! You wanna be a lawyer for the former POTUS?!" Trump tried almost everyone else. So, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They're not making any arguments. They know their defense doesn't matter and Republicans will acquit regardless. They're just filling time. The editors at Fox, OANN and Newsmax will just scan through eveything they say for 20 seconds of something that sounds good and just air that and call it a success. Everything else is just there so that it looks like they used their time to give compelling arguments. If they spoke for 5 minutes some of the marks would notice that maybe that doesn't seem right.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why doesn't he just wear a kippah as he evidently does the rest of the time? And get even more death threats from the alt-right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i see that or him firing one of them as actual posibility. How about he fires them both and then has Jr, Ivanka and Kusher defend him to his script? That would really be the best outcome and let us know that 2020 is finally over.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
The ironic thing is that one of the arguments against impeachment is that no criminal charges are alleged. Yet, it’s highly likely that within six months Trump will be indicted in multiple states and possibly federally.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Gulping Again posted:pattern recognition Pattern recognition off a datum of one is a poor basis for success.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
eke out posted:it was very funny that Raskin prebutted their talking points and they didn't alter them in any way whatsoever to accommodate that he'd debunked them already And it swayed 1 senator. The republican party is complicit with the coup.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:The responsibility rests with Nancy Pelosi for allowing this to happen. "If Nasty Nancy had just made Trump president again we wouldn't have had to have a coup, now would we? Check and mate, liberals!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
Chuck Bartowski posted:Starting this phase with a PA rep and speaking about the PA cases that were rejected... this feels like a middle finger to Hawley. Is that the approach they are taking? Just item by item refuting Trumps election fraud claims? Seems like a waste of time but I guess it's good if some conservatives who usually only watch CHUD approved sanitized versions get to see it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I wish Democrats would realize that shaming members of Congress by name on Twitter should not be an act of intimidation worthy of impeachment, but how poo poo is going to get done going forward. But a twitter rebuke is worthless unless you have no moral fortitude at all. If you have a scintilla of belief in the righteousness of your own actions an aggressive tweet isn't even worth acknowledging. "Oh, the president tweeted at me? Yeah, he tweets a lot of stuff" Your version of government only works if you elect complete turds. Which, is why it seems to work so well on Republicans I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:We can only hope that even if the GOP senators aren't swayed, most of the public is infuriated, and turns out more to vote against them in the next election. I think this is the only reasonable goal for this effort. Which, don't get me wrong, is worth while.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
I thought senators were not allowed to talk? Lee should be removed from the process and if he has something to say come back as a witness subject to cross examination under penalty of perjury.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
Watched about 3 and a half hours last night. Well done and very convincing, not that 70 million people who need to see it will. The dem strategy seems to be to make Trumps defense concede to Trump understanding his supporters were prepared for violence. Indeed that he intentionally groomed and prepared them for that over a period of months. Or, be forced into challenging those statements with alternative facts and open the door for extended witness testimony. Apparently Trump (Bannon and Stone) really wants them to argue that the election was rife with fraud which would be a huge trap as it would allow the house to full days and days with legal briefs disputing that claim in detail. Either they concede without challenge that the election fraud claim was a Big Lie (in the Nazi sense) as the house has asserted or just be eviscerated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:I think I read that only a couple of hundred people have been arrested, that number is going to keep going up, right,? I've seen estimates that only about 800 people actually entered the Capitol. A significant portion of that went in said, "I shouldn't be here" and left. The FBI has charged just shy of 200 people in federal court https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases amd a few days ago announced that they are looking for information on about 150 more. There are also some people charged by other state and local governments. I don't know how large this number is. So, I think 350 to 400 is probably what you should expect to actually be charged with offenses that could result in jail time of people who were at the capitol. However, I think that oath keepers and proud boys and other fringe alt-right groups are going to get caught up in wider conspiracy nets over the next few years and so the total charged 'in relation to' events at the capitol could be very large when all is said and done
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Depending on who conducts the presentation, it seems very likely that they'll spend an inordinate amount of time arguing "the president hasn't broken any criminal laws" (I used the present tense with intent) and "therefore there hasn't been proper due process and the article of impeachment should be thrown out" like a Trump election lawsuit. Any attempt to segue into the language of a criminal case should be squashed quickly and completely. It's a fallacious defense whose only intent is to provide an out along the lines of, "Well, they didn't prove he committed a crime so I can't find him guilty". This is not a criminal case, violating his oath of office is not a criminal offense and this is not a court of law. The senate does not need to sit and be lied to, they can and should exert themselves to punish fraudulent, bad faith arguments. Apparently the brief they filed is filled with bad arguments and misstated quotations taken out of context where they repeat a portion of a statement to strengthen their claim without acknowledging the remainder of the statement which refutes it in full. This would be punished in a court of law and it should be punished here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:They won't convict unless there is a videotape of Trump spending a solid hour saying non-stop "I'm going to get my supporters to murder Congress on Jan 6th while they are counting the electors". Yes, chanting in a park until the riot cops show up with tear gas is exactly the same as people with long guns assaulting the capitol shouting to kill the senior elected leadership of the national government, why do you ask?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Yeah, if nothing else this is important documentation and denouement of a major turning point (for better or for worse) in American history. On the Congressional record. The twists and convolutions in the history books of the "Patriotic States of America the Great" as they explain away all that evidence are going to be interesting. Aww, who am I kidding? 95% of the population won't be allowed to learn to read.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Very scary the sixth of January The Republican Senator version Jan 6 Memory Holed and Forgot I Know of No Event And Definitely No Plot Trump is President And Joe Biden is Not
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:We're no Rome and we're not making it to a thousand years--we're probably not making it to 300 years. The Columbian Exchange will be remembered in a thousand years, but not the United States. Donald Trump is our Julius Ceaser. 2000 years from now he will be known for his famous Jan 06 coup that even though it failed set the stage for the glory that would be come the Patriotic Empire of North America under his son Donald Trump Jr. the First, Emperor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Caesar was a decisive military hero and strongman. I don't see the similarity tbh 2000 years of whitewash can do that for you. Dapper_Swindler posted:theoretically you can say 1918. Didn't they literally call themselves "The Empire of Rome" until 1453? Byzantium just being a convenience to tell it apart from the eastern empire?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean yeah Byzantium but do you count HRE as a continuation too? The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire. Discuss.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They've quoted other Senators (notably Mike Lee) based on press accounts. This isn't a court of law and doesn't have any legal threshold for evidence. That said, it would just give Rs another out to use if they want.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Maerlyn posted:I hope there's a secret cabal of senators who will vote yes. It would be a certain political death sentence (also a personal hell as we've seen what Trump supporters are capable of) but goddamn I would actually respect a republican for once. I know that's why it won't happen but it's a beautiful fantasy. I'm sorry to say that I expect you will be disappointed. If we set the over/under at 6.5 republican senators voting to convict I would take the under.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I'm sure it's been discussed and I missed it ,but... I recall in the first impeachment trial (lol) that the possibility of a secret ballot was discussed and no one seemed to think it couldn't be done. Someone would have to request it and it would require a majority vote, I think. Rather than jumping right in on the conviction though they should warm it up on some less impactfull stuff first to see how the wind is blowing. Like a resolution to request trump answer written questions from the senators or something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:lol. while i think we will get more than we expected. the GOP is too loving rotten at this point. the rot started in 68 and got worse from there. In a lot of ways Trump has already been marginalized. There was a national election and the Republicans lost the House, Senate and Presidency. Trump got 46% of the vote in 2016 and he got 46% of the vote in 2020. So, if you are a republican politician (and not one of the True Believers), does it make sense to jeopardize yourself to make a moral stand? Or do you play the odds and slink away under the table and just hope he really is done? I hope that they can find it in themselves to show history that actions have consequences but I'm not going to hold my breath.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:They're not scared. Mob rule is what they want. They just don't want it aimed at them. I'm not sure Trump didn't want the mob to just kill a bunch of congress people so that he could declare martial law in the wake of the tragedy and just directly seize power.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Does anyone know if there was any video/audio presented of Trump himself while the coup was occurring? I was only half paying attention to part of the trial so for and didn't see any stories about it, but I'm hoping there was and I just missed. There was a ton of stuff showing the timing of events being related to Trump through Tweets to him and being prominently shown Fox news (and other news stations) and that his tweets and videos appear to be timed to push and goad the insurrectionists further. Many people tried to call the white house and implore Trump to use his authority to help Trump was on the phone with Tuberville when Tuberville told him Pence was being moved. A few minutes later Trump made his tweet about Pence. The insurrectionists used bull horns to repeat the tweet so everyone could hear. The insurrectionists chanted hang mike pence and raced through the halls looking for him. It's pretty clear that A. Trump was monitoring the violence at the Capitol in real time B. Trump refused to use his legal authority to protect the capitol C. That Trump refused to use his personal authority with his followers to protect the capitol D. Through his tweets Trump was in direct communication with the insurrectionists who stated they were acting on his orders E. When informed that Pence was vulnerable incited his followers to new attempts to find Pence
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Here's all of Romney's questions. This reads like Romney wants Trump on the stand. These questions can only be answered by Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:McCarthy would not cooperate as a witness. You call the people McCarthy told and have them testify to what they were told and then when you call McCarthy he either has to say they lied under oath leading to a criminal trial or they told the truth but he was lying, which would be damaging to him, and it was a made up story or he has to say their account was correct.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Subpoena the Secret Service. I bet they reported Pence’s situation to Trump from the reports of the agents with him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 04:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1360440160186478594quote:One way to clear it up? Suspend trial to depose McCarthy and Tuberville under oath and get facts. Ask Secret Service to produce for review comms back to White House re VP Pence safety during siege. What did Trump know, and when did he know it?  It would be better if Romney proposes it but IMO they should definitely make this request and vote on it. "What did Trump know about VP Pence's safety and when did he know it?" is a good question, of which there is already a lot of evidence that says he was well aware and acted contrary to Pence's safety. It's a good single focus item that is clear, easy to understand, answerable and sufficient reason to bar from office.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Yeah. The one thing Trump's defense accomplished is they made a wonderful case for calling witnesses including Trump. Going in I was pretty sure that the Democrats were just going to rush this through since they already know the result; the I posted after the first full day of evidence that it seemed to be that the House Manager's strategy was to make strong claims and dare Trumps defense to dispute it which would open the door for testimony to clarify the dispute. The House has asserted that Trump knew of Pence's peril when he tweeted his message condemning Pence at 2:24 (?) in the afternoon of the sixth. That is, he incited a mob in the middle of a violent riot (recall that they presented that the capitol police declared it a riot around just before 2?) to an act of aggression against the vice president of the US. They also showed that the mob heard the call, interpreted it as such and ran through the halls looking for Pence. I don't think Trump defense directly disputed this narrative but when they said they didn't know Trumps state of mind at this time it opened the door to find out. Trumps lawyers stepped in it big time. They should have just said something non-committal like, 'the house managers presented a lot of circumstantial evidence that we are not contradicting' and let it pass. Also, there is a lot of material pointing to that Trumps lawyers have lied and deliberately falsely represented statements of others in their briefs and statements on the senate floor. I would love to see a motion to censure them, bar them from the senate floor until the end of the trial and request a DoJ investigation for lying to congress. "Federal law makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” give “materially” false statements to Congress, even if unsworn" Make Trump go out and find even shittier lawyers to put in front of the senate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 15:09
|
|
nihilism of a party that doesn't even bother trying 90% of the time. After yesterday, I think there's a pretty good chance that they'll expand the trial and get some witnesses going. After all, when your opponents keep stabbing themselves in the dick, don't stop them.
|
Rs can say they want testimony from these two but without at least one dem and all the Rs voting for it isn't it not likely to go anywhere? Or are they required to vote on all witnesses or none? If the latter that seems like a dumb rule that can be clarified to 'each side provides a list of witnesses to be called and then each witness is voted on separately'
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Lol Mike Lee is changing his story, now somehow he's totally sure that the call happened at 2:30 The time of the call isn't ambiguous. Cell tower records will clear it up right quick. I assume the FBI already has all that days relevant logs in their hands from the other ongoing investigations. Like, it wouldn't even take them a few hours to provide the evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
eke out posted:a meaningless answer, you can do whatever you want No, it doesn’t. He still has to testify, he just doesn’t have to answer. “”Mr president, did you try and kill Vice President pence?” “I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me” Is not a good look.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 17:40
|
|