Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

It might be that the defence lawyer's statement about the way civil trials proceed and his comment about calling 100 witnesses may have blown Trump's game plan by angering the house and senate members. The calling of witnesses may be decided by way of individual votes on each request. Given the way some GOP senators [incl Graham] have sided with the "call witnesses" angle and the Dems desire to get as much ammunition as possible against Trump, the GOP NAYS on the voting may well lose each time. Trump will undoubtedly be angry with his legal team tonight. Graham's vote may rebound on him when Trump realises what it may mean for him.

It seems the defence lawyer forgot that a senate trial doesn’t work like a civil trial. Any witness needs to be voted on.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It seems the defence lawyer forgot that a senate trial doesn’t work like a civil trial. Any witness needs to be voted on.

Both sides of the senate seem to be cobbling a deal together which would allow the entry onto the trial record of public statements made about the phonecall to CNN as evidence unchallenged and undisputed. How Graham and his pals will respond to the compromise is uncertain but they might swallow it.

The Trump defence team are a different set altogether with a bent to challenge anything they see as unchallenged, liable to call it hearsay, the same way they described the statement from Sen Tuberville as hearsay, when he actually spoke directly to Trump in a first person conversation and wasn't relating what another person said about a different conversation.

Edit: the lawyers are probably upset to realise that the jury in this case can set the rules of evidence themselves without input [guidance] from them.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Both sides of the senate seem to be cobbling a deal together which would allow the entry onto the trial record of public statements made about the phonecall to CNN as evidence unchallenged and undisputed. How Graham and his pals will respond to the compromise is uncertain but they might swallow it.

The Trump defence team are a different set altogether with a bent to challenge anything they see as unchallenged, liable to call it hearsay, the same way they described the statement from Sen Tuberville as hearsay, when he actually spoke directly to Trump in a first person conversation and wasn't relating what another person said about a different conversation.

That apparent deal about putting statements into the record is a climb down for the dems. Why call a vote for witness and then do this ? Make the GOP put up or shut up and Nancy pelosi has no relevance and she didn’t call trump on January 6th.

looksee

Am I right in thinking that the Republicans' fear is that Trump could go ahead and form his own political party, which would split the Republican party and ensure the Dems would be in charge for ever.

Finding him guilty would annoy Trump and his base (dwindling but still significant) enough for them to do it, whereas keeping him on side would mean they would be in a position to cajole and flatter him along as an apparently big cog in a big wheel, safely where they can keep an eye on him, and help him stay solvent. And if he should end up in jail, then they can keep tabs on the base for him. If there has to be a cult they would rather have it inside than outside the party.

Itssoeasy

Former democratic senator Claire Macaskil is now saying it’s 50/50 on what’s going to happen regarding witnesses.

duploelabs

looksee wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the Republicans' fear is that Trump could go ahead and form his own political party, which would split the Republican party and ensure the Dems would be in charge for ever.

Finding him guilty would annoy Trump and his base (dwindling but still significant) enough for them to do it, whereas keeping him on side would mean they would be in a position to cajole and flatter him along as an apparently big cog in a big wheel, safely where they can keep an eye on him, and help him stay solvent. And if he should end up in jail, then they can keep tabs on the base for him. If there has to be a cult they would rather have it inside than outside the party.

Given Nikki Haleys statements during the week and other developments, it seems the right side of things will fracture in to two parties with a trump-lead party on the further side of that right and a centralist right also there. Whether the GOP adopts the centre right or the trump authoritarian-in-waiting outfit remains to be seen

Headshot

Looks like the witnesses has been canceled

Itssoeasy

What a folding by the democrats. What a waste of time that was. Spineless.

Edit: And the democrats wonder why they GOP keeps winning elections. Get the GOP house members under oath and stop this pissing around.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the Republicans' fear is that Trump could go ahead and form his own political party, which would split the Republican party and ensure the Dems would be in charge for ever.

Finding him guilty would annoy Trump and his base (dwindling but still significant) enough for them to do it, whereas keeping him on side would mean they would be in a position to cajole and flatter him along as an apparently big cog in a big wheel, safely where they can keep an eye on him, and help him stay solvent. And if he should end up in jail, then they can keep tabs on the base for him. If there has to be a cult they would rather have it inside than outside the party.

You had the tea party movement a couple of years ago and they caused some concerns but at the end of the day their supporters form a big part of trumps base, and they would still have voted for republican candidates over democrats.

Forming his own party would be just a way to try and con more money out of his supporters. He wouldn't have the ability to develop a party given his inability to work with anyone who disagrees with him. Sure it might cause the republican party some losses for a while but the supporters would end up voting for republican candidates because they can't get his candidates in and their need to vote for anyone but a democrat

StringerBell

Headshot wrote: »

Here we go the house managers looking for witnesses

Eyes on 2022 elections now.

Edit: and the climb down happens in record time, this is why they suck at elections.

Headshot

From my understanding the Dems were also blind sided by the house lawyers wanting witnesses

But lets face it, it wouldnt make a difference and just slows up the process by a number of weeks and would impact Bidens picks and getting the relief package through

If Trump killed someone the GOP still wouldnt impeach him. Never seen a man with such strangled hold on a party, they've really sold their soul to the devil.

aloyisious

The chair gave a warning to the floor "Trump legal team" that no "new evidence" introduction moves would be permitted not long after he stopped Senator Lee from trying to debate the phone-call issue again. I liked the way he told the Trump lawyer to sit down.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

What this means is that any POTUS can do anything and get away totally Scott free once they resign or leave office.

Quite a situation really.

In the dark ages the custom of some pagan kings was to get baptised on their death bed.

They didn't have to change their sinful behaviour because they knew the slate would get wiped clean.

"We're all going to Heaven lads, wahaaayyyyy" ...

BonnieSituation

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What a folding by the democrats. What a waste of time that was. Spineless.

Edit: And the democrats wonder why they GOP keeps winning elections. Get the GOP house members under oath and stop this pissing around.

I saw the notification come through while I was watching the match.

Why did they come to a deal? What would the Dems get out of said deal other than a certain loss?

Water John

They got Hererra's evidence entered, so the other option was dragging this out for months.
This guy Van Deem really saying daft stuff about the Dems. He's just reading out a speech that Cruz or someone wrote for him.

embraer170

This closing speech in defence of Trump is pretty weak. Not that it will matter anyway.

aloyisious

He's speaking bollox now saying the house managers made up their own rules regardless of the constitution and the USSC decisions on free speech rights of the citizen. Now he's including Congress in what he's alleging the house managers did.

Thargor

Did he just accuse the Democrats of waiting too long to impeach Trump? The crime was only committed in January ffs...

bazermc

God this woman calling out the votes is freaking me out.

namloc1980

57-43. 10 votes short.

Itssoeasy

namloc1980 wrote: »

57-43. 10 votes short.

Who were the seven GOPers ?

listermint

Hope they can all sleep now they are all spineless one and all. They'll be referenced in history and not for the good things.

Who wants to be remembered for this.

namloc1980

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Who were the seven GOPers ?

Burr
Collins
Cassidy
Murkowski
Romney
Sasse
Toomey

sink

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Who were the seven GOPers ?

• Richard Burr
• Bill Cassidy
• Susan Collins
• Lisa Murkowski
• Mitt Romney
• Ben Sasse
• Pat Toomey

Water John

aloyisious wrote: »

He's speaking bollox now saying the house managers made up their own rules regardless of the constitution and the USSC decisions on free speech rights of the citizen. Now he's including Congress in what he's alleging the house managers did.

Raskin has taught Constitutional Law for 25 years.

57 wasn't bad. A good majority and not partisan. Impeached twice is his record.
Move on time and hope the GOP get their act together to some degree.
Biden/Harris push on now, with or without the majority of GOP.

Itssoeasy

sink wrote: »

• Richard Burr
• Bill Cassidy
• Susan Collins
• Lisa Murkowski
• Mitt Romney
• Ben Sasse
• Pat Toomey

Well Richard burr isn’t running again and neither is pat toomey. Collins, Romney, Murkowski were safe enough. Ben sasse is new, and bill Cassidy seemed to be moving that way because of the mess of a constitutional argument the trump side made.

So, I think the US congress should vote to remove the impeachment process because clearly nothing meets the level of high crimes. Inciting a riot against the capitol building is clearly just run of the mill.

Also, the senate democrats shat the bed earlier. They can’t have been that blindsided by the request for witnesses unless they went to bed before the news broke about the call. Utter cowards.

gimli2112

I'm watching Mitch McConnell hammer Trump after voting for him in the impeachment. The Republican hierarchy are fundamentally broken. What he's trying to do now is save a dying party. the cray cray will follow

Trump cleared which was not surprising. Good thread.

StringerBell

57 is probably as good as it was ever gonna get in that cesspit alright.

Impeached twice, and in a bipartisan manner. He is out on his own in the history books.

Muahahaha

Anyone know if he were to be convicted in a criminal trial would that disbar him from running again? Can a convicted felon run for the Presidency?