Impeachment, Take Two (and Other Trump News)

[Humble Scribe]

Ah, I see. Thanks! I was wondering about that.
Anyway, from what I've seen, the impeachment managers' case seems really well prepared. Based on what was shown, it's pretty clear (IMHO) that Trump was guilty as heck.

There's plenty of wriggle room, I suspect. The Republicans will say that 'elements' within the crowd were clearly prepared in advance for this, that they had already organised themselves online, and therefore couldn't have been influenced by Trump's speech on the day, and also that Trump told the crowd to protest peacefully. And in spite of the fact that Trump had spent months whipping up a lie about the election being stolen, that will clear their consciences enough to vote down impeachment. I'm not even convinced they may not be right - the whole QAnon mess is bigger than just Trump. I think this will have to be left to the cloud of civil suits hanging over him.

[gaggedLouise]

There's plenty of wriggle room, I suspect. The Republicans will say that 'elements' within the crowd were clearly prepared in advance for this, that they had already organised themselves online, and therefore couldn't have been influenced by Trump's speech on the day, and also that Trump told the crowd to protest peacefully. And in spite of the fact that Trump had spent months whipping up a lie about the election being stolen, that will clear their consciences enough to vote down impeachment. I'm not even convinced they may not be right - the whole QAnon mess is bigger than just Trump. I think this will have to be left to the cloud of civil suits hanging over him.

Yes, there's going to be a nice amount of sophistry to avoid accepting what is fairly clearly true: that Trump and his circle had been the prime mover in building up to this assault on parliament, and that by New Year, Trump and the inflamed MAGA crowd working to organize the rally and pull in lots of angry people to it were working arm in arm, knee by knee to push the operation and try to overturn the election. Everyone knew that January 6 was the last chance to block Biden from taking over, and that it would not be done just by organizing a "peaceful" rally or a civil demonstration outside the grounds of the Capitol.

[stormwyrm]

For some reason I'm reminded of A Time To Kill, John Grisham's first novel. A black man guns down the two men who raped his daughter right at the courthouse just as they are about to be charged. The evidence that he did it is obviously crystal clear, so now his lawyer not only needs to convince an all white jury to acquit (already a hard sell in a small town in rural Mississippi), but also to give them a legitimate legal reason to be able to acquit. So lawyer Jake Brigance uses the insanity defence for the trial of Carl Lee, not because Mr. Lee is truly insane, but because it's the only defence that will give the jury an out to acquit him.

In the case of the Senate Republicans and Trump, I wonder what legal contortion they are going to use to tell themselves to be able to vote for acquittal, even though everyone knows that he had clearly incited the insurrection, and many of them could have easily become victims of the mob that day. Obviously they can't similarly use the insanity defence here!

[Haibane]

As has been said, its not an unbiased jury so there is no need to present a strong defence. That, I think, is the real problem. Impeached presidents should probably be judged by the Supreme Court and not the senate, given that the decency and respect the Founding Fathers assumed would be in the hearts of US senators is no longer there. American politics has evolved into a completely different creature since the 1780s and one the creators of the Constitution could probably never have conceptualised.

[TheGlyphstone]

According to CNN's play-by-play, 15 GOP senators didn't even bother to show up and listen to the Democrat's presentation of evidence.

[Laughing Hyena]

According to CNN's play-by-play, 15 GOP senators didn't even bother to show up and listen to the Democrat's presentation of evidence.

Sound utterly spineless if that's true. Definitely would love names on whom didn't show up just to check that off my list of reasons not to vote for them next tine.

[Aiden]

If you are voting GOP still at this point, you don't really care who is on the ballot as long as they are red.

[Beorning]

I watched a bit of Trump lawyer's defence speech. A lot of hair-splitting to prove that no, Mr. Trump does not support violence and, in fact, really urged his followers to protest peacefully. Also, some really absurd claims like that, when Trump urged the Georgia official to "find missing votes" (because he was sure that an investigation will definitely find thousands of forgeries) was not suspect at all...

Oh, and Trump was described as a target of "constitutional cancel culture" because of his political views.

For crying out loud...  ::) But, of course, these are all faux-reasons for the GOP senators to latch onto and refuse to convict Trump...

[Haibane]

According to CNN's play-by-play, 15 GOP senators didn't even bother to show up and listen to the Democrat's presentation of evidence.

As a legal point the senators are the jury, so members not showing up ought to exclude them from voting. That seems entirely reasonable to me and is how juries in other legal cases act, or are supposed to act.

[Oniya]

Since the provisions for impeachment don't specify how many of the Senators are required to be present (even to the vague level of 'the full Senate', since the framers didn't anticipate 50 states), and the condition for conviction is specifically 'two-thirds of the members present', this could be a way for a Republican who wants conviction but is afraid of going on record as voting for it to 'vote with their feet'.

If they show up for the vote, though, they should be required to sit through the parts that they missed, with no distractions permitted.  Feet on the floor, hands folded on the desk, like my elementary school teachers insisted on.  YouTube has it.  Give Katie Porter the yardstick to rap their knuckles.

[Haibane]

That was my train of thought. If a senate member isn't present for part of the hearings, how can they form a full opinion on how to vote? They have not heard all the evidence. Is there a precedent for excluding those who have not attended the entire case from voting?

[Oniya]

That was my train of thought. If a senate member isn't present for part of the hearings, how can they form a full opinion on how to vote? They have not heard all the evidence. Is there a precedent for excluding those who have not attended the entire case from voting?

I don't believe anyone has been that disrespectful of the process in the past.  In a regular court case, if a jury member doesn't show up, there's usually a 'contempt of court' charge, and the offender may be subject to arrest, fines, jail time, and/or a misdemeanor conviction.  https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/not-showing-up-for-jury-duty.html

[gaggedLouise]

Someone on BBC News referenced this 1969 SCOTUS decision on incendiary speech (and urging people to set themselves above the law) vs the first amendment and said that Trump's lawyers were likely to invoke it in their final pleadings. Brandenburg vs Ohio is the current gold standard on the limits of free speech in this sense, and it seems to have been accepted without much criticism for the last fifty years. And strictly judged by "the Brandenburg test" for what makes criminally inflammatory speech and incitement to a riot, there is a good deal of room for acquitting Trump - if his speech at the Ellipse that day is seen completely without context, without history and without any links to who Trump knew were (a big part of) the audience. (Also, Trump wasn't just some John Blow standing on a soapbox or an obscure blogger: he was the effing POTUS!)

The Brandenburg verdict (case brought on behalf of a KKK leader concernng a raucous and racist Klan meeting back in 1964!) completely divorces the words spoken, printed or spread from any context or any long-term effect of those words. It says that inflammatory speech or language inciting someone to take the law into their own hands and inflict gross violence on other people, or to fail their duties as citizens or basic moral standards, is only in breach of the law if it explicitly urges them to break the law in a specific sense and this is followed by immediate results, immediate crimes or acts of hate that were called for by the person/s speaking or sending the message. By that standard, Trump would go free: he didn't actually tell his audience crowd: you're gonna have to break the law today and that's what we want! He just implied, or dog-whistled, that they would have to fight, go to extremes and disregard the law to win the big victory and save the day.

In a situation like the one Trump was in, and with that kind of crowd, calls to "fight very hard", "don't give in", "with every means" etc plus painting the other side as criminal scum - this does imply that resorting to blunt violence to have your way is fine and dandy. At least in today's US. In extremis: breaking the law and overturning the political and legal order. His audience knew he was implying a rebellion, a call to arms. Some of them had known or suspected that already weeks before the rally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

IMO, the Brandenburg case is long past its sell-by date; there's need for new decisions on this. It's been outrun by history, by modern methods of political language, PR and modern communications.

[stormwyrm]

Here's an inside look at what went on inside the White House during Trump's final, chaotic days in office:

https://www.axios.com/off-the-rails-episodes-cf6da824-83ac-45a6-a33c-ed8b00094e39.html

It's fascinating reading, of how Trump allowed a gang of conspiracy theorists led by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani into the White House, derailing his legal team which refused to lie to him, eventually leading to the January 6 insurrection.

[Haibane]

Thank you for that link stormwyrm. A fascinating read.

[Oniya]

Marco Rubio cast the 34th 'Not Guilty' vote.  However, there was a non-zero number of Republicans crossing the line to vote Guilty.

[TheVillain]

57-43.

Guess we know how the party of "Law and Order" and "Patriotism" really feels.

[Humble Scribe]

I'm surprised it was as many as 7. I wonder how many it would have been if it was a secret ballot.

[Oniya]

The seven that crossed over:

Burr
Cassidy
Collins (!)
Murkowski (!)
Sasse
Romney
Toomey

I'm surprised to see Collins and Murkowski actually taking a stand.  Not surprised about Romney.  Toomey's already said he's not running next term, so he's got nothing to lose.  I don't know much about Burr and Sasse.

[Mechelle]

Marco Rubio cast the 34th 'Not Guilty' vote.  However, there was a non-zero number of Republicans crossing the line to vote Guilty.

As a foreigner, I think your second sentence is the important point. Those  other Republicans who did vote for Trump's innocence are now associated with his evident guilt, even if they weren't before.

Is Trump a busted flush now? My impression is that he still has enough support for him, or one of his family, to stand in 2024 and affect the result; possibly by splitting the right-wing vote if there is a separate Republican candidate, or  alternatively by dragging politics to the right in an attempt by others to appease his supporters, as has happened in Britain with the Conservatives' attempts to fend off Nigel Farage.

As I say, though, I am not American, so I may have got this very wrong.

[Nowherewoman]

He will put whatever weight he can behind even more right-wing headcases for the midterm elections. And if the current Republican machine continue to act as the spineless moral midgets they've shown themselves to be- some of them will win.

Unless he has a stroke, or something.

[Nowherewoman]

My head is going to explode.

Moscow Mitch the Morally Midgetous Murder Muppet has made a statement in which he unequivocally blames Trump for the riot...and yet he voted to acquit...


I just can't.

[Shekinah]

So everyone seen what orange guy did and said, and what the results of that was and everyone knows that's a crime. But because he's one of us, we don't vote for him to be guilty. After all party before justice. And these people run your country? They decide what is best for all of you?
And then they all claim America is the greatest country on earth?
How am I to tell my two little ones that they don't have to worry, that when people are mean and racist they will get punished by the law when such things happen. I grew up in a country where I couldn't be who I am because I could be thrown in jail or worse. And Britain also got it's problems.
But America right now, that's a whole new level of shitshow right there

[TheVillain]

My head is going to explode.

Moscow Mitch the Morally Midgetous Murder Muppet has made a statement in which he unequivocally blames Trump for the riot...and yet he voted to acquit...


I just can't.

Apparently Mitch McConnell claims that he feels that Trump is completely and totally responsible for the events of January 6th, he just also thinks it's unconstitutional to hold an Impeach trial for someone who isn't holding a public office anymore.

Which is some "have it both ways bullshit" he's trying considering how he blocked the trials before Biden's Inauguration.

I take a little solace that this means the GOP splitting in half in the near future is pretty much inevitable.

[Beorning]

This whole situation won't help me keep faith in the democratic system, I tell you!  >:(