Re: tOfficial First Ever Second Impeachment Trial Thread

by **MiamiSpartan** 2021-02-11, 18:11

Cruz, Lindsay, and Lee, all jurors in this trial, have been meeting with Trump's legal team. They took an oath to be impartial jurors. They aren't even pretending to be impartial. Does anyone know if there is legal recourse for that? Is their oath legally binding in any way?

by **Cameron** 2021-02-11, 18:31

I doubt there is an enforcement mechanism. The shit was designed back in the days where the ultimate recourse was to challenge a cocksucker like Ted Cruz to a duel for being so cravenly dishonorable.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-11, 18:34

Spartan Tim Alberta on News Hour tonight talking about the trial.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-11, 19:20

MiamiSpartan wrote:Cruz, Lindsay, and Lee, all jurors in this trial, have been meeting with Trump's legal team. They took an oath to be impartial jurors. They aren't even pretending to be impartial. Does anyone know if there is legal recourse for that? Is their oath legally binding in any way?

https://theweek.com/articles/966168/most-important-person-impeachment-trial-missing-isnt-trump

I can’t speak to the oath but sounds like the whole trial could be invalid because Roberts isn’t there.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2021-02-11, 19:49

steveschneider wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:Cruz, Lindsay, and Lee, all jurors in this trial, have been meeting with Trump's legal team. They took an oath to be impartial jurors. They aren't even pretending to be impartial. Does anyone know if there is legal recourse for that? Is their oath legally binding in any way?

https://theweek.com/articles/966168/most-important-person-impeachment-trial-missing-isnt-trump

I can’t speak to the oath but sounds like the whole trial could be invalid because Roberts isn’t there.

Nah, That guy is an idiot. Sounds like another one trying to make the unconstitutional claim. The Constitution states that if it is the President being impeached, then the Chief Justice presides. They have never presided over the impeachment of someone else, I don't believe (could be wrong, but that's what I read). The only reason the Constitution says that about a Presidential impeachment is because the VP could then preside over a trial that could see them elevated to President (conflict of interest, especially back in the old days when the VP was the one who came second place in the Presidential election). So that isn't relevant for an ex-President's impeachment. And yes, Kamala could have theoretically presided, but the VP hasn't presided over an impeachment trial in like 150 or 200 years, so there isn't recent precedent for that to have been really considered.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2021-02-11, 20:08

Cameron wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

I think you're pretty smart, Bob.
That might be the dumbest thing you've ever said.

I would agree.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2021-02-12, 06:42

Today, when you hear the claims about the Brandenburg Supreme Court case being precedent for someone not being responsible for inciting violence, keep in mind that Brandenburg did not take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It is like using a 1st Amendment claim to defend a spy passing secrets to an enemy.

Brandenburg, coincidentally (or not), was a KKK leader.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-12, 09:14

I’ve accepted a while back Trump will get away with any involvement but I do hope they ID every mother fucker in the capital and the lawn and throw the book at them. That includes the rich fucker that showed up on a private jet.

[tw]1360217047695847429?s=21[/tw]

by **InTenSity** 2021-02-12, 09:30

steveschneider wrote:I’ve accepted a while back Trump will get away with any involvement but I do hope they ID every mother fucker in the capital and the lawn and throw the book at them. That includes the rich fucker that showed up on a private jet.

[tw]1360217047695847429?s=21[/tw]

They are being charged with Misdemeanors. That is why they are letting them take trips to Mexico and Canada and South Africa. If they were being charged with Sedition and Felonies, it would be a different story.
They are going to end up making examples of about 15-20 people and the rest are going to get a slap on the wrist.

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-12, 09:37

Supposedly going to be a brief defense case. No where's near the 16 hours allotted.

You couldn't give a bigger slap in the face to the Constitution or capitol police that risked their lives and died. Basically a big fuck you. Yeah we did it. Tough shit. Not even trying to mount a reasonable defense.

USA shithole 2021.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-12, 09:43

InTenSity wrote:
steveschneider wrote:I’ve accepted a while back Trump will get away with any involvement but I do hope they ID every mother fucker in the capital and the lawn and throw the book at them. That includes the rich fucker that showed up on a private jet.

[tw]1360217047695847429?s=21[/tw]

They are being charged with Misdemeanors. That is why they are letting them take trips to Mexico and Canada and South Africa. If they were being charged with Sedition and Felonies, it would be a different story.
They are going to end up making examples of about 15-20 people and the rest are going to get a slap on the wrist.

Time to dust off this Swill classic - America is a stupid country.

by **Jake from State Farm** 2021-02-12, 09:57

steveschneider wrote:
InTenSity wrote:
They are being charged with Misdemeanors. That is why they are letting them take trips to Mexico and Canada and South Africa. If they were being charged with Sedition and Felonies, it would be a different story.
They are going to end up making examples of about 15-20 people and the rest are going to get a slap on the wrist.

Time to dust off this Swill classic - America is a stupid country.

What makes it worse is that it's self inflicted stupidity.

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-12, 12:54

The defense is rolling audio and video of anytime a democrat had used the word “fight”. Going on 15 minutes now.

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-12, 13:00

And here comes the summer protest dog whistle.

by **Rocinante** 2021-02-12, 13:44

What about Chicago?

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-12, 14:01

I’ll say that the personal injury lawyer did better than I thought.

by **Rocinante** 2021-02-12, 14:19

They could literally walk in and say “look you republicans know and I know you’re not going to vote to convict him, so why don’t I save us all some time and just say the defense rests.” And walked out.

by **Rocinante** 2021-02-12, 15:11

Apparently Madonna needs to be impeached.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2021-02-12, 17:35

Rocinante wrote:Apparently Madonna needs to be impeached.

Jim Acosta on CNN called the use of her in the videos the Papa Don't Impeach defense. tOfficial First Ever Second Impeachment Trial Thread - Page 3 502811600

tOfficial First Ever Second Impeachment Trial Thread - Page 3 502811600

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-12, 19:00

Republican representatives now on the record about the call McCarthy made to Trump. McCarthy begged trump to call off his supporters and trump said they were antifa. McCarthy said no, they’re your people! Trump responds “well Kevin I guess they’re more upset about this election being stolen than you” McCarthy responds “Who the fuck do you think you’re talking too?”

Couple days later Cuck Kev flys down to Florida to suck trumps Dick.

by AvgMSUJoe 2021-02-12, 19:02

Yet they persist (being pussies).

by **MiamiSpartan** 2021-02-13, 10:22

Dems in the Senate audibly laughing at the defense attorney because he's saying that if they want depositions they have to do them at his office in "Phillydelphia" (yes that's how he pronounced it). But I think they're laughing because this guy doesnt realize that Congress is not a court of law (a misunderstanding that he repeatedly made yesterday).

by **Turtleneck** 2021-02-13, 10:32

MiamiSpartan wrote:Dems in the Senate audibly laughing at the defense attorney because he's saying that if they want depositions they have to do them at his office in "Phillydelphia" (yes that's how he pronounced it). But I think they're laughing because this guy doesnt realize that Congress is not a court of law (a misunderstanding that he repeatedly made yesterday).

It’s so bad....

[tw]1360610555262889987?s=21[/tw]

by **Floyd Robertson** 2021-02-13, 10:47

Lindsey Graham thinks he's being smart to change his vote to allow for witnesses. I'm not sure what he thinks he has up his sleeve. Whatever it is, I'm sure he's overplaying his hand.

by **WhiteBoyHatcher** 2021-02-13, 11:51

Unless Trump has a heart jerk, I truly believe we will have a civil war in 2024.

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-13, 12:06

It’s definitely Dems responsibility now to call witnesses in light of the phone call to McCarthy. Not that it’ll change enough minds but I assume to allow the GOP to dig itself further into the trump shithole.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2021-02-13, 13:44

Dems folded because the mainstream media was being mean to them. tOfficial First Ever Second Impeachment Trial Thread - Page 3 502811600

by **Jake from State Farm** 2021-02-13, 14:16

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Dems folded because the mainstream media was being mean to them.

Well yeah, and they could have had video of Trump smashing down the doors of the Capitol Building, beating a cop over the head with a flagpole and the repubs still wouldn't have convicted him.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-13, 15:09

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Rocinante wrote:Apparently Madonna needs to be impeached.

Jim Acosta on CNN called the use of her in the videos the Papa Don't Impeach defense.

He's a riot.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-13, 15:13

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Dems folded because the mainstream media was being mean to them.

First two days was the meat and potatoes of the whole thing. They laid out the case to the American people not their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We saw the new footage and saw the case presented beautifully. At a certain point it's just going to become noise and political theater. Let the cowards vote for their dear leader and let history and the voters be the judge.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-13, 15:14

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Unless Trump has a heart jerk, I truly believe we will have a civil war in 2024.

The GOP is an open autocratic party and their base is full of radical fundamentalists. I will be a single issue voter for some years to come.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2021-02-13, 16:39

steveschneider wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:Dems folded because the mainstream media was being mean to them.

First two days was the meat and potatoes of the whole thing. They laid out the case to the American people not their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We saw the new footage and saw the case presented beautifully. At a certain point it's just going to become noise and political theater. Let the cowards vote for their dear leader and let history and the voters be the judge.

would've been nice to get the cowards on record, under oath with penalty of perjury, though.

No idea why they refused to call witnesses.

by **steveschneider** 2021-02-13, 17:00

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

First two days was the meat and potatoes of the whole thing. They laid out the case to the American people not their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We saw the new footage and saw the case presented beautifully. At a certain point it's just going to become noise and political theater. Let the cowards vote for their dear leader and let history and the voters be the judge.
would've been nice to get the cowards on record, under oath with penalty of perjury, though.

No idea why they refused to call witnesses.

It would have been sweet if this trial ended like a Hollywood court room drama where Mike Pence showed up as a surprise star witness...

My take away is the GOP is an autocratic party and no amount of evidence would make a difference. Sane people in this country already have made up their mind and its up to us to just vote these fuckers out in the coming years.

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-13, 17:32

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

First two days was the meat and potatoes of the whole thing. They laid out the case to the American people not their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We saw the new footage and saw the case presented beautifully. At a certain point it's just going to become noise and political theater. Let the cowards vote for their dear leader and let history and the voters be the judge.
would've been nice to get the cowards on record, under oath with penalty of perjury, though.

No idea why they refused to call witnesses.

It wouldn’t have made a difference. Now that Mitch isn’t making the rules he’s basically saying you don’t have to obey them.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2021-02-13, 18:28

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

First two days was the meat and potatoes of the whole thing. They laid out the case to the American people not their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We saw the new footage and saw the case presented beautifully. At a certain point it's just going to become noise and political theater. Let the cowards vote for their dear leader and let history and the voters be the judge.
would've been nice to get the cowards on record, under oath with penalty of perjury, though.

No idea why they refused to call witnesses.

The House Managers had no input on that except for requesting it. After that, it is up to an agreement between the Senators on how to do it. In the end, they agreed to let Trump admit that the contents of the call with McCarthy were accurate.

Besides, it wouldn't change anything. Also, it would give the Trump team a chance to call witnesses. And they could call people closer to Trump that will, even under oath, lie about how much he wanted to stop it. Also, Trump's team wanted to call Pelosi, Kamala, etc., and bash them about the summer riots (irrelevance isnt an objection that can be made in this type if trial).

They'd also ask bullshit questions of Pelosi trying to blame her Jan 6. They hinted at that, and Lindsay and Cruz have said as much elsewhere. They're trying to say that if the Capitol Police, FBI, etc. had reports of potential problems, did they tell Pelosi, and did she not try to get a stronger defensive presence, because she wanted this to happen to make Trump look bad. Of course, that is absurd nonsense, but ask leading questions twist what she says, etc. (again, objections that would prevent that in a Court of Law wouldn't work here).

The case was made beyond any shadow of a doubt without all of that, so it wasn't really relevant to the outcome.

by **GRR Spartan** 2021-02-13, 20:11

Welcome to the Post Truth Era

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2021-02-13, 21:34

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote: would've been nice to get the cowards on record, under oath with penalty of perjury, though.

No idea why they refused to call witnesses.

The House Managers had no input on that except for requesting it. After that, it is up to an agreement between the Senators on how to do it. In the end, they agreed to let Trump admit that the contents of the call with McCarthy were accurate.

Besides, it wouldn't change anything. Also, it would give the Trump team a chance to call witnesses. And they could call people closer to Trump that will, even under oath, lie about how much he wanted to stop it. Also, Trump's team wanted to call Pelosi, Kamala, etc., and bash them about the summer riots (irrelevance isnt an objection that can be made in this type if trial).

They'd also ask bullshit questions of Pelosi trying to blame her Jan 6. They hinted at that, and Lindsay and Cruz have said as much elsewhere. They're trying to say that if the Capitol Police, FBI, etc. had reports of potential problems, did they tell Pelosi, and did she not try to get a stronger defensive presence, because she wanted this to happen to make Trump look bad. Of course, that is absurd nonsense, but ask leading questions twist what she says, etc. (again, objections that would prevent that in a Court of Law wouldn't work here).

The case was made beyond any shadow of a doubt without all of that, so it wasn't really relevant to the outcome.

yeah, good points.

I hope Democrat leadership can articulate these points to America in an effective manner. I think a lot of people want to know why they turned out in 2018 and 2020 only for more of the same.

But I agree with ya. It all makes sense. I honestly haven't kept up with it.. we all knew the outcome. I was a little interested today when I heard about the potential for witnesses. I guess I hoped we'd get the cowards on record under oath.

by **Cameron** 2021-02-14, 01:39

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:

The House Managers had no input on that except for requesting it. After that, it is up to an agreement between the Senators on how to do it. In the end, they agreed to let Trump admit that the contents of the call with McCarthy were accurate.

Besides, it wouldn't change anything. Also, it would give the Trump team a chance to call witnesses. And they could call people closer to Trump that will, even under oath, lie about how much he wanted to stop it. Also, Trump's team wanted to call Pelosi, Kamala, etc., and bash them about the summer riots (irrelevance isnt an objection that can be made in this type if trial).

They'd also ask bullshit questions of Pelosi trying to blame her Jan 6. They hinted at that, and Lindsay and Cruz have said as much elsewhere. They're trying to say that if the Capitol Police, FBI, etc. had reports of potential problems, did they tell Pelosi, and did she not try to get a stronger defensive presence, because she wanted this to happen to make Trump look bad. Of course, that is absurd nonsense, but ask leading questions twist what she says, etc. (again, objections that would prevent that in a Court of Law wouldn't work here).

The case was made beyond any shadow of a doubt without all of that, so it wasn't really relevant to the outcome.
yeah, good points.

I hope Democrat leadership can articulate these points to America in an effective manner. I think a lot of people want to know why they turned out in 2018 and 2020 only for more of the same.

But I agree with ya. It all makes sense. I honestly haven't kept up with it.. we all knew the outcome. I was a little interested today when I heard about the potential for witnesses. I guess I hoped we'd get the cowards on record under oath.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2021-02-16, 07:45

So it seems like every Republican senator who voted for impeachment is on the road to censure by their state parties if they haven't been already Sunday or Monday. I can't imagine being in such a toxic party. Problem is, they don't see it that way. So fucked up.

by **kingstonlake** 2021-02-16, 08:03

There has to be a reckoning in the GOP. This isn't sustainable.

by Sponsored content