2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[seacoaster]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but it looks pretty straightforward (unless you are in the bag for the Trump Family Circus):

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... a/full.pdf

Yup, pretty straightforward.

I think they need to present it to Mitch at earliest possible date (ie., before Trump leaves office). The ball is then in his court. The fact that Mitch wants to delay is on him and the republicans. One count is not going to take more than one week to adjudicate, even if it is an early week in the new administration. The republicans are doing everything they can to try to convince the democrats how bad this will be for a) the democrats, b) the country, etc. They are protesting too much, the republicans are arguing for no accountability, especially if it is associated with the republican party. If they want to censure Trump, let them knock themselves out. Every democrat will vote for it. It carries no force of law, slap on the wrist. Seems to me it is a trap the republicans are setting for themselves if Nancy still decides to move forward with impeachment.

Here is the summary of McConnell's memorandum to his caucus:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/ ... 47/photo/1

[old salt]

Emily Rainey, a 30-year-old psychological operations officer stationed at Fort Bragg, told the Associated Press she led 100 members of a conservative advocacy group in North Carolina to Washington, D.C., on Wednesday "to stand against election fraud."

“I was a private citizen and doing everything right and within my rights,” Rainey told the Associated Press on Sunday.

Rainey resigned after military officials said they would investigate her participation and whether any other enlisted military joined her for the Washington events, CBS News reported on Monday.

This gal certainly has 1st Amendment rights as a private citizen. But JFC -- how is she qualified to do her job??????

She's a psy ops professional. But couldn't detect that she had been successfully psy op-ed by Trump's obvious Big Lies and BS?????

What the heck is wrong with all these military folks involved in this?

The military retirees who participated are placing their pension & retirement benefits at risk.

USAF (ret) Lt Colonel Brock was fired by Hillwood Airways (a Perot company operating customized B-737's out of DFW).

[Typical Lax Dad]

Emily Rainey, a 30-year-old psychological operations officer stationed at Fort Bragg, told the Associated Press she led 100 members of a conservative advocacy group in North Carolina to Washington, D.C., on Wednesday "to stand against election fraud."

“I was a private citizen and doing everything right and within my rights,” Rainey told the Associated Press on Sunday.

Rainey resigned after military officials said they would investigate her participation and whether any other enlisted military joined her for the Washington events, CBS News reported on Monday.

This gal certainly has 1st Amendment rights as a private citizen. But JFC -- how is she qualified to do her job??????

She's a psy ops professional. But couldn't detect that she had been successfully psy op-ed by Trump's obvious Big Lies and BS?????

What the heck is wrong with all these military folks involved in this?

They love their country and are willing to fight for something.

[MDlaxfan76]

You're from Missouri, Salty?

...my best insight into that state's rural group was a quail hunt down in Texas to which a bunch of top distributors of pet food, horse food, etc were invited by Purina...

When I was growing up in rural/exurban MO. Quail hunting was great. Farmers would let you hunt their harvested fields. Everybody had a bird dog. Sadly, not so much anymore.

https://www.fourstateshomepage.com/news ... -60-years/

Same for where we went bird hunting, mostly pheasant, in western MD, some quail, chukar, and lots of dove. Even on our own property just outside 695 we had quail running the hedge rows, pheasants dozens at a time sunning in the field. That's pretty much all gone, presumably due to no-till farming techniques and reduction in long continuous hedge rows. We had a wonderful English setter for the upland game, labs for the duck and goose hunting on the Eastern shore. Inside dogs that were both pets and working dogs. Most of my quail hunting trips were down Georgia way.

[Kismet]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but it looks pretty straightforward (unless you are in the bag for the Trump Family Circus):

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... a/full.pdf

Yup, pretty straightforward.

I think they need to present it to Mitch at earliest possible date (ie., before Trump leaves office). The ball is then in his court. The fact that Mitch wants to delay is on him and the republicans. One count is not going to take more than one week to adjudicate, even if it is an early week in the new administration. The republicans are doing everything they can to try to convince the democrats how bad this will be for a) the democrats, b) the country, etc. They are protesting too much, the republicans are arguing for no accountability, especially if it is associated with the republican party. If they want to censure Trump, let them knock themselves out. Every democrat will vote for it. It carries no force of law, slap on the wrist. Seems to me it is a trap the republicans are setting for themselves if Nancy still decides to move forward with impeachment.

Would that allow Mitch & the (still) (R) majority to set the rules of the trial ?

Given the initial text of the Insurrection count, I don't think the rules would matter much no matter who is in charge this go around - Senate has already voted on the rules from the last time and the whole witness calling stuff isn't really relevant this time - they can just play the tapes for corroboration of the charge to convince 17 GOP Senators to vote for the obvious and 17 votes is not out of the realm of possibility depending on how much more information comes out before then and what stupid DOPUS garbage might also arise in the coming days. He is the proverbial loose cannon and capable of just about anything. Already expect that Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Toomey are already YES. Cassidy, maybe even Portman, Burr, Tillis, Thune, Lee, Scott and Cotton are possible along with even McConnell. I think anything is possible

Captain Rainey's job category is an oxymoron. What a dope. At least, she was not in nuclear weapons.

[SCLaxAttack]

Question for our resident legal eagles:

News reports both Cipollone and Barr (before resigning) have both advised Trump to not self-pardon. What are the potential legal implications that would cause that advice?

Response to Kismet's comment above:

Tillis from NC is on record as a Trump sycophant. He's all-in for Trump.

[MDlaxfan76]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but it looks pretty straightforward (unless you are in the bag for the Trump Family Circus):

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... a/full.pdf

Yup, pretty straightforward.

I think they need to present it to Mitch at earliest possible date (ie., before Trump leaves office). The ball is then in his court. The fact that Mitch wants to delay is on him and the republicans. One count is not going to take more than one week to adjudicate, even if it is an early week in the new administration. The republicans are doing everything they can to try to convince the democrats how bad this will be for a) the democrats, b) the country, etc. They are protesting too much, the republicans are arguing for no accountability, especially if it is associated with the republican party. If they want to censure Trump, let them knock themselves out. Every democrat will vote for it. It carries no force of law, slap on the wrist. Seems to me it is a trap the republicans are setting for themselves if Nancy still decides to move forward with impeachment.

Would that allow Mitch & the (still) (R) majority to set the rules of the trial ?

They could try, but the new Committee chairs could re-do anything, so sounds like they simply wouldn't move until too late to do anything. Mitch is unlikely to test the unanimous consent requirement, though it would be interesting to see who would step forward to oppose.

[MDlaxfan76]

Question for our resident legal eagles:

News reports both Cipollone and Barr (before resigning) have both advised Trump to not self-pardon. What are the potential legal implications that would cause that advice?

Response to Kismet's comment above:

Tillis from NC is on record as a Trump sycophant. He's all-in for Trump.

Depends on McConnell...if he says vote to impeach, it makes it much easier for some of the former Trump weasels to come along.

[Matnum PI]

NBC News @NBCNews
56m
BREAKING: The FBI has sent a memo to law enforcement agencies across the country warning of possible armed protests at all 50 state capitol buildings starting Jan. 16.

The FBI also says an armed group has threatened to travel to Washington, D.C. the same day and stage an uprising if Congress removes President Trump from office, according to a senior law enforcement official.

[jhu72]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but it looks pretty straightforward (unless you are in the bag for the Trump Family Circus):

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... a/full.pdf

Yup, pretty straightforward.

I think they need to present it to Mitch at earliest possible date (ie., before Trump leaves office). The ball is then in his court. The fact that Mitch wants to delay is on him and the republicans. One count is not going to take more than one week to adjudicate, even if it is an early week in the new administration. The republicans are doing everything they can to try to convince the democrats how bad this will be for a) the democrats, b) the country, etc. They are protesting too much, the republicans are arguing for no accountability, especially if it is associated with the republican party. If they want to censure Trump, let them knock themselves out. Every democrat will vote for it. It carries no force of law, slap on the wrist. Seems to me it is a trap the republicans are setting for themselves if Nancy still decides to move forward with impeachment.

Here is the summary of McConnell's memorandum to his caucus:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/ ... 47/photo/1

Yup, just like last time. So the House is on record before the end of Trump's term. Nothing will happen before the 21st most likely, 20th at earliest. What then happens is an open question. Does McConnell run it?; which Senators are seated?; does SCOTUS get involved?; if SCOTUS gets involved, on what issue do they get involved?, etc. I suspect it will be cleaner than the republican's hope. SCOTUS will make it as clean as possible and will not want to get involved in a procedural pissing contest. Democrats takeover and run the procedure (swearing in new members, etc.) then turn the crank.

[Typical Lax Dad]

NBC News @NBCNews
56m
BREAKING: The FBI has sent a memo to law enforcement agencies across the country warning of possible armed protests at all 50 state capitol buildings starting Jan. 16.

The FBI also says an armed group has threatened to travel to Washington, D.C. the same day and stage an uprising if Congress removes President Trump from office, according to a senior law enforcement official.

At least they fight for something.

[old salt]

Question for our resident legal eagles:

News reports both Cipollone and Barr (before resigning) have both advised Trump to not self-pardon. What are the potential legal implications that would cause that advice?

Response to Kismet's comment above:

Tillis from NC is on record as a Trump sycophant. He's all-in for Trump.

Depends on McConnell...if he says vote to impeach, it makes it much easier for some of the former Trump weasels to come along.

I believe it only takes one Senator to prevent the Senate from reconvening before the 19th.
Could the Senate receive the articles, conduct a trial & vote to convict before noon on the 20th ?
Amidst all the prep for the Inauguration ?
Would debate be required before the trial commenced ?

[old salt]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but it looks pretty straightforward (unless you are in the bag for the Trump Family Circus):

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... a/full.pdf

Yup, pretty straightforward.

I think they need to present it to Mitch at earliest possible date (ie., before Trump leaves office). The ball is then in his court. The fact that Mitch wants to delay is on him and the republicans. One count is not going to take more than one week to adjudicate, even if it is an early week in the new administration. The republicans are doing everything they can to try to convince the democrats how bad this will be for a) the democrats, b) the country, etc. They are protesting too much, the republicans are arguing for no accountability, especially if it is associated with the republican party. If they want to censure Trump, let them knock themselves out. Every democrat will vote for it. It carries no force of law, slap on the wrist. Seems to me it is a trap the republicans are setting for themselves if Nancy still decides to move forward with impeachment.

Would that allow Mitch & the (still) (R) majority to set the rules of the trial ?

They could try, but the new Committee chairs could re-do anything, so sounds like they simply wouldn't move until too late to do anything. Mitch is unlikely to test the unanimous consent requirement, though it would be interesting to see who would step forward to oppose.

The new committees have not been established yet. It's still a (R) majority until Harris is sworn in & replaces Pence.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics ... index.html

[jhu72]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but it looks pretty straightforward (unless you are in the bag for the Trump Family Circus):

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... a/full.pdf

Yup, pretty straightforward.

I think they need to present it to Mitch at earliest possible date (ie., before Trump leaves office). The ball is then in his court. The fact that Mitch wants to delay is on him and the republicans. One count is not going to take more than one week to adjudicate, even if it is an early week in the new administration. The republicans are doing everything they can to try to convince the democrats how bad this will be for a) the democrats, b) the country, etc. They are protesting too much, the republicans are arguing for no accountability, especially if it is associated with the republican party. If they want to censure Trump, let them knock themselves out. Every democrat will vote for it. It carries no force of law, slap on the wrist. Seems to me it is a trap the republicans are setting for themselves if Nancy still decides to move forward with impeachment.

Would that allow Mitch & the (still) (R) majority to set the rules of the trial ?

Given the initial text of the Insurrection count, I don't think the rules would matter much no matter who is in charge this go around - Senate has already voted on the rules from the last time and the whole witness calling stuff isn't really relevant this time - they can just play the tapes for corroboration of the charge to convince 17 GOP Senators to vote for the obvious and 17 votes is not out of the realm of possibility depending on how much more information comes out before then and what stupid DOPUS garbage might also arise in the coming days. He is the proverbial loose cannon and capable of just about anything. Already expect that Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Toomey are already YES. Cassidy, maybe even Portman, Burr, Tillis, Thune, Lee, Scott and Cotton are possible along with even McConnell. I think anything is possible

Captain Rainey's job category is an oxymoron. What a dope. At least, she was not in nuclear weapons.

I really don't think it matters so much who is Senate majority leader when they are turning the crank. The seated Senators will matter during the vote. The other concern is McConnell playing games that could expand the time it takes, hence slowing down Biden admin. The only reason to go with the impeachment docs prior to Trump leaving office, is against the probability of a Trump challenge based on he had already left office. Frankly I don't think that is a strong challenge given that other successful impeachments have historically occurred in such a fashion. The House and Senate are free to do what they want. Seems to me a Trump challenge would be thrown out until and unless he was convicted. Until that time, I don't think Trump would have standing. Is an interesting question. Pelosi can pull the articles I believe any time she wants, which would break up any McConnell caused log jam. Then resubmit the articles once Dems are in charge. This happened (something similar) with Andrew Johnson. The same articles where summitted at least twice as I recall.

[jhu72]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but it looks pretty straightforward (unless you are in the bag for the Trump Family Circus):

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... a/full.pdf

Yup, pretty straightforward.

I think they need to present it to Mitch at earliest possible date (ie., before Trump leaves office). The ball is then in his court. The fact that Mitch wants to delay is on him and the republicans. One count is not going to take more than one week to adjudicate, even if it is an early week in the new administration. The republicans are doing everything they can to try to convince the democrats how bad this will be for a) the democrats, b) the country, etc. They are protesting too much, the republicans are arguing for no accountability, especially if it is associated with the republican party. If they want to censure Trump, let them knock themselves out. Every democrat will vote for it. It carries no force of law, slap on the wrist. Seems to me it is a trap the republicans are setting for themselves if Nancy still decides to move forward with impeachment.

Would that allow Mitch & the (still) (R) majority to set the rules of the trial ?

They could try, but the new Committee chairs could re-do anything, so sounds like they simply wouldn't move until too late to do anything. Mitch is unlikely to test the unanimous consent requirement, though it would be interesting to see who would step forward to oppose.

The new committees have not been established yet. It's still a (R) majority until Harris is sworn in & replaces Pence.

That's not a big issue, that will happen on the 20th. The bigger issue is when will the new Senators be installed, will that have to wait until after impeachment trial has finished.

[njbill]

The new committees have not been established yet. It's still a (R) majority until Harris is sworn in & replaces Pence.

My understanding is that for the Democrats to have the majority in the Senate, all of the following have to happen:

1. The two new Georgia senators have to be sworn in. I think, but I’m not positive, that Georgia has to certify those election results first. Not sure where they are in the process. Remember reading something that that might possibly not happen until after January 20.

2. Harris has to resign. Her replacement must be formally appointed. He must be sworn in. No reason that can’t happen before January 20.

3. The clock must tick to 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 20 at which point Harris becomes the vice president. Technically not required that she be sworn in although of course she will be.

Until all of these things happen, the Republicans will still control the Senate. Harris only votes if the Senate is tied 50-50. The two new Georgia senators must be sworn in (up in the air as to when that will be) before the Democrats will have 50 senators.

[seacoaster]

Question for our resident legal eagles:

News reports both Cipollone and Barr (before resigning) have both advised Trump to not self-pardon. What are the potential legal implications that would cause that advice?

Response to Kismet's comment above:

Tillis from NC is on record as a Trump sycophant. He's all-in for Trump.

Depends on McConnell...if he says vote to impeach, it makes it much easier for some of the former Trump weasels to come along.

On the self-pardon, there are two issues: (1) the text of the Constitution suggests that the President may not self-pardon; and (2) if he does it, it almost ensures a test in the Courts, providing an inducement to indict him and test the pardon's efficacy.

On impeachment in the Senate, McConnell's memo says that to act between now and January 19, there must be unanimous consent of the membership of the Senate. The Bootlicking/Sedition's Not So Bad Caucus will block that. This means, I think, that the House impeaches and the Senate, with Schumer as the Majority Leader, will convene and hear the case. We will see if Schumer allows for any GOP input into the process, which seems unlikely after the disgraceful hollowing out of the process a year ago.

Are there votes to impeach? Fifty Democrats. Romney. Collins. Toomey. Murkowski. How do they get to 67?

[old salt]

2. Harris has to resign. Her replacement must be formally appointed. He must be sworn in.

Watch your pronouns bill. ...naughty, naughty.

[njbill]

The bigger issue is when will the new Senators be installed, will that have to wait until after impeachment trial has finished.

I don’t think so. I’ve see no reason why that would be. I think they get sworn in as soon as GA certifies their elections.

Obviously in a normal jury trial, a new (non-alternate) juror couldn’t be added mid trial, but in an impeachment trial, that would be up to the Senate. No legal reason why they couldn’t allow the new senators to join mid trial.

Highly doubt they would do so, however. If the trial is going to get started shortly after the inauguration (which now seems to be in doubt), the practical reason why they would wait for them to be sworn in is that the Ds need their votes to have the majority. Likely to be hypothetical in any event because I doubt Mitch will start the trial even after January 20. He will wait for the Dems, not out of the goodness of his heart, but to stick them with the political impact of the impeachment trial.