2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[njbill]

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

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

? Newsom already announced he is appointing Alex Padilla.

[DMac]

Good news is, there are bloodhounds sniffing Donald's trail and hunting him down.
Anything that keeps a dark cloud over Trump and humiliates him is good in my book.
Not that I'm concerned about it much, but I would like to see him (and his whole family
for that matter) banned from running for office again. Impeaching him (again) is a good
move in my book regardless of how long it takes.

[old salt]

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

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

? Newsom already announced he is appointing Alex Padilla.

Does that still matter in the new Congress ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl ... espionage/

Rioters

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/trump-n ... nship.html

[jhu72]

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.

Yup. I don't believe there is any reason for McConnell to want to start the trial while he is Majority Leader. The only reason I can think of is to try to screw with the amount of time it would take and slow down Biden. That might be a republican goal, but I really don't think it interests McConnell as it is a loser, which may give him some tingle because he would be screwing with Pelosi. There is really nothing tangible for him in it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

. A man who had attended the riot had brass knuckles on him when he was arrested; several others had guns and ammunition, many without licenses. One young man was charged with assaulting an officer with a “hockey or lacrosse stick.” Those who were arraigned on Thursday afternoon all pleaded not guilty.

[njbill]

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.

I’ll take a stab at this.

One explanation could be that they think self pardons are unconstitutional. Given these two characters, that may not be the case, however.

Another reason to recommend against is that a self pardon would expose T**** to having to give grand jury and possibly other testimony because he would not be able to plead the 5th amendment.

A third reason is that it may make it more likely that the feds would indict him. I think any self-respecting prosecutor would not want to allow an assertion of self pardon to stand, but would indict T**** to get it tested in the court.

[njbill]

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

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

? Newsom already announced he is appointing Alex Padilla.

Does that still matter in the new Congress ?

Do you prefer they?

[Matnum PI]

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?

Also, if Trump were to self-pardon, it strengthens the motivation to bring civil cases against him.

[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.

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

correctemundo.
I won't say anything snide, but that's obviously the case. I'm referring to immediately after the Inauguration and reconvening of the Senate, given that Mitch won't likely actually schedule the 'trial' prior to the inauguration though he could accept the Articles of Impeachment on behalf of the Senate prior to Inauguration. I took it that was what you were asking, could Mitch set the rules that would bind the next Senate...I doubt it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Good news is, there are bloodhounds sniffing Donald's trail and hunting him down.
Anything that keeps a dark cloud over Trump and humiliates him is good in my book.
Not that I'm concerned about it much, but I would like to see him (and his whole family
for that matter) banned from running for office again. Impeaching him (again) is a good
move in my book regardless of how long it takes.

The biggest cost (from Tump and Co's perspective) to a ban from running for office is to prevent him/them from using a run as a scam to raise money.

[jhu72]

Latest Polling on the Insurrection.

[Kismet]

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?

PROBABLES (7) Burr, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Toomey, Sasse,

MAYBES (12) Blunt, Capito, Cassidy, Cornyn, Cotton, Ernst, Grassley, Lankford, Lee, McConnell, TScott, Thune

That's 19

Keep in mind, 2 seats are currently open so 16 gets it done especially if Padilla is not sworn in until the 20th

Also this via Axios (Jonathan Swan)
Per a senior Dem aide: "Schumer is exploring using the authority granted to the two Senate leaders in 2004 to reconvene the Senate in times of emergency, to allow for a potential trial to begin immediately after articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate."
Per same aide: "this would still require Leader McConnell, but you would need only the two leaders to make it happen. It would not require unanimous consent of all 100 senators (as Sen. McConnell’s memo indicated)."

[njbill]

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.

I think Schumer will need at least one Republican senator for any vote in the Senate (procedure, motions). Harris doesn’t vote in impeachment trials. Roberts said last time that he won’t be the tie-breaking vote. Pretty sure that if the vote on any matter is 50-50, then it isn’t approved or doesn’t pass.

[seacoaster]

Good thread from an eyewitness to the events, with enough experience to compare this "protest" to others:

https://twitter.com/TerryBoutonHist/sta ... 5013370892

[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.

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?

PROBABLES (7) Burr, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Toomey, Sasse,

MAYBES (12) Blunt, Capito, Cassidy, Cornyn, Cotton, Ernst, Grassley, Lankford, Lee, McConnell, TScott, Thune

That's 19

Keep in mind, 2 seats are currently open so 16 gets it done especially if Padilla is not sworn in until the 20th

I think if McConnell says yes, and he should, a whole lot of others get the green light to bury Trump.

Putting aside all the ethical reasons why McConnell should vote for conviction, it sets him up to impose the sort of discipline the GOP will need if it's to have a chance at recovery from this debacle. They need to wash their hands of Trump...some in the House will have other dynamics at play due to their constituencies, but there's no Senator that's vulnerable if they do this as a majority of the caucus.

[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?

Also, if Trump were to self-pardon, it strengthens the motivation to bring civil cases against him.

And strengthens Impeachment.

[old salt]

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

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

? Newsom already announced he is appointing Alex Padilla.

Does that still matter in the new Congress ?

Do you prefer they?

it or meh

[njbill]

PROBABLES (7) Burr, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Toomey, Sasse,

MAYBES (12) Blunt, Capito, Cassidy, Cornyn, Cotton, Ernst, Grassley, Lankford, Lee, McConnell, TScott, Thune

That's 19

Keep in mind, 2 seats are currently open so 16 gets it done especially if Padilla is not sworn in until the 20th

Interesting list.

Maybe I’m not following you, but I’m not sure about your last sentence.

Currently there are 51 Republican senators and 48 Democratic senators (including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats). Perdue’s term expired on January 3. Loeffler is still a senator until her replacement is sworn in. Harris is still a Senator until she resigns.

But this is immaterial to your list which, if accurate, would produce 69 votes to convict after the two Georgia senators are sworn in and we do the Harris for Padilla swap.

For what it is worth (not much), there are currently 99 senators so only 66 votes are needed to convict until Ossoff is sworn in. But that would require all 48 Ds (plus Is) and 18 Rs.