JUST the NY "Hush Money"/Election Interference Trial

[seacoaster]

Because, why not waste millions more on several special councils?

Benghazi, $7,000,000 to $8,500,000.

[kramerica.inc]

Laughing at the absurd idea.

Because at this point we've seen the waste of $ with all these special counsels.

And to what end?

[seacoaster]

Laughing at the absurd idea.

Because at this point we've seen the waste of $ with all these special counsels.

And to what end?

With or about DJT, just little stuff like reinforcing the rule of law as a bedrock principal for the country.

[MDlaxfan76]

Laughing at the absurd idea.

Because at this point we've seen the waste of $ with all these special counsels.

And to what end?

Tru dat but karma is a B.

Personally, I think this work can be done with IG's and with actual prosecutions, needn't be 'special'.

The only rationale IMO for making it a 'special' prosecutor, with specific funding, would be separate it from the perceptions/accusations that the prosecutor is directed by the POTUS. And, in this case, I don't think there's any real risk of such given that Garland's views of the unitary powers of the POTUS (and Biden's) are very unlikely to be consistent with Barr's and Trump's (assuming he ever actually understood anything other than his desire to direct everything in his personal interest).

But one could make the argument that it needs to be separate and independent, with adequate funding.

[kramerica.inc]

Laughing at the absurd idea.

Because at this point we've seen the waste of $ with all these special counsels.

And to what end?

With or about DJT, just little stuff like reinforcing the rule of law as a bedrock principal for the country.

Double impeachment and the myriad of private lawsuits that will dog him for the rest of his years until he's 6 feet under isn't enough to say this won't be tolerated? The rest of America hears it loud and clear.

I just think considering what's already been thrown at him, is currently underway, and what he's looking at facing for the rest of his days, I think its a huge waste of resources. But I wont argue with your thought that it's not enough.

[njbill]

Interesting article, which says that Leahy, not Roberts or Harris, will preside over the impeachment trial.

Would be very interested in learning the behind the scenes story on how this has come to pass.

I had heard Roberts had been asked to give an opinion as to whether he should preside. Has he done so? Did he decide the constitution does not require him to preside?

Just a guess, but this sounds to me like a negotiated deal. Obviously, Mitch would not want Harris presiding with a vote. Leahy can preside, but he still would have a vote. That wouldn’t upset the 50-50 apple cart.

On the other hand, having Leahy in the chair, and not Roberts, could potentially be problematic on all kinds of levels.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics ... index.html

[a fan]

Double impeachment and the myriad of private lawsuits that will dog him for the rest of his years until he's 6 feet under isn't enough to say this won't be tolerated? The rest of America hears it loud and clear.

Boy, do I disagree. Have a look at Trump's final approval rating from registered Republicans. CLEARLY your fellow Republicans didn't get the memo on Trump's behavior.

Tell me: if Trump announced his candidacy for 2024, who would beat him for the Republican nomination?

[kramerica.inc]

Nikki Haley

[holmes435]

Appeasement sure worked out for Neville Chamberlain...

[a fan]

Nikki Haley

Great. Can you guarantee that she'd beat Trump for the nomination?

If the answer is no? Well, now you know why folks want Trump convicted in the Senate.....

[kramerica.inc]

Nikki Haley

Great. Can you guarantee that she'd beat Trump for the nomination?

If the answer is no? Well, now you know why folks want Trump convicted in the Senate.....

I know why the second round is happening and I'm all for it. Just for that reason.
I personally think most people have Trump exhaustion. But you don't know.
I didn't think he'd win the first time.

[a fan]

I personally think most people have Trump exhaustion.

Regular people? Yes, no question.

Republican voters? It's like saying no to chocolate cake----your team can't seem to surrender the tinfoil hat, and come back to planet Earth.

[seacoaster]

Ten minute video compilation, for your review:

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1353749633269379072

Full video here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/74335/figh ... e-capitol/

[dislaxxic]

Will we get witnesses this time? Some say they aren't needed, that ON ITS FACE, the DOPUS speech at the Ellipse was all that's needed...but that (a lack of witness testimony) may very well give GOP Senators MORE excuse to acquit the moron a second time.

What they don't seem to GET is that acquittal will hang the moron around their necks like an albatross in the run-up to 2024...

Win/Win for us leftists.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Will we get witnesses this time? Some say they aren't needed, that ON ITS FACE, the DOPUS speech at the Ellipse was all that's needed...but that (a lack of witness testimony) may very well give GOP Senators MORE excuse to acquit the moron a second time.

What they don't seem to GET is that acquittal will hang the moron around their necks like an albatross in the run-up to 2024...

Win/Win for us leftists.

..

I'd be looking for witnesses to Trump's reactions watching the TV while this went down, getting calls pleading for intervention. If the reporting by Haberman is correct, he was gleeful, felt this was in direct support of him, and particularly focused in his comments on stopping the certification by Congress...if there are indeed witnesses to this, that might well be the nail in the coffin for the fence sitters.

[njbill]

Yeah, a video of him jumping on the couch, gleefully exclaiming “go get ‘em” would be gold. Isn’t everything on video these days?

[old salt]

Interesting article, which says that Leahy, not Roberts or Harris, will preside over the impeachment trial.

Would be very interested in learning the behind the scenes story on how this has come to pass.

I had heard Roberts had been asked to give an opinion as to whether he should preside. Has he done so? Did he decide the constitution does not require him to preside?

Just a guess, but this sounds to me like a negotiated deal. Obviously, Mitch would not want Harris presiding with a vote. Leahy can preside, but he still would have a vote. That wouldn’t upset the 50-50 apple cart.

On the other hand, having Leahy in the chair, and not Roberts, could potentially be problematic on all kinds of levels.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics ... index.html

Even if Leahy can't vote, it won't matter.
2/3 of 99 = 66 needed to convict
66 - 49 (D)'s = 17 (R)'s still needed.

I'm disappointed that Judge Emmett Sullivan is not presiding.
His extraneous comments would be highly entertaining.

[ggait]

45 of 50 GOP Senators just voted (basically in effect) that Trump's impeachment is unconstitutional.

So just one more Big Lie added to the pile.

Of course it is constitutional. Duh. While Judge Luttig is a smart guy, his argument on this is conclusory and extremely unconvincing.

The 2021 version of Jon Turley (unconstitutional) even cites the 1999 version of himself who said constitutional:

Over twenty years ago, I wrote a law review article explaining how these cases reflect a desire to pass judgment on wrongdoing as well as to secure future disqualification. See Jonathan Turley, Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment as a Madisonian Device, 49 Duke Law Journal 1-146 (1999). I stated that such trials play an important dialogic role even on a retroactive basis. I still believe that.

Pretzel much, Jon?

Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey voted with Dems.

[njbill]

Interesting article, which says that Leahy, not Roberts or Harris, will preside over the impeachment trial.

Would be very interested in learning the behind the scenes story on how this has come to pass.

I had heard Roberts had been asked to give an opinion as to whether he should preside. Has he done so? Did he decide the constitution does not require him to preside?

Just a guess, but this sounds to me like a negotiated deal. Obviously, Mitch would not want Harris presiding with a vote. Leahy can preside, but he still would have a vote. That wouldn’t upset the 50-50 apple cart.

On the other hand, having Leahy in the chair, and not Roberts, could potentially be problematic on all kinds of levels.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics ... index.html

Even if Leahy can't vote, it won't matter.
2/3 of 99 = 66 needed to convict
66 - 49 (D)'s = 17 (R)'s still needed.

I'm disappointed that Judge Emmett Sullivan is not presiding.
His extraneous comments would be highly entertaining.

Leahy can vote but certainly based on what happened today, it won’t matter on acquittal/conviction. I was not aware of the Senate history that the president pro tem has presided over non-presidential impeachments. Based on Leahy’s performance today, I think it would be more efficient if the parliamentarian would simply preside, herself.

Would still like to hear the background story as to why Roberts isn’t presiding. Did he make that decision himself? Did Schumer and McConnell decide that? While it is an open question, probably fairly debatable, I still think the better reading of the constitution is that the chief justice should preside, but that obviously isn’t happening.

I was thinking more about some vote during trial, say on hearing from a specific witness, which might come down to a close vote.

Judge Sullivan is getting prepared to hear the insurrection (or erection, as Chuck would call it) case to be filed against T****. Hopefully Roger Stone will counsel him ahead of time not to threaten to kill the judge.

[youthathletics]

He'll probably en banc again.