Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

What kind of billionaire is Trump? Self proclaimed?

This deserves some discussion.

So, there are types of billionaires, including
a) those that have $1 billion or more, and
b) those that have $1 billion or more more than they owe

Trump is likely to face several powerful groups, not the last of which is Deutsche Bank, coming for the money Trump promised them with contracts that not even Trump can get out of...until he declares personal bankruptcy and basically loses everything. In other words, he's likely the first type. We have a rough idea how much his assets are worth, but he's pretty quiet about how much he owes -- and to whom. He fought for four years for that, the world's largest security risk, to be hidden from Congress. If he really had that much money, I can't imagine he'd need to hide it. Also, if he had that much money, I can't imagine banks would be reluctant to give him loans. Someone with money can be forced to pay. Someone without money cannot.

[Benggaul]

Mike Lee just said that Trump shouldn't be convicted because "everyone makes mistakes; everyone deserves a mulligan". A mulligan. For inciting a riot on the Capitol?

[Felya]

Mike Lee just said that Trump shouldn't be convicted because "everyone makes mistakes; everyone deserves a mulligan". A mulligan. For inciting a riot on the Capitol?

Doesn’t that make Trump guilty?

[Karrotlord]

Mike Lee just said that Trump shouldn't be convicted because "everyone makes mistakes; everyone deserves a mulligan". A mulligan. For inciting a riot on the Capitol?

Since this is his SECOND impeachment, I'd say he already got his mulligan.

[Benggaul]

Doesn’t that make Trump guilty?

No, the fact that he did it is what makes Trump guilty. None of these GOP are going to be voting to convict him. Rand Paul is just doodling on his notepad.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...TEM36CWW5Z7VKY

Almost every senatorial eye in the chamber was glued to the screens as lead House manager Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) played a 13-minute video depicting the events of Jan. 6 to introduce the impeachment case against Trump — with a few notable exceptions.

While the screen showed demonstrators marching on the Capitol, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) looked down at the pad of lined paper in his lap, where he had already begun doodling with a pencil. Behind him, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) studied papers in his lap, taking only the tiniest glimpses at the screen to his right. A few seats over, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also focused most of his attention on papers in front of him instead of on the images depicting the insurrection at the Capitol, and a few seats from him, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) did the same.

The senators on the floor all lived through the events of Jan. 6, and it is impossible to know why certain individuals chose to look away. The facial expressions of those who did watch were varied: Some were focused intently, others stared blankly, some frowned, and at least one Republican senator’s face appeared to redden the longer the video went on.

Surprising nobody. Remember these names.

[Edge-]

At least some of them forced themselves to watch. I wouldn't have expected any less from the ones who weren't paying attention. It's harder for them to pretend they don't know the facts when they're forced to see them with their own eyes. Now they can say, "Sorry, I didn't see that," and it's 100% true.

"What's a TV? What are videos? I'm too busy working to pay attention to these things, my staff handles that." - Marco Rubio, probably.

[Edge-]

I mean, Tuberville blamed the weather for not being up on the news. I don’t put shit past these fucks.

Hey, the guy gets his news via carrier pigeon, the most secure form of communication. It's not his fault when the weather is too stormy for the pigeons to arrive.

[Breccia]

Mike Lee just said that Trump shouldn't be convicted because "everyone makes mistakes; everyone deserves a mulligan". A mulligan. For inciting a riot on the Capitol?

Out of curiosity, did Mike Lee -- now my favorite hybrid ninja turtle -- honestly claim Trump got four years into his tenure before making a mistake? How's COVID going,, fucker?

- - - Updated - - -

Schumer says he has new evidence to present at Trump's second impeachment trial.

I believe the managers will present a very strong case. The evidence will be powerful. The evidence, some of it will be new.

Hmm. Well, to do anything different would make me a hypocrite. Then show it already! I somehow doubt two Proud Boys' texts to each other, likely sent between fornicating with livestock, count as classified intel.

[Paranoid Android]

LOL! Castor is effin horrible at litigating this case atm. Now he can just be a garbage lawyer but also this case is so indefensible, idk how/what you can argue.

[beanman12345]

Lord, can tell this is trump's like 4th string legal team, the guy has ambulance chaser written all over him, and so I'm assuming the trumpsters love him.

[Edge-]

I'm assuming he's going somewhere with all this, but I've been enjoying listening to him fawn over the US Senate for the past 5-10 minutes. Buttering up the jury right from the get-go.

[Breccia]

As Trump prepares to take the stand let his lawyers defend his murderous insurrection, it makes senese for his lawyers to have a defense.

For example, they cited this paper by Kalt, a Michigan Law professor, from 2001.

Problem is, Kalt is still alive and says Trump's team is misreading everything.

For example, they quoted Kalt as saying something, which was actually said in 1876, and which Kalt said in that paper was an invalid argument.

[Trump's lawyers] suggest that Kalt's position is that putting a former official on trial is also so unusual that if the founders meant to allow it, they would have put that in the Constitution, too.

Kalt actually argued the opposite in his article.

He wrote that the practice was widespread among the early states and in England. "The failure to bar it while specifying other limitations on the impeachment power is a telling admission," he wrote.

At its core, the Constitution is a list of things the government can't do.

"Well how were Trump's lawyers supposed to know Kalt opposed their position?"

Well they could have read the article, for one. Or, this open letter signed by 170 legal scholars saying that, yes, you can impeach former officers.

"That's just an opinion!"

But Kalt signed it. Quoting someone who opposes your motion probably won't end well.

- - - Updated - - -

Lord, can tell this is trump's like 4th string legal team

Again, what choice does Trump have, what choice does Trump need?
a) The Senate GOP would literally rather die than convict, so his lawyers' motions and evidence are meaningless.
b) Which legal firm sees how Trump treats his legal teams, sees what Trump pays his legal team, and say "Yeah I want in on that murderous insurrection!"
c) Also, Trump fires everyone who doesn't give the impossible results he demands. Do you see Powell in the room? No? It's because she was fired.

[Benggaul]

Lord, can tell this is trump's like 4th string legal team, the guy has ambulance chaser written all over him, and so I'm assuming the trumpsters love him.

Trump could have just picked 3 random people off the street and sent them to defend him and the result would be the same. It doesn't matter if there are no lawyers willing to represent him when the jury has already made their decision.

[Paranoid Android]

People we shouldn't use the Magna Carta! Pre-Revolutionary!!!

For those who are not following Trump's idiot lawyer is I guess trying to argue that we can't follow rules/precedent before our Revolution.

[Gestopft]

Trump’s lawyer has been talking for like 40 minutes and said absolutely nothing of substance so far

[Odinfrost]

Jesus this Castor guy... Trying to appeal to emotions, rambling about stuff that has NOTHING to do with impeachment or the constitutionality of it all... Also:

"If you sacrifice some liberty for security, then you deserve neither liberty, nor security."

Well better make murder legal as that is security that sacrifices liberty. Specifically, it's infringing on my liberty to kill people.


Edit: And now the idiot is trying to argue that this shouldn't happen because this is the third impeachment in all of our lifetimes. That is not how impeachment works...

[beanman12345]

Again, what choice does Trump have, what choice does Trump need?
a) The Senate GOP would literally rather die than convict, so his lawyers' motions and evidence are meaningless.
b) Which legal firm sees how Trump treats his legal teams, sees what Trump pays his legal team, and say "Yeah I want in on that murderous insurrection!"
c) Also, Trump fires everyone who doesn't give the impossible results he demands. Do you see Powell in the room? No? It's because she was fired.

well, these guys have only been on the case for like a week, so not much time to say no. but it really does look like he called one of those late night commercial law firm of doofus and dumbass with a 555-5555 phone number. These guys hit jackpot they have a celebrity case they've essentially already won.

[Paranoid Android]

The slipper slope argument.

OK!

If they want to partisan impeach a President then so be it. I want to say if they try to remove a President on some bs charges will likely never happen, then I remember whe have the GOP. Anyways for some reason the American public doesn't really like impeachment trials so there are consequences. Also the irony of Clinton Impeachment.

So yeah back to a guy incited an insurrection and deaths and trying to say the next impeachment will be over a President who didn't dot his I's or cross his T's is hillarious of course.

[Belize]

Is, um, Trump's... err.... "lawyer" trying to threaten Senators to vote to acquit in order to avoid losing their seat/facing repercussions...?