You can see the usual cockroaches coming back out of the shadows to rejoin those that were too insufferable to scuttle in the first place. Let's hope the decision to forgo witnesses was to avoid trampling the coming avalanche of criminal prosecutions. Republican Senators Are Asking the Courts to Take Care of Trump for Them Donald Trump limped his way to acquittal in his second impeachment trial, with 57 senators voting to convict him of inciting insurrection. But it is an ominous sign that not only did many of the senators who did vote to acquit base their position on a technicality — Trump was supposedly ineligible for impeachment as an ex-officeholder, as opposed to not guilty of the crime — they conspicuously pointed toward the court system as a venue for further prosecution. “The ultimate accountability is through our criminal justice system where political passions are checked,” said Republican senator Thom Tillis, who voted not guilty, “No president is above the law or immune from criminal prosecution, and that includes former president Trump.” Mitch McConnell, who likewise voted to acquit, announced, “Impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice. … We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” This might seem fanciful, or a convenient way for Republicans to evade responsibility. But Trump is facing serious legal exposure. As Jeff Wise wrote for us back in September, Trump is the subject of two ongoing investigations in the state of New York. One, by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, is criminal. The other, by Attorney General Letitia James, is currently civil, but could easily become a criminal case. Both these investigations concern financial crimes that have, at least in part, been documented by the media and appear to involve relatively clear violations of the law. Trump has made several deals in which he apparently kept two sets of books, giving one set of numbers to his lenders and a very different set of numbers to tax authorities. Even if prosecutors turn up nothing new, which is hardly a given, he faces a high risk of being charged. There’s no reason to believe the investigations are getting better for Trump, and plenty of reason to believe they can get worse. The Wall Street Journal today reports that Vance’s probe is expanding to look at additional Manhattan properties not previously known to be part of his investigation. Third, both Georgia’s secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis are investigating Trump’s campaign to pressure state officials to flip the vote there. Willis has suggested Trump might have committed either criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, or racketeering, by demanding they “find 11,780 votes,” an almost comically corrupt request he was caught making on tape. And fourth, Trump’s role in inciting the riot, or refusing to take action to halt it once underway, could also be the subject of criminal investigation. There’s no known probe of this matter, which would require a Department of Justice that is no longer controlled by his lackey, Bill Barr. Testimony could easily produce more incriminating evidence that Trump not only incited a mob but refused entreaties by fellow republicans to call a halt to it, instead using the violent pressure to force them to participate in his scheme to overturn the election. The best protection Trump would enjoy from any of these known or potential investigations is the informal aura of legal impunity granted to former presidents. That protection has been stripped off by the insurrection, and the tepid defense mounted by his former party. Republicans in Congress may not want to anger their base by voting openly to disqualify Trump from office. But they very obviously wish for Trump to be disqualified by somebody else. The pointed gestures toward the courts by McConnell and his allies are a clear signal that those judges shouldn’t extend to Trump any special protection. Judges don’t think exactly like elected officials do, of course. But they don’t think completely unlike them. The motivation of jurists is a mysterious elixir of legal principle and political calculation. Their reasoning needs to make some sense, but the bar of “reasonable” tends to be much lower to reach a favorable ruling for their team. Republicans are going out of their way to tell the courts that they don’t see Trump as a member of their team. Will nobody rid them of this turbulent Florida man?
What a great look. Dog pile your political opponents when they leave office. Meanwhile American has serious ****ing problems to handle. Congress is worthless.
It's called setting precedent. As a country you can't set precedent for a President to invite a riot to subvert a democratic process at the US Capitol building and just walk away as if nothing happened. That's asking for this **** to happen again. We can walk and hold water at the same time. This is a insincere complaint. Though I think I didn't need to point that out as it's obvious and everyone reading your comment already knew that.
So I have your word then in February 2025, a month after Joe Biden tries to illegally overturn an election that democratically denies him re-election, you will just want to move on without any sort of justice, or disqualification of Biden being able to hold office again? You'll be cool with a Democratic trying to stage a Coup? Good to know. Also, you should be commending the Democratic House Managers for negotiating to avoid calling witnesses and extending the trial by weeks. It's completely obvious they did that because of the importance of Covid Relief, and the threat by Senators like Joni Ernst who threatened to hold up ANY Senate business throughout the process. Who again is serious about governing, and taking care of serious issues? Definitely not Joni Ernst who is willing to play politics and make you and me suffer the consequences in order to protect the Supreme Leader Cleric who is no longer even in power.
Yep, totally agree. As much as I find his actions objectionable over time, just the craft makes people like Graham, Cruz, Schumer, and decent folks like Coons and Murkowski, look like complete amateur hacks.
Politically, i think trump's biggest mistake was listening to turtle and playing hardball on stimulus checks with the dems; if a 2nd round of checks had gone out before the election, he may still be president. turtle is a scary man, trusting his advice regardless of party is a bad idea for any president lol.
"Final Musings On Trump's Second Impeachment....": https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2021/02/final-musings-on-trumps-second-impeachment.html Final Musings On Trump's Second Impeachment.... First and foremost, it's over and few of us are surprised. Second, as several here opined, the January 6th speech wasn't enough. Third, The House managers should have focused on Trump's acts and words during the weeks leading up to January 6th--going back to 2016 was odd (Then again, as if any of it mattered?). Fourth, House managers should have insisted on calling witnesses---of all of Trump's wrongs, representatives and senators cared most about their own lives and safety---should have thus had several witnesses remind them of how little Trump cared about their safety, and how pleased he seemed to be on January 6th (as if any of it mattered?). Fifth, absent a video of Trump actually breaking into the Capitol, nothing would likely have been enough for forty plus U.S. senators. Sixth, House managers did a wonderful job of painting Trump for what he is--a mean petty selfish narcissist who evidently did not even care about his own vice-president's safety (as if any of it mattered?). Seventh, the partisan nature of the vote embarrasses many of us observers of domestic politics. Eighth, did the partisan nature of the vote add fuel to the Georgia and New York investigations? Ninth, the Georgia call strikes me as perhaps the most outrageous of Trump's cacophony of outrageous acts. Tenth, with the way NY lawyers, especially prosecutors, hound targets, how will Trump respond to the scrutiny. Eleventh, while it appears grievances and perhaps anger motivate Trump, how much can his 74 year old body take with the likely unending scrutiny he will face. Twelfth, how far have we come in our country when journalists and even bloggers seem to obsess on a former president. Thirteenth, wish the riots never happened and none of us would have to think about insurrections, Senate integrity, or the potential radical future of any political party. Fourteenth, despite it all, still the grandest country the world has ever seen. Posted by Ediberto Roman at 09:00 AM | Permalink
Gotta tell the murderers, rapists, etc to run for president and commit their crimes right before they’re about to leave. The cuck @dachuda86 will be there to hold their dick
"Mutual Destruction: How Trump’s Trial Became A Tale Of Constitutional Noir": https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/...s-trial-became-a-tale-of-constitutional-noir/ Mutual Destruction: How Trump’s Trial Became A Tale Of Constitutional Noir by jonathanturley Below is my column in the Hill on second Trump trial and how core values quickly became the extraneous to the purpose of this constitutional process. The final chaos triggered by Rep. Jaime Raskin (D., Md) only highlighted the procedural and legal irregularities in a trial that seem increasingly detached from values like due process. Here is the column: In the 1946 movie “Gilda,” Rita Hayworth delivered perhaps the ultimate film noir line. Looking at her former lover, she declared, “I hate you so much that I would destroy myself to take you down with me.” Hayworth made self-destruction sound positively alluring. That line came to mind as I watched House impeachment managers and Democratic senators systematically discard basic values that once defined fair trials — and American values — under the Constitution. When Donald Trump’s defense counsel objected that he was not afforded due process in the House, the managers shrugged and said due process was not required. When the defense objected that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was protected under the First Amendment, the House scoffed that free speech is not only inapplicable but “frivolous” in an impeachment. Nothing, it seems, is so sacred that it cannot be discarded in pursuit of Trump. Over and over, it was made clear that his trial is about the verdict, not about our constitutional values. Even with acquittal all but ensured, there was no room for constitutional niceties like free speech or due process. There was only one issue — the same one that has driven our media and politics for four years: Trump. Through that time, some of us have objected that extreme legal interpretations and biased coverage destroy our legal and journalistic values. It was not done out of love for Trump: I voted against him in two elections and have regularly denounced his actions and rhetoric, including his Jan. 6 speech. However, I cherish our values more than I dislike him. That is why the second Trump impeachment trial played out with a film noir flourish, featuring the same “lost innocence,” “hard-edged cynicism” and “desperate desire” of that movie genre — most obviously when House managers dismissed any due process in an impeachment proceeding. Indisputably, the House could have held at least a couple days of hearings and still impeached Trump before he left office. It knew the Senate would not hold a trial before the end of his term, so it had until Jan. 20 to impeach him. It did so on Jan. 13. A hearing would have given Trump a formal opportunity to respond to the allegation against him; no one has ever been impeached without such an opportunity. It would have allowed witnesses to be called (including many who already were speaking publicly), to create even a minimal record for the trial. Yet the House refused, and then declined for more than four weeks to call a dozen witnesses with direct evidence to create a record even after its snap impeachment. So the House could have afforded basic due process but chose not to do so simply because it does not have to. When confronted about this in the Senate, one House manager scoffed at the notion that Trump should be afforded more due process. Representative Ted Lieu said, “Trump is receiving any and all process that he is due.” A chilling answer, since Trump received none in the House. There was a time when denying due process would have been shocking. Even if you believe that due process is not required in an impeachment, it is expected. We do not afford due process to people simply because we have to. It is like decency, civility and other values. They are not observed because they are mandatory but because they are right. It is a value that defines us and our actions. Moreover, this is a process dedicated to upholding the Constitution. To deny a basic constitutional value in its defense is akin to burning down a house in the name of fire safety. Yet, the House’s position is that a president can be impeached and tried without any record of a hearing, an investigation or witnesses. Then came the matter of free speech. Trump’s defense argued that it is inherently wrong to impeach a president for speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The House managers cited a letter from law professors declaring the argument “frivolous” even though some of those professors believe Trump’s speech may indeed be protected under cases like Brandenburg versus Ohio. Understanding how such language would be considered protected by the courts is relevant in whether it should be treated as a constitutional violation for the purpose of impeachment. Just as courts balance the value of criminal prosecution against the impact on free speech, the Senate can strike that same balance in an impeachment trial. Even if you believe the First Amendment does not apply in a case of incitement, you still must decide if this represented incitement or an exercise of free speech. Yet in a letter that spun with circular logic, the professors declared that “the First Amendment does not apply” to impeachment proceedings. At least not in a trial of Trump. House managers were asked why they did not present a case with specific elements of incitement set forth by the Supreme Court. Lead manager Representative Jamie Raskin said blissfully this case and Trump are a one-time instance of “presidential incitement” with its own ill-defined elements. In other words, it doesn’t have to meet the definition of incitement. Under such logic, the House could have impeached Trump for Endangered Species Act violations and said it need not involve any endangered species. This impeachment trial captures our age of rage. For four years, people claimed total impunity in discarding legal or journalistic standards. They claimed that attacks on free speech, due process, or media objectivity are noble in pursuit of Trump. You can be lionized for tossing aside such values in order to get him. A few years ago, a trial would have been viewed as wrong without direct evidence, due process, or clear standards. Yet this is a trial of Trump, and many have allowed Trump to define them more than their values. Like “Gilda,” they are willing to destroy their values to destroy him. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as a witness with the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and has also consulted Senate Republicans on the legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current trial. You can find him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Hahahahahahaha. Firstly because how can you say that as the American democracy is clearly failing. Secondly, this is exactly why people like Trump were elected. This narcissistic need to be the grandest country the world has ever seen (so not only the best current country but the best country ever). And also the need to say it constantly. This is something Trump would say. I am not saying my country is the best country in the world, There are many many advantages of living here, but also many disadvantages. Just like for every country. So how do you determine what is the greatest in country. To stay in terms Trump would use. Sad
American hubris is easy to promote to its vastly uneducated and poorly informed population. We are far from the greatest country in the world. If we are going with military might and tech related to that, then yeah sure. But other than that we are behind several countries in a number of metrics including: Education system Healthcare Social security Child care Gun violence The rest of the world is catching up while we are falling behind.
I'm beginning to think Turley didn't actually watch the Impeachment. He's claiming that House managers should have done or didn't do things they most definitely did. Very strange.
The republican party not only censures senator bill burr, but permanently bars burr from entering the building...
