I don't think Republicans really realize the outcome of their argument that impeachment is unconstitutional if a former President is no longer in office when the Impeachment trial takes place BECAUSE WE HAVE THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. Wow... I mean I cannot believe that the Republican party.... the party of Nixon, and Trump REALLY are endorsing tearing up the DOJ Memo from the Nixon era that says a President shouldn't be charged for crimes while in office because of Impeachment. If I am Meritt Garland, I am recording every single time a Republican states this and immediately having DOJ counsel write a memo citing the 2nd Impeachment of Donald J Trump as precedent confirmed by Congress that it is legal according to the Congress that a sitting president can be charged with Federal crimes after they leave office, and immediately charge him in the Stormy Daniels case among other numerous crimes. The Republicans, if they really do vote to acquit citing the Constitutionality of Impeaching a President no long in office, are opening a Pandora's box for the Justice System charging former Presidents..... WHICH WILL INVITE MORE VIOLENT INSURRECTIONS IF LOSING PRESIDENTS KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO JAIL AFTER THEY LEAVE
There will be some Senators that will use that as their excuse for voting to acquit. Even Ted Cruz admitted the Democrats proved their case in the Ukraine impeachment, but that it didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Yeah my guess is they realize that they are setting up Trump to get prosecuted, and reality sets in with Trump who then makes a call to Cruz etc. to tell them to stop it. Then we come back to the "Doesn't rise to the Impeachable Offense" argument which is the last argument they could possibly make. This is why I supported an investigation first because you really need that evidence that we all know is there where we find the communications between Trump, Stone, Bannon, and the organizers in order to establish that there was organization behind the scenes. I think the argument now is solid because obviously we all know what Trump was doing, but because the evidence is the "out in the open" type, it then becomes a free speech/political speech/oh-Trump-being-Trump argument. Without that evidence that we all know exists behind the scenes if you can use an investigation/prosecution to get it, I can almost guarantee you we end up with an acquittal which will end up being doesn't rise to impeachable because Trump was just being Trump, and it was his base supporters who don't speak Trump. They'll argue Trump's intent is to be bombastic but never to be taken seriously, and will point to his ridiculous statements in the past that generally get laughs. The argument will say it's Trump's base's fault, and you can't blame Trump for being a performance artist whose work is taken out of context IE Marylyn Manson getting blamed for the Columbine Shooting. If I was Trump's lawyer I would definitely use the Marylyn Manson/Columbine example because it is probably his best argument in all honesty.
Ah the old Fox News defense, no reasonable person would believe what we are saying. And they won. It made fools of Fox viewers but none of them changed the channel. Trump made fools of his followers and none of them changed their allegiance.
There is actually a legitimate defense its would be parsing words and would go to intent. Not saying it would sway me but an argument can be made and that makes it especially noteworthy that nobody of any merit wanted to debate this. The stench of Trump is just that strong.
She should be a star after this, she has done the best work of anyone satirizing this. Where is her Netflix special?
From the hourly update on CNN......GOP is not taking this seriously and have no intention of voting against the cult leader Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, insisted he was paying attention when sitting in the upstairs gallery and while reading a stack of documents from his manilla folder. He said he was reading legal briefs in the case. He's the lone senator sitting in the upstairs gallery. "Oh I'm very interested. That's why I'm sitting where I am," Hawley told CNN. Asked what he was reading, he said: "Well I've got the trial briefs with me, and taking notes. I'm sitting up there A, because it's a little less claustrophobic than on the floor, but B, I've also got a straight shot. Where I sit in the Senate chamber, as you know, I'm kind of in the corner. I can basically see the back of their heads. But I sort of picked a spot where I can look right down on them, I can see the TV, and it's interesting." Hawley added that if Republican senators don't think the Senate has jurisdiction to try the case, there's no reason in his view, why there should be any should vote to convict – a view expressed by many GOP senators. Hawley said Democrats are presenting their case in a "very understandable, easy-to-follow manner." But he added, "I don't think it's going to change any minds. In my view, we don't have jurisdiction."
not that we didn't already know, but the next time a republican tries to lecture on 'respecting the flag', or patriotism, or fighting for democracy, know that they are full of ****. A good chunk of them supported to tried to help incite a violent overthrow of an election, while the rest are desperate to ignore that it happened.
