Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

StringerBell

namloc1980 wrote: »

Serious question: what exactly are Trump's lawyers going to talk about for their allocated 16 hours to present their case?

How it's unconstitutional, how it's vindictive, how it's nothing more than partisan politics and divisive to the country at a time of great suffering with the pandemic.

How they have hated Donald trump from day 1 and have drummed up one hoax after another to attempt to remove him and they are so scared of him, as the people's champion, running again because they know they have nobody to beat him so they are now attempting this disgraceful anti democratic smear to stop him from making America great again, like it was before this Chinese virus that was spread by willing democrats to stop him winning reelection.

That there is plenty of accusations, that close to 40% believe that the election was rigged and he can't be held responsible for what a group of people do when they see their country being stolen in front of their very eyes, that he or course disavows all violence and has said so many times and remains always and forever a patriotic American that the radical socialist left hate because they hate American prosperity.

And so on, ad nauseum.

Tbf I'd say they will only bother with a fraction of their 16 hours.

They may aswell get up, make one statement saying we offer no defence as none is needed. trump owns the GOP and they are not going to vote to remove/ban.

Job done.

Tell me how

namloc1980 wrote: »

Serious question: what exactly are Trump's lawyers going to talk about for their allocated 16 hours to present their case?

StringerBell wrote: »

How it's unconstitutional, how it's vindictive, how it's nothing more than partisan politics and divisive to the country at a time of great suffering with the pandemic.

How they have hated Donald trump from day 1 and have drummed up one hoax after another to attempt to remove him and they are so scared of him, as the people's champion, running again because they know they have nobody to beat him so they are now attempting this disgraceful anti democratic smear to stop him from making America great again, like it was before this Chinese virus that was spread by willing democrats to stop him winning reelection.

That there is plenty of accusations, that close to 40% believe that the election was rigged and he can't be held responsible for what a group of people do when they see their country being stolen in front of their very eyes, that he or course disavows all violence and has said so many times and remains always and forever a patriotic American that the radical socialist left hate because they hate American prosperity.

And so on, ad nauseum.

Tbf I'd say they will only bother with a fraction of their 16 hours.

They may aswell get up, make one statement saying we offer no defence as none is needed. trump owns the GOP and they are not going to vote to remove/ban.

Job done.

If I was his lawyer, I'd split it in to 2 very short pieces.
1 on the constitutionality of the impeachment. He is out of office, they knew he was going to be out of office, we are only here so the Democrats can put on their show, blah, blah, blah. If the Democrats were truly concerned, they would be advocating for full criminal investigations, which they are not doing.

Secondly and more importantly. I would use footage from the same speech from the 6th which the Democrats utilized so much in their evidence except I would show the piece where he said;

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

And I would replay him saying the word peacefully 10 times. I would then say that everyone uses the words to 'fight for something' to indicate their commitment to a cause at some point. Not that they are intent on being violent and I would show news clips of various Democrats using the same phrase and pointing out that it wasn't assumed that they intended on being violent.

I would keep it very short with most of the focus on this second message. Bear in mind, 16 Republicans need to cross the aisle, about 5-8 I think I are expected to do so but anyone on the fence is probably looking for a way to stick with their side, and having the 'peacefully and patriotically' front and centre in peoples mind will make it easy for them to do so.

(Personally I would love to see him convicted, but this is politics, not justice)

aloyisious

Tell me how wrote: »

If I was his lawyer, I'd split it in to 2 very short pieces.
1 on the constitutionality of the impeachment. He is out of office, they knew he was going to be out of office, we are only here so the Democrats can put on their show, blah, blah, blah. If the Democrats were truly concerned, they would be advocating for full criminal investigations, which they are not doing.

Secondly and more importantly. I would use footage from the same speech from the 6th which the Democrats utilized so much in their evidence except I would show the piece where he said;



And I would replay him saying the word peacefully 10 times. I would then say that everyone uses the words to 'fight for something' to indicate their commitment to a cause at some point. Not that they are intent on being violent and I would show news clips of various Democrats using the same phrase and pointing out that it wasn't assumed that they intended on being violent.

I would keep it very short with most of the focus on this second message. Bear in mind, 16 Republicans need to cross the aisle, about 5-8 I think I are expected to do so but anyone on the fence is probably looking for a way to stick with their side, and having the 'peacefully and patriotically' front and centre in peoples mind will make it easy for them to do so.

(Personally I would love to see him convicted, but this is politics, not justice)

It's helpful when Ted Cruz and other GOP members of the senate jury met with the Trump defence team for whatever reason.

Tell me how

aloyisious wrote: »

It's helpful when Ted Cruz and other GOP members of the senate jury met with the Trump defence team for whatever reason.

It's a sham. Apparently 15 Republicans were absent from the senate today.

If that was a court, a juror would be held in contempt for not being present while the court was in session.

dogbert27

Just kind of dawned on me that while we all want to see Trump be convicted for what he was and we are annoyed that the Republicans won't exercise justice what these Republicans are doing by not convicting Trump is giving themselves a carte blanche for the future to do whatever crazy sxxt they want to and can now always refer back to this impeachment trial to say, "well if Trump wasn't convicted for insurrection how can you convict me for x, y and z?"

looksee

Is there no rule that if you are absent from the presentation of evidence (either way) you don't get to vote? What is the point of the roll call otherwise?

Leroy42

looksee wrote: »

Is there no rule that if you are absent from the presentation of evidence (either way) you don't get to vote? What is the point of the roll call otherwise?

Senators were given permission to be absent due to COVID. It is assumed they are watching remotely

Brian?

Water John wrote: »

his defence has said they won't. They expect to conclude their statements tomorrow. If no witnesses are called a verdict possibly on Sunday. Think Sat is off because Scheon asked for that being Jewish Sabbath.

The Senate doesn’t roll on Shabbas?

duploelabs

Brian? wrote: »

The Senate doesn’t roll on Shabbas?

If only they shouted 'you're over the line Donnie' in session

amandstu

dogbert27 wrote: »

Just kind of dawned on me that while we all want to see Trump be convicted for what he was and we are annoyed that the Republicans won't exercise justice what these Republicans are doing by not convicting Trump is giving themselves a carte blanche for the future to do whatever crazy sxxt they want to and can now always refer back to this impeachment trial to say, "well if Trump wasn't convicted for insurrection how can you convict me for x, y and z?"

They probably won't get the 67% majority but it should be a majority.

Hardly vindication ,I would have thought ,but maybe those who refuse to convict convicting themselves,.

banie01

I see Haley has turned on Trump!
Interesting that she has taken this tack before the Senate vote, I wonder if this and her new PAC aimed at funding Conservative candidates will sway any votes?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-impeachment-b1801440.html

Ms Haley confirmed to Politico on Friday that she has not spoken to Mr Trump since the riots, and expressed her disappointment with remarks he made about his vice-president Mike Pence, where he criticised him for not overturning the election results.

“When I tell you I’m angry, it’s an understatement,” she said. “I am so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it,” she added.

The former ambassador also revealed to Politico that she spoke to Mr Trump in a phone call in mid-December, and claimed that he believes his baseless claims about widespread fraud in last year's presidential election.

amandstu

banie01 wrote: »

I see Haley has turned on Trump!
Interesting that she has taken this tack before the Senate vote, I wonder if this and her new PAC aimed at funding Conservative candidates will sway any votes?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-impeachment-b1801440.html

Regarding Trump's apparent self serving delusion as to the election results ,might that be projection?

He imagines his opponents would use the same tactics as he would (ie he already had it in mind to falsify the results by hook or by crook

Kind of paranoia.

"Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad"

As for those who actually believed him , confirmation bias? Illusions of adequacy?

Leroy42

One line that I heard yesterday, that gave me pause to think, was one of the Dem speakers mentioned that Trump still has no actually stated that the vote was legal. He still carries the line that Biden is an illegal POTUS, voted in by an illegal fraudulent vote.

We have already seen what he did with regards to undermining Obama with his baseless claims, birtherism, and you can be 100% sure that he will do the same again.

Trump has shown no remorse for what happened, hasn't accepted that he even played a role in any of it, and certainly has not taken back that he thinks the insurgents were patriots and right to do what they did as he said on the 6th.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

One line that I heard yesterday, that gave me pause to think, was one of the Dem speakers mentioned that Trump still has no actually stated that the vote was legal. He still carries the line that Biden is an illegal POTUS, voted in by an illegal fraudulent vote.

We have already seen what he did with regards to undermining Obama with his baseless claims, birtherism, and you can be 100% sure that he will do the same again.

Trump has shown no remorse for what happened, hasn't accepted that he even played a role in any of it, and certainly has not taken back that he thinks the insurgents were patriots and right to do what they did as he said on the 6th.

The IRA make a similar claim here and are proscribed....lock him up?

Muahahaha

Trumps lawyer blaming a left wing conspiracy and witch hunt in his very first sentence. Its almost like Trump wrote it himself

looksee

He also managed in the first sentence to declare the impeachment unconstitutional. Er, we did that bit on Tuesday!

Timberrrrrrrr

Muahahaha wrote: »

Trumps lawyer blaming a left wing conspiracy and witch hunt in his very first sentence. Its almost like Trump wrote it himself

Well knowing how Trump works (see his medical report) then there is a good chance that he actually did write it.

banie01

Did he really claim the insurrection was by multi faceted political actors including Antifa!

looksee

We have reason to believe...yet he has just done a number on 'reportedly'!

Muahahaha

This is ridiculous, they have no coherent defence so its just going to be 3 or 4 hours of waffle and hyperbole

banie01

This is incredibly poor from Scheon, it's conspiracy theory waffle.

Caegan

Muahahaha wrote: »

This is ridiculous, they have no coherent defence so its just going to be 3 or 4 hours of waffle and hyperbole

It really is some of the stupidest **** I've seen. Just waffling on and on.

duploelabs

Muahahaha wrote: »

This is ridiculous, they have no coherent defence so its just going to be 3 or 4 hours of waffle and hyperbole

Unfortunately they don't need any defence

froog

they really shouldn't be using trump footage in his own defence. literally every thing he ever says is dumb and/or a complete fabrication.

Timberrrrrrrr

Lads does anyone have a link to the live stream please.

banie01

The whole defence presentation is pathetic, it belongs over on r/therightcantmeme.

Complaining about context and video manipulation and then using a shoddily cut show reel with zero context...

Awful strategy and actually only worsens the perception of Trump's actions IMO, as at least the prosecution provided copious context.

maebee

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lads does anyone have a link to the live stream please.

https://edition.cnn.com/

Click on the "Live Stream" on the left hand side of the page.

Timberrrrrrrr

maebee wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/

Click on the "Live Stream" on the left hand side of the page.

Thank you

Itssoeasy

I was going to try and watch some of trumps defence team but it seems Charlottesville was invoked as supposedly a positive thing for trump. So I’ll catch the highlights later.

Water John

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I was going to try and watch some of trumps defence team but it seems Charlottesville was invoked as supposedly a positive thing for trump. So I’ll catch the highlights later.

That should be short viewing.