• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Impeachment: The Sequel

PhDeac said:
That’s not what’s being reported.

https://www.axios.com/trump-legal-fees-impeachment-trial-8f6578e6-0662-4aea-8edc-aee2530c5165.html
Click to expand...

That article does not mention the failure to pay up front. It says there was a disagreement over the amount of the fee.

In any event, the title and first line of that article say it all. The driving factor was a difference in strategy. Perhaps there was also a disagreement over the fee, but that was ancillary to the strategy dispute.
 
If lawyers are known for anything it’s their preference for principle over money. Especially when it comes to extending benevolence to rich folks in need.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

Well, they gotta argue something and keep a straight face. They can't maintain Trump really won, which is what Trump wants, because they could face legal ethics charges and a Dominion lawsuit. I'm really enjoying these Dominion suits.
 
cville deac said:
Well, they gotta argue something and keep a straight face. They can't maintain Trump really won, which is what Trump wants, because they could face legal ethics charges and a Dominion lawsuit. I'm really enjoying these Dominion suits.
Click to expand...

They don't actually. They can get up there, say that Trump absolutely planned to prevent Biden from taking office by any means necessary, and even go through the details with charts and graphs and Republicans will still vote to acquit.
 
cville deac said:
Well, they gotta argue something and keep a straight face. They can't maintain Trump really won, which is what Trump wants, because they could face legal ethics charges and a Dominion lawsuit. I'm really enjoying these Dominion suits.
Click to expand...

The Dominion suits may actually be the one (and perhaps only) thing that has a real impact moving forward. Trump is not going to get convicted by the Senate, and in politics, memories are unfortunately short, even when the former President tried to overthrow the government. However, if Dominion is successful in suing Sidney Powell, Rudy and others (and big time damages are awarded; Dominion is asking for $1.3 billion) that may have some chilling effect on others in the future who want to make up abject lies to support their position in similar scenarios.
 
NY State and NY County criminal cases will make Dominion look cute.

What may be interesting are civil cases by those injured or killed at the Capitol against Trump, Junior and Rudy.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

It's not just that the Senate has tried someone after they left office before. The Senate has done all kinds of things before that were unconstitutional. It's that the first time the Senate did it was in 1798, when some of the signatories of the Constitution were members of Congress (and Thomas Jefferson presided over the trial). If people who signed the Constitution thought the impeachment clause applied to people who were no longer in office, that's very strong evidence that the clause should be interpreted that way.
 
WakeBored said:
It's not just that the Senate has tried someone after they left office before. The Senate has done all kinds of things before that were unconstitutional. It's that the first time the Senate did it was in 1798, when some of the signatories of the Constitution were members of Congress (and Thomas Jefferson presided over the trial). If people who signed the Constitution thought the impeachment clause applied to people who were no longer in office, that's very strong evidence that the clause should be interpreted that way.
Click to expand...

Using that logic, if you embezzle from a company and quit, you shouldn't be able to be tried since you don't work there anymore.
 
well, maybe Mitch should've let the trial happen sooner. it's not like the Ds were planning on impeaching Trump at the end no matter what, just after what went down January 6.
 
WakeBored said:
It's not just that the Senate has tried someone after they left office before. The Senate has done all kinds of things before that were unconstitutional. It's that the first time the Senate did it was in 1798, when some of the signatories of the Constitution were members of Congress (and Thomas Jefferson presided over the trial). If people who signed the Constitution thought the impeachment clause applied to people who were no longer in office, that's very strong evidence that the clause should be interpreted that way.
Click to expand...

I had not read that before - the policy argument is more than enough to sway me, but this seems like the most damming evidence to Trump's position.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

Wait a second. Is Trump's that he didn't incite the coup on January 6, but actually started the insurrection movement in December? That should help.

You can't make this shit up.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
I had not read that before - the policy argument is more than enough to sway me, but this seems like the most damming evidence to Trump's position.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the facts of the first impeachment on the Senate website:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The-First-Impeachment.htm

The discussion on the Senate website makes it sound ambiguous as to whether the charges were dismissed because the Senate concluded a Senator wasn't subject to the impeachment clause or because Blount was no longer a Senator, but other sources I have read make a compelling case for the conclusion that it was the former and not the latter.
 
WakeBored said:
It's not just that the Senate has tried someone after they left office before. The Senate has done all kinds of things before that were unconstitutional. It's that the first time the Senate did it was in 1798, when some of the signatories of the Constitution were members of Congress (and Thomas Jefferson presided over the trial). If people who signed the Constitution thought the impeachment clause applied to people who were no longer in office, that's very strong evidence that the clause should be interpreted that way.
Click to expand...

That's good info, Junebug. Surprised I hadn't seen it before.

So the Trump defense is going to be that people planned to storm the Capitol on the day Trump told them to and Trump spoke to them in support of what they were doing. I guess it doesn't really matter because Trump is going to get off anyway.
 
It really doesn't matter how clear or conclusive the evidence is against Trump that the House Democrats present, he won't be convicted. It turns out that when Trump said back in 2016 that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" he wasn't just bragging but simply telling the truth - not only about his base, but about the GOP congressional membership as well. There's no doubt that if House Democrats uncovered and played a taped recording of Trump directly talking to some of the insurrectionists and telling them what to do that only a handful of Senate Republicans would still vote to convict.
 
WakeBored said:
Those lawyers don’t need Trump’s money, and the exposure would be worth more than he would pay them anyway. They withdrew over the arguments they were being asked to make.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know a little bit about why lawyers decide to fire clients. It’s almost always the money. We all also know about how Trump doesn’t pay the bills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top