Trump's Rump

[Sommerswerd]

I expect them to just keep arguing that the whole trial is Unconstitutional... so even though the Senate already decided that it was Constitutional, they'll argue that you can't convict because its still Unconstitutional. They will probably also add an argument that inciting an insurrection is protected Free Speech.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I expect them to just keep arguing that the whole trial is Unconstitutional... so even though the Senate already decided that it was Constitutional, they'll argue that you can't convict because its still Unconstitutional. They will probably also add an argument that inciting an insurrection is protected Free Speech.

Yes, I think so too. I think this whole thing is pre-determined. It'll be interesting to see if there are more or fewer Republicans willing to 'jump the fence' than expected, but I think there's zero chance it will be enough to change the outcome. I may literally faint if the Senate convicts Trump.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, I think so too. I think this whole thing is pre-determined. It'll be interesting to see if there are more or fewer Republicans willing to 'jump the fence' than expected, but I think there's zero chance it will be enough to change the outcome. I may literally faint if the Senate convicts Trump.

They're not convicting. I posted in the General Politics Thread a list of all the Republican Senators that I thought could conceivably vote to convict. Once you actually look at the individual Senators it really drives home how utterly unrealistic it is to expect a conviction.

I also expect a healthy dose of whataboutism from Team Trump today.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think they will go Free speech, 1st Amendment, as a defense.

They are starting now!

 

[mitsho]

I see only two cases: the expected ones voting for conviction and it not being enough. Or something happens, and the floodgates open and 95 senators vote to convict. I really don't see one or two or three Republican senators changing their decision. Either all of them - or none.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The Defense team is making a pretty aggressive whataboutism case. They're doing a much better job than on day 1. I expect Republicans to be jubilant.

 

[Angst]

Yes, the strategy pretty much rests on "this unrelated person does X"

"So you're on trial for murder. What is your defense?"
"Have you heard about the Endlösung"

no i'm not saying leftist activism, even the violent elements of it, are in any way comparable to nazi atrocities. infact the point is more that even if it was that bad, it would not absolve another crime by existing. if trump is guilty, he's guilty.
and he is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The Defense: the house case is all fake news and if we show Dems saying "Fight!" 377 times it proves Trump didn't incite anyone.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The Defense: the house case is all fake news and if we show Dems saying "Fight!" 377 times it proves Trump didn't incite anyone.

That's literally exactly what they did.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's literally exactly what they did.

Problem with such cases you more or less have to prove XYZ was being direct with orders.

Otherwise you can claim metaphors or being hyperbolic.

Personally I think he's guilty but yeah it's really hard to prove.

Trump was quite clever with a lot of his wording.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Problem with such cases you more or less have to prove XYZ was being direct with orders. Otherwise you can claim metaphors or being hyperbolic.

That's just another way of saying that people can be disingenuous and argue in bad faith, in other words, be dishonest... which is always the case and is certainly the case here with Trump's defense.

Personally I think he's guilty but yeah it's really hard to prove. Trump was quite clever with a lot of his wording.

If by "clever" you mean "has over 40 Senators in his party who would never convict him no matter what" then I agree. In any case its not hard to prove. Its been proven and its frankly obvious. The prosecution ran circles around Trump's lackluster defense. But the issue isn't "proof", its partisanship. The Republican Senators simply are not going to disadvantage themselves politically en masse.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's just another way of saying that people can be disingenuous and argue in bad faith, in other words, be dishonest... which is always the case and is certainly the case here with Trump's defense. If by "clever" you mean "has over 40 Senators in his party who would never convict him no matter what" then I agree. In any case its not hard to prove. Its been proven and its frankly obvious. The prosecution ran circles around Trump's lackluster defense. But the issue isn't "proof", its partisanship. The Republican Senators simply are not going to disadvantage themselves politically en masse.

Yeah but they can use Trump's evasiveness as an excuse. "He didn't mean that" etc. Complete BS they won't change unless they get crushed over and over.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah but they can use Trump's evasiveness as an excuse. "He didn't mean that" etc. Complete BS they won't change unless they get crushed over and over.

Again... dishonesty is always a bottomless source of excuses, regardless of circumstances.

As a related aside, one of my favourite arguments I caught on the radio yesterday, that the Republicans trotted out was, (paraphrasing) that if you guys convict Trump, Hillary may be next. A hilarious twofer, because... a) Hillary whataboutism because of course they did;and b) 2) If what's being proposed is that Trump gets convicted and can never serve in office again in exchange for the same treatment for Hillary... Sure, yeah, I'll take that deal... Where do I sign? Hillary?!? LMFAO Republicans

 

[Zardnaar]

Again... dishonesty is always a bottomless source of excuses, regardless of circumstances.

As a related aside, one of my favourite arguments I caught on the radio yesterday, that the Republicans trotted out was, (paraphrasing) that if you guys convict Trump, Hillary may be next. A hilarious twofer, because... a) Hillary whataboutism because of course they did;and b) 2) If what's being proposed is that Trump gets convicted and can never serve in office again in exchange for the same treatment for Hillary... Sure, yeah, I'll take that deal... Where do I sign? Hillary?!? LMFAO Republicans

Yeah Hilary is done. If you can't beat Trump.....

She's kinda political poison. I think Trump may be as well risk being he might get a squeakerbin 2024.

Personally I think it's a waste of time counter productive. Best thing to do with Trump is ignore him imho. Pity they didn't do that 2015.

 

[Samson]

Problem with such cases you more or less have to prove XYZ was being direct with orders.

It seems to me that the main problem is that they are trying to convict a guy for using white supremacy against democracy, and at least half the jury rely on anti-democratic white supremacy for their career.

 

[Zkribbler]

It seems to me that the main problem is that they are trying to convict a guy for using white supremacy against democracy, and at least half the jury rely on anti-democratic white supremacy for their career.

No, they're trying to convict a guy of inciting white supremacists to attempt to overthrow our democracy.

 

[Sommerswerd]

They just had a vote on whether the House Managers can call witnesses. All 50 (48+2) Democrats voted yes, plus 5 Republicans (Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, Graham), so witnesses can now be called. Hilariously, once it was clear that the measure to call witnesses was going to pass, 54-46, Lindsey Graham stood up and changed his vote to yes making it 55-45... then Sullivan (R) AK, stood up and asked whether the vote was for one witness or unlimited witnesses... which indicates to me that he was considering changing his vote as well.

There is a little confusion going on because the trial was supposed to end today, so now it looks like they will have to suspend the trial to depose witnesses. So this trial is going to go on much longer.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's literally exactly what they did.

The argument rendering actions in the last two months of a presidency unimpeachable because unconstitutional is clearly stupid.

The argument that went on, and on, and on, and on, regarding what is normative political fight speech was much better. This isn't getting a conviction. Unless they can show/prove the deliberate inaction to let Pence and Romney get lynched, and still maybe not then.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Looks like they chickened out on calling witnesses afterall. The only reason I can think of for them doing this is Republican Senators convincing them in no uncertain terms that they would not convict under any circumstances.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The argument rendering actions in the last two months of a presidency unimpeachable because unconstitutional is clearly stupid.

The argument that went on, and on, and on, and on, regarding what is normative political fight speech was much better. This isn't getting a conviction. Unless they can show/prove the deliberate inaction to let Pence and Romney get lynched, and still maybe not then.

Like I said earlier, the political fight speech argument was much better, but ultimately, nothing more than a clever bit of misdirection. None of the Democrats they showed were lying about the result of the Presidential election. None of the Democrats they showed saying "fight" resulted in an armed mob ransacking the Capitol. So the equivalence is false at best... a lie at worst.

At most, all the argument could really show, is that essentially, for some reason, MAGA folks are too stupid to know the difference between "fight" as a metaphor and "fight" as meant literally. Of course, they're not too stupid to tell the difference. They know the difference, and they acted on what they were told to do.