Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

The trials and tribulations of an ex-president (including SCOTUS on the 14th amendment)

1246758

Comments

  • I saw an interview yesterday with an American lawyer/pundit (?) who said that trump's legal team would be able to make a case 'good enough' if they could mount his defence their way. They would focus on the doubt as to whether what he said was sufficient proof of incitement for sedition and riot to not lose 17 crucial Republican Senate votes. However, if trump does as he's considering, which is to mount his own defence in person, his behaviour and patently false claims would lose him support and some or enough of those 17 votes to lose the case.

    That's exactly as I was thinking in my previous post. Trump was probably convinced that he could just go in and bad-mouth a bunch of DC bigwigs for allegedly conspiring against him, and the lawyers were telling him "Uh, no Don, that's not gonna work", but he refused to listen to them.
  • Will trump be in the dock at his trial?
    Will he be under oath?
    What if he's his own lawyer?
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Since the Republicans are going to vote against impeachment come hell or high farce, the Dems might as well swear in the guy with the horns. I’m sure MTG will follow his every word in all seriousness.

    MTG would then have to decide whether she believes the shaman, who is now arguing that Trump provoked him into storming the Capitol, or Trump, who will likely argue that he did not provoke him.

    Though that's not an unprecedented dilemma for conservatives: my understanding is that Reagan despised Ollie North for implying he was a liar during Iran-Contra, but that didn't stop a lot of right-wingers from idolizing both men.
  • Will trump be in the dock at his trial?
    Will he be under oath?
    What if he's his own lawyer?

    I think it's almost certain that he'd be under oath. I doubt he'd be able to act as his own lawyer, since if it's anything like a regular court, the procedural aspects alone would be beyond the comprehension of a layman.

    Not sure about "the dock". I think he'd have to give a deposition, but I don't know if he has to appear in front of whichever body(the Senate?) holds the trial.
  • Will trump be in the dock at his trial?
    Presumably only if he chooses to turn up: as far as I can make out, conviction doesn't risk imprisonment, so it's not as if the authorities need his physical presence to pass him on to the gaolers.

    Will he be under oath?
    Presumably only if he is giving evidence
    What if he's his own lawyer?

    Presumably he will get as much or as little leeway as anyone else who represents themselves at court.

    Except, of course, this court is made up of politicians: some of them may happen to be lawyers or judges, but their behaviour will be driven by politics. As it happens (as a liberal Brit) I think Mr Trump did incite a violent assault on the Capitol, and so is guilty as charged, but just as I think 45 Republicans will wrongly vote to acquit for political reasons, so I think that 50 Democrats will rightly vote to convict for political reasons.

  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Wasn't it said at the last impeachment that the primary task of Trump's lawyers was to make sure nobody got Trump to give testimony in his own defence?
  • Will trump be in the dock at his trial?
    Not that the Senate chamber is a courtroom, much less a criminal courtroom, but American courts don’t have docks. A criminal defendant sits at the table with his or her attorney(s).
    Will he be under oath?
    Only if he chooses to testify.


  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I saw an interview yesterday with an American lawyer/pundit (?) who said that trump's legal team would be able to make a case 'good enough' if they could mount his defence their way. They would focus on the doubt as to whether what he said was sufficient proof of incitement for sedition and riot to not lose 17 crucial Republican Senate votes. However, if trump does as he's considering, which is to mount his own defence in person, his behaviour and patently false claims would lose him support and some or enough of those 17 votes to lose the case.
    I think that’s an example of a lawyer vastly over-inflating the importance of lawyers in an impeachment case. We already know that nearly all the Republican senators will vote to acquit, no matter what Trump’s lawyers say; the most recent batch probably quit because he wanted to win acquittal while making them defend his lies, rather than merely enable his lying by providing a veneer of “constitutional” protection, as they wanted.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Will trump be in the dock at his trial?
    Not that the Senate chamber is a courtroom, much less a criminal courtroom, but American courts don’t have docks. A criminal defendant sits at the table with his or her attorney(s).
    Ah, yes. Really I was thinking him being present in court, marked as the accused facing his accusers (preferably in a cage like a Middle-Eastern deposed despot) but he doesn't even have to be present at his own trial?
    Will he be under oath?
    Only if he chooses to testify.

    I assumed he'd have to face questioning on his actions.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Will trump be in the dock at his trial?
    Not that the Senate chamber is a courtroom, much less a criminal courtroom, but American courts don’t have docks. A criminal defendant sits at the table with his or her attorney(s).
    Ah, yes. Really I was thinking him being present in court, marked as the accused facing his accusers (preferably in a cage like a Middle-Eastern deposed despot) but he doesn't even have to be present at his own trial?
    Will he be under oath?
    Only if he chooses to testify.

    I assumed he'd have to face questioning on his actions.
    This is not a trial in the sense of a legal trial. It’s an impeachment trial, which is a thing unto itself.

    Trump was not in the Senate chamber during his last impeachment trial, nor was Clinton during his. Neither testified as a witness.

  • The parting of ways was over Trump wanting to argue the election was stolen from him.

    I think the only defense that could be raised is diminished mental capacity. Which would bring up why didn't Pence and his cabinet invoke the 25th.

  • Because nobody (okay, few bodies) in this really care about the rights and wrongs of the case. It's all political. Pence figured it would be political suicide if he 25thed him, and probably figured he could hold out for the handful of days left until he was out of office. He may have put other safety measures in place as well. I don't know if intense, intense narcissism constitutes a 25thable situation--I don't think anybody knows, unless and until it gets tested in the courts--but it's, er, um, "moot" anyway. In the American sense of the word.

    Sadly, the impeachment trial is going to go the same way, because there is nobody (few bodies) who cares about the rights and wrongs there, either. It's political. And the only way you'd be able to tell the ones who really care is if they were voting against their own self-interests--so, Republicans who vote for conviction. We'll never know about the Democrats, because self-interest runs in tandem with morality here.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    This is not a trial in the sense of a legal trial. It’s an impeachment trial, which is a thing unto itself.

    Indeed. It should be noted that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee that criminal defendants have "the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" does not apply here. Meaning arguments of inadequate counsel (like having your whole legal team quit) are irrelevant.
  • As I understand it, the last team wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the impeachment of the former president. That obviously will split the Senate :wink:
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I understand it, the last team wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the impeachment of the former president. That obviously will split the Senate :wink:

    It's at least a colorable argument, though it goes against established precedent. The Senate has maintained since 1876 that it has the ability to try impeachments of former officials. In the words of the deliciously named J. Proctor Knott (chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the Belknap impeachment):
    Was the only purpose of this disqualification simply to preserve the Government from the danger to be apprehended from the single convicted criminal? Very far from it, sir. That in reality constituted but a very small part of the design. The great object, after all, was that his infamy might be rendered conspicuous, historic, eternal, in order to prevent the occurrence of like offenses in the future. The purpose was not simply to harass, to persecute, to wantonly degrade, or take vengeance upon a single individual; but it was that other officials through all time might profit by his punishment, might be warned by his political ostracism, by the ever-lasting stigma fixed upon his name by the most august tribunal on earth, to avoid the dangers upon which he wrecked, and withstand the temptations under which he fell; to teach them that if they should fall under like temptations they will fall, like Lucifer, never to rise again.

    In other news it looks like Trump's new legal team has quite the history, and not a good one. I'm guessing Trump knows that not enough Republican will break ranks to convict him so he's doing his best to make a mockery of the whole process.
  • john holdingjohn holding Host Emeritus
    In terms of impeachability after leaving office, it is worth pointing out that the most famous impeachment in English/British history was the impeachment of Warren Hastings. He had been the Governor General of bits of India under British control and was accused after leaving office of various crimes and misdemeanors. I do not recall the result -- I rather think he was acquitted, but I could well be wrong -- but there was not doubt that his impeachment was legal.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    ... Trump should instruct Sidney Powell ...

    She’s also being sued by Dominion Voting Systems, so he’ll have to find someone else.

    Maybe Lindsey Graham? He’s already asking Democrats not to call the QAnon Shamen as an impeachment witness so, why not him?

    Since the Republicans are going to vote against impeachment come hell or high farce, the Dems might as well swear in the guy with the horns. I’m sure MTG will follow his every word in all seriousness.

    Lucifer would be preferable in office.
  • Trump's thoughts on election fraud seem contagious. The Myanmar generals have cited massive election fraud in their November elections as the rationale for their coup.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    Trump's thoughts on election fraud seem contagious. The Myanmar generals have cited massive election fraud in their November elections as the rationale for their coup.
    Please tell me that that doesn't surprise you. Of course they did. After all, if that beacon of democracy, the USA, can have election fraud (as attested to by their President at the time), then surely every democratic election everywhere is subject to the same claim. Trump's irresponsible actions don't just effect the USA. It undermines every democracy in the entire world.

    Putin must be very proud of his protege.

  • My only shock is the blatant transparent chutzpah of the generals.
  • <Hedgehog pulls out his "Dictionary of Familiar Phrases" and looks up "blatant transparent chutzpah." Sees a picture of Trump. Nods sadly to himself and closes the book.>
  • Somebody needs to say that "Blatant Transparent Chutzpah" would be a great name for a klezmer band.
  • it would, wouldn't it?
  • Long time since I played the clarinet. I have a washboard; maybe we could do klezmer/skiffle fusion.
  • Long time since I played the clarinet. I have a washboard; maybe we could do klezmer/skiffle fusion.

    The Next Great Thing after sea shanties.
  • I have an accordion! and a ukulele. Oh, and a Vietnamese koto.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    ... Trump should instruct Sidney Powell ...

    She’s also being sued by Dominion Voting Systems, so he’ll have to find someone else.

    Maybe Lindsey Graham? He’s already asking Democrats not to call the QAnon Shamen as an impeachment witness so, why not him?

    Since the Republicans are going to vote against impeachment come hell or high farce, the Dems might as well swear in the guy with the horns. I’m sure MTG will follow his every word in all seriousness.

    Lucifer would be preferable in office.

    I wondered if Trump and Lucifer had been in concert. That sort of allegation would surely rule Lucifer out as a representative.

    That passage from J. Proctor Knott's speech is magnificent.
  • I speak (could sing) some Yiddish!
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Caissa wrote: »
    Trump's thoughts on election fraud seem contagious. The Myanmar generals have cited massive election fraud in their November elections as the rationale for their coup.

    The history of Myanmar is very different, and the history of elections in Myanmar is very different. Information about how elections are run in the USA gives us all precisely no basis to judge what is happening in Myanmar.

    Which of course doesn't preclude the possibility that the generals in Myanmar are full of shit. But it doesn't follow in any way from the fact that Trump is full of shit.
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Trump's thoughts on election fraud seem contagious. The Myanmar generals have cited massive election fraud in their November elections as the rationale for their coup.
    Please tell me that that doesn't surprise you. Of course they did. After all, if that beacon of democracy, the USA, can have election fraud (as attested to by their President at the time), then surely every democratic election everywhere is subject to the same claim. Trump's irresponsible actions don't just effect the USA. It undermines every democracy in the entire world.

    Putin must be very proud of his protege.

    I don't think Putin's overall agenda is to foment as many coups as he can via electoral-fraud allegations. His agenda is to get as many pro-Russian governments in power as possible.

    So, when he hears about a coup in Myanmar, he's not gonna think "Fantastic! The democratic process fails in yet another country!" The first thing he's gonna ask himself is whether the new people are friendlier to Russia's interests: if they are, he's gonna be happy with the coup. If not, he's gonna wish the democratic process had prevailed.

    (And I don't know enough about Myanmar's politics to know whether the generals are more pro-Russian than the civilians they tossed out.)

    Also noting Orfeo's point that the generals in Myanmar probably came up with their plans independently of whatever Trump was doing. Like Caissa, I did notice the rhyming between the rationale for the Capitol Siege and the coup, but that could just be coincidence.
  • They're more likely to be pro-Chinese, perhaps?
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    They're more likely to be pro-Chinese, perhaps?

    Quite possibly. But these days, I think that effectively amounts to being pro-Russian(Putin's support for the anti-Chinese Trump notwithstsnding).
  • stetson wrote: »
    I don't think Putin's overall agenda is to foment as many coups as he can via electoral-fraud allegations. His agenda is to get as many pro-Russian governments in power as possible.

    So, when he hears about a coup in Myanmar, he's not gonna think "Fantastic! The democratic process fails in yet another country!" The first thing he's gonna ask himself is whether the new people are friendlier to Russia's interests: if they are, he's gonna be happy with the coup. If not, he's gonna wish the democratic process had prevailed.

    I'm not so sure about that. One of Putin's long-term projects is discrediting liberal democracy as a form of government. (Remember when Trump thought Putin's statements about "western liberalism" meant America's Pacific-coast states?) This effort may be primarily towards the goal of preventing such a system arising in Russia, but every time a democracy fails Putin makes that little smile of his.
  • Yes, I've read a lot of propaganda from Putin's camp, and I know they don't like liberalism as a matter of principle. But I'd still think that they don't go around promoting coups just for the sake of promoting coups, unless those coups result in pro-Russian regimes.

    Believe me, those same propagandists have no problem screaming IN FAVOUR of democracy, in cases where the pro-western regimes happen to be authoritarian.
  • The Putin apologists are also big fans of Marine Le Pen in France. I'm sure they like that she subscribes to the same brand of authoritarian ethnonationalism as Putin. But I think a sine qua non of their support is also that she is the most anti-NATO of the major-party candidates.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    stetson wrote: »
    Yes, I've read a lot of propaganda from Putin's camp, and I know they don't like liberalism as a matter of principle. But I'd still think that they don't go around promoting coups just for the sake of promoting coups, unless those coups result in pro-Russian regimes.

    That's moving the goalposts. The question wasn't whether Russia promoted an anti-democratic coup in Myanmar, but whether or not Putin thinks "Fantastic!" every time a democracy fails. Balance of evidence is that he does, absent any other overriding consideration.
    stetson wrote: »
    The Putin apologists are also big fans of Marine Le Pen in France. I'm sure they like that she subscribes to the same brand of authoritarian ethnonationalism as Putin. But I think a sine qua non of their support is also that she is the most anti-NATO of the major-party candidates.

    Hard to say here, since it seems to be a case of "both/and" rather than favoring only one and accepting the other.
  • A brief has been submitted to the Senate in response to the Impeachment article. Basically, it argues that the former president was within his rights to question the result of the elections. He denies he incited the riot/insurrection. And he claims that the impeachment is unconstitutional since he is now out of office.
  • The previous government of Myanmar had a pretty good relationship with China. The coup has put China in a slightly uncomfortable spot, as under the previous government China had a number of infrastructural projects. China is most interested in a profitable (broadly defined) relationship with a stable regime, regardless of that regime's complexion. This coup, despite supplanting a democratically elected government, is not, by that, necessarily more congenial to China.
  • @Pangolin Guerre

    Thanks. It's probably gonna be a while before I work up the motivation to read anything directly about the coup, so observations such as yours are helpful.
  • Today, Trump resigned from the Screen Actors Guild. Here is the image of the letter. Note the letterhead. It certainly looks like a copy of the Seal of the President. Then, look at the signature. President of the United States.

    When he announced his new impeachment team, he was identified as "The 45th President of the United States throughout the announcement. (Sorry, I could not find an image of it.)

    And when his legal team filed their response to the Article of Impeachment, he was also refered at the 45th President (see pdf).

    It is being reported he does not allow anyone to refer to him as the former president. It appears he still believes he is the real president.

    Sad.


  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    It is being reported he does not allow anyone to refer to him as the former president. It appears he still believes he is the real president.

    Sad.


    This could present some (probably not insurmountable) difficulties if his impeachment defence relies on arguing that it is impossible to impeach an ex-president.


  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    It is being reported he does not allow anyone to refer to him as the former president. It appears he still believes he is the real president.

    Sad.


    This could present some (probably not insurmountable) difficulties if his impeachment defence relies on arguing that it is impossible to impeach an ex-president.


    So long as at least 1/3 of the "jurors" are running scared of your supporters the quality and logic of the defence hardly matters.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Someone who used to be a friend is wanting him back and gave a date in March, either the 4th or 5th, for his return and I'm not going back to her twitter account to check it out. Not sure why this date is significant. She didn't explain that.
    She also harped on Biden's determination to attack the unborn - that'll be the aid organisations thing, I suppose.
    And raised the blood libel against the Clintons. Apparently it's OK for somene Jewish to accuse non-Jews of it.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    Not going down that particular Google track, but I wonder if that precise date comes from Q?
  • Penny S wrote: »
    Someone who used to be a friend is wanting him back and gave a date in March, either the 4th or 5th, for his return and I'm not going back to her twitter account to check it out. Not sure why this date is significant. She didn't explain that.

    Prior to the 20th amendment to the US Constitution, which Wikipedia tells me was adopted on January 23, 1933, 4 March was when Presidential and Congressional terms started/finished. That might be an explanation.

    So if your ex-friend is arguing that constitutional amendments since the 1930s are (for some reason) not valid, then they are, to use a technical term, some teaspoons short of a full canteen of cutlery. And if this view applies to all constitutional amendments since the 20th, then the US still has prohibition (repealed by the 21st amendment) - which won't be a problem personally for Mr Trump who famously does not imbibe.

  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Penny S wrote: »
    Someone who used to be a friend is wanting him back and gave a date in March, either the 4th or 5th, for his return and I'm not going back to her twitter account to check it out. Not sure why this date is significant. She didn't explain that.

    Prior to the 20th amendment to the US Constitution, which Wikipedia tells me was adopted on January 23, 1933, 4 March was when Presidential and Congressional terms started/finished. That might be an explanation.

    So if your ex-friend is arguing that constitutional amendments since the 1930s are (for some reason) not valid, then they are, to use a technical term, some teaspoons short of a full canteen of cutlery. And if this view applies to all constitutional amendments since the 20th, then the US still has prohibition (repealed by the 21st amendment) - which won't be a problem personally for Mr Trump who famously does not imbibe.

    More likely they think all amendments after, say, the 12th are invalid.
  • And the salt spoons.
    I do wonder about what happens if someone with Type Two diabetes doesn't manage their sugar correctly, if it is something that can be put right physiologically. But the entire trumpian supporters group can't be made up of people with metabolic problems, can they?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    It appears he still believes he is the real president.
    At least his daily routine hasn't changed. He did nothing except tweet and watch TV during the time he occupied the White House, and I'm sure he still watches TV, although tweeting is no longer an option.
  • Not going down that particular Google track, but I wonder if that precise date comes from Q?

    Sounds way too precise for Q, which thrives on vagueness and ambiguity.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    It appears he still believes he is the real president.
    At least his daily routine hasn't changed. He did nothing except tweet and watch TV during the time he occupied the White House, and I'm sure he still watches TV, although tweeting is no longer an option.

    And golf.
Sign In or Register to comment.