Tag: Trials

Stop The Presses!

Surprise!  Surprise!

I am sure that most everyone has heard the news around the legal battle for Trump….the truth is the verdict surprised me…..

For those that have avoided the circus of this trial….there is some good news.

A Manhattan jury has found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 counts he was charged with in his hush-money trial, making him the first onetime president to become a felon. Trump sat expressionless and slack at the defense table, the New York Times reports, as he heard “guilty” read in court 34 times on Thursday afternoon. Cheering from the street below, where supporters and opponents of Trump assembled, could be heard in the hallway outside the 15th-floor courtroom. As jurors filed out, they did not look at Trump, and he did not look at them. Minutes later, the former president and current candidate told reporters, “I’m a very innocent man.”

Prosecutors accused Trump of falsifying internal business records to cover up hush-money payments tied to an alleged scheme to bury stories that might torpedo his 2016 White House bid, per the AP. At the heart of the charges were reimbursements paid to Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in exchange for not going public with her claim about a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. Prosecutors said the reimbursements were falsely logged as “legal expenses” to hide the true nature of the transactions. Trump has denied any wrongdoing. The charges he was convicted of are punishable by up to four years in prison.

The jury of 12 New Yorkers had deliberated for 9½ hours hours over two days. The verdicts the panel returned involved 11 counts related to invoices, 12 related to ledger entries, and 11 involving checks. Trump still faces charges in three other criminal cases elsewhere, per the Washington Post. He has pleaded not guilty in them and called the prosecutions politically motivated. All are embroiled in motions and delays and seem unlikely to go to trial before the November election.

“I am a very innocent man”….now there is a damn hoot!  I can think of a lot of things to say about Donald the Orange….but innocent is not one of them.

Now we go to the sentencing phase of this drama…..

The jury in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial has been dismissed, and case moves to the next phase. Because the crimes are nonviolent, experts say Trump is unlikely to be detained before sentencing. Here’s what’s ahead:

  • Sentencing: Judge Juan Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for 10am July 11, CNBC reports. He told all parties to file relevant motions by June 13. Included in this step are sentencing memos from the prosecution and the defense arguing for the punishment they want to see Merchan order. The defendant usually is interviewed by a probation officer who asks about personal history and any criminal record, information that goes into the presentence report. A psychologist or social worker also could interview Trump.
  • Possible punishments: Trump was convicted of nonviolent Class E felonies, New York’s lowest level, per the New York Times. The counts are punishable by 16 months to four years in state prison. As a first-time offender, Trump is unlikely to receive prison time, legal experts said. Merchan could impose probation or home confinement.
  • Probation: The terms could require Trump to receive approval from his probation officer to travel outside his home state, Florida, per the Washington Post. He probably would have to report to his probation officer regularly.
  • Appeal: Trump’s lawyers have 30 days to file notice of an appeal. “We’ll keep fighting, we’ll fight till the end and we’ll win,” Trump said after the verdict. It’s possible that sentencing will be stayed while an appeal plays out, which could postpone any punishment past Election Day.
  • The election: Trump remains eligible for election to the presidency, and there’s nothing to keep him from serving if he wins. He may not be able to vote for himself, however, per the Times; Florida requires felons to have completed their entire sentence, including probation, before again being allowed to vote.

Few thought he would be convicted…..he has been so what’s it gonna be with the sentencing?

Probation?  Prison?

I have little faith that he will go to prison (a place he should have already been)…..my guess is probation and fines.

With this conviction how will that play in November?

Please let your thoughts be known.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Is This A Good Idea?

We start another shorten work week with news about the Trump clown show….it seems the judge in Georgia will allow his trial to be streamed live on YouTube….

When former President Trump goes on trial in Georgia, the world apparently will be able to follow along on YouTube. The judge presiding over the case ruled Thursday that the proceedings will be live-streamed on the court’s YouTube channel, reports WSB-TV. Other media outlets will be allowed to have cameras in the courtroom as well, said Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, per Atlanta News First. The judge’s ruling came amid a flurry of other developments on Thursday, the most prominent of which was Trump pleading not guilty to charges he and his co-defendants illegally tried to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

The former president’s legal team also asked the judge to sever Trump’s case from some of the other defendants in the case, per the AP. At least some of the other 18 people charged have requested an expedited trial—perhaps as early as October—and Trump’s legal team says it would be impossible to prepare for a trial that quickly. Whether all 19 will be tried together remains a huge question in the case, along with whether the proceedings might be moved from state court to federal court.

Is it just me or does this idea sound a bit crazy?

I think this will give lots of ammunition to the MAGA maggots in their journey to destroy the credibility of the legal system in this country.

We have a defendant that likes to play to the camera and turns everything into a clown show.

What is this judge thinking?

So I ask again is this really a good idea?

Any thoughts you would like to share?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Why Prosecute Trump?

First do not shoot the messenger….

Before there is an uproar about this post It is not my opinion,(I think Trump the d/bag should be in jail) this is some guy writing in the NYTimes…..so do not take your hatred out on me.

We all have heard of the many indictments that have been filed on our beloved Trump…..everything from corruption to secret documents….and there is a wealth of opinions on how these trials should play out….

This is one man’s opinion.

The Justice Department and special counsel Jack Smith made a “tragic choice” in deciding to go after former President Trump, argues Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith in a New York Times essay. To be clear, it’s not a defense of Trump—Goldsmith calls the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election “reprehensible.” But even if Smith is able to get a conviction, it won’t be worth it, because “the costs to the legal and political systems will be large,” warns Goldsmith, and they will only “compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions.” Goldsmith lays out the context, including the “deeply unfortunate timing” of the indictment coming amid the 2024 race. The Justice Department’s motivations might be “pure,” but the perception of unfairness is real for Trump supporters, writes Goldsmith.

This comes after similar gripes about the FBI investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia and complaints that Democrats such as Hunter Biden have gotten preferential treatment. And it is within this context that a large part of the nation will “fairly judge” the legitimacy of this case. Thus, the “prosecution may well have terrible consequences … for our politics and the rule of law,” Goldsmith warns. For one thing, expect more “tit-for-tat investigations of presidential actions in office by future Congresses.” Not that these concerns should absolve Trump, he adds. “The difficult question is whether redressing his shameful acts through criminal law is worth the enormous costs to the country. The bitter pill is that the nation must absorb these costs to figure out the answer to that question.”

Read the full essay.

Reminder–Not my thoughts….just passing on what some are saying about the prosecution of an ex-president.

What are your thoughts?

On another note….the GOP is asking for candidates to sign a loyalty pledge….Trump refuses….

Former President Donald Trump said Wednesday he won’t sign a pledge to support the Republican nominee if he loses the GOP presidential primary, flouting a requirement for appearing in the first debate later this month, the AP reports. “Why would I sign it?” Trump said in an interview on the conservative cable network Newsmax. “I can name three or four people that I wouldn’t support for president. So right there, there’s a problem.” He declined to name the candidates he wouldn’t support, saying “there’s no reason to insult them.” But he singled out South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy for praise, saying they “have been very nice.”

Trump said he will announce next week whether he’ll participate in the debate, scheduled for Aug. 23 in Milwaukee, but his refusal to sign the pledge suggests he plans to make good on his threat to skip it. Trump has repeatedly questioned why he should debate his rivals given his substantial polling lead and has suggested he might hold a competing event instead. On Wednesday, he pushed back against former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s taunts, telling Newsmax’s Eric Bolling that there’s no upside to participating in a debate when he’s already leading by a wide margin. “Its not a question of guts. It’s a question of intelligence,” Trump said.

Eight candidates say they have met qualifications to be on stage in Milwaukee; in addition to polling and donor requirements, they also must sign a statement pledging not to participate in any debates not sanctioned by the party, including the general election debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and to support the winner of the Republican primary. “I affirm that if I do not win the 2024 Republican nomination of President of the United States, I will honor the will of the primary voters and support the nominee in order to save our country and beat Joe Biden,” the pledge says, according to a copy posted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter. Candidates also must pledge not to run as an independent, write-in candidate or third-party nominee.

I do not like the idea of a loyalty pledge….that keeps candidates from trying to find a common ground with the voter…..so sadly I am with Trump on this proposal.

Any thoughts on this situation?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Seditious ‘Oath Keepers’

Since 6 January there has been a focus on the real reason for the militia known as the Oath Keepers…..for years they presented themselves as the ‘protectors’ of the Constitution and country…..since the insurrection their alleged reason for existence has become more clear…..

The federal courthouse in Washington, DC heard dramatic opening arguments Monday in the most serious Capitol riot case yet—the seditious conspiracy trial against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four of his lieutenants. The right-wing militia members are accused of plotting to prevent Congress’ certification of President Biden’s election victory “by any means necessary,” including violence. In his opening statement, assistant US Attorney Jeffrey Nestler said the “core democratic custom” of a transfer of power goes back to the time of George Washington, CNN reports. “These defendants tried to change that history,” he said. “They concocted a plan for armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of American democracy.” He says Rhodes began plotting to overturn Biden’s win days after the 2020 election.

The defendants, Nestler said, planned to attack “not just the Capitol, not just our government, not just DC, but our country itself.” Prosecutors said Rhodes acted “like a general,” remaining outside the Capitol as his “troops” breached the building on Jan. 6, 2021, Politico reports. Prosecutors said the group stockpiled weapons at a Virginia hotel for a “Quick Reaction Force” and discussed using boats to bring them across the Potomac River to DC. The other four defendants are Kelly Meggs, leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, Florida member Kenneth Harrelson, retired US Navy intelligence officer Thomas Caldwell, and Ohio militia leader Jessica Watkins, the AP reports. Nestler played video of Oath Keepers members inside the Capitol, where some tried to find House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Defense lawyers have argued that the Oath Keepers went to DC to provide security for figures including Roger Stone, and they were only at the Capitol because they expected then-President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act and use them to stop what they considered a Democratic coup, the Washington Post reports. Nestler said Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate, tried to use the Insurrection Act as “magic words” to justify illegal acts. Phillip Linder, Rhodes’ attorney, argued in his opening statement that the Oath Keepers “did nothing illegal” and they “are not a violent group.”

Let me point out….these people are still in the process of a trial….as it is they are accused not convicted….

Throw the book at these bastards!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Insurrection Update #26

The continuing saga of the idiots that took part in the failed coup of 06 January……

Looks like the Proud Boys are in the news again….this time a document has come to light with directions on how to proceed with the proposed takeover of the Capitol…..

When the former leader of the Proud Boys was arrested last week for his alleged role in coordinating the Capitol riot, prosecutors made reference to a document found in his possession. Now the New York Times is reporting new details, and they don’t appear to bode well for Enrique Tarrio as he fights conspiracy charges. The newspaper describes it as a “specific written plan to storm and occupy government buildings” the day of the Stop the Steal rally. It doesn’t specifically mention the Capitol, but the document lays out strategies to gain control of seven high-profile government buildings, and it generally matches what actually unfolded at the Capitol. From the story by Alan Feuer:

  • “Broken into five parts—Infiltrate, Execution, Distract, Occupy and Sit-In—the nine-page document recommends recruiting at least 50 people to enter each of the seven government buildings and advises protesters to appear ‘unsuspecting’ and to ‘not look tactical,'” writes Feuer. “After ensuring that crowds at the buildings are “full and ready to go,” the document suggests that ‘leads and seconds’ should enter and open doors for others to go in, ‘causing trouble’ to distract security guards, if necessary.”

Tarrio, who wasn’t actually in DC the day of the riot and has since stepped down as Proud Boys leader, remains in custody, and Justice Department lawyers argued Monday that he should remain so, reports CNN. In a filing, they provided new details of a meeting between Tarrio and the leader of another far-right group, the Oath Keepers, in a DC parking garage on Jan. 5. In the meeting, Tarrio said he had wiped messages from his phone and said it was safely protected anyway. Prosecutors also say Tarrio declared, “We did this” the following day in an encrypted chat, in regard to the storming of the Capitol. When somebody asked what should happen next, he allegedly responded, “Do it again.”

The last statement sums up the feelings among these useless insurrectionists, “Do it again”.

It is possible that some of these convicted insurrectionists will try to get their case heard by the Supreme Court…..and that could work in their favor….

It seems that one of the wives of a sitting judge was ass deep in the insurrection….

Clarence Thomas’ wife, who has already come under scrutiny, reveals to the Washington Free Beacon that she attended the Jan. 6, 2021, “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the mob attack on the US Capitol. However, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas says she got cold and left before then-President Trump even took the stage. “I was disappointed and frustrated that there was violence that happened following a peaceful gathering of Trump supporters on the Ellipse on Jan. 6,” she says. “There are important and legitimate substantive questions about achieving goals like electoral integrity, racial equality, and political accountability that a democratic system like ours needs to be able to discuss and debate rationally in the political square. I fear we are losing that ability.”

She adds that she had no part in helping to organize the rally, as has recently been alleged in multiple news pieces, and that her political activities have nothing to do with her husband or his position as a Supreme Court justice. “Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America,” she says. “But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work.” After much speculation on her involvement in the events of Jan. 6, the Washington Post reports this is the first time Thomas has publicly acknowledged being in attendance.

Time for Thomas to recuse himself from anything that his wife is involved in….like this situation and her work with Big Pharma…..he needs to be challenged….period.

More good news….yet another d/bag goes to trial…..

An elected official from New Mexico went to trial with a judge—not a jury—set to decide if he is guilty of charges that he illegally entered the US Capitol grounds on the day a pro-Trump mob disrupted the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election victory. US District Judge Trevor McFadden is scheduled to hear attorneys’ closing arguments Tuesday for the case against Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, whose trial in Washington, DC, is the second among the hundreds of people charged with federal crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, siege. (The first ended in Guy Wesley Reffitt being found guilty on all counts.) The judge heard testimony Monday from three government witnesses. Griffin’s lawyer said he doesn’t plan to call any defense witnesses, the AP reports.

The case against Griffin is unlike most of the Capitol riot prosecutions. He is one of the few riot defendants who isn’t accused of entering the Capitol or engaging in any violent or destructive behavior. Smith said prosecutors apparently believe Griffin engaged in disorderly conduct by peacefully leading a prayer on the Capitol steps. “That is offensive and wrong,” Smith told the judge during his brief opening statements. Griffin claims he has been selectively prosecuted for his political views. Griffin, one of three members of the Otero County Commission in southern New Mexico, is among a handful of riot defendants who either held public office or ran for a government leadership post in the 2 1/2 years before the attack. He is among only three riot defendants who have asked for a bench trial, which means a judge will decide his case without a jury.

Griffin, a 48-year-old former rodeo rider and pastor, helped found a political committee called Cowboys for Trump. He had vowed to arrive at the courthouse on horseback. Instead, he showed up Monday as a passenger in a pickup truck that had a horse trailer on the back. Griffin is charged with two misdemeanors: entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds. A key question in Griffin’s case is whether he entered a restricted area outside the Capitol while Pence was still present on Capitol grounds, a prerequisite for the US Secret Service to invoke access restrictions. In a court filing, prosecutors called Griffin “an inflammatory provocateur and fabulist who engages in racist invective and propounds baseless conspiracy theories, including that Communist China stole the 2020 Presidential Election.”

Guilty!

A federal judge on Tuesday convicted an elected official from New Mexico of illegally entering restricted US Capitol grounds but acquitted him of engaging in disorderly conduct during the riot that disrupted Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential election victory, per the AP. US District Court Judge Trevor McFadden heard one day of testimony without a jury on Monday before handing down a verdict in the misdemeanor case against Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, a 48-year-old former rodeo rider who helped found a group called Cowboys for Trump. He faces a maximum sentence of one year in jail when sentenced in June.

McFadden, a nominee of then-President Trump, said there was ample evidence that Griffin knew he was in a restricted area and didn’t leave. Griffin crossed over three walls, needing help from others or a ladder to get over them, the judge noted. “All of this would suggest to a normal person that perhaps you should not be entering the area,” McFadden said from the bench. But the judge said prosecutors didn’t meet their burden to prove that Griffin engaged in disorderly conduct. “Arguably, he was trying to calm people down, not rile them up,” he said.

One year?

Hell you get more time for a bag of weed than breaching of the Capitol…..something is wrong with that.

More to come I assume…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Aubrey Vs Rittenhouse

More on the justice system ……

This time it is about the Aubrey case…..the latest trial of vigilante actions…..

After more than 10 hours of deliberations over two days, the jury has delivered its verdict in the Ahmaud Arbery case. Greg McMichael, 65 and his son Travis McMichael, 35, have been found guilty of murder in the 25-year-old Black man’s death, the New York Times reports. The McMichaels grabbed guns and chased Arbery in a pickup truck after they saw him running through their neighborhood near Brunswick, Georgia last year. William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., a neighbor who joined the chase in his truck and recorded video of Travis McMichael shooting Arbery, was also found guilty of murder.

Travis McMichael was found guilty on all nine counts, including felony murder and malice murder. His father was found guilty of felony murder and all other counts except malice murder. Bryan, 52, was also found guilty of felony murder but not malice murder. All three men will face minimum sentences of life in prison and it will be up to the judge the AP reports.

More thoughts on the trial and outcome…..

  • The verdict. Travis McMichael, who shot Arbery after he saw him running through his neighborhood outside Brunswick, Georgia, in February last year, was found guilty of malice murder and felony murder. His father, Greg McMichael, and neighbor William Bryan Jr., who helped chase Arbery down in his truck, were found guilty of felony murder. All three were also convicted on charges including aggravated assault and false imprisonment, the Brunswick News reports. The overwhelmingly white jury rejected defense arguments that the men were trying to carry out a lawful citizen’s arrest and that the younger McMichael shot Arbery in self-defense. Prosecutors said the men hunted Arbery down and killed him while he was jogging on a public road.
  • “Careful deliberation.” Bryan and the elder McMichael were found not guilty of malice murder. Georgia criminal defense attorney Page Pate tells CNN the verdict shows there was “careful deliberation.” In Georgia, malice murder means “you have an intent to kill someone,” Pate says. “Felony murder is you don’t necessarily want to kill someone but you’re committing a felony offense and someone dies as a result of it.”
  • Sentencing. The three men were taken to the Glynn County jail, where they will remain until they are sentenced, the Times reports. No sentencing date has been set. All three defendants could face a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
  • Appeals planned. Lawyers for the McMichaels and Bryan say they plan to appeal. “I can tell you honestly, these men are sorry for what happened to Ahmaud Arbery,” said McMicheal attorney Jason Sheffield, per the AP. “They are sorry he’s dead. They are sorry for the tragedy that happened because of the choices they made to go out there and try to stop him.” Bryan attorney Kevin Gough, who plans to file new motions after Thanksgiving, said the team is “disappointed with the verdict, but we respect it.”

I would not get too excited for this will happen again and again…..it is far from over…..period.

This is a justice for one but how many have gone without justice for their deaths?

Vigilantism will rise….that we can wager on.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo

Rittenhouse Update

The trial of the little slug Rittenhouse has been a silliness from the word go…….now it is time for the jury to retire to render a verdict…..

First the gun thing was tossed out…..

Before closing arguments began in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse Monday, the judge dismissed the charge that had been seen as most likely to result in a conviction. Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old when he killed two men and wounded a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was on trial for a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under 18, as well as five felonies. Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge after the teen’s defense team argued that RIttenhouse could be covered by an exemption in the Wisconsin law if the AR-15-style rifle he used wasn’t short-barreled, NBC Chicago reports.

Prosecutors conceded that the rifle wasn’t short-barreled. Schroeder said he believed the statute was poorly written. “I have big problems with this statute, I’ve made no bones about that from the beginning,” the judge said, per the Hill. The charge carried a maximum sentence of nine months in jail and a $100,000 fine. Rittenhouse still faces the five felony charges, including two counts of homicide. Prosecutors have asked Schroeder to allow the jury to consider lesser charges if they acquit the 18-year-old on the more serious counts.

Rittenhouse’s defense team has claimed he shot the men in self-defense. In his closing arguments Monday, prosecutor Thomas Binger argued that Rittenhouse, who traveled 30 miles to Kenosha from his home in Illinois, was not “protecting his home or his family” on the night of Aug. 25, 2020, and had failed to “exhaust all reasonable means of escape” before opening fire, CNN reports. The jury is expected to start deliberating Monday. Some 500 National Guard troops are on standby outside Kenosha.

And now the judge has given is statement and instructions to the jury…..

Kyle Rittenhouse’s fate is up to the jurors now, Judge Bruce Schroeder told them Monday evening, saying their job is to “determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as to each of the offenses charged or submitted.” A prosecutor had the last word during the closing arguments phase of Rittenhouse’s homicide trial, CNN reports, telling the Wisconsin jury: “He’s guilty. Thank you.” Rittenhouse killed two men and wounded another during protests in Kenosha.

Schroeder warned the jurors against outside influences. “You will disregard the claims or opinions of any other person or news media or social networking site,” he said. “You will pay no heed to the opinions of anyone—even the president of the United States or the president before him.” Jury deliberations are scheduled to begin Tuesday morning. Jurors will work from a 36-page document spelling out the statutes and factors they must consider when deliberating each count against Rittenhouse, per the Washington Post. They’re charged with reaching a unanimous verdict on each of the five felony counts.

The outcome will be groundbreaking and used to defend other murderers…..I say there may be a mistrial because the jury cannot come to an unanimous decision.

Personally I say burn his ass and make him pay for his actions.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Impeachment Trial–Day 4

I try to avoid the “news of the day” on weekends but sometimes there are reports that need exposure and this is one of this situations.

Sorry guys put I try to be brief yet informative and this subject prohibits me from brevity.

A long read but packed with information, please take the time to educate yourself…..some may say that it is TMI….but this situations calls for TMI.

The House has wrapped up their portion of the case…..it is time for the rambling babbling defense team to stand up and make the case that Trump has committed no crime against the country.

Not to worry for any Trumpites that remain here….matters not the evidence….the GOP Senators for the most part are not unbiased and open to the facts.

Why do I say this?

Former President Trump’s second impeachment trial appears destined to end the same way his first did: with an acquittal. House managers rested their case Thursday, day No. 3 of trial No. 2, and the New York Times reports most Republican senators appeared to remain unconvinced. The paper deems it unlikely that the required two-thirds of the Senate will vote to convict. Only a few GOP senators are seen as likely to vote against Trump (Vox has the six to watch here; the Hill has its own look at them here), and even Democratic senators were starting to signal it was time to wrap things up. Both parties appear to support a plan that would quickly end it, with Trump’s lawyers planning a three- to four-hour presentation Friday with Q&A following, and a final vote then coming as early as Saturday.

Technically, as CNN reports, his defense team has 16 hours over two days to present its case, after which senators are allowed to ask questions of both teams. Then the teams debate over whether to subpoena witnesses and documents, after which a vote is taken on that matter, but the House managers don’t appear likely to ask for that. Four hours of closing arguments are allowed before senators deliberate and then vote. Republican senators are largely explaining their votes to acquit via their reasoning that the trial itself is unconstitutional; in the Washington Post, Georgetown law professor and former DC prosecutor Paul Butler explains why even senators who voted against holding the trial on those grounds should still vote to convict or acquit based on the merits of the case itself. Trump, who is confident he will be acquitted, was seen golfing in Florida Thursday

This is just typical these days….if the party tells you what to do then by God you had better do it.

Another example where party politics outweighs the Constitution…..

First here is the brief filed by lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a 78-page brief

Onto the Trump defense….

Defense lawyers for former President Trump wrapped up their arguments in his impeachment trial Friday, making the case that Trump cannot be held responsible for the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Senators then had a question-and-answer session with lawyers from both sides, and they are now on track to vote on Saturday. Highlights from the Trump team’s defense:

  • Attorney Michael van der Veen dismissed the trial as a “blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance,” per the Washington Post. He also used the phrases “appalling abuse of the Constitution” and “constitutional cancel culture,” per the AP.
  • Trump didn’t incite the rioters, he insisted. Yes, the former president urged supporters to “fight like hell,” but that was metaphorical, said van der Deen, per the Hill. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles,” he added. “Joe Biden’s slogan was ‘battle for the soul’ of America. No one believes that the use of this political terminology was incitement of political violence.”
  • He also played video clips of Democrats urging on protesters during the civil unrest over the summer. For example, Democratic Rep. Ayanna Presley was shown saying, “There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives.” Said van der Deen: “Democratic politicians endorsed and encouraged the riots that destroyed vast swaths of American cities last summer.”
  • Trump’s team also showed clips of Democratic lawmakers using the word “fight” repeatedly, though without context, per the AP. “You didn’t do anything wrong” in using the word, Trump attorney David Schoen told the senators. “But, please, stop the hypocrisy.” A separate AP story notes that Democrats mostly chuckled and whispered to themselves at the video attempting to equate what they said to Trump’s statements. “Donald Trump was warned, if you don’t stop talking about a stolen election, people will be killed,” said Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine during a break. “He was specifically warned that. He kept talking about it, and a violent mob attacked the Capitol and seven people are dead who would be alive today, had he just followed their advice. That’s what I thought about those videos.”
  • Attorney Bruce Castor says what happened at the Capitol was not an insurrection. “Insurrection is a term of art defined in the law,” he said. “It involves taking over a country, a shadow government, taking the TV stations over and having some playing what you’re going to do when you finally take power. Clearly, this is not that.” The impeachment charge alleges “incitement of insurrection.”
  • Castor’s closing pitch: “All of these facts make clear the January 6th speech did not cause the riots. The president did not cause the riots. He neither explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action.” Instead, Castor he noted that Trump told supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” march to the Capitol.

Trump’s lawyers admonished the Dems for taking videos out of context then they set about doing the same thing.

My worry is that the Dems left out all the GOPers that have been enabling Trump for years…..why do they get a free ride?

Okay let’s look at the points of the case….the main point is that Trump is no longer president and therefore the trial is unconstitutional…..but wait!  There is a precedent….

The year is 1876 and the former Secretary of War Belknap was tried in the Senate after he had left office….a little background will be helpful right?

An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876.

At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand lifestyle on his $8,000 government salary.

By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration.

The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. Marsh’s promise of generous kickbacks prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment. Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.

On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.

But if that is not enough then here is more info for those that pretend this is unconstitutional….

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3-26.htm

So yes he, Trump, can be tried.

Next the incitement thing….or as they want us to believe the First Amendment thing…..Free speech to be exact…..

Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech.
The concept behind the freedom of speech is that you should be able to express anything in a way that does not create legal consequences for you. Even if your opinion is unsavory, rude, or unpopular, this right gives you the option to express it. In the United States, there are four forms of speech which are not protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech can incite violence against other people.
People must be held responsible for the personal choices that they make. When someone commits an act of violence against another because they were incited by hate speech to do so, then they made the choice to break the law. The person who created the outcome through the encouragement of their language holds some responsibility here as well. If online radicalization causes people to join ISIS, then shouldn’t political radicalization that causes individuals to attack journalists be treated in the same way?

Freedom of speech can incite violence against other people.
People must be held responsible for the personal choices that they make. When someone commits an act of violence against another because they were incited by hate speech to do so, then they made the choice to break the law. The person who created the outcome through the encouragement of their language holds some responsibility here as well. If online radicalization causes people to join ISIS, then shouldn’t political radicalization that causes individuals to attack journalists be treated in the same way?

Freedom of speech creates a paradox.
When we look at the modern idea that creates the foundation for freedom of speech, it really isn’t free. The government is still dictating some of the things that we can or cannot say. This freedom, and this writer, cannot exist if people are not allowed to make assertions that are distasteful to the majority, even if the statements are hurtful to other people.

Does any of that look familiar?

We now await the vote.

Any takers om whether he is acquitted?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Spineless GOP

First have you noticed that the GOPers that are most in Trump’s circle came in with the Tea Party in 2010?

Just a thought!

One last post on day 2 of the Trump impeachment trial……

The Dems offered up some very compelling and scary videos of the breaching of the Capitol…any true American watching them should be terrified the Trump brought us to this point in our history…..but not the d/bags in the Senate….most not all….they see nothing that makes them take notice…

After a second day of searing evidence in former President Trump’s second impeachment trial—including previously unseen video footage showing how narrowly some lawmakers escaped the mob—most Republican lawmakers still seemed unwilling to vote to convict. GOP senators including Ted Cruz said that while the scenes of violence were horrific, it hadn’t changed their minds on whether Trump is guilty of inciting the insurrection. To convict the former president, at least 17 Republicans will have to vote with the chamber’s 50 Democrats. “I think you get at best six Republicans—probably five and maybe six,” Sen. Tim Scott told CNN. More:

  • “The result of this trial is preordained.” Cruz said the trial’s result is “preordained” and Trump will be acquitted, the Washington Post reports. “I’ve said many times that the president’s rhetoric is at times overheated. But this is not a referendum on whether you agree with everything the president says or tweets,” Cruz said Wednesday. “This is instead a legal proceeding, assessing whether the president has committed high crimes or misdemeanors.”
  • “Painful to see.” GOP Sen. James Lankford, one of numerous senators who became emotional while watching the footage, said video of a Capitol police officer being crushed in a set of doors was “painful to see,” the New York Times reports. “Who in God’s name thinks, ‘I am going to show that I am right by smashing into the Capitol?'” he said. Senators said, however, that they would not let emotion influence their decisions.
  • “There’s no question it’s well done.” Like many of his colleagues, Sen. Kevin Cramer praised the House impeachment managers’ presentation as “well done” but said he would not change his vote. “Senators are, you know, pretty analytical, as a matter of just a profession,” the Republican said, per the Post. “So it doesn’t affect me in terms of how I feel about the president’s culpability. That’s what’s on trial.”
  • No pressure from McConnell. Republican senators say there has been no pressure from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to acquit Trump, the Hill reports. Sen. Rob Portman says McConnell has said, “I think this is a vote of conscience.” McConnell, one of 44 GOP senators who voted against proceeding with the trial on Tuesday, has said he is still undecided.
  • A chaotic ending. Politico reports that there was a confusing ending to proceedings Wednesday when GOP Sen. Mike Lee objected to impeachment managers citing a news report about him receiving a call from Trump on Jan. 6 that was intended for Sen. Tommy Tuberville. After an argument over Senate rules, lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin agreed to withdraw the evidence. “This is much ado about nothing because it’s not critical in any way to our case,” he said.
  • What’s next. Democrats plan to wrap up their case after the Senate reconvenes at noon Thursday and Raskin has signaled that more video from the Capitol attack will be presented, the New York Times reports. Trump’s lawyers have focused on the constitutionality of the trial and it’s not clear how strongly they intend to counter allegations that Trump incited the riot.

AS I said gutless dickheads.

It is time for the people of the US to rid ourselves of these types of venomous scum….if not then we have many long years of double dealing antics that accomplish nothing for the people of this country….they are self-serving twats.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Questions Not Asked

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump is a sham…..a sham because most Senators have made up their minds and no amount of evidence will change that.

The outcome of acquittal is not in question.

Speaking of questions….there are some around the insurrection that need to be asked….

There are a number of obvious questions that relate to the operation of the conspiracy that must be answered, including:

  • How was it possible that the Capitol Police, the DC National Guard, the FBI and other federal security forces were so completely unprepared for what was known in advance to be a violent attack?
  • Why was there a virtual stand-down of Capitol security forces despite well documented plans for violence, involving fascistic militias like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers?
  • With whom were the leaders of the mob in contact during the assault? Who visited the Trump White House in the days leading up to the attempted coup? How did the fascists know the layout of the Capitol building?

But there are more fundamental questions that no one is asking, let alone answering. First and foremost: If the coup succeeded, what was the plan?

The Democrats’ own indictment lays out in extensive detail the months-long conspiracy to overturn the results of the election that culminated on January 6. Trump organized a mob to storm the Capitol and stop the congressional certification of the results of the election. This is precisely true. But if they succeeded in seizing hostages, what were they going to do?

And what were the forces within the state involved in this operation? In the months before the coup, Trump made critical changes to the military aimed at facilitating it. The military has just initiated a “stand-down” supposedly aimed at addressing the proliferation of “domestic extremism” within its ranks. Who within the military supported the operation, and what were their roles?

Who, moreover, was providing the financial backing? As is well known, in order to uncover the roots of a criminal conspiracy, it is necessary to “follow the money.” Trump’s own cabinet was stocked with billionaires, including individuals like his former education secretary, Betsy DeVos, the sister of Blackwater founder Erik Prince. The DeVos family is known to have provided funding for right-wing demonstrations in Michigan to demand an end to restrictions on the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. What is the connection between the fascistic mob on January 6 and high-level support within the ruling class?

Since very of this will be brought up….the conclusion of the trial is a forgone conclusion.

Was this trial necessary or just political theater?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”