Trump/Republican Coup Thread

[Solauren]

Point of fact: 35 is the minimum to run for President of the United States; one can run for the House at 25 and the Senate at 30.

Almost like they wanted a senator to have 5 years of experience from Congress, and a president to have 10 years of experience in the Federal government....

[Broomstick]

And here, everybody retires at 60-65... This late retirement in the US has more to do with social security than anything else - and frankly - a pilot's experience does not get worse over time.

There are two groups in the US who continue to work past retirement age: those who must due to financial reasons, and another group who continue to work because they want to work. The difference being that those working for voluntary reasons can cut back their hours or quit whenever they want.

Then make it 70, I just made an attempt to balance for fairness' sake. And to introduce a low-yield term limit.

Hey, no reason to avoid discussing the particular ages and/or reasoning behind that.

And yeah - you may be the exception. Nice. Good for you.

Ummm... yes and not. In many ways, people these days who are 60, 70, or 80 may be in much better shape both physically and mentally than in prior generations.

Perhaps some form of testing would be indicated - past a certain age, for example, people can continue to drive a car but must undergo more frequent testing, medical exams, and so forth. That allows the capable 90 year old to continue their independence, but when such a person can no longer meet the criteria then they must cease the activity.

That is, in fact, the rationale behind the retirement age for commercial pilots - it's not that their experience degrades, it's their vision and reaction times that start to diminish no matter how healthy an old person they are. It was evidence that today's 60 and 65 year olds tend to be healthier and in some ways "younger" than in the 1950's that lead to the US raising the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots.

(If you're a private pilot you can continue to fly your personal plane as long as you can pass the medical certification. I personally knew a pilot still flying at 96 (the next year she could no longer pass the physical and stopped flying). I believe the record in the US was 102. Now THOSE were exceptional people!)

There also are people 20 years old who are capable to fill a political office properly - I do not see anyone making an argument that there should be exceptions for these. Cut-off ages are like that.

True. Hence my pointing out that the cut-off ages are a topic for discussion.

[bilateralrope]

Trump changes defence team just over a week before impeachment trial is set to begin

Tom Hamburger and Josh Dawsey
17:50, Jan 31 2021

Former US president Donald Trump is changing his legal defence team with just a little more than week before his second impeachment trial is scheduled to open in the US Senate.

A Trump spokesman, Jason Miller, confirmed Saturday evening (Sunday NZT) that the previously designated lead attorney for Trump, Karl Bowers, a well-regarded South Carolina ethics lawyer, will no longer be part of the team representing the former president when the Senate trial begins on February 9.

One of the deputies Bowers had tapped, Deborah Barbier, a former South Carolina prosecutor, will also no longer be part of the team, Miller said.

The House impeachment article charges Trump with "incitement of insurrection" in the invasion of the US Capitol on January 6 by a pro-Trump mob.

Since the House voted to impeach Trump, he has struggled to put together a legal team to mount his defence, in part because prominent lawyers seemed unwilling to associate themselves with Trump's continued false claims that he actually won the election. That claim inspired his supports to attack the Capitol.

The fate of two additional team members from South Carolina, Greg Harris and Johnny Gasser, was not immediately clear. They had not officially been named as part of the team, Miller said.

A person familiar with the change described it as a "mutual decision" for the lead South Carolina lawyers to leave the team. The shift comes amid tight deadlines to prepare for the trial. The House impeachment managers must file their briefs in the case on Febrary 2. Trump's defence team lawyers must file their briefs by February 8.

New defence team members could be announced shortly, Miller said in a text message late Saturday.

"The Democrats' efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional," Miller said in a statement sent to reporters on Saturday night. "We have done much work, but have not made a final decision on our legal team, which will be made shortly."

Neither Bowers nor the other South Carolina lawyers responded to requests for comment Saturday. It was not clear why the previously announced South Carolina lawyers were departing.

Late last week, people familiar with Trump's developing defence strategy said that four South Carolina lawyers would be the nucleus of the Trump team.

Their selection marked a dramatic shift from Trump's previous impeachment. During that Senate trial last year, Trump was defended by lawyers experienced on the national stage.

They included Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor whose work led to Bill Clinton's impeachment; Jay Sekulow, who had defended Trump previously; and Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor, known for his work in high-profile controversial cases.

The departure of the South Carolina lawyers from the team is likely to come as a disappointment to Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who had recommended Bowers.

"They really have the A-team from South Carolina," said Matt Moore, former chairman of the state Republican Party.

In recent days, it was disclosed that Bowers had a US$400,000 (NZ$556,130) federal tax lien on his property in Columbia. He told The Washington Post in an interview that the lien had been resolved.

One of the other South Carolina lawyers, Harris, had scraped with controversy in the past.

Harris was a county prosecutor in a 1989 case in which the South Carolina Supreme Court found that the prosecutor had an 'intent to discriminate" in explaining why a black juror should be barred from serving in a case involving a black defendant.

The potential juror was rejected from serving during the drunken-driving trial because the man had "shucked and jived" as he made his way to the court microphone, the prosecutor said when asked to explain his reasoning, according to the state Supreme Court opinion.

The state Supreme Court decision does not name Harris, but he was the assistant solicitor in the 5th Judicial District solicitor's office at the time. And his opposing counsel in the case, Philip Mace, said he had vivid recollections of Harris's role prosecuting his client, a black female defendant, and seeking to strike black jurors.

Harris did not respond to repeated requests for comment. His role in the case was first reported by HuffPost on Friday.

In an interview on Thursday, Mace said the case became known in South Carolina legal circles as the "shuck and jive" case, and sent a signal from the state's high court that it was on alert for a "Batson challenge," referring to a 1986 Supreme Court ruling making it unconstitutional to exclude jurors on the basis of race or sex.

In addition to the "shuck and jive" reference, the court noted that the prosecutor successfully sought to dismiss a 43-year-old black woman juror because she appeared "extremely sluggish," and he doubted whether she would be able to withstand the trial and be aware of what was going on, the court decision said.

Mace moved for a mistrial but the lower-court judge denied his request, saying that no pattern of racial discrimination was established and that the prosecutor's justifications "were racially neutral."

The state Supreme Court disagreed. It found racial discrimination had occurred and it reversed the trial court's conviction, citing the prosecutor's comments - particularly his "shucked and jived" remark.

The judges wrote that the prosecutor's "use of this racial stereotype is evidence of the prosecutor's intent to discriminate and clearly violates the mandates" of the "Batson Challenge" rules.

Mace said he thought Harris's comment was "a good old boy South Carolina way of talking and not being very racially sensitive." He added though that Harris had a strong reputation as a defence lawyer.

"If I was in trouble, he might be one of the lawyers I'd consider hiring," Mace said.

I wonder what Trump did to get his lawyers leaving this close to the trial. My guess is that he wants a defense strategy that could get them disbarred. So I'm expecting them to try and turn the Senate trial into a shitshow.

[Broomstick]

Allegedly Trump wants them to mount a defense that he won the election and is therefore innocent.

Yes, I know it's insane troll logic.

Apparently he also wants lawyers "comfortable" with going on TV and spouting conspiracy theories.

All of which makes sense given Trump's prior behavior.

[Solauren]

I wouldn't be surprised if they told him 'plead guilty in exchange for just being barred from running for office again and a presidential pardon to protect you from federal charges', and he either fired them, or he refused and they said 'then you're on your own, idiot'.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Um, while I work for the UK legal system I'm far from an expert, but...even if Trump was right about the election results, he'd still be guilty of inciting insurrection. Doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons doesn't mean you haven't still done something wrong.

[bilateralrope]

Allegedly Trump wants them to mount a defense that he won the election and is therefore innocent.

Yes, I know it's insane troll logic.

Apparently he also wants lawyers "comfortable" with going on TV and spouting conspiracy theories.

All of which makes sense given Trump's prior behavior.

I don't think going on TV would be enough for Trump. From memory, he was unhappy that his lawyers who spouted conspiracy theories on TV refused to do so in all those court cases around the election results.

Also, the fact that Giuliani was spouting those in public, but never brought them up in court, is one thing Dominion Voting Systems have cited in their defamation case against him. So even spouting those conspiracy theories on TV might be too much for competent lawyers.

I wouldn't be surprised if they told him 'plead guilty in exchange for just being barred from running for office again and a presidential pardon to protect you from federal charges', and he either fired them, or he refused and they said 'then you're on your own, idiot'.

Trying to get Biden to pardon Trump seems like a very unlikely strategy. But having Trump ask for a pardon would make him look guilty in the other cases he's likely to face.

My guess is that Trump's lawyers suggested a simple "shut up and hope" strategy. Which didn't go down well with him.

[Solauren]

I meant a pardon just for what's going before the senate. THAT Trump might be able to hope for.

[Solauren]

Allegedly Trump wants them to mount a defense that he won the election and is therefore innocent.

Yes, I know it's insane troll logic.

So, he's going for the insanity defense?

Apparently he also wants lawyers "comfortable" with going on TV and spouting conspiracy theories.

Which could get them disbarred, or facing charges themselves.

[bilateralrope]

I meant a pardon just for what's going before the senate. THAT Trump might be able to hope for.

Impeachment is the one thing the constitution specifically says can not be pardoned.

[Zaune]

If Trump believed in employing people to tell him what he needs to hear instead of what he wants to hear, neither he nor the United States would have wound up in this situation in the first place.

And it's not even going to be fun to watch what happens next, because his dimwitted but loyal minions are going to kick off again and the new administration's going to have yet another mess to clean up. It's going to be 2028 before they're even done getting the country back to the relatively un-FUBAR'ed state it was before the 2016 election at this rate.

[Solauren]

If Trump believed in employing people to tell him what he needs to hear instead of what he wants to hear, neither he nor the United States would have wound up in this situation in the first place.

You assume he'd have listened to them....

[Lord Revan]

If Trump believed in employing people to tell him what he needs to hear instead of what he wants to hear, neither he nor the United States would have wound up in this situation in the first place.

You assume he'd have listened to them....

Well I assume if he believed in employing such people, he'd listen to them, the problem with Trump isn't so much that he ignores good advice, but rather that he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't conform to his preconceptions and thus fires people who give advice that doesn't meet his desires.

I like I said to my dad when we discussed this Trump is a person to whom people haven't said "no" enough times, so when now faced with reality saying "no" several times to him Trump retreats to his imaginary world where he is always right and everything is permitted to him.

[bilateralrope]

Trump announces new impeachment legal defence team

Eric Tucker and Jill Colvin
16:54, Feb 01 2021

Former US president Donald Trump announced a new impeachment legal defence team on Sunday (Monday NZT), one day after it was revealed he had parted ways with an earlier set of lawyers with just more than a week to go before his Senate trial.

The two representing Trump will be defence lawyer David Schoen, a frequent television legal commentator, and Bruce Castor, a former district attorney in Pennsylvania who has faced criticism for his decision to not charge actor Bill Cosby in a sex crimes case.

Both lawyers issued statements through Trump's office saying they were honoured to take the job.

“The strength of our Constitution is about to be tested like never before in our history. It is strong and resilient. A document written for the ages, and it will triumph over partisanship yet again, and always,” said Castor, who served as district attorney for Montgomery County, outside of Philadelphia, from 2000 to 2008.

The announcement on Sunday was intended to promote a sense of stability surrounding the Trump defence team as his impeachment trial nears. The former president has struggled to hire and retain lawyers willing to represent him against charges that he incited the deadly riot at the US Capitol, which happened when a mob of loyalists stormed Congress as lawmakers met on January 6 to certify Joe Biden's electoral victory.

That's a contrast from his first impeachment trial when Trump's high-profile team of lawyers included Alan Dershowitz, one of the best-known criminal defence lawyers in the country, as well as White House counsel Pat Cipollone, and Jay Sekulow, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

Trump’s team had initially announced that Butch Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer, would lead his legal team after an introduction from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. But that team unravelled over the weekend due to differences over legal strategy.

One person familiar with their thinking said Bowers and another South Carolina lawyer, Deborah Barbier, left the team because Trump wanted them to use a defence that relied on allegations of election fraud, and the lawyers were not willing to do so. The person was not authorised to speak publicly about the situation and requested anonymity

Republicans and aides to Trump, the first president to be impeached twice in American history, have made clear that they intend to make a simple argument in the trial: Trump’s trial, scheduled for the week of February 8, is unconstitutional because he is no longer in office.

“The Democrats’ efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional and so bad for our country,” Trump adviser Jason Miller has said.

Many legal scholars, however, say there is no bar to an impeachment trial despite Trump having left the White House. One argument is that state constitutions that predate the US Constitution allowed impeachment after officials left office. The Constitution’s drafters also did not specifically bar the practice.

Castor, a Republican who was the elected district attorney of Pennsylvania’s third-most populated county, decided against charging Cosby in a 2004 sexual encounter. He ran for the job again in 2015, and his judgment in the Cosby case was a key issue used against him by the Democrat who defeated him.

Castor has said he personally thought Cosby should have been arrested but that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In 2004, Castor ran for state attorney general unsuccessfully. In 2016, he became the top lieutenant to the state’s embattled attorney general – Kathleen Kane, a Democrat – as she faced charges of leaking protected investigative information to smear a rival and lying to a grand jury about it. She was convicted, leaving Castor as the state’s acting attorney general for a few days.

Schoen met with financier Jeffrey Epstein about joining his defence team on sex trafficking charges just days before Epstein killed himself in a New York jail.

In an interview with the Atlanta Jewish Times last year, Schoen said he had also been approached by Trump associate Roger Stone before Stone's trial about being part of the team and that he was was later retained to handle his appeal. Trump commuted Stone's sentence and then pardoned him. Schoen maintained in the interview that the case against Stone was “very unfair and politicised”.

Neither Schoen nor Castor returned phone messages seeking comment on Sunday evening.

The lawyers Trump went with are someone who refused to charge Bill Cosby for sex crimes and someone who was trying to join Epstein's defense team when he killed himself. Two lawyers who probably aren't worried about getting disbarred for lying in the Senate trial.

It's going to be a shitshow.

[Ralin]

Um, while I work for the UK legal system I'm far from an expert, but...even if Trump was right about the election results, he'd still be guilty of inciting insurrection. Doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons doesn't mean you haven't still done something wrong.

Are you familiar with the legal theory that it can't be illegal if the president does it?

[Solauren]

Um, while I work for the UK legal system I'm far from an expert, but...even if Trump was right about the election results, he'd still be guilty of inciting insurrection. Doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons doesn't mean you haven't still done something wrong.

Are you familiar with the legal theory that it can't be illegal if the president does it?

A legal theory that has never been tested in court, and from what I understand, flies in the face of all levels of United States law.

While it's government policy not to charge a sitting president, that doesn't meant his actions can't be criminal and held after the fact.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Um, while I work for the UK legal system I'm far from an expert, but...even if Trump was right about the election results, he'd still be guilty of inciting insurrection. Doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons doesn't mean you haven't still done something wrong.

Are you familiar with the legal theory that it can't be illegal if the president does it?

That's a shitty legal theory. I'm pretty sure that it's a fair approximation to the Fuhrer's Princip mentioned in the film "Conspiracy" - "his word is above all written law." If that's your defence then, well, you're fucked.

Honestly, my four-year-old nephew has come up with a better defence to something he's accused of than "nuh uh, it's all fine cos I actually won." There's also the amusing side-effect that by justifying it on the basis of "false" election results, Trump has to admit he did it, followed with "but it's ok because..."

[Solauren]

Question- Could Trump repeating 'But I WON', repeatedly, without a shred of legal proof (and in fact, numerous court cases haven't thrown out election fraud claims as false), be taken as evidence of 'diminished mental capacity?' in the trial?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Wait is it confirmed Trump is goign to represent himself?

[Batman]

Well Trump 'is' dumb enough to try that

[Lord Revan]

Question- Could Trump repeating 'But I WON', repeatedly, without a shred of legal proof (and in fact, numerous court cases haven't thrown out election fraud claims as false), be taken as evidence of 'diminished mental capacity?' in the trial?

Well it's complicated since IIRC "insanity defense" is one those things that's really, really hard to pull of successfully, not mention it would essentially involve admission of guilt. I suspect the prosecutors might offer it as an option but I doubt Trump would accept it.

[bilateralrope]

While an insanity plea might avoid a declaration of guilt, it's still an admission from Trump, and anyone who votes to accept the insanity plea, that he is unfit to hold office. So it's still an argument vote for a conviction when we all know that if we get a conviction, the Democrats will then motion to block Trump from office, which only needs a majority to pass.

So any senator who votes for insanity, but not conviction and removal, is going to have that follow them for the rest of their career.

[Crossroads Inc.]

In the last two weeks it has become pretty clear that... Yet AGAIN, reports of Trumps political demise are premature. He may not have twitter any more, but it is clear people are flocking back to him both within the GOP leadership as well as voters. Mitch the Litch McConnell has backpedaled HARD after briefly whispering the notion that the Senate should impeach Trump.

I would say as far as counting on even a single republican "doing what is right"
all bets are off. At this point, if he gets someone crazy enough, we very well could have a situation of Senators being told crazy conspiracy theories, and then trying to explain why they still didn't convict Trump.

[Zaune]

While an insanity plea might avoid a declaration of guilt, it's still an admission from Trump, and anyone who votes to accept the insanity plea, that he is unfit to hold office. So it's still an argument vote for a conviction when we all know that if we get a conviction, the Democrats will then motion to block Trump from office, which only needs a majority to pass.

So any senator who votes for insanity, but not conviction and removal, is going to have that follow them for the rest of their career.

What about a psychiatric evaluation before the hearing to determine his fitness to stand trial? I'm not overly familiar with US law but I presume that's not something that can only be done at the request of the accused or their advocate.

[Broomstick]

Wait is it confirmed Trump is goign to represent himself?

As of yesterday he has apparently found two lawyers to take on the job.

But who knows?