Trump/Republican Coup Thread

[bilateralrope]

I wonder which Republican will speak out against this lawsuit first.

[Gandalf]

I'm more worried that the next wannabe fascist is actually competent (we're lucky that Trump was an inept buffoon).

So, the Bush II years again.

[Raw Shark]

I'm more worried that the next wannabe fascist is actually competent (we're lucky that Trump was an inept buffoon).

So, the Bush II years again.

Bush II had much better advisors. Calling him competent, even in comparison to Trump, is, to paraphrase George Carlin, setting the bar very low and settling for very little.

[Gandalf]

Bush II invaded a country and engaged in absurd cronyism. He's a death toll measured in the millions. And so on.

Trump got impeached twice. Bush II skated.

[Darth Yan]

Bush II invaded a country and engaged in absurd cronyism. He's a death toll measured in the millions. And so on.

Trump got impeached twice. Bush II skated.

He still wasn't terribly competent (there were jokes about Cheney being the real president for a reason after all).

[Solauren]

Question, could RICO rules apply to the KKK lawsuit?

Because, it might be worth going after a lower level organizer first, someone without wealth to hide behind, and nail them to the wall, then go after the 'higher ups', as is where. You find 'Bob Smith' guilty of conspiracy with Donald Trump, it's alot hard for Donald Trump to get away with conspiring with Bob Smith.

[Formless]

Question, could RICO rules apply to the KKK lawsuit?

Because, it might be worth going after a lower level organizer first, someone without wealth to hide behind, and nail them to the wall, then go after the 'higher ups', as is where. You find 'Bob Smith' guilty of conspiracy with Donald Trump, it's alot hard for Donald Trump to get away with conspiring with Bob Smith.

First, RICO only applies to criminal charges, not civil actions. Second, as many lawyers will tell you, its never RICO. You might think its easier to go after the big guys indirectly, but the way that law was written its usually harder to prove someone was part of a conspiracy than to just nail their ass directly, so its not invoked nearly as often as you might expect.

[Solauren]

First, RICO only applies to criminal charges, not civil actions. Second, as many lawyers will tell you, its never RICO. You might think its easier to go after the big guys indirectly, but the way that law was written its usually harder to prove someone was part of a conspiracy than to just nail their ass directly, so its not invoked nearly as often as you might expect.

Fair point on the Civil vs Criminal. I thought Criminal charges were coming.

With RICO, I guess it has to be very concrete before it can be applied?

For example, would: Mob Boss orders hit (and proof is collected via legal means). Mob Lieutenant accepts order, relays it down to the actual assassin (again, proof collected via legal means.) Assassin kills target, but is captured and later convicted. Would that be enough to RICO Mob Lt and Mob Boss?

[Rogue 9]

First, RICO only applies to criminal charges, not civil actions. Second, as many lawyers will tell you, its never RICO. You might think its easier to go after the big guys indirectly, but the way that law was written its usually harder to prove someone was part of a conspiracy than to just nail their ass directly, so its not invoked nearly as often as you might expect.

Fair point on the Civil vs Criminal. I thought Criminal charges were coming.

With RICO, I guess it has to be very concrete before it can be applied?

For example, would: Mob Boss orders hit (and proof is collected via legal means). Mob Lieutenant accepts order, relays it down to the actual assassin (again, proof collected via legal means.) Assassin kills target, but is captured and later convicted. Would that be enough to RICO Mob Lt and Mob Boss?

If you have solid proof collected by legal means that the mob boss ordered the hit, you don't need RICO.

[Formless]

As Popehat explains, RICO is very specifically worded to target crime families involved in racketeering, and thus is convoluted as hell. It actually does have a civil aspect to it which I was unaware of, but its hard to even allege a pattern of racketeering. Plus, the crimes have to be on a specific list of federal statues, not just any criminal conspiracy. Basically, unless the feds are seriously using it to do exactly what it was designed to do (take down the mob), going after someone under RICO is at best a scare tactic, at worst a complete waste of time. Other laws are on the books for dealing with criminal conspiracies, but they aren't the indirect method of going after someone. They are, in fact, the direct method of going after someone.

[Ralin]

Isn't it generally agreed that RICO is right on the edge of what is legally/constitutionally permissible in terms of collective guilt and that the only reason it hasn't been overturned by the courts is that it's used very selectively to go after crime syndicates?

[LaCroix]

This lawsuit is more trouble than it seems - if T***p loses this one , then it is open season for ALL members of congress (even Republicans who realize that they would like a share of his money), DC police, janitors, etc to follow up on it with their own suit , which would pretty much guarantee them the same outcome. Even when the individual suit does only award a "few hundred thousands" in damages, multiplying that by a few hundred cases, this could mean serious harm to T***p.

[Solauren]

This lawsuit is more trouble than it seems - if T***p loses this one , then it is open season for ALL members of congress (even Republicans who realize that they would like a share of his money), DC police, janitors, etc to follow up on it with their own suit , which would pretty much guarantee them the same outcome. Even when the individual suit does only award a "few hundred thousands" in damages, multiplying that by a few hundred cases, this could mean serious harm to T***p.

GOOD. If anyone deserves it, it's Trump.

Let him lose tons of cash fighting those lawsuits, so he can't defend himself against the Criminal charges that various levels of the US government are hopefully planning to bring against him for stuff he did prior to his term in office.

[Gandalf]

He still wasn't terribly competent (there were jokes about Cheney being the real president for a reason after all).

I remember those jokes. That was the interesting thing about that period and regime. Cheney et al operated quietly, and Bush played frontman. They and the rest operated like a team. Who was responsible for what was never quite clear, so assigning responsibility was difficult.

Trump didn't do that, instead insisting that he was in charge of everything.

[Raw Shark]

Considering his zeal for "firing" anybody he could who didn't have their nose buried so far up his ass their sneezes ruffled his toupee, I think it's fair to say Trump was in charge of everything that he could be, which is why his administration was a trainwreck.

[Gandalf]

It also didn't help long term relationships within the party, which are crucial to Republican style authoritarianism.

[bilateralrope]

This lawsuit is more trouble than it seems - if T***p loses this one , then it is open season for ALL members of congress (even Republicans who realize that they would like a share of his money), DC police, janitors, etc to follow up on it with their own suit , which would pretty much guarantee them the same outcome. Even when the individual suit does only award a "few hundred thousands" in damages, multiplying that by a few hundred cases, this could mean serious harm to T***p.

Even if he wins, he's probably still going to be forced to testify under oath. Which leads to three possibilities:
- Perjury that's obvious enough for a conviction.
- He lies in a way that's not obvious enough for a perjury conviction, but limits what he can say to future investigations without an obvious contradiction that leads to an easy perjury conviction.
- He avoids a perjury conviction by claiming his memory is faulty. Which his opponents can use if he ever runs for office again.

[Knife]

It also didn't help long term relationships within the party, which are crucial to Republican style authoritarianism.

Disagree. Most the problem we have now is all the Tea Baggers have bubbled up through local GOPer leadership and run the party right now.

[RogueIce]

Even if he wins, he's probably still going to be forced to testify under oath. Which leads to three possibilities:
- Perjury that's obvious enough for a conviction.
- He lies in a way that's not obvious enough for a perjury conviction, but limits what he can say to future investigations without an obvious contradiction that leads to an easy perjury conviction.
- He avoids a perjury conviction by claiming his memory is faulty. Which his opponents can use if he ever runs for office again.

The Supreme Court has allowed the 5th amendment to apply to civil as well as criminal cases. Especially if such testimony could be used in a criminal proceeding, which "conspiracy to cause a riot" certainly would be.

[bilateralrope]

Even if he wins, he's probably still going to be forced to testify under oath. Which leads to three possibilities:
- Perjury that's obvious enough for a conviction.
- He lies in a way that's not obvious enough for a perjury conviction, but limits what he can say to future investigations without an obvious contradiction that leads to an easy perjury conviction.
- He avoids a perjury conviction by claiming his memory is faulty. Which his opponents can use if he ever runs for office again.

The Supreme Court has allowed the 5th amendment to apply to civil as well as criminal cases. Especially if such testimony could be used in a criminal proceeding, which "conspiracy to cause a riot" certainly would be.

Yeah, it would be smart for Trump to plead the fifth. I just have doubts that he will choose to do so.

[Knife]

That's why it is key to make him testify. Of course his lawyers will want to plead, but he won't want to. He'll talk.

[Solauren]

For some reason, when I see Trump on the stand, it turns into the trial from Simpsons episode where Sideshow Bob was Mayor. Except Trump is far easier to provoke then Bob was.

[bilateralrope]

Kentucky county GOP chair calls on McConnell to resign leadership spot over Trump criticism

BY LEXI LONAS - 02/17/21 02:36 PM EST

A county GOP chairman in Kentucky is calling for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to resign from his leadership position in the Senate over his floor speech last weekend saying former President Trump was responsible for the Capitol riot.

“Given that the county party I represent supports President Trump overwhelmingly and your complete and total disdain for the will of your constituents here in Nelson County I am formally demanding you immediately resign your leadership position within our party’s caucus in the United States Senate,” Don Thrasher, chairman for the Republican Party of Nelson County, said.

Link to tweet

Republican Party of Nelson County
@NelsonGOP
Demand For McConnell's Resignation As Republican Caucus Leader From Republican Party of Nelson County Chair Don Thrasher

VERTISEMENT
McConnell supported Trump throughout his presidency and worked with him frequently, but the Republican leader split from the president after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. He voted to acquit Trump in the Senate on an impeachment charge of inciting the riot, but said he only did so because he does not believe the Senate can constitutionally convict a president no longer in office.

In his speech after his vote, he said “there’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”

Thrasher took exception to those comments.

“Your leadership in the US Senate does not represent the Republican voters that put our faith in you the last primary election,” Thrasher wrote.

Thrasher told The Washington Post that McConnell “stirred up the hornets’ nest even worse” with his speech after his vote and that it only made more people mad.

In his statement, Thrasher said he agreed with a statement Trump issued on Tuesday blasting McConnell.

Trump said McConnell “will never do what needs to be done, or what is right for our Country.”

Thrasher led a failed resolution in January with the Kentucky Republican Party that would have told McConnell to condemn Trump’s impeachment trial.

Looks like McConnell's plan of trying to please both sides by voting for acquittal, while putting out a speech saying how Trump was wrong, has been seen through by both sides.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Eh.. I cannot take much 'joy' from this.
Mc Connell as other have said is in a position were he honestly does not need to worry about re-election no matter what he does.
Outside of an army of MAGA Mooks rioting at his house, he doesn't really have anything 'direct;y to worry about from pissing off the Trump goons.

[bilateralrope]

If there are enough of them, can't they kick him out of the Senate Minority Leader position ?