Trump's defense brief amateurish- how befitting

Micawber

Verified User
[FONT=&quot]“The two sides’ briefs could not be more distinct in their approach: the House Managers’ brief was about the law and facts, whereas Mr. Trump’s legal team plays on political hyperbole and overblown rhetoric designed to please a party of one,” Moss said in an email. “If this were an actual trial in a court of law, as opposed to a political circus, there’d be no contest in terms of how much more weight the House Managers’ brief would hold.”

[/FONT]
After ‘Citizen Trump’ Defense Brief Opens with ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ Reference, Lawyers Decry ‘Amateurish’ Memo and ‘Overblown Rhetoric’ (msn.com)
 
[FONT="]“The two sides’ briefs could not be more distinct in their approach: the House Managers’ brief was about the law and facts, whereas Mr. Trump’s legal team plays on political hyperbole and overblown rhetoric designed to please a party of one,” Moss said in an email. “If this were an actual trial in a court of law, as opposed to a political circus, there’d be no contest in terms of how much more weight the House Managers’ brief would hold.”

[/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-citizen-trump-defense-brief-opens-with-trump-derangement-syndrome-reference-lawyers-decry-amateurish-memo-and-overblown-rhetoric/ar-BB1dvrQG?ocid=msedgdhp"]After ‘Citizen Trump’ Defense Brief Opens with ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ Reference, Lawyers Decry ‘Amateurish’ Memo and ‘Overblown Rhetoric’ (msn.com)[/URL]


Not a real trial, but very revealing regarding the state of the Republican party. They had two options. Look at the facts and reach the logical conclusion, or avoid the whole thing by claiming the trial is unconstitutional, thereby giving tacit approval to the Presidents behavior. The party has chosen the latter. They are now the party that is a-okay with sedition. It's that simple. One of the two major political parties no longer believes in the American system of government.
 
Not a real trial, but very revealing regarding the state of the Republican party. They had two options. Look at the facts and reach the logical conclusion, or avoid the whole thing by claiming the trial is unconstitutional, thereby giving tacit approval to the Presidents behavior. The party has chosen the latter. They are now the party that is a-okay with sedition. It's that simple. One of the two major political parties no longer believes in the American system of government.

Trump's brief is commentary, like an extended opinion piece, not a trial brief. according to the piece which gave a couple examples. The theme is "Please forget anything Trump did or said and the Capitol invasion and 4 killed, Trump is being persecuted like Jesus."

To extend your point I think they are OK with sedition because they think that they have lost a culture war
and that their way of life will be gone unless their selection, and only theirs, has the power. And they think this because they have been lied to for about 20 years
while those lies have grown like bacteria in a warm stinky jar called the Fox News bubble. Huge downside to giving everyone mutual networked communications as well.
For example this board, you and I and 10 others could agree on who is worth reading, and the rest are simply worthless at best, dangerous at worst.
 
Trump is going after the procedure as extra-Constitutional (which it clearly is)
but also the fact there was no incitement, and there was pre-planning
 
Trump is going after the procedure as extra-Constitutional (which it clearly is)
but also the fact there was no incitement, and there was pre-planning

To the extent any pre-planning occurred, it was specifically a response to Trump using the office of the presidency to spend 70 days lying that the election was stolen, and the very fate of the Republic was at stake.
 
Trump is going after the procedure as extra-Constitutional (which it clearly is)
but also the fact there was no incitement, and there was pre-planning

It clearly is? Says who? No reputable constitutional scholars believe that, there is precedent for holding a trial after a person is out of office, and there is nothing in the Constitution that forgoes a person being tried after they are out of office.

Trump may be focusing on the both of those things, but Republicans aren't going to defend Trumps behavior, at least most of them aren't. It's a loser.
 
To the extent any pre-planning occurred, it was specifically a response to Trump spending 70 days lying that the election was stolen, and the very fate of the Republic was at stake.

And the preplanning was actively encouraged by Trump. He go the dynamite in one place and then lit the fuse.
 
It clearly is? Says who? No reputable constitutional scholars believe that, there is precedent for holding a trial after a person is out of office, and there is nothing in the Constitution that forgoes a person being tried after they are out of office.

Trump may be focusing on the both of those things, but Republicans aren't going to defend Trumps behavior, at least most of them aren't. It's a loser.

See how easily they believe something entirely false because of where they get their information. Anatta has zero con law training, and you quickly
pointed out how he is simply wrong. How can he be so fiercely ignorant? Ans., he is lied to constantly.
 
It clearly is? Says who? No reputable constitutional scholars believe that, there is precedent for holding a trial after a person is out of office, and there is nothing in the Constitution that forgoes a person being tried after they are out of office.

Trump may be focusing on the both of those things, but Republicans aren't going to defend Trumps behavior, at least most of them aren't. It's a loser.
it's not a "trial" in the conventional sense. Read the language that talks about "removal"
The main use of impechmentt according to the text and POTUS precedent is removal.

The "banning" is an enhanced punishment concurrent - not instead of- "removal"


yes you are also going to see both a defense to "incitement" -
you might see Schumer on the SCOTUS steps as well telling the 2 jurors "we are coming to get you"
 
Because this is a vote, Repuke cowards need a fig leaf. A plausible yet spurious legal argument is exactly the fig leaf available
to avoid having to register judgment on his actual guilt or innocence.
 
Because this is a vote, Repuke cowards need a fig leaf. A plausible yet spurious legal argument is exactly the fig leaf available
to avoid having to register judgment on his actual guilt or innocence.
a vote to dismiss is a vote on guilt
but that doesn't preclude an argument this is a pig circus as well
 
it's not a "trial" in the conventional sense. Read the language that talks about "removal"
The main use of impechmentt according to the text and POTUS precedent is removal.

The "banning" is an enhanced punishment concurrent - not instead of- "removal"


yes you are also going to see both a defense to "incitement" -
you might see Schumer on the SCOTUS steps as well telling the 2 jurors "we are coming to get you"

The Senate can do both. Your argument is that if the person is out of office, they can do neither. It makes no sense. You are not going to see Senators claiming Trump is innocent of the charges. It won't happen.
 
a vote to dismiss is a vote on guilt
but that doesn't preclude an argument this is a pig circus as well

No it is not a vote on guilt. You are now arguing against yourself. Which I guess shouldn't surprise us.
 
Trump is going after the procedure as extra-Constitutional (which it clearly is)
but also the fact there was no incitement, and there was pre-planning

Curious comment in that there was considerable pre-planning (how else did all those guys show up from all over the country at the same place, at the same time, for the same purpose?); the whole idea of the Trump rally was to incite an immediate march on the Capitol to intimidate the Senate from carrying out its Constitutional function; whether the "procedure is extra-Constitutional" is a question of Constitutional law I doubt you are qualified to answer but many who are qualified, even most from what I've seen, say it is Constitutional and there is precedent to support that view.
 
I'm convinced that Trump will not be impeached, but I truly hope that the next AG will look into Trump's involvement in inciting the insurgence, and holds Trump accountable, for both criminal and civil violations.
 
Curious comment in that there was considerable pre-planning (how else did all those guys show up from all over the country at the same place, at the same time, for the same purpose?); the whole idea of the Trump rally was to incite an immediate march on the Capitol to intimidate the Senate from carrying out its Constitutional function; whether the "procedure is extra-Constitutional" is a question of Constitutional law I doubt you are qualified to answer but many who are qualified, even most from what I've seen, say it is Constitutional and there is precedent to support that view.
That implies Trump conspired to hold the rally knowing the pre-planning.. no evidence of that at all.

In fact teh Capitol police got a heads up from the FBI but they sat on it (by all accounts)
 
Back
Top