Posted on 02/01/2021 4:39:27 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Advisers to former President Donald Trump are split on devising an impeachment defense, with Steve Bannon among those urging him to turn the Senate trial into a political bear fight by claiming once again that the election was stolen, according to a source familiar with discussions.
Trump’s legal team is scrambling to devise a strategy after he in recent days replaced five lawyers who were reluctant to relitigate what they saw as flimsy allegations of voter fraud.
While the Republican Party prefers arguing that the impeachment of a former president is unconstitutional, his allies fear Trump is gambling on a made-for-television, scorched-earth defense that risks defeat.
His advisers are fighting about whether to mount a conventional legal defense or use the Senate as a political platform.
“Bannon is the one wanting to tie it to a relitigation of the election,” said the source.
Bannon worked as White House chief strategist until falling out with Trump in 2017. However, last month it emerged that they had reconciled before Trump pardoned his former adviser, who was accused of conspiring to defraud donors to a fund to build a wall along the Mexican border, during his final hours in office.
Trump must respond to a charge of incitement of insurrection by midday on Tuesday, answering accusations that he was to blame for encouraging the deadly attack on the United States Capitol on Jan. 6. That single impeachment charge was passed in the House on a mostly party-line vote, with 10 Republicans joining Democrats to send the matter to the upper chamber.
Last week, all but five Republican senators voted to dismiss the trial as unconstitutional.
However, a tumultuous weekend brought a major shake-up of the legal team when the former president dismissed five lawyers because they were unwilling to argue that the election...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I could care less what the intestinal parasites of a defunct congress do or don’t do Trump is my president come hell or high water.
Who needs the obsolete shell that was the White House.
Let the hosebags and thumbsuckers do what they will nothing will come of it - we’ll still burn their azzes down.
” I also think this is an unwise defense”
I agree. There’s plenty of time to put together the evidence of fraud”
If I was Trump
I wouldn’t even bother showing up to this nonsense
I would not even enter a defense
It is bogus, why dignify it with a response?
Thank you for pointing that out. That is the important point that many miss, the wording about election fraud is in the impeachment documents from Pelosi. If it’s there, then Trump can address election fraud all he wants, and I agree that legally Leahy cannot deny it.
Maybe this is why Lindsay Graham was begging Biden to call off Pelosi on the impeachment issue when he appeared on Hannity. Graham said something like ‘God help is all’ if the impeachment goes through in the House, likely because Graham knows the election of Biden is a fraud.
I’ve thought the same thing.
It would drive them even more out of their minds than they already are.
What could be better than that?
“Seems to me that if the charge is “inciting a riot” and the defense is “They cheated and I am the rightful president” it’s almost an admission that inciting a riot seems like a fine and justified action.”
That’s probably true.
BUT the election fraud could be used to show WHY so many showed up and were so angry. They did not need Trump doing anything to protest. It’s the fraud - and democrats and republicans that did it - that caused the protedt.
If we get to this point in the charade(iffy hypothetical, IMHO), should go for the Mother of examples, the dominion tweaking of millions of votes from the Vatican, thru the Leonardi satellites. The one that led to a blackout, arrest of top Italian, and now fall of the Italian government.
I knew Kelly was a massive mistake and probably a deep state plant when Bannon was forced out. Steve Bannon was the best thing Trump had in the Whitehouse.
Leahy isn’t going to allow it. This is so predictable.
+++++
My fear as well. I’ve been posting that concern for some time now but hoping I’m wrong. Here is what I understand.
1. Senator Leahy has been sworn in as the Presiding Officer for the Senate Trial.
2. Senator Leahy CANNOT be sworn in with the 99 other Senators. He can not vote.
3. This gives the Republicans a narrow 50 to 49 advantage for votes related to process including the admissibility of evidence and witnesses. If there is even one defection (It will be Romney) then we lose.
4. Leahy can rule that evidence or witnesses are inadmissible for any reason or no reason at all. If he does then any Senator can demand a vote to reverse that decision. The Dems and Romney can validate the decision.
5. If Leahy slips up and allow evidence or a witness that the Dems don’t like, they can force a vote and, once again, the Dems and Romney can have their way.
I’m hoping it doesn’t go this way, that there is some Senate rule that would prevent it. But right now, I think it is possible.
The resolution states: "President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government.
He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled
a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."
This is not a court. It never acts like a court.
Pres. Trump can state FACTS in his defense as an example: 200,000 more votes were cast in PA that there are voters on the voter roll, 63,000 votes were cast by persons not yet of voting age in Georgia, 163,000 votes were cast in Arizona by non- citizens. The setting up of a two tier voting system by Zuckerberg’s $350 to $400 MILLION infusion into 10+ counties in “swing states”. Those are facts and there are many more.
Take your case to the people President Trump. Why argue the number of angels on the head of a pinhead?
This is not really a court. Congress cannot impeach a private citizen.
The fact remains Trump has some 78 million Americans on his side who will accept all of his arguments.
I doubt the species on the left can be convinced by anything Trump might argue.
Ergo, Trump has to decide which arguments are in HIS best interests. Period.
It’s risky and I think Bannon is best political advisor Trump ever had
Trump has to escape Senate conviction
We need him to run again ....
Which is a priority
Exposing the steal or Trump runs again
It could come to that ...
In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that 'we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.'
Yes, but they are alleging he did this with his claims of voter fraud. Showing the voter fraud would be an affirmative defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.