Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bannon urging Trump to push stolen election claims during Senate impeachment trial
Washington Examiner ^ | February 01, 2021 06:36 PM | Rob Crilly, White House Correspondent

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


21 posted on 02/01/2021 4:59:12 PM PST by hank ernade (armchair macho bravado EverTrumper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
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.
For the record: I think Trump is the rightful president and I don’t think he incited a riot. But I also think this is an unwise defense.


The defense is that if people revolted, it's because the Congress certified a blatantly fraudulent election, that many in Congress were illegitimately certified winners as well, and it had nothing to do with Trump's comments thatb day. There was a problem because the Congress ignored the consent of the governed. That's how the country was founded
22 posted on 02/01/2021 4:59:14 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

” I also think this is an unwise defense”

I agree. There’s plenty of time to put together the evidence of fraud”


23 posted on 02/01/2021 5:00:31 PM PST by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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?


24 posted on 02/01/2021 5:04:01 PM PST by Trump.Deplorable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastexsteve

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.


25 posted on 02/01/2021 5:07:27 PM PST by guthunde47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Trump.Deplorable

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?


26 posted on 02/01/2021 5:08:21 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (You are in far greater danger from authoritarian government than you are from a seasonal virus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“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.


27 posted on 02/01/2021 5:08:23 PM PST by CottonBall (MAKE REPUBLICANS WHIGS AGAIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
He should bring up the best examples of questionable electoral results. Not the ‘iffy’ ones.

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.

28 posted on 02/01/2021 5:11:47 PM PST by C210N (You can trust government or you can understand history. But you CANNOT do both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: olivia3boys
"Anything Steve Bannon is in favor of, I am as well."

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.

29 posted on 02/01/2021 5:13:24 PM PST by Dogbert41 (Proud member of the Poor Boy Gang. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C210N
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.

Obama's buddy Renzi brought down the Italian government because he wants to investigate himself and control the finance ministry and secret services. I don't think he will be successful, and they have the money trail back to Obama's Iran deal. This story isn't going to go away.
30 posted on 02/01/2021 5:18:19 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida

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.


31 posted on 02/01/2021 5:21:09 PM PST by InterceptPoint (Ted, you finally endorsed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
The impeachment resolution on the House floor passed 232-197, consists of an article citing "incitement of insurrection."

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."

32 posted on 02/01/2021 5:23:55 PM PST by Liz (Our side has 8 trillion bullets; the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

This is not a court. It never acts like a court.


33 posted on 02/01/2021 5:26:03 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie (I do not regret my decision to cut all ties with Fox News. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

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.


34 posted on 02/01/2021 5:27:26 PM PST by WellyP (question!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Take your case to the people President Trump. Why argue the number of angels on the head of a pinhead?


35 posted on 02/01/2021 5:28:16 PM PST by bray (Pray for fake President Biden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

This is not really a court. Congress cannot impeach a private citizen.


36 posted on 02/01/2021 5:30:55 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie (I do not regret my decision to cut all ties with Fox News. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


37 posted on 02/01/2021 5:33:37 PM PST by Liz (Our side has 8 trillion bullets; the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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 ...


38 posted on 02/01/2021 5:33:51 PM PST by wardaddy ( IN 1999 JIM THOMPSON WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE BUSHES ...WE WERE WRONG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
From the articles of impeachment:
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.'

Since this has been asserted as a fact, Trump's lawyers have the right to contest it. They should also make reference to the testimony of Arturo D'Elia in the Italian court in Naples. It rebuts the false claim that no court has determined that there was election fraud. If I were Trump's attorney, I would ask why a court in Italy is more concerned with election fraud in the U.S. than Chief Justice Roberts, who has also refused to schedule cases before SCOTUS promptly. I would hammer Roberts for that and not presiding over the trial. I would argue that Roberts should be impeached for his nonfeasance of his oath of office. I would also state that I intended to take the testimony of Stefano Serafini, the U.S. State Dept. official D'Elia names as running the vote swapping in Rome.
39 posted on 02/01/2021 5:35:07 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
That’s not what the impeachment charge is ultimately about, though, they are alleging he encouraged the riot at the Capitol.

Yes, but they are alleging he did this with his claims of voter fraud. Showing the voter fraud would be an affirmative defense.

40 posted on 02/01/2021 5:35:11 PM PST by eastexsteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson