Posted on 02/06/2021 2:26:04 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Former President Donald Trump’s lead impeachment defense attorney Bruce Castor said he will use video clips of top Democrats inciting violence during the coming impeachment trial.
Castor said the defense team will adhere to the strategy outlined in the brief they submitted to the Senate on Tuesday.
The Trump defense team argued in the brief that the Constitution “requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached” and that Trump was exercising his First Amendment right of free speech to question the results of the November election.
The impeachment against Trump goes against the Constitution because Trump doesn’t hold any office after he left the White House on Jan. 20, the lawyers argued.
Castor revealed that the defense team will use some video clips of top Democrats encouraging violence during the impeachment trial which is scheduled to start on Monday.
“I think you can count on that,” he told Fox’s Laura Ingraham. “If my eyes look a little red to the viewers, it’s because I have been looking at a lot of videos the last couple of days.”
Castor noticed that some Democrats nationwide cheered when the rioters were burning down the cities and attacked the federal law enforcement officers last summer in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd.
“Many of them [Democrats] in Washington using really the most inflammatory rhetoric as possible to use,” he said. “But here when you have the president of the United States give a speech and says ‘you should peacefully make your thinking known to the people in Congress,’ he all of a sudden the villain...”
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Good. That’s exactly what they should be doing
They should show some of those examples and then play Trump’s whole speech before the Senate so they all have to listen to it.
This is great! Will we be able to watch it? I can’t wait.
Nt sure this is a good idea. Trump NEVER did this. Showing these videos implies “you did it too” unless it is carefully framed.
They will NOT allow it.
Wait and see.
That’s a silly argument just let the other side literally call for violence against you and not use it in a defense trial where they say you called for violence
Hussein: “Confront your neighbors. Get in their face.”
Unless it’s challenged as immaterial.
Watch the communists try to use Senate rules. etc. to interrupt or shut them down...
Harris will be grandstanding throughout... Except when she has to meet someone in a restroom to live up to her reward-for-support promises...
Watch for wear & tear on her kneepads...
That’s right, shove the truth right in their faces!
Showing these videos implies “you did it too” unless it is carefully framed.
You can’t shame People who have no shame.
Castor said the defense team will adhere to the strategy outlined in the brief they submitted to the Senate on Tuesday.The Trump defense team argued in the brief that the Constitution “requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached” and that Trump was exercising his First Amendment right of free speech to question the results of the November election.
The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that the Congress has sole authority over impeachments, pursuant to the Constitution, and there is no jurisdiction for the Court to review congressional impeachment proceedings.
In Belknap (1876), the House and Senate held that an impeachment of an individual who held office, but had left that office, may continue as they retain jurisdiction. In Trump (2021), the Rand Paul motion to find the proceeding contrary to the Constitution was rejected 55-45. Pursuant to the Scotus holding in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) that is not subject to judicial review.
There is clear precedent that jurisdiction is not lost when an officer leaves office. The Congress rejected the notion that an officer could evade disbarment from future office by leaving his position. Belknap ceased holding public office even before he was impeached by the House. Nevertheless, impeachment and trial ensued, and argument against the jurisdiction was lost.
Hind's Precedents §2008, pp. 310-321, extract from pg. 321:
Thereupon Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, proposed a resolution, which was in this form, after the words “before he was impeached” had been added on motion of Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York:Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate William W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.Mr. Algernon S. Paddock, of Nebraska, moved to amend the said resolution by striking out all after the word “resolved” and in lieu thereof inserting:
That William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, having ceased to be a civil officer of the United States by reason of his resignation before proceedings in impeachment were commenced against him by the House of Representatives, the Senate can not take jurisdiction in this case.This amendment was disagreed to, yeas 29, nays 37.
Then the resolution was agreed to, yeas 37, nays 29.
Mr. Thurman also presented a further resolution, which, after amendment at the suggestion of Mr. Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware, was agreed to by a vote of 35 yeas, 22 nays:
Resolved, That at the time specified in the foregoing resolution [June 1 was fixed by a separate resolution] the President of the Senate shall pronounce the judgment of the Senate as follows: “It is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap be, and the same hereby is, overruled; and, it being the opinion of the Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, overruled and held for naught;” which judgment thus pronounced shall be entered upon the Journal of the Senate sitting as aforesaid.
Our side can have all of the evidence in the world and as obvious as night and day and yet the scum will still say that’s not proof and/or will completely erase it.
This trial is a Star Chamber. They have no concerns about rights or equity in application of law. Instead we need transparency on a national scale. The defense should expose each and every politician’s dirty secrets.
There is a problem with this argument with regards to the chief executive, head of the Executive branch one of the co-equal branches of government, who is the highest elected official in the land, whereas the Chief Justice of SCOTUS must preside as per the Constitution.
I would rather that they took it straight to the Supremes and got the unconstitutional case tossed.
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.