‘It has to be dramatic, it has to be big’: Trump allies urge impeachment team to focus on election conspiracy
More content below Chris Riotta Fri, February 5, 2021, 3:15 PM
Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial in the Senate will be a performative spectacle promoting debunked conspiracy theories of rampant voter fraud when it kicks off next week — that is, if some of the former president’s closest allies get their way. Steve Bannon, the ex-White House chief strategist charged with fraud over a border wall fundraising scheme, acknowledged the Democratic Party has a “compelling” case against Mr Trump.
In an interview published on Friday with Politico, Mr Bannon said: “He is not going to be convicted, so we must address November 3rd. And the best place to adjudicate this is the well of the US Senate.”
“It has to be dramatic,” he added. “It has to be big. It has to be the big lie versus the big steal.”
Reports have indicated the former president wanted his legal team to focus on his false claims of a rigged election, leading to five attorneys fleeing from his side less than two weeks before the trial. Those lawyers were replaced by Bill Castor, a former district attorney most known for declining to prosecute Bill Cosby, and David Schoen, a lawyer who has bragged about representing “all sorts of reputed mobster figures” in court.
According to Politico, many of Mr Trump’s advisers have urged his team not to focus on the deadly Capitol riots last month that followed his nearby rally, where he gave a 70-minute speech in which he refused to concede and said: “If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore.”
The US House of Representatives impeached Mr Trump for fomenting the deadly insurrection, the first time in American history a president has been impeached twice. Senate Democrats would require at least 17 Republicans to join them in voting to convict Mr Trump in order to pave the way to bar him from ever holding elected office again.
However, it seems unlikely the Senate will convict Mr Trump after a majority of Republican senators voted against holding the trial while challenging the constitutionality of impeaching a former president.
“The Democrats have a very emotional and compelling case,” Mr Bannon told Politico. “They’re going to try to convict him in the eyes of the American people and smear him forever.”
Some said the team should not focus on the false claims of voter fraud, including Alan Dershowitz, who told the news outlet it would be a “serious mistake” for Mr Castor and Mr Schoen to revisit such conspiracy theories. The Politico report said the attorneys were planning on addressing the constitutionality of the trial, which has been a subject of debate among experts. Still, many constitutional scholars have said the trial was fair game, with some noting how the impeachment began in the House under Mr Trump’s tenure in the White House. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed to hold the trial last month, calling the decision of 45 GOP senators to vote against the proceedings “deeply irresponsible” in a speech.
"Only five Republican senators were willing to take a principled stand against this reckless and ill-advised effort by members of this body who are eager to excuse President Trump's campaign to overturn the election and apparently to excuse his incitement of the mob that every one of us experienced in this Capitol," he said. "I would simply say to all of my colleagues, make no mistake, there will be a trial, and the evidence against the former president will be presented in living color for the nation and every one of us to see once again."
Here is what I think is going down with this whole thing.
1) Trumps team and his allies are going to turn this into a crapshow-no discussion about Jan 6 but their side will talk about the same made up garbage that has been dismissed in 60+ lawsuits.
2) no way in hell trump gets on a stand and puts his hand on a bible. no how, no way. ask him, subpoena him...no way he gets on a stand under oath-he simply does not have the capability to answer questions honestly.
3) in the end, not much will come about with all the grandstanding except it will look like dysfunctional government at work again.
4) he will not get convicted in the Senate because there will not be 17 republicans who cross the aisle to convict trump. Most will say he is already out of office so this is a waste of time.
5) as soon as this is over, trump will go on a tour to all of the republicans that cross him and this will be the start of the 2024 maga tour. to primary the r's that cross him.
6) as soon as the repubs say that this is a waste of time and fail to convict because trump will never seek office again and this is over without conviction, trump will announce that he is running in 2024
5) as soon as this is over, trump will go on a tour to all of the republicans that cross him and this will be the start of the 2024 maga tour. to primary the r's that cross him.
Trump ‘plotting revenge tour’ against opponents after his impeachment trial
Gustaf Kilander Fri, February 5, 2021, 10:10 AM
Former President Donald Trump is planning a revenge tour around the country after the end of his second impeachment trial to campaign against Republicans who voted for his impeachment, according to a report. 10 House Republicans voted to impeach the then-President Trump.
Mr Trump has been advised that it would be unwise to go out and rail against incumbent Republicans before the end of the trial despite that Mr Trump acquittal is almost a foregone conclusion at this point.
A Republican close to Mr Trump told Insider: "Even he recognises that we have Trump fatigue. Even he knows that you can get overexposed, and he wore the electorate out. And that was part of the problem. He clearly wore the country out with his behaviour between the election and the inauguration."
"Twitter did him a favour," the Republican added, referring to the former president's lifetime ban from the platform. Even so, advisors are telling Mr Trump that he should speak publicly soon in order to not lose his vice-like grip on the party.
A former Trump campaign adviser told Insider that the longer Mr Trump remains holed up at Mar-A-Lago, his South Florida club, the less of a serious 2024 contender he becomes.
The vast majority of Republican voters are still in Mr Trump's camp with the latest poll from Quinnipiac released 4 February showing that 86 per cent of Republicans believe the Senate should acquit Mr Trump and 76 per cent of them believe the lie that there was widespread fraud in the election. Overall, a majority of Americans, 59 per cent, does not believe that there was widespread fraud.
Read more: Follow the latest updates on the post-presidency of Donald Trump
Mr Trump's tour would reportedly focus on the ten House Republicans who voted for his impeachment, with one of the possible targets being Anthony Gonzalez, who represents a district outside Cleveland, Ohio, a district which Mr Trump won with 57 per cent of the vote in 2020. Mr Gonzalez himself fared a little bit better, getting 63 per cent of the vote in his first reelection bid.
The former president - who values loyalty over perhaps anything else - is also preparing to possibly start trying to take down any Senators who vote for his conviction in the upcoming impeachment trial or cross him in any other way.
He's already urged South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem to take on Senator John Thune in 2022 because of Mr Thune's criticism of Mr Trump's attempts to overturn the election. Mr Thune won reelection in the state in 2016 with almost 72 per cent of the vote, while Mr Trump won the state in 2020 with ten per cent less of the vote.
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski could also be targeted as she has been one of the most outspoken Republican critics of Mr Trump during his time in office and she was one of five Republicans last month who voted with Democrats to strike down a resolution saying that an impeachment trial for a former president would be unconstitutional. Mr Trump won the state of Alaska in 2020 with 52.8 per cent to Joe Biden's 42.8 per cent.
Even as plans are being made, Trump spokesperson Jason Miller told Insider that it was "too soon to discuss specific 2022 campaign activity".
While stewing in Florida, one of Mr Trump's most high profile antagonists of late, House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney who voted to impeach him, won the support of 145 of her colleagues to stay in the position, with only 61 members voting to remove her after the wing of the party most loyal to Mr Trump forced a vote on whether she was to stay in the position, thinking they had the votes to remove her.
Republicans close to Mr Trump said this was likely to have angered him as he is eager to get out in public and criticise congressional Republicans who he thinks have betrayed him.
Mr Trump's lawyers quickly denied a request from House Democrats that he testify under oath during the Senate impeachment trial, but despite passing on this speaking opportunity, some with inside knowledge believe that Mr Trump will be out and swinging at his perceived enemies sooner rather than later.
Former RNC spokesman Doug Heye told Insider that Mr Trump "is clearly shell shocked from the reaction to January 6 and losing his social media platform... We don't know how long that will last, but it's safe to assume we'll be hearing from him at some point."
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
I haven't watched or heard a thing ... but when you say the Trump council is talking about facts, does that mean they are talking about how the Election was NOT stolen? Does that mean they are acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and claims of a stolen, fraudulent election are LIES? Did they talk about the 80+ court cases that Trump lost while he promoted those lies? Did they talk about how the ONLY reason for the protest and occupation of the Capitol Building was because of those lies?
Those are all facts ... hopefully that's what you were referring to.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
I haven't watched or heard a thing ... but when you say the Trump council is talking about facts, does that mean they are talking about how the Election was NOT stolen? Does that mean they are acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and claims of a stolen, fraudulent election are LIES? Did they talk about the 80+ court cases that Trump lost while he promoted those lies? Did they talk about how the ONLY reason for the protest and occupation of the Capitol Building was because of those lies?
Those are all facts ... hopefully that's what you were referring to.
They are talking about how you cant impeach someoneone who isnt President. Its unconstitutional. Which is 100% true.
But apparently libtards make up their own laws when the facts dont align with their feelings.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
Its not constitutional, but feel free to live in your alternate imaginary reality.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
Its not constitutional, but feel free to live in your alternate imaginary reality.
A majority bipartisan vote on the Senate floor just sad it was constitutional and disagree with your imaginary reality. So feel free to disappear in it.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
Its not constitutional, but feel free to live in your alternate imaginary reality.
A majority bipartisan vote on the Senate floor just sad it was constitutional and disagree with your imaginary reality. So feel free to disappear in it.
It doesnt suprise me that libtards make up their own laws when the current ones dont align with their feelings.
You most certainly are spouting off with emotions and ignoring fact and precedent.
And that's all you have posted - again and again and again ... nothing to back your opinion and emotions up. Just chanting a mantra like a good Cult of Trump girl.
The impeachment of William Belknap, the Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant, is more instructive. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction. A majority of the Senate voted to convict Belknap, but not the required two-thirds, so he was acquitted. The vast majority of senators who voted to acquit did so not because they thought that he wasn’t guilty of the offense but, rather, because he was no longer an official.
The Belknap case provides clear Senate precedent for trying a former official after he has left office.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
You most certainly are spouting off with emotions and ignoring fact and precedent.
And that's all you have posted - again and again and again ... nothing to back your opinion and emotions up. Just chanting a mantra like a good Cult of Trump girl.
The impeachment of William Belknap, the Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant, is more instructive. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction. A majority of the Senate voted to convict Belknap, but not the required two-thirds, so he was acquitted. The vast majority of senators who voted to acquit did so not because they thought that he wasn’t guilty of the offense but, rather, because he was no longer an official.
The Belknap case provides clear Senate precedent for trying a former official after he has left office.
Please learn how to read and what a fact is.
Quote:
just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position.
So they filed for impeachment while he was still in office.
Trump is not President, nor in any kind of government office. He is a private citizen.
OMG. Get a freaking clue. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction.
House AND Senate impeached him ANYWAY. That's called: P.R.E.C.E.D.E.N.T
The more things change the more they stay the same.
OMG. Get a freaking clue. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction.
House AND Senate impeached him ANYWAY. That's called: P.R.E.C.E.D.E.N.T
You are the one who needs a clue. That dude HELD AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POSITION WHEN THE TRIAL STARTED. THE POINT OF IMPEACHMENT IS TO REMOVE SOMEONE FROM OFFICE.
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
I haven't watched or heard a thing ... but when you say the Trump council is talking about facts, does that mean they are talking about how the Election was NOT stolen? Does that mean they are acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and claims of a stolen, fraudulent election are LIES? Did they talk about the 80+ court cases that Trump lost while he promoted those lies? Did they talk about how the ONLY reason for the protest and occupation of the Capitol Building was because of those lies?
Those are all facts ... hopefully that's what you were referring to.
They are talking about how you cant impeach someoneone who isnt President. Its unconstitutional. Which is 100% true.
But apparently libtards make up their own laws when the facts dont align with their feelings.
"Unconstitutional" implies that a law or procedure borne from state action directly contradicts the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land. That is why you can have trials in absentia or why states can't legalize slavery, because the Constitution specifically says you can't do that. With that in mind, how is this trial unconstitutional?
It doesn't say the President has to be a sitting President. And, as has already been pointed out, if you're looking for precedent about the interpretation, an out-of-office official has already been impeached before.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
I just did a Ctrl F for impeachment in the Constitution to make sure I wasn't going crazy.
"Imply" is an argument that often gets two sides before the Supreme Court so that they can give their official interpretation of the Constitution, and they often defer to the stare decisis of precedent.
In this case, the Belknap scenario serves as precedent in favor of the impeachment process. There is no precedent serving Trump's team. They have to rest their argument on "imply" at best while the counterargument is that the Constitution says nothing about the impeachment TRIAL needing to take place for a sitting president, and then bolstering that argument with the Belknap precedent.
It's all a moot point anyway because people are just going to vote on party lines like always, but I don't think the constitutionality argument carries weight here.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
It's all a moot point anyway because people are just going to vote on party lines like always, but I don't think the constitutionality argument carries weight here.
Nailed it.
And sleazey spineless GOP will not impeach him - they will lie and repeat this same bogus Bull Crap about unconstitutional. And if the world is still here in another 200 years - at some point, some slimey POS human scumbag who is all about exploiting the position of POTUS for his own gain will use this precedent to his advantage. Hell at the rate Hawley is going it might be sooner than we think.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time? You can’t truly think that can you? If Obama did something like this you would truthfully say oh well? I don’t think so.
You should absolutely be held accountable for the events that take place when you are in office that you contributed to, no matter what party you belong to. I guess being an independent must not cloud my brain.
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time?
I get why you asked the question, but to be honest, that question is moot.
Donald John Trump was impeached on January 13. His term expired on January 20. He was a sitting POTUS at the time of his impeachment. The trial is a separate procedure, conducted only after impeachment was confirmed.
Another fact that renders Schoen's and Castor's arguments moot: legal/historical precedent already exists to support the position that impeachment can occur after a politician's tenure has expired (Belknap).
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time?
I get why you asked the question, but to be honest, that question is moot.
Donald John Trump was impeached on January 13. His term expired on January 20. He was a sitting POTUS at the time of his impeachment. The trial is a separate procedure, conducted only after impeachment was confirmed.
Another fact that renders Schoen's and Castor's arguments moot: legal/historical precedent already exists to support the position that impeachment can occur after a politician's tenure has expired (Belknap).
Dems Play Trump’s Remarks at Impeachment Trial But Leave Out Call to ‘Peacefully and Patriotically Make Your Voices Heard’
U.S. Senate
Kristina Wong
9 Feb 2021
Democrats played a deceptively edited video of former President Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2020, at the beginning of the impeachment trial on Tuesday, leaving out his call for supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
The video shows Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down…to the Capitol.”
The video then cuts to supporters yelling, “Let’s take the Capitol!” and “We are going to the Capitol!” It then cuts to people trying to get past fence barriers, and then to an earlier part of Trump’s speech where he said in regards to his fight against the election results, “we fight like hell.”
The video then says: “President Trump ends his speech and urges his mob to move toward the Capitol.”
It then shows Trump saying:
So we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give…our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try–going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
It then goes to protesters violently clashing with police, protesters breaching the Capitol, and some chanting “Fight for Trump!”
The video was edited to make it l0ok as if Trump had urged supporters to go and violently breach the Capitol building.
However, nowhere in his remarks did Trump encourage violence, and he even called on supporters to “peacefully” make their voices heard.
He said:
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down — we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol — and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four year period.
…
So we are going to — we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try –give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try — going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here. This is incredible
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time? You can’t truly think that can you? If Obama did something like this you would truthfully say oh well? I don’t think so.
You should absolutely be held accountable for the events that take place when you are in office that you contributed to, no matter what party you belong to. I guess being an independent must not cloud my brain.
Nice try but all these unicorns are now flying around in trumplandia where their deplorable leader resides.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
Sure you can try him after he is gone for actions during his time. Even the guy that trumps lawyers mentioned said that you can't try a president after he is gone said trumps lawyers said that the lawyers seriously screwed up what he said
And this is also to assure that he never holds federal office again
A constitutional law professor whose work is cited extensively by former President Donald Trump's lawyers in their impeachment defense brief says his work has been seriously misrepresented.
In a 78-page brief filed in the U.S. Senate on Monday, Trump's lawyers rely heavily on the work of Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt, author of the seminal article about impeachment of a former president. His work is cited 15 times in the Trump brief, often for the proposition that the Senate does not have the authority under the Constitution to try an impeached former president.
The problem is that Kalt's 2001 book-length law review article concluded that, on balance, the historical evidence is against Trump's legal argument.
"The worst part is the three places where they said I said something, when, in fact, I said the opposite," Kalt said in an interview with NPR.
Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates Trump's lawyers argue that the Senate lacks jurisdiction because Trump is already out of office, making an impeachment trial pointless. Kalt argues that impeachment is about more than removal; it's about accountability and deterrence. "The framers worried about people abusing their power to keep themselves in office," he adds. "The point is the timing of the conduct, not the timing of the legal proceeding."
Kalt is among more than 170 leading constitutional scholars who have formally weighed in on this issue, telling the Senate that contrary to Trump's assertion, it does have the authority to try him.
The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
![[Linked Image from img.photobucket.com]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/Concor1033/NEWDTsig.jpg)
