Last edited:
Debate: Are WE sleeping on Trump like the Jewish people slept on... YALL GOT WHAT YALL WANTED
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- trump
Derrick Evans, West Virginia lawmaker who stormed the Capitol, announces resignation
Evans, who was charged in federal court in connection with the insurrection that took place at the US Capitol in Wednesday, has resigned from the state's House of Delegates. Evans released a statement that read, in part: “I take full responsibility for my actions, and deeply regret any hurt, pain or embarrassment I may have caused my family, friends, constituents and fellow West Virginians."
Evans, who was charged in federal court in connection with the insurrection that took place at the US Capitol in Wednesday, has resigned from the state's House of Delegates. Evans released a statement that read, in part: “I take full responsibility for my actions, and deeply regret any hurt, pain or embarrassment I may have caused my family, friends, constituents and fellow West Virginians."
I want to know if that cop was a trump supporter
Never sleep on a devil.
Trump said he wasn’t gonna be at the inauguration. That has me wondering. I wonder if Trump is not going there really cause he knows something is going to happen that day??? Put 2 and 2 together.
So its not about Trump impeachment - its about disqualification from future office.
‘Honor, Trust or Profit’
If the House impeaches President Trump this week, it will still have almost no effect on how long he remains in office. His term expires nine days from now, and even the most rapid conceivable Senate trial would cover much of that time.
But the impeachment debate is still highly consequential. The Senate has the power both to remove Trump from office and to prevent him from holding office in the future. That second power will not expire when his term ends, many constitutional scholars say. A Senate trial can happen after Jan. 20.
And disqualifying Trump from holding office again could alter the future of American politics.
It’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on how radical a figure Trump is. He rejects basic foundations of American government that other presidents, from both parties, have accepted for decades.
He has tried to reverse an election result and remain in power by persuading local officials to commit fraud. He incited a mob that attacked the Capitol — and killed a police officer — while Congress was meeting to certify the result. Afterward, Trump praised the rioters.
This behavior was consistent with Trump’s entire presidency. He has previously rejected the legitimacy of election results and encouraged his supporters to commit violence. He has tried to undermine Americans’ confidence in the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the military, Justice Department prosecutors, federal judges, the Congressional Budget Office, government scientists, government health officials and more. He has openly used the presidency to enrich his family.
In the simplest terms, Trump seems to believe a president should be able to do whatever he wants. He does not appear to believe in the system of the government that the Constitution prescribes — a democratic republic.
Yet there is a significant chance he could win the presidency again, in 2024. He remains popular with many Republican voters, and the Electoral College currently gives a big advantage to Republicans. If he is not disqualified from future office, Trump could dominate the Republican Party and shape American politics for the next four years.
If he is disqualified, it’s impossible to know what would happen, but this much is clear: A singularly popular figure who rejects the basic tenets of American democracy would no longer be eligible to lead it.
Members of the National Guard outside the Capitol yesterday.Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
‘Honor, Trust or Profit’
If the House impeaches President Trump this week, it will still have almost no effect on how long he remains in office. His term expires nine days from now, and even the most rapid conceivable Senate trial would cover much of that time.
But the impeachment debate is still highly consequential. The Senate has the power both to remove Trump from office and to prevent him from holding office in the future. That second power will not expire when his term ends, many constitutional scholars say. A Senate trial can happen after Jan. 20.
And disqualifying Trump from holding office again could alter the future of American politics.
It’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on how radical a figure Trump is. He rejects basic foundations of American government that other presidents, from both parties, have accepted for decades.
He has tried to reverse an election result and remain in power by persuading local officials to commit fraud. He incited a mob that attacked the Capitol — and killed a police officer — while Congress was meeting to certify the result. Afterward, Trump praised the rioters.
This behavior was consistent with Trump’s entire presidency. He has previously rejected the legitimacy of election results and encouraged his supporters to commit violence. He has tried to undermine Americans’ confidence in the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the military, Justice Department prosecutors, federal judges, the Congressional Budget Office, government scientists, government health officials and more. He has openly used the presidency to enrich his family.
In the simplest terms, Trump seems to believe a president should be able to do whatever he wants. He does not appear to believe in the system of the government that the Constitution prescribes — a democratic republic.
Yet there is a significant chance he could win the presidency again, in 2024. He remains popular with many Republican voters, and the Electoral College currently gives a big advantage to Republicans. If he is not disqualified from future office, Trump could dominate the Republican Party and shape American politics for the next four years.
If he is disqualified, it’s impossible to know what would happen, but this much is clear: A singularly popular figure who rejects the basic tenets of American democracy would no longer be eligible to lead it.
Members of the National Guard outside the Capitol yesterday.Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
What are the basics of disqualification?
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The Constitution does not specify whether disqualification requires a two-thirds Senate vote, as conviction in an impeachment trial does, or only a majority vote. The Senate has previously used a majority vote.
The Senate has barred three people, all federal judges, from holding future office: West Humphreys (in 1862, for waging war against the U.S.), Robert Archbald (in 1913, for corruption) and Thomas Porteous (in 2010, for bribery and perjury).
The Senate has tried a former War Department secretary — William Belknap, in 1876 — after he resigned. Both the House and the Senate decided that Belknap could be tried after he had left office.
Disqualifying a president from future office, because of the stakes and lack of precedent, would probably come before the Supreme Court. History suggests that the court would be more likely to uphold a bipartisan congressional vote than a largely partisan one.
For more: “If an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart,” Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law writes in the online publication Just Security.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The Constitution does not specify whether disqualification requires a two-thirds Senate vote, as conviction in an impeachment trial does, or only a majority vote. The Senate has previously used a majority vote.
The Senate has barred three people, all federal judges, from holding future office: West Humphreys (in 1862, for waging war against the U.S.), Robert Archbald (in 1913, for corruption) and Thomas Porteous (in 2010, for bribery and perjury).
The Senate has tried a former War Department secretary — William Belknap, in 1876 — after he resigned. Both the House and the Senate decided that Belknap could be tried after he had left office.
Disqualifying a president from future office, because of the stakes and lack of precedent, would probably come before the Supreme Court. History suggests that the court would be more likely to uphold a bipartisan congressional vote than a largely partisan one.
For more: “If an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart,” Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law writes in the online publication Just Security.
FBI memo warns law enforcement across U.S. of possible armed protests at 50 state Capitols
The FBI also says an armed group has threatened to travel to Washington and stage an uprising if Congress removes Trump from office.
Members of the National Guard walk through the rotunda of the Capitol on Jan. 11, 2021.Stefani Reynolds / Getty Images
Jan. 11, 2021, 2:07 PM EST
By Tom Winter and Andrew Blankstein
The FBI has sent a memo to law enforcement agencies across the country warning of possible armed protests at all 50 state Capitols starting Jan. 16, and also says an armed group has threatened to travel to Washington, D.C., the same day and stage an uprising if Congress removes President Donald Trump from office, according to a senior law enforcement official.
The memo includes information provided by the ATF, DEA, Defense Department, Park Police, and the U.S. Marshals, among other agencies, according to the official. Some of the information came from social media, some from open source, and some from other sources of information.
The memo was first reported by ABC News.
Related
POLITICS
Right-wing extremists vow to return to Washington for Joe Biden's inauguration
The senior law enforcement official says the FBI’s National Crisis Coordination Center distributed the update to law enforcement agencies as a summary of threat information they’ve received following last Wednesday’s deadly mob attack on the Capitol.
While the memo discusses possible threats discussed by online actors for Jan. 16 through the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 20, it doesn’t mean that law enforcement agencies expect violent mass protests or confrontations in every state.
For instance, a spokesperson for the FBI in Boston says, “At this point in time, the FBI Boston Division is not in possession of any intelligence indicating any planned, armed protests at the four state capitals in our area of responsibility. (ME, MA, NH, and RI) from January 17-20, 2021.”
Capitol riot ‘more sinister and dangerous’ as time goes on
JAN. 11, 202102:32
The spokesperson added, “As always, we are in constant communication with our law enforcement partners and will share any actionable intelligence.”
According to the memo, the armed group that has discussed traveling to Washington on Jan. 16 said there would be a huge uprising if Congress tries to remove Trump via the 25th Amendment. Law enforcement officials point out that Congress can’t remove a president via the 25th Amendment.
The FBI also says an armed group has threatened to travel to Washington and stage an uprising if Congress removes Trump from office.
Members of the National Guard walk through the rotunda of the Capitol on Jan. 11, 2021.Stefani Reynolds / Getty Images
Jan. 11, 2021, 2:07 PM EST
By Tom Winter and Andrew Blankstein
The FBI has sent a memo to law enforcement agencies across the country warning of possible armed protests at all 50 state Capitols starting Jan. 16, and also says an armed group has threatened to travel to Washington, D.C., the same day and stage an uprising if Congress removes President Donald Trump from office, according to a senior law enforcement official.
The memo includes information provided by the ATF, DEA, Defense Department, Park Police, and the U.S. Marshals, among other agencies, according to the official. Some of the information came from social media, some from open source, and some from other sources of information.
The memo was first reported by ABC News.
Related
POLITICS
Right-wing extremists vow to return to Washington for Joe Biden's inauguration
The senior law enforcement official says the FBI’s National Crisis Coordination Center distributed the update to law enforcement agencies as a summary of threat information they’ve received following last Wednesday’s deadly mob attack on the Capitol.
While the memo discusses possible threats discussed by online actors for Jan. 16 through the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 20, it doesn’t mean that law enforcement agencies expect violent mass protests or confrontations in every state.
For instance, a spokesperson for the FBI in Boston says, “At this point in time, the FBI Boston Division is not in possession of any intelligence indicating any planned, armed protests at the four state capitals in our area of responsibility. (ME, MA, NH, and RI) from January 17-20, 2021.”
Capitol riot ‘more sinister and dangerous’ as time goes on
JAN. 11, 202102:32
The spokesperson added, “As always, we are in constant communication with our law enforcement partners and will share any actionable intelligence.”
According to the memo, the armed group that has discussed traveling to Washington on Jan. 16 said there would be a huge uprising if Congress tries to remove Trump via the 25th Amendment. Law enforcement officials point out that Congress can’t remove a president via the 25th Amendment.
Bill Belichick declines Presidential Medal of Freedom
Posted by Mike Florio on January 11, 2021, 8:24 PM EST
Getty Images
A man known for making great coaching decisions has made a great one away from the football field.
Patriots coach Bill Belichick has decided to decline the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
“Recently, I was offered the opportunity to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which I was flattered by out of respect for what the honor represents and admiration for past recipients,” Belichick said in a statement issued Monday night. “Subsequently, the tragic events of last week occurred and the decision has been made not to move forward with the award.
“Above all, I am an American citizen with great reverence for our nation’s value, freedom and democracy. I know I also represent my family and the New England Patriots football team. One of the most rewarding things in my professional career took place in 2020 when, through the great leadership within our team, conversations about social justice, equality and human rights moved to the forefront and became actions. Continuing those efforts while remaining true to the people, team and country I love outweigh the benefit of any individual award.”
The carefully crafted statement, including among other things deft use of the passive voice regarding Belichick’s decision to punt on the award, makes a very important point without directly saying it. Belichick now believes that the man he openly supported for the office of the presidency in 2016 has behaved in a way that cannot be reconciled with notions of social justice, equality, and human rights. Thus, Belichick cannot reconcile accepting a significant individual honor with his obligations to his family and his football team.
They say the pen is mightier than the sword. Sometimes, that pen cuts deepest when its blade is perceived as being dull.
Posted by Mike Florio on January 11, 2021, 8:24 PM EST
Getty Images
A man known for making great coaching decisions has made a great one away from the football field.
Patriots coach Bill Belichick has decided to decline the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
“Recently, I was offered the opportunity to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which I was flattered by out of respect for what the honor represents and admiration for past recipients,” Belichick said in a statement issued Monday night. “Subsequently, the tragic events of last week occurred and the decision has been made not to move forward with the award.
“Above all, I am an American citizen with great reverence for our nation’s value, freedom and democracy. I know I also represent my family and the New England Patriots football team. One of the most rewarding things in my professional career took place in 2020 when, through the great leadership within our team, conversations about social justice, equality and human rights moved to the forefront and became actions. Continuing those efforts while remaining true to the people, team and country I love outweigh the benefit of any individual award.”
The carefully crafted statement, including among other things deft use of the passive voice regarding Belichick’s decision to punt on the award, makes a very important point without directly saying it. Belichick now believes that the man he openly supported for the office of the presidency in 2016 has behaved in a way that cannot be reconciled with notions of social justice, equality, and human rights. Thus, Belichick cannot reconcile accepting a significant individual honor with his obligations to his family and his football team.
They say the pen is mightier than the sword. Sometimes, that pen cuts deepest when its blade is perceived as being dull.
On MLK DAY Trump Admin drops racist "1776 Report" which compares Racial Justice Activists to Slavery Apologists + check Trumpists' tweets
Trump administration issues racist school curriculum report on MLK day https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/politics/1776-commission-report-donald-trump/index.html https://uproxx.com/viral/trump-administration-1776-project-twitter-reactions/ The Trump Administration Dropped Their Anti-Progressive...
www.bgol.us
Politics: Why McConnell Dumped Trump (New Yorker magazine)
Why McConnell Dumped Trump After the Capitol assault—and after losing his perch as Majority Leader—the senator finally denounced the outgoing President. Was it a moral reckoning or yet another act of political self-interest? By Jane Mayer January 23, 2021 Mitch McConnell McConnell’s tactics...
www.bgol.us
Christopher Browning, a historian of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany, told me that McConnell has been almost “Houdini-like at escaping his own devil’s pact” with Trump. In a widely admired essay in The New York Review of Books, from 2018, Browning called McConnell “the gravedigger of American democracy,” and likened him to elected officials in Weimar Germany who struck early deals with Hitler, mistakenly believing that they could contain him and his followers.
When I asked Browning if he still regarded McConnell in this way, he said that the new Minority Leader had “cut a better deal than most.” McConnell was “lucky that Trump was so lazy, feckless, and undisciplined.” Hitler didn’t go golfing, Browning pointed out. But Browning found little to celebrate in McConnell’s performance.
“If Trump had won the election, Mitch would not be jumping ship,” he noted. “But the fact is Trump lost, and his coup failed. And that opened an escape hatch for Mitch.” Browning warned, however, that “the McConnell wing was ready to embrace Trump’s usurping of democracy—if Trump could pull it off.”
I posted articles and research on how ALL these sports owners across the board
from their teams their businesses their private lives...
All fund the most right wing racist candidates and organizations
No matter what lip service and table scraps they BARELY give the other side to keep them quiet and in check
They don't care about black folk poor folk gay etc etc
These rich people FINANCIALLY support the oppression machine.
They just don't want boycotts protests marches bad press LAWSUITS and headaches.
And THAT is what Trump brought them
Yeah the judges and tax breaks are WONDERFUL
but not at the cost of galvanizing the opposition increasing voter turn out empowering the lower and middle class, exposing their own fuckery etc etc.
They trying to figure out how to keep oppressing but continue to be loved...
That's the racist conundrum
They HATE US
but cannot live without our love and acceptance
They worst thing to call a racist?
Is a racist
That was the true long lasting damage of trump and the alt right
Making overt systematic racism and classism Socially ACCEPTABLE.
And Trump being Trump he f*cked it up
Man we lucky Jeb bush type ain't win last time, we would have been screwed.
Trump out her airing it out calling audibles forgetting plays, getting sacked, making bets against his own team, yelling at teammates...
But if the Republicans had got a nice system quarterback to come in there just hand off, check downs, keep the turnovers and mistakes to a minimum?
We would have been in full fascist super bowl dynasty mode by now.
Trump’s “Office of the Former President” is the First Step Towards Secession and Civil War
As pathetic as it looks, we should not take Trump’s latest publicity stunt lightly.
Nicolas Carteron
https://ncarteron.medium.com/trumps...-bd35bb902e56--------------------------------
In a move as pathetic as it is dangerous, Donald Trump recently announced the “Office of the Former President.” Trump so describes the newly-minted “office” and its responsibilities:
Officially, former presidents should be addressed as “The Honourable.” In recent years, it has become a tradition to refer to them as “Mr President” or (one day soon) “Ms President” as a matter of courtesy and respect for the office and their service to the nation.
Trump knows how important words are, as inarticulate as he may seem. If he is good at something, it’s marketing and self-promotion. Calling himself “President Trump” goes beyond tradition: it reinforces the idea that he is still the President. It is another way for him not to concede and to further his Big Lie that the Democrats stole the election from him. “You don’t concede when there’s theft involved,” he told the crowd on January 6. This move is a continuation on the same line.
Not surprisingly at all, the Trump propaganda network (OANN and Newsmax) only uses “President Trump”, but they have shifted to using “Obama” or “Barack Obama” only, as shown in the screenshots below. This choice of words is a deliberate move to reinforce the idea that the “office of the former president” has an official capacity and that this capacity only belongs to “President Trump.”
The press release also states that as the former president, Mr Trump will handle official activities to advance the United States' interests and carry on the agenda of the Trump administration. Once again, the words are purposefully chosen to imbue this sham office with dignity and powers it does not have. It gives the impression to the ignorant that Mr Trump will continue representing the country, that he still has leeway to affect the legislative agenda.
This wording also doubles as a promise. Trump is signalling to his base that he will not abandon them, that he will “continue the fight.” Looking back at his four years in office, it is evident that Trump never had a plan beyond making himself rich, dividing the country, inciting a coup, and hurting minorities. Saying he will “carry on” is a symbolic way to reassure all the racists and bigots of the land that white supremacy will endure with him.
Of course, private citizens are barred from exercising any official activities that purport to represent the United States of America officially. This interdiction comes from the Logan Act of 1799. Only two people have ever been indicted under the Act, both in the 19th century; none was ever convicted. Legal scholars question the act's constitutionality; it could soon be tested in court by none other than Trump himself, should he decide to engage in discussions with, say, Mr Putin.
We will not explore the legal risks to which Mr Trump exposes himself with his “office,” it is clear that his latest move presents a clear and imminent danger to the country.
By setting himself up as a legitimate counter-power to the White House, Trump is effectively creating as a shadow administration. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump starts appointing a shadow cabinet and security council in the days to come. Once again, the Deep State will have been nothing more than a projection.
Such a move, were it to happen, would put the U.S. on a terrible path, that of secession and potential Civil War. If the Biden’s administration legitimacy is not only questioned rhetorically but also threatened physically by a competing cabinet and an anti-president, who’s to say what will happen.
What will Cruz, Hawley, Cawthorn, Taylor-Greene, Boebert, Jordan, Tuberville, and other sedition caucus’s members do? Will they join Trump and form a shadow parliament?
House Minority Leader McCarthy has already made the Mar-a-Lago pilgrimage. The message here is clear: Congress Republicans have sought Trump’s seal of approval, increasing the perceived legitimacy of his “office.” Republican senators have already indicated they will not vote to convict Trump. Everything is falling into place.
Make no mistake. This joke will not end up funny at all if the Department of Justice does nothing to bar Trump from claiming powers he doesn’t have and titles he is not allowed to bear. It already happened once in American history. A rich lunatic declared himself emperor of America and protector of Mexico under the name “Emperor Norton.” It made for good laughs.
The Emperor has found a new groove, though. This time, he comes imbued with the legitimacy of a term in office and propped up by the Big Lie that he didn’t lose reelection: it was merely stolen from him.
Emperor Donald isn’t a laughing stock. He is the first step towards secession and Civil War, and he must be stopped.
As pathetic as it looks, we should not take Trump’s latest publicity stunt lightly.
Nicolas Carteron
https://ncarteron.medium.com/trumps...-bd35bb902e56--------------------------------
In a move as pathetic as it is dangerous, Donald Trump recently announced the “Office of the Former President.” Trump so describes the newly-minted “office” and its responsibilities:
It won’t matter to his followers that a former president has no official activities, no agenda to carry and no administration to manage, because, once again, Trump is abusing traditions and norms to further his interests.
Officially, former presidents should be addressed as “The Honourable.” In recent years, it has become a tradition to refer to them as “Mr President” or (one day soon) “Ms President” as a matter of courtesy and respect for the office and their service to the nation.
Trump knows how important words are, as inarticulate as he may seem. If he is good at something, it’s marketing and self-promotion. Calling himself “President Trump” goes beyond tradition: it reinforces the idea that he is still the President. It is another way for him not to concede and to further his Big Lie that the Democrats stole the election from him. “You don’t concede when there’s theft involved,” he told the crowd on January 6. This move is a continuation on the same line.
Not surprisingly at all, the Trump propaganda network (OANN and Newsmax) only uses “President Trump”, but they have shifted to using “Obama” or “Barack Obama” only, as shown in the screenshots below. This choice of words is a deliberate move to reinforce the idea that the “office of the former president” has an official capacity and that this capacity only belongs to “President Trump.”
The press release also states that as the former president, Mr Trump will handle official activities to advance the United States' interests and carry on the agenda of the Trump administration. Once again, the words are purposefully chosen to imbue this sham office with dignity and powers it does not have. It gives the impression to the ignorant that Mr Trump will continue representing the country, that he still has leeway to affect the legislative agenda.
This wording also doubles as a promise. Trump is signalling to his base that he will not abandon them, that he will “continue the fight.” Looking back at his four years in office, it is evident that Trump never had a plan beyond making himself rich, dividing the country, inciting a coup, and hurting minorities. Saying he will “carry on” is a symbolic way to reassure all the racists and bigots of the land that white supremacy will endure with him.
Of course, private citizens are barred from exercising any official activities that purport to represent the United States of America officially. This interdiction comes from the Logan Act of 1799. Only two people have ever been indicted under the Act, both in the 19th century; none was ever convicted. Legal scholars question the act's constitutionality; it could soon be tested in court by none other than Trump himself, should he decide to engage in discussions with, say, Mr Putin.
We will not explore the legal risks to which Mr Trump exposes himself with his “office,” it is clear that his latest move presents a clear and imminent danger to the country.
By setting himself up as a legitimate counter-power to the White House, Trump is effectively creating as a shadow administration. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump starts appointing a shadow cabinet and security council in the days to come. Once again, the Deep State will have been nothing more than a projection.
Such a move, were it to happen, would put the U.S. on a terrible path, that of secession and potential Civil War. If the Biden’s administration legitimacy is not only questioned rhetorically but also threatened physically by a competing cabinet and an anti-president, who’s to say what will happen.
What will Cruz, Hawley, Cawthorn, Taylor-Greene, Boebert, Jordan, Tuberville, and other sedition caucus’s members do? Will they join Trump and form a shadow parliament?
House Minority Leader McCarthy has already made the Mar-a-Lago pilgrimage. The message here is clear: Congress Republicans have sought Trump’s seal of approval, increasing the perceived legitimacy of his “office.” Republican senators have already indicated they will not vote to convict Trump. Everything is falling into place.
Make no mistake. This joke will not end up funny at all if the Department of Justice does nothing to bar Trump from claiming powers he doesn’t have and titles he is not allowed to bear. It already happened once in American history. A rich lunatic declared himself emperor of America and protector of Mexico under the name “Emperor Norton.” It made for good laughs.
The Emperor has found a new groove, though. This time, he comes imbued with the legitimacy of a term in office and propped up by the Big Lie that he didn’t lose reelection: it was merely stolen from him.
Emperor Donald isn’t a laughing stock. He is the first step towards secession and Civil War, and he must be stopped.
House Impeachment Managers' Video Compilation of January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol
US Senate acquits former president Trump over his role in the US Capitol riots
The US Senate voted 57-43 to acquit former president Donald Trump on Saturday, after he was charged with inciting the January 6 attack on the US Capitol building.
Trump released a statement welcoming the decision, saying his movement "has only just begun."
What you need to know
- The 57-43 vote was short of the two-thirds necessary for conviction -
Seven Republican senators joined Democrats in voting the former president as guilty
- Senators settled on admitting a witness statement from GOP Rep. Herrera Beutler into Trump's trial record instead of calling witnesses
- Beutler, who voted to impeach, detailed a phone call between former president Trump and House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy on January 6
The US Senate voted 57-43 to acquit former president Donald Trump on Saturday, after he was charged with inciting the January 6 attack on the US Capitol building.
Trump released a statement welcoming the decision, saying his movement "has only just begun."
What you need to know
- The 57-43 vote was short of the two-thirds necessary for conviction -
Seven Republican senators joined Democrats in voting the former president as guilty
- Senators settled on admitting a witness statement from GOP Rep. Herrera Beutler into Trump's trial record instead of calling witnesses
- Beutler, who voted to impeach, detailed a phone call between former president Trump and House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy on January 6
Trump sued for violating the KKK Act
Judd Legum
Feb 17
77
15
Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) (Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images)
On Saturday, the Senate acquitted Trump. Although 57 Senators voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection, it was 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required. But that isn't the end of the story.
On Tuesday, Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) filed a civil suit against Trump. The complaint alleges that Trump, conspiring with Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. That statute provides a civil right of action against individuals who conspire to prevent an "officer from performing duties."
Specifically, Section 1 of the statute allows officeholders to file suit against people who "conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof." The law was passed "in response to KKK violence and intimidation preventing Members of Congress in the South during Reconstruction from carrying out their constitutional duties."
Thompson says a similar kind of violence and intimidation occurred on January 6. The lawsuit, which was filed with the assistance of the NAACP, outlines the alleged conspiracy between Trump, Giuliani, and the two extremist groups.
On and before January 6, 2021, the Defendants Donald J. Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers conspired to incite an assembled crowd to march upon and enter the Capitol of the United States for the common purpose of disrupting, by the use of force, intimidation and threat, the approval by Congress of the count of votes cast by members of the Electoral College as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. In doing so, the Defendants each intended to prevent, and ultimately delayed, members of Congress from discharging their duty commanded by the United States Constitution to approve the results of the Electoral College in order to elect the next President and Vice President of the United States.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, asserts that "insurrection at the Capitol was a direct, intended, and foreseeable result of the
Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy."
The complaint highlights numerous Trump tweets promoting the event, including his tweet from December 10 which warns that "people are upset" and things "are going to escalate dramatically" and get "very dangerous."
The lawsuit also features Trump's tweet on December 19 encouraging people to travel to DC on January 6 for a "wild" protest.
To establish the conspiracy with the Proud Boys, the lawsuit notes that during a presidential debate, Trump urged the group to "stand back, and stand by." The group adopted that command as its unofficial slogan.
Will this lawsuit be successful? It's impossible to say. There have been very few lawsuits filed under this statute but there have also been very few days in American history like January 6.
Trump responds
Trump spokesperson Jason Miller responded to the lawsuit:
President Trump did not plan, produce or organize the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse. President Trump did not incite or conspire to incite any violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
If this is Trump's defense, he could be in for trouble. First, as detailed above, Trump repeatedly called for people to travel to DC and participate in the events of January 6.
Second, the permits for the rally reveal the organizers included numerous "former Trump campaign staffers." Further, "former campaign and White House staffers were also listed on this paperwork as being on-site staff during the event." For example, Megan Powers was listed "as one of two operations managers for the rally." She was also "the Trump campaign's director of operations" through January 2021, according to her LinkedIn page.
Finally, Trump was the featured speaker at the rally. At the end of his remarks literally directed the crowd to march to the U.S. Capitol and "fight like hell."
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you… We’re going walk down to the Capitol… 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...
In response, the crowd began chanting “Storm the Capitol,” “Invade the Capitol Building,” and “Take the Capitol right now.”
An insurrection "deeply rooted in racial injustice"
The lawsuit was filed by a Black Congressman with the support of the NAACP. That's not an accident. "Underlying this insurrection were the actions of folks who were challenging the voices of people of color. If you look at whose votes were being challenged, these came from largely urban areas. The votes of people of color were being challenged," Janette McCarthy Wallace, interim general counsel of the NAACP said.
The lawsuit notes that Giuliani, pushing voter fraud claims on behalf of Trump, repeatedly targeted cities with large African American populations. In Pennsylvania, "Giuliani stated that there had been widespread voter fraud in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh which he claimed accounted for Defendant Trump’s loss in that state. Both cities have large African American populations." In Michigan "Giuliani advocated rejecting the votes cast by voters in Detroit, the population of which is 78 percent African American." In Wisconsin, "Trump’s loss in Wisconsin was attributed to fraud in voting in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin, both of which have large African American populations."
In other words, the intent of the mob that violently attacked the Capitol, which included white supremacists, was to obstruct the counting of votes. But not just any votes. They were attempting to intimidate Congress into nullifying the ballots of black voters.
The legal challenges
Former presidents are immune from civil lawsuits related to their official actions while in office. That is why Trump is being sued in his personal capacity. Thompson argues that in inciting an insurrection, Trump "acted beyond the outer perimeter of his official duties and therefore is susceptible to suit in his personal capacity."
The more difficult issue, law professor Stephen Vladeck explained, "is whether Trump himself can be connected to [the] conspiracy." Will a court view Trump's incitement as enough to trigger liability for conspiracy under the KKK Act? It's hard to say because so few cases have been litigated under the law. But we are about to find out.
The road ahead
Whatever the outcome of Thompson's lawsuit, Trump's legal troubles are just beginning. Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County Georgia, has launched an investigation that could result in criminal charges against Trump. Willis' inquiry will focus on "the pressure campaign on state officials by former President Donald J. Trump as well as the activities of his allies" to overturn the results of the election. At the center of the probe is "Trump’s phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, asking him to “find” votes to erase the former president’s loss there."
Trump could also face potential civil litigation from the families of the police officers who died in the riots.
popular.info
Judd Legum
Feb 17
77
15
Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) (Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images)
On Saturday, the Senate acquitted Trump. Although 57 Senators voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection, it was 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required. But that isn't the end of the story.
On Tuesday, Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) filed a civil suit against Trump. The complaint alleges that Trump, conspiring with Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. That statute provides a civil right of action against individuals who conspire to prevent an "officer from performing duties."
Specifically, Section 1 of the statute allows officeholders to file suit against people who "conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof." The law was passed "in response to KKK violence and intimidation preventing Members of Congress in the South during Reconstruction from carrying out their constitutional duties."
Thompson says a similar kind of violence and intimidation occurred on January 6. The lawsuit, which was filed with the assistance of the NAACP, outlines the alleged conspiracy between Trump, Giuliani, and the two extremist groups.
On and before January 6, 2021, the Defendants Donald J. Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers conspired to incite an assembled crowd to march upon and enter the Capitol of the United States for the common purpose of disrupting, by the use of force, intimidation and threat, the approval by Congress of the count of votes cast by members of the Electoral College as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. In doing so, the Defendants each intended to prevent, and ultimately delayed, members of Congress from discharging their duty commanded by the United States Constitution to approve the results of the Electoral College in order to elect the next President and Vice President of the United States.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, asserts that "insurrection at the Capitol was a direct, intended, and foreseeable result of the
Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy."
The complaint highlights numerous Trump tweets promoting the event, including his tweet from December 10 which warns that "people are upset" and things "are going to escalate dramatically" and get "very dangerous."
The lawsuit also features Trump's tweet on December 19 encouraging people to travel to DC on January 6 for a "wild" protest.
To establish the conspiracy with the Proud Boys, the lawsuit notes that during a presidential debate, Trump urged the group to "stand back, and stand by." The group adopted that command as its unofficial slogan.
Will this lawsuit be successful? It's impossible to say. There have been very few lawsuits filed under this statute but there have also been very few days in American history like January 6.
Trump responds
Trump spokesperson Jason Miller responded to the lawsuit:
President Trump did not plan, produce or organize the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse. President Trump did not incite or conspire to incite any violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
If this is Trump's defense, he could be in for trouble. First, as detailed above, Trump repeatedly called for people to travel to DC and participate in the events of January 6.
Second, the permits for the rally reveal the organizers included numerous "former Trump campaign staffers." Further, "former campaign and White House staffers were also listed on this paperwork as being on-site staff during the event." For example, Megan Powers was listed "as one of two operations managers for the rally." She was also "the Trump campaign's director of operations" through January 2021, according to her LinkedIn page.
Finally, Trump was the featured speaker at the rally. At the end of his remarks literally directed the crowd to march to the U.S. Capitol and "fight like hell."
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you… We’re going walk down to the Capitol… 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...
In response, the crowd began chanting “Storm the Capitol,” “Invade the Capitol Building,” and “Take the Capitol right now.”
An insurrection "deeply rooted in racial injustice"
The lawsuit was filed by a Black Congressman with the support of the NAACP. That's not an accident. "Underlying this insurrection were the actions of folks who were challenging the voices of people of color. If you look at whose votes were being challenged, these came from largely urban areas. The votes of people of color were being challenged," Janette McCarthy Wallace, interim general counsel of the NAACP said.
The lawsuit notes that Giuliani, pushing voter fraud claims on behalf of Trump, repeatedly targeted cities with large African American populations. In Pennsylvania, "Giuliani stated that there had been widespread voter fraud in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh which he claimed accounted for Defendant Trump’s loss in that state. Both cities have large African American populations." In Michigan "Giuliani advocated rejecting the votes cast by voters in Detroit, the population of which is 78 percent African American." In Wisconsin, "Trump’s loss in Wisconsin was attributed to fraud in voting in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin, both of which have large African American populations."
In other words, the intent of the mob that violently attacked the Capitol, which included white supremacists, was to obstruct the counting of votes. But not just any votes. They were attempting to intimidate Congress into nullifying the ballots of black voters.
The legal challenges
Former presidents are immune from civil lawsuits related to their official actions while in office. That is why Trump is being sued in his personal capacity. Thompson argues that in inciting an insurrection, Trump "acted beyond the outer perimeter of his official duties and therefore is susceptible to suit in his personal capacity."
The more difficult issue, law professor Stephen Vladeck explained, "is whether Trump himself can be connected to [the] conspiracy." Will a court view Trump's incitement as enough to trigger liability for conspiracy under the KKK Act? It's hard to say because so few cases have been litigated under the law. But we are about to find out.
The road ahead
Whatever the outcome of Thompson's lawsuit, Trump's legal troubles are just beginning. Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County Georgia, has launched an investigation that could result in criminal charges against Trump. Willis' inquiry will focus on "the pressure campaign on state officials by former President Donald J. Trump as well as the activities of his allies" to overturn the results of the election. At the center of the probe is "Trump’s phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, asking him to “find” votes to erase the former president’s loss there."
Trump could also face potential civil litigation from the families of the police officers who died in the riots.
Trump sued for violating the KKK Act
On Saturday, the Senate acquitted Trump. Although 57 Senators voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection, it was 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required. But that isn't the end of the story.
popular.info
McConnell says he'll 'absolutely' support Trump in 2024 if he's the GOP nominee
https://edition.cnn.com/profiles/paul-leblanc
By Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Updated 0154 GMT (0954 HKT) February 26, 2021
(CNN)Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday he would "absolutely" support former President Donald Trump if he became the GOP presidential nominee in 2024, a notable commitment following his recent blistering critiques of the former President.
While McConnell maintained that the 2024 presidential election cycle would be a "wide-open race," when pressed by Fox News' Bret Baier about supporting Trump if he captured the Republican nomination, McConnell offered, "The nominee of the party? Absolutely."
The Kentucky Republican's comments come just weeks after he delivered a pointed rebuke of Trump on the Senate floor for fomenting the deadly US Capitol insurrection. Though McConnell voted to acquit Trump anyway, he called the former President's actions that preceded the riot "a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty."
"Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said as he suggested that the former President could be subject to criminal prosecution.
In response, Trump ripped McConnell in a lengthy statement, calling him "a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack."
"He will never do what needs to be done, or what is right for our Country. Where necessary and appropriate, I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First. We want brilliant, strong, thoughtful, and compassionate leadership," Trump said.
https://www.bgol.us/forum/javascript:void(0)
Still, McConnell's comments on Thursday underscore the political reality that Trump remains overwhelmingly popular and there is little desire to cast him aside or move on to a new generation of leaders now that he is out of office.
Even Republicans who have most frequently resisted and condemned Trump -- including the party's 2012 presidential nominee, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney -- acknowledge that he remains the GOP's center of gravity, positioned to remain the party's standard-bearer if he decides to run for president again in 2024.
"I'm pretty sure he will win the nomination," Romney said Tuesday in an interview with The New York Times. "I look at the polls and the polls show that, among the names being floated as potential contenders in 2024, if you put President Trump in there among Republicans, he wins in a landslide."
In the latest sign of the party's enduring embrace of the former President, Trump is set to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando on Sunday. He plans to address "the future of the Republican Party and the conservative movement," a source familiar with Trump's plans previously told CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/profiles/paul-leblanc
By Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Updated 0154 GMT (0954 HKT) February 26, 2021
(CNN)Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday he would "absolutely" support former President Donald Trump if he became the GOP presidential nominee in 2024, a notable commitment following his recent blistering critiques of the former President.
While McConnell maintained that the 2024 presidential election cycle would be a "wide-open race," when pressed by Fox News' Bret Baier about supporting Trump if he captured the Republican nomination, McConnell offered, "The nominee of the party? Absolutely."
The Kentucky Republican's comments come just weeks after he delivered a pointed rebuke of Trump on the Senate floor for fomenting the deadly US Capitol insurrection. Though McConnell voted to acquit Trump anyway, he called the former President's actions that preceded the riot "a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty."
"Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said as he suggested that the former President could be subject to criminal prosecution.
In response, Trump ripped McConnell in a lengthy statement, calling him "a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack."
"He will never do what needs to be done, or what is right for our Country. Where necessary and appropriate, I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First. We want brilliant, strong, thoughtful, and compassionate leadership," Trump said.
https://www.bgol.us/forum/javascript:void(0)
Still, McConnell's comments on Thursday underscore the political reality that Trump remains overwhelmingly popular and there is little desire to cast him aside or move on to a new generation of leaders now that he is out of office.
Even Republicans who have most frequently resisted and condemned Trump -- including the party's 2012 presidential nominee, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney -- acknowledge that he remains the GOP's center of gravity, positioned to remain the party's standard-bearer if he decides to run for president again in 2024.
"I'm pretty sure he will win the nomination," Romney said Tuesday in an interview with The New York Times. "I look at the polls and the polls show that, among the names being floated as potential contenders in 2024, if you put President Trump in there among Republicans, he wins in a landslide."
In the latest sign of the party's enduring embrace of the former President, Trump is set to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando on Sunday. He plans to address "the future of the Republican Party and the conservative movement," a source familiar with Trump's plans previously told CNN.
Come on... New York
I really hope Trump starts a third party. Or am I looking at this wrong?
Similar threads
