[Discussion] Impeachment, Legacy, and Discussion of Individual 45

Though noted as discussion, news, debate, and all things related to events that occurred during the Tr*mp administration can go here. The scope of this thread is specific to the former administration and it's hangers-on in the aftermath of the shift in power for the United States and impacted areas worldwide.

Trump is impeached with inciting insurrection, not conspiring with the attackers or preventing/hindering the response. They don't have to prove that he planned anything with the attackers, only that he incited them to act. He had been winding them up for months and then told them to go to the Capitol Building and make Congress stop certifying the election results in a speech filled with violent imagery.

Stengah wrote:

Trump is impeached with inciting insurrection, not conspiring with the attackers or preventing/hindering the response. They don't have to prove that he planned anything with the attackers, only that he incited them to act. He had been winding them up for months and then told them to go to the Capitol Building and make Congress stop certifying the election results in a speech filled with violent imagery.

Yup. And it's a political trial, not a criminal one. The Senate doesn't need iron clad, direct evidence that he or his campaign conspired directly with insurrectionists. The fact that Trump screamed non-stop for two months the election was stolen from him and that his supporters needed to do something to pressure politicians to overturn certified election results is enough to show he incited an insurrection. That so many of his campaign staff were running the rally on the 6th is just bonus proof of his guilt.

Not that the hundreds of Republicans in Congress who openly supported Trump's specious claims or who just stood by silently while the core of our democracy was being attack are ever going to admit their role in Trump's crime.

Also, they don't have to prove anything, because it's not a court of law. There's no standard beyond, "should he be removed for what he did."

Edit: OGhausered

I think this is better placed here than in the fascist forum but it could honestly go there too.

AZ GOP has lost its marbles... censures Flake, Ducey and McCain.

The three Republicans are being formally censured for what the state party described in its meeting as a variety of "failures."

The party censured Ducey for imposing emergency rules as Covid-19 gripped Arizona, saying those emergency orders to contain the virus violated the Constitution and amounted to the governor enacting "dictatorial powers."

So you're against saving lives...

McCain, the widow of the late Sen. John McCain, who endorsed Biden during the election, was censured for supporting "leftist causes" and failing to support Trump.

The fascism grows stronger! Stinking lefty!

Flake, a CNN contributor, was also condemned for supporting Biden in the election.

You're not a true fascist if you don't support Trump!

I truly hope this is the end of the Republican party. This type of purity test they're trying to foist on people is terrifying on many levels. You F'rs will censure people for exercising their right to vote but you won't lift a hand to do anything against your god emperor Trump who has done so many more things that are so much worse.

Hey! Remember that story about Trump wanting the acting AG to be replaced and then make the new loyalist AG overturn the GA election results?

It gets worse.

WASHINGTON—(WSJ) In his last weeks in office, former President Donald Trump considered moving to replace the acting attorney general with another official ready to pursue unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, and he pushed the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate President Biden’s victory, people familiar with the matter said.
JC wrote:

Arizon is being wierd again.

The good news is it looks like there are two Republican parties in AZ maga and original. A number have started talking about removing Ms Ward since she seems to be the one driving the crazy train.

Of course she seems to have won that vote by a slim amount.

Also why be mad at the governer? Every time trump came into town he did whatever he was told like a good boy.

Now the Dems hate him for putting trump's word over the pandemic planning and Rs hate him for not being maga enough.

JC wrote:

Hey! Remember that story about Trump wanting the acting AG to be replaced and then make the new loyalist AG overturn the GA election results?

It gets worse.

WASHINGTON—(WSJ) In his last weeks in office, former President Donald Trump considered moving to replace the acting attorney general with another official ready to pursue unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, and he pushed the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate President Biden’s victory, people familiar with the matter said.

Well, f*ck.

WSJ wrote:

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy, Patrick Philbin, also opposed Mr. Trump’s idea, which was promoted by his outside attorneys, these people said.

“He wanted us, the United States, to sue one or more of the states directly in the Supreme Court,” a former administration official said. “The pressure got really intense” after a lawsuit Texas filed in the Supreme Court against four states Mr. Biden won was dismissed on Dec. 11, the official said. An outside lawyer working for Mr. Trump drafted a brief the then-president wanted the Justice Department to file, people familiar with the matter said, but officials refused.

After his Supreme Court plan got nowhere, Mr. Trump explored another plan—replacing Mr. Rosen as acting attorney general with Jeffrey Clark, a Trump ally in the department who had expressed a willingness to use the department’s power to help the former president continue his unsuccessful legal battles contesting the election results, these people said.

Mr. Trump backed off that plan after senior Justice Department leadership threatened to resign en masse if the president removed Mr. Rosen, people familiar with the discussions said.

...

Before the Texas suit was filed, a group of Republican state attorneys general spoke with Mr. Barr about getting the Justice Department to back the claim, particularly if the Supreme Court asked for the department’s views on the case, people familiar with the discussions said.

Mr. Barr consulted with Mr. Wall, who is the government’s advocate before the Supreme Court. Mr. Wall told Mr. Barr that Texas’s lawsuit was likely to fail because the state lacked legal standing to challenge other states’ administration of their own laws, the people said, accurately anticipating the grounds the Supreme Court ultimately cited in dismissing the case.

Mr. Barr told the Republican officials that the department couldn't be counted on to support their legal claim if the Supreme Court sought its opinion, these people said.

Representatives of Mr. Paxton and the Republican Attorneys General Association couldn't immediately be reached.

After the Texas case was dismissed on Dec. 11, Mr. Trump began pushing for the Justice Department to file its own lawsuit against the states directly in the Supreme Court, the people said. Frustrated that his wishes weren’t being implemented, Mr. Trump at one point planned to bypass the attorney general and telephone Mr. Wall directly, these people said.

Mr. Trump didn’t follow through with a phone call, but one of his outside lawyers sent over a draft legal brief he wished the department to file with the Supreme Court, these officials said.

It sure sounds like Giuliani and rouges' gallery of idiot lawyers Trump employed should also be facing charges for their role in the attempted insurrection and, at a bare minimum, lose their law licenses for pushing such bad legal advice.

And then there's the little line about a group of Republican states attorneys general wanting the DOJ to back Trump's bullsh*t claim. This is the same group who used their fundraising arm, the Rule of Law Defense Fund, to send out robocalls the day before the attempted insurrection saying “At 1 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal" and who were listed as a supporting organization on the now deleted rally website. It sure seems like if they couldn't quietly initiate a coup using the DOJ they were happy to loudly initiate a coup using dumbf*ck MAGAheads. These f*ckers definitely need to be arrested, charged, their non-profit dissolved.

Those DOJ and outside attorneys were performing their jobs: advising their clients (Barr and Trump) of the likelihood of success and possible paths forward. Misconduct would be if they signed court filings knowing that the underlying facts, legal theories, or legal backward on which they relied was materially misleading or false. If that didn’t happen, they upheld their duty. The role of government attorneys, for better or formworse, is to generate legal theories and arguments by which the government can at minimum plausibly perform what elected representatives desire. Not that there shouldn’t be professional conduct hearings to verify that.

“At 1 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal” is absolutely protected Constitutional speech. It’s just short of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

It sounds more and more like "the swamp" saved us. If not for "deep state" employees putting their loyalty to the country before that of an individual the coup may have succeeded.

We watched it happen in plain sight and so far there have been no significant consequences. If that doesn't change the next coup attempt may be the last, because they only need to succeed once.

I don't think offering legal strategies to support an insurrection falls within normal legal duties of anyone. Any attourney that participated in or cooperated with Trump's plan should face disbarment at a minimum. "Just following orders" is never a valid defense.

Keithustus wrote:

Those DOJ and outside attorneys were performing their jobs: advising their clients (Barr and Trump) of the likelihood of success and possible paths forward. Misconduct would be if they signed court filings knowing that the underlying facts, legal theories, or legal backward on which they relied was materially misleading or false. If that didn’t happen, they upheld their duty. The role of government attorneys, for better or formworse, is to generate legal theories and arguments by which the government can at minimum plausibly perform what elected representatives desire. Not that there shouldn’t be professional conduct hearings to verify that.

“At 1 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal” is absolutely protected Constitutional speech. It’s just short of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Trump's outside lawyers--who lost dozens of court cases because they repeatedly failed provide any evidence that the election was stolen or even that any sort of voter or election fraud happened--counseled the president to use his position to illegally pressure the DOJ--the US government--to file a bogus lawsuit supporting their fantasy legal position that the election was stolen so that their lawsuits would seem more credible and because doing so would quickly get the case in front of a Supreme Court Trump had packed with unqualified Federalist Society hacks who people thought might side with Trump. The only reason why this didn't work is because even Trump's garbage DOJ appointees wouldn't back him (though there was clearly at least one who was willing).

And I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that the Republican Attorneys General Association--whose stated mission is to "promote the rule of law"--actually thought that there was a grand conspiracy in which Republican state and federal judges, Republican secretaries of state, and other Republican election officials all turned a blind eye to a massive, coordinated effort to commit election fraud. They knew their GOP judge buddies ruled correctly and that their GOP election pals properly investigated, recounted, and certified the election results. And yet they still told a mob that the election was stolen and they should storm the Capitol. That's shouting fire in a crowded theater after dousing the joint in gasoline and striking a match.

Keithustus wrote:

Those DOJ and outside attorneys were performing their jobs: advising their clients (Barr and Trump) of the likelihood of success and possible paths forward.

Though note that Trump isn't DOJ's client and never was: despite his attempts to claim that he was the state, the DOJ's client is the United States, not the president as a person. Advising the outgoing president how he can contest the results of an election that he lost is not their job.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

Represent the United States in legal matters.

Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

The Attorney General and other senior DOJ officials are political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President after Senate confirmation (things become complicated when they are in Acting capacity.). All federal prosecutors are political appointees often replaced when administrations change and must conduct their operations and discretion within the parameters of the law and priorities and guidance of the President and Attorney General. The extent to which they focus solely on enforcing existing law, expanding agencies’ interpretations of existing law and regulations, or spend their time performing other work as requested by the elected President is the result of our wisdom in selecting a President who will make the best choices in doing so. DOJ is not like the FCC or FEC or other regulatory agencies that were intended to operate outside the pendulum of democratic change.

Just like citizen Trump hired scores of attorneys and tax specialists to make his taxable income negligible, it’s his right as President to request government attorneys to make claims and arguments that within the laws and regulations and according to the don’t-lie-to-courts rule would make the case to reverse the outcome of the election.

Keithustus wrote:

Just like citizen Trump hired scores of attorneys and tax specialists to make his taxable income negligible, it’s his right as President to request government attorneys to make claims and arguments that within the laws and regulations and according to the don’t-lie-to-courts rule would make the case to reverse the outcome of the election.

Lest we forget, the things he was asking them to do were not within the laws and regulations, and were in fact far enough beyond the pale that a great many of the DOJ leadership were prepared to resign en masse.

One of the angles of attack was the voting machines, but AFAIK this election in Georgia was the first with an actual paper trail in many years. This was the first time they could actually know what the results were, with any certainty, since the advent of electronic voting.

Isn't it interesting that, in a state historically run by Republicans, once the vote could actually be counted properly, they lost by a fair margin?

I mean, I'm not trying to take away from Stacey Abrams, who devoted enormous efforts to getting new Black turnout, which swung the election to the Democrats. Without her, it probably wouldn't have happened. But without the hard paper trail, getting all those new votes actually counted might not have happened, either.

This is the first election in Georgia I actually think was truly solid and above board since they first went to electronic voting; when I lived there, I was never sure whether my vote was just going into the bitbucket.

Which shows, I think, how disingenuous these attacks are. That election was the best they've had in decades, but it wasn't to be trusted because Democrats won.

edit: it also seems weird that Trump was so fixated on Georgia, because even if he'd flipped the state, he would still have lost.

Malor wrote:

edit: it also seems weird that Trump was so fixated on Georgia, because even if he'd flipped the state, he would still have lost.

I feel like the other states just haven't spoken up yet. Maybe they weren't prepared to record conversations like Georgia did.

Stele wrote:
Malor wrote:

edit: it also seems weird that Trump was so fixated on Georgia, because even if he'd flipped the state, he would still have lost.

I feel like the other states just haven't spoken up yet. Maybe they weren't prepared to record conversations like Georgia did.

He probably tried something like this everywhere with the general plan being once ny one falls, the others will follow suit. Raffensburger was smart enough to record it.

Mixolyde wrote:

He probably tried something like this everywhere with the general plan being once ny one falls, the others will follow suit. Raffensburger was smart enough to record it.

They recorded it because it was the nineteenth phone call. Trump had tried earlier, for example calling the chief investigator on December 23rd. Plus they had the reasonable expectation that Trump would lie about what he said in the meeting. He lied, they released the recording.

At the very least, the two state legislators from Michigan who went to see Trump in person likely heard a similar pitch.

Gremlin wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

He probably tried something like this everywhere with the general plan being once ny one falls, the others will follow suit. Raffensburger was smart enough to record it.

They recorded it because it was the nineteenth phone call. Trump had tried earlier, for example calling the chief investigator on December 23rd. Plus they had the reasonable expectation that Trump would lie about what he said in the meeting. He lied, they released the recording.

At the very least, the two state legislators from Michigan who went to see Trump in person likely heard a similar pitch.

I mean Trump only asked Georgia's chief election investigator to "find the fraud." That could mean anything.

Besides, it's totally normal for a president to bypass three, four, maybe five levels of state bureaucracy to directly call the guy who's investigating the election and tell him to throw it in his favor *wink*.

I'm sure Biden's call promising hookers and blow to investigators if they found he got more votes will be uncovered any day now.

mmmmm.... h&b

Dammit

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.

The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away a previous lower court opinion that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments.

The order was issued without comment or dissent.

JC wrote:

Dammit

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.

The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away a previous lower court opinion that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments.

The order was issued without comment or dissent.

We need a "well.....f*ck!" Button along with the like.

JC wrote:

Dammit

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.

The court instructed the lower courts to wipe away a previous lower court opinion that went against Trump because he is no longer in office. It leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments.

The order was issued without comment or dissent.

While disappointing, we clearly need legislative fixes for clarity and specificity on the limits of POTUS powers. We can't continue to just depend upon norms and traditions on these and other issues.

Gremlin wrote:
Keithustus wrote:

Just like citizen Trump hired scores of attorneys and tax specialists to make his taxable income negligible, it’s his right as President to request government attorneys to make claims and arguments that within the laws and regulations and according to the don’t-lie-to-courts rule would make the case to reverse the outcome of the election.

Lest we forget, the things he was asking them to do were not within the laws and regulations, and were in fact far enough beyond the pale that a great many of the DOJ leadership were prepared to resign en masse.

Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Announces Initiation of Investigation

Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today that:

The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is initiating an investigation into whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election. The investigation will encompass all relevant allegations that may arise that are within the scope of the OIG’s jurisdiction. The OIG has jurisdiction to investigate allegations concerning the conduct of former and current DOJ employees. The OIG's jurisdiction does not extend to allegations against other government officials.

The OIG is making this statement, consistent with DOJ policy, to reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations. Consistent with OIG policy, we will not comment further on the investigation until it is completed. When our investigation is concluded, we will proceed with our usual process for releasing our findings publicly in accordance with relevant laws, and DOJ and OIG policies.

Has Garland been confirmed yet?

Interesting. I can already see Republican's using this to suggest that it's rigged.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore of the Senate, is expected to preside over impeachment trial

(CNN)The contours of former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial are starting to take shape, with the Senate's longest-serving Democrat expected to preside over the trial and Democrats still weighing whether to pursue witnesses during proceedings that could take up a chunk of February.

Chief Justice John Roberts will not be presiding like he did for Trump's first impeachment trial, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Instead, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore of the Senate, is expected to preside, the sources said. The Constitution says the chief justice presides when the person facing trial is the current president of the United States, but senators preside in other cases, one source said.

Former Voice of America overseer hired two law firms to $4 million no-bid contracts

Washington Post wrote:

The former head of Voice of America’s parent agency hired two law firms to open-ended, no-bid contracts, including one specifying that top lawyers would earn $1,470 per hour, according to documents and people familiar with the matter. The two agreements have cost taxpayers close to $4 million over a five-month period, far more than was previously known, and possibly in violation of federal rules.

The first details of the arrangement were made public last week in a whistleblower complaint against Michael Pack, who was appointed chief executive of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) eight months ago, and whom President Biden forced to resign hours after he took office last week.

Documents detailing the agreements with the law firms were turned over in early January to the State Department’s inspector general, which oversees ­USAGM and is now investigating, according to two people with knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose potential irregularities.

From his Senate confirmation in June until his resignation last week, Pack oversaw USAGM’s portfolio of international news agencies, including VOA, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. The networks specialize in broadcasting news in countries where an independent press is suppressed.

A conservative documentary filmmaker before President Donald Trump nominated him to run USAGM, Pack had a brief and tumultuous tenure there.

He sidelined experienced managers, investigated a VOA reporter, and sought to steer the editorial direction of the news agencies — all in the name of rooting out what he called “bias” against Trump. Agency bureaucrats and journalists responded with a volley of lawsuits, whistleblower complaints and a petition demanding the removal of Pack’s appointees.

The contracts were part of his effort to reshape USAGM and purge employees he saw as problematic from the news and broadcasting groups under its authority. Pack hired two Washington firms, McGuireWoods and Caplin & Drysdale — apparently in contradiction to federal contracting regulations and guidelines, according to internal documents.

McGuireWoods has received the bulk of the payments — in excess of $3 million — for a lengthy and complex review of USAGM’s email archives. Pack initiated the review to create files documenting “employee misconduct,” as internal records refer to it, against five executive members of USAGM. He suspended and replaced all five in August.

The executives later filed a whistleblower complaint and a lawsuit against Pack, alleging they were wrongfully removed. Last week, Biden appointed Kelu Chao, a VOA employee who joined the lawsuit, as Pack’s interim replacement.

The two law firms are among the most expensive in Washington.

...

Under a separate contract, [Capin & Drysdale] advised Pack about potentially dismissing and appointing board members and top officials at four nonprofits under USAGM: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund. (The latter is an independent but USAGM-funded nonprofit that helps dissidents and journalists abroad get around government surveillance.)

Pack set aside as much as $375,000 for the Caplin & Drysdale contract, according to documents, although it’s not clear how much the agency ultimately spent.

Pack apparently sought Caplin’s advice because the news organizations involved are government grantees, not direct government agencies, and it was not clear how much authority Pack had to replace their leadership. He also sought to hire conservative allies under an unusual two-year contract that would guarantee their jobs even if Pack left office, unless they were convicted of a felony.

And the slow unveiling of the Trump administration's corruption begins.

In just this one case over four million taxpayer dollars were burned so Pack could fire five VOA employees he thought didn't praise Trump enough and then tried to burrow like-minded MAGAheads into various VOA board of directors and oversight organizations to cripple the agency for years.

If that wasn't enough to convince you that Pack's a piece of trash, earlier this month the attorney general of D.C. sued him for using a non-profit he established and was the CEO of to illegally funnel $4.1 million of tax-exempt funds to a for-profit production company he also owned and was CEO of.

Please tell me DeJoy is long gone too.
We need to rebuild the Post Office.

he is, but it's easier to destroy than rebuild and there was a lot of actual physical infrastructure damaged and removed.

fangblackbone wrote:

Please tell me DeJoy is long gone too.
We need to rebuild the Post Office.

Nope, Biden can't fire DeJoy directly. Only the US Postal Service Board of Governors can do that. And they have a Republican majority until 2022-ish.

On the other hand, Biden can fire US Postal Service Board of Governors for cause, and ruining the post office sure seems like a reasonable reason to get fired...