Trump 2nd Impeachment Day 4 Summary

Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys defense is; “Bonae gubernationis fundamenta legibus niti debent, quae iura protegant civiumque officia constituant”, (Cfr. Propositio 56).

If interested you can find each day’s summary in reverse chronological order

Day 3 summary, Day 2 summary , Day 1 summary and impeachment documents

Trump’s impeachment Defense

Yes I did it and I loved doing it.
So what.

The Senate Republicans are my obsequious servile succubuses and they are going to acquit me.

Deal with it.

Here are the underlying problems; Trump is not a sympathetic defendant, at all. His impeachment attorneys are defending the indefensible. But blame shifting the deadly insurrection on to Congressional Democrats. That’s ill advised and frankly nuttier than squirrel sh_t. Does Trump really think Americans are that intellectually stunted, that we will buy his snake-oil?

TRUMP’S OPENING ARGUMENTS

Holy SHITTLESTIX Sen Elizabeth Warren is still living in Donald Trump’s head rent free. The opening arguments of Trump’s 3rd-string Impeachment Attorneys- they presented an nine minute long video, of which, two minutes included highly edited and selective quotes from Sen Warren. It’s almost as if Trump’s impeachment attorneys decided to run a word search using the following criterion; democrats, fight, Trump. And then mashed this video together to defend their client.

In all seriousness what in the hell did we just watch? Also do you remember any of these Democrat lawmakers whipping up their base to engage in an deadly insurrection? Or chanting “lock her up” or encouraging their supporters to “knock the crap out of them” or gloating “I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a single vote”.. Yeah me neither

As previously predicted today Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys primary arguments and strategy; “process” as in the Constitutionality of the second impeachment (again it’s a moot argument, the Senate already voted that they have jurisdiction), Trump’s purported protected free speech, the “other-ism” and predictable hypocrisy arguments…so let’s dive in;

Maah Free Speech.

Like some I was gobsmacked that Trump’s impeachment attorneys brought up Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, Speech and Debate Privilege¹ also colloquially known as the “speech and debate clause” (see annotated congressional link) and insinuated that Trump is immune under this clause. The falsity of Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys can not be emphasized enough. This Clause is specific to members of the Legislative Branch, not to the Executive Branch. Epic Fail Blog dot Org. As ascertained by the venerable and non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CSR)² in December of 2017 the CSR issued a Report entitled - Understanding the Speech or Debate Clause, which reads in part:

”serves chiefly to protect the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the legislative branch by barring executive or judicial intrusions into the protected sphere of the legislative process.”

In layman’s terms, the Speech and Debate clause essentially immunized members of Congress and thus they cannot be held to account for their speech or debate in any other forum but Congress. There really is there no such constitutional provision protecting the president’s speech or public acts. Which is odd that they would go there. Not to be outdone, Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys brought up the two SCOTUS landmark cases (Brandenburg and Schneck ) yet their intellectually dishonesty to some how contort what SCOTUC held, is just mind boggling. As previously explained both of those cases actually cut against Trump’s First Amendment Argument.

THE MOST BIZARRE and OFFENSIVE MOMENT, thus far;

Here Trump’s Impeachment Attorney Michael Van der Veen, of O'Neill, Hartshorn, and Levin. Van der Veen specializes in personal injury. This is who is leading Trump’s impeachment defense came out of the gate by chastising the House Impeachment Managers and the 144 Constitutional Lawyers Call Trump’s First Amendment Defense ‘Legally Frivolous’ Van der Veem then made the specious argument that the law professors “are threatening me, my livelihood my bar license…how dare they” - not exactly a persuasive argument, at all.

No really you need to watch this segment of today’s oral arguments

A political advertisement during an Impeachment Trial?

Yesterday I explained why the Trump-Republican Party no longer has the privilege of being the “rule of law” or “law and order party” I provided you with various original documents, itemization of injuries sustained by US Capitol and Metropolitan Police Officers. Even for Trump this is such a grotesque new low of gas-lighting, raw naked hypocrisy and it demonstrates how mentally unwell Donald Trump really is. You’ll note that Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys did not even address the hours long delay in Trump ordering his violent mob of domestic terrorist to stand down. In the wake of the deadly insurrection that Trump incited, it left three Police Officers dead and over 140 additional officers injured, some with permanent injuries.

THERE WAS NO INSURRECTION

No really that’s what Trump’s impeachment attorneys argued. Could someone please tell Trump’s impeachment attorneys about: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, which reads in part:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I mean that is bodacious and specious counter argument proffered by Team Trump. Yet Senate Republicans are saying “Trump’s attorneys knocked it out of the park” which park are you speaking of? Certainly not the major league and likely not the t-ball park.

Excuse me - Who’s BEN Roffensberg?

Trump’s attorney not only got SoS name wrong Ben Roffensberg he then proceeded to accuse Brad Raffensperger of engaging in a crime by surreptitiously recording the January call from Trump. Cited a 6.4% of ballot rejection rate yet in the 2020 Georgia Elects that rejection rate fell to .004% “Find” is not “find” In short Bruce Castor unwittingly made Trump sound even more unhinged by reading the transcript of the call into the record. This is the Washington Post link to the audio and transcript of the call.

There was nothing untoward of Trump’s call but once again the Democrats and Democrat Media has once again lied to America about the call

CONSTITUTIONAL CANCEL CULTURE

The Constitutional Cancel Coluture that Trump didn’t incite the insurrection because the domestic terrorist planted bombs before the Jan 6th rally, but most strikingly Trump’s attorneys attempted to re-litigate the “Big Lie”.that lead or at least contributed to the Ian 6th insurrection. In short Trump genuinely believes that he won the 2020 election. Thus proving once again how detached from reality and that Trump can not admit that he lost and that he is a sore loser. But the side threat of Trump’s attorneys threatening Senate Republicans with primaries is completely out of line

And I genuinely think the reason Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys focused on the call with Brad Raffensberger is largely due to the recent Fulton County Georgia District Attorney’s recent letter to Georgia Lawmakers: see my Day 2 Summary - I walked you through the, why, how, what, when of the significance of the DA’s letter. Like I said I think Trump is really worried about the ongoing Criminal Investigation, again toggle to very bottom of my Day 2 Summary or see below.

Fulton County District Attorney letters to state officials:

In a letter (obtained by the Washington Post) to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and others, the Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis never explicitly state Trump by name. The subtext is clear, her office is examining at least three Georgia State laws that Trump and his surrogates may have violated and if criminal charges are warranted in Trump’s endeavor to “attempts to influence” the Georgia’s 2020 Presidential election. It is important to remind you why the Fulton County District Attorney retains jurisdiction, her office is not a witness.³

Read the highlights carefully…because the Grand Jury hammer dropped. To be clear the Fulton County DA does not insinuate that the Gov, Lt Gov and/or SoS are targets of the criminal investigation, again the subtext here is Trump and his surrogates are…

In closing today’s oral arguments by Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys was underwhelming, for previous reasons explained. But the reality is it is likely that the arguments were “just enough” to lock in enough Senate Republicans to vote to acquit Trump. Again 2022 is less than a year away and Senate Republicans are defending twenty Senate Seats, whereas the Senate Democrats are only defending fourteen seats. And nearly all of the Senate Democrats seats are safe if not very safe… -Filey Out

1. As a practical matter the Speech and Debate Clause is secular to members of Congress.

2. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is one of the most important research tools. This is a non-partisan organization that specifically helps members of both chambers of Congress and the Public, writ large understand issues of Constitutionally, Public Policy, Public Law… I highly recommend you bookmark this resource; https://crsreports.congress.gov/

3. Highlighted Copy of the Fulton County, GA District Attorney February 10, 2021 Letter to Georgia’s Gov, LtGov, SOS, found here