It isn't a DoJ "rule" that prevents the indictment of a sitting president, but simply a memo.

It sounded like something he would have dictated to them. I found myself wondering how any self-respecting attorney would put his name on such an idiotic document.

They get a big paycheck and they are touted as "geniuses and heroes" by a small but very vocal group of people. To some people, that imparts at least a semblance of respectability.

I agree that the statement is vacuous and ridiculous, but they likely justify it through ideology and the support they get from inside the bubble.

for "fighting the good fight".

It is all his logic put into writing by someone who has that ability.

Now, most GOOD attorneys know how to explain things to their client in such a way that leaves no doubt that even though I represent YOU, and YOU make the final call on most matters, you hired me for my experience and expertise, and I strongly suggest you trust my judgment on this one. However, when you've got an egomaniac like Trump as a client, who I'm absolutely CERTAIN thinks he knows more than everyone in the world (including his own lawyers), he probably demanded that they include that stupid language.

That's the thing when you represent someone: you work for them and do what they tell you to do. If they demand to take the stand over your objection, they take stand. The only way you can refuse to do what a client asks is if it violates the law and/or ethical/professional standards, in which case you need to withdraw as counsel. In purely tactical and strategic disputes, the client always has the final say.

So I'm guessing that language is in the report because Trump's ego demanded it be included. Or maybe it's simply all they've got to hang their hats on.

of the previous election. It's good to know the Founding Fathers didn't consider that unintended consequence when they drafted the Constitution.

Last edited Sun Jan 19, 2020, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

a brazen and successful attempt to overturn the election results? Wasn't he attempting to do the same in 2020 only this time with the help of the Ukrainians and the Chinese?

Bottom line - wasn't what Trump did - the depriving Americans of their votes? And from a Party that is very adept at voter suppression; cheating and stealing of votes; gerrymandering districts and other shenanigans on the day Americans vote.

he wasn't actually elected by Americans who voted, but by a quirk of the Electoral College.

48.3 percent of total votes cast were for Hillary.

5.7 percent of total votes cast were for OTHERS (Stein, Bernie, write-ins)

Total of the two is 54 percent of the total votes

54 percent voted AGAINST TRUMP

And that 54 percent were disenfranchised by his Russian-aided manipulation of Electoral College

If this is about overturning the 2016 elections, how does the phony claim that Hunter Biden enriched himself courtesy of his family name contribute to that? Their logic escapes me - most likely because there is none.

and the rethugs wouldn't even notice, because they won't be reading it, just voting to acquit.

Even if they did read it they would agree with using the script saying the Democrats argument is so absurd it doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response.