Dominion suing Sidney Powell for over 1 billion dollars.

Yeah I have no idea what the law in DC is on felony murder, but I hope it is applied here.

Back in law school, I had a classmate who was kidnapped at gunpoint after his late-night shift at Steak and Ale. They wanted him to go to the ATM and take out money. He didn't have his bank card with him, so they directed him to drive home to get it. At home was his wife and newborn. One dude was in the front passenger seat, the other dude in the backseat. When he took the ramp onto I-10 there was a semi parked on the shoulder. He floored it and drove straight into the back of the semi, killing the guy in the front seat. He and the dude in the backseat survived. They charged and convicted the survivor on a felony murder charge.

I also had a classmate who was convicted of putting a hit out on a law school administrative assistant. Quite an interesting 3 years I spent at FSU law school, lol.

This was all part of the plan to get Trump's evidence of voter fraud heard!

Same here

Holy hell, only in Florida LOL

In terms of general criminal liability for what happened, from the snippets I saw of the pre-riot rally, I think Rudy is in trouble. In the context of what happened, encouraging "trial by combat" immediately before is going to be extremely difficult to get around.

But it's clear there was a loose plan/understanding that this wasn't just a rally or protest. Some woman from the Dallas area who flew to DC on a private plane was posting on social media about storming the capitol before they left Dallas. I think the whole thing was a mix of serious insurrectionists, "regular" (non-violent) Trump supporters, carnival sideshow observers, and some form of CFB tailgate-like partiers.

Rioting, trespassing, destruction of property, etc., aren't predicate felonies for felony murder. Maybe if someone committed armed robbery (meaning taking property by use of force or threatened force - not just looting).

But I think they'd have to be working in particular concert with whoever specifically killed anyone or was killed, being a part of the same giant mob doesn't seem like it would fit to me. There is a timing and proximity component that goes with someone being killed in the perpetration of a violent underlying predicate felony.

I don't know how the officer or any others there died, but if there was also a serious felony committed in the circumstances of his death like an attempted armed robbery, than those who committed that felony could be on the hook. But not someone who just is also rioting somewhere in the general area.

Are you saying you know that's the case in DC? Because in Georgia it is any felony.

Rudy is getting a pardon, so he has little to worry about.

That's what I couldn't remember. But this was more than just trespassing. They forcibly entered and often used violence to continue moving in to restricted areas. Granted, I think the conduct of the police is going to come into play here, what with the moving barricades and taking selfies, letting them walk through the velvet ropes like on a field trip.

Meanwhile the impeachment talk appears to be growing in strength while also moving suspiciously farther away. We WILL impeach tomorrow....I mean Monday....I mean 'mid next week'.

The suggestion that he absolutely needs to be dealt with in the 13 days before his term ends, but also can wait until the middle of next week is fundamentally baffling.

I think it is a waste of time and it might backfire. If they actually had a chance to remove him, sure. As a symbolic gesture, the first one didn't make difference how will the second?

If Trump is impeached can he run again in 24?

If convicted, and then the Senate votes to not allow him. Just impeached? No.

The Waist of TIme

Cute. I hate auto-correct.

It looks like these are the federal law predicates for felony murder:

arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children.

I think time and proximity would still be a big thing too. I'm never dealt with this issue in particular in a brief. But just scanning elements and jury instructions from various states real quick, the defendant or their "accomplice" has to commit the murder in furtherance of whatever the underlying crime is. I think that's a stretch if we're talking people who haven't even necessarily met, and where the underlying crime (even if it could be breaking a window and trespassing), isn't really related to the murder itself even if it's all in the same big riot.

When you REALLY hate a defendant, and I hate all of these fuckers, you have to take a step back and imagine the same kind of charge where you have more sympathy for the defendant. We're skeptical enough of the felony murders statutes when they fit the statute clearly, like when three guys break into a house, and in the commission of that crime, one of the accomplices kills the homeowner.

Edit: The most controversial applications of the rule in those situations is usually when one kid is waiting as the getaway driver outside. But he's still clearly an accomplice to the burglary, and the people who had different roles in it. If that's kind of close to the line of fitting the statute, then this seems way, way beyond it. Again, unless the particular circumstances of anyone's death there is connected with another felony crime. It wouldn't take much to establish people as accomplices committing a crime.

This is a cult of personality surrounding a quivering jelly of ego. A symbolic gesture is absolutely worth it. Symbols are practically driving that mob. Put twice impeached next to his name in the history books, put the undisputed Worst President Ever title belt on the man. Let him carry it forever.

I think you could make a "burglary" case for many in that crowd, but regardless it is unlikely they will charge anyone with murder except those directly involved. Because there are camera everywhere, they will probably have some hard visible evidence to go on to see who who was there.

I think they missed the window, but if they had impeached yesterday I'm pretty sure the Senate would have convicted and removed today. Each day, though, makes it less likely to happen. I don't know what craven or self-serving interests Pelosi is beholden to, but she doesn't seem to have any desire to move forward.

If there were 6 or 8 rioters they may charge them all with murder, but they aren't going to charge a couple of hundred or more.

But if you are going to something symbolic, why not censure? That would be bi-partisan, and piss him off as much.

Joke I heard last week (Spoiler about The Mandalorian)

Pretty amazing letter: Dear Colleague on Events of the Past Week | Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Because censure is a complete waste of time

So is impeachment when there is no chance of conviction.

No, it isn't. History books won't mention censure, but they'll sure mention impeachment even if there is no conviction

I fundamentally disagree that censuring him would be in any way comparable to a second impeachment.

Actually, history books do mention censure. It is just as much history as a impeachment.

The closest situation I've heard to a felony murder was those people that were trying to break down that one barrier to get to where Pence was, and the one lady got shot and killed. Maybe everyone participating in that particular breach is a lot closer to being a felony murderer. There may have been other individual situations like that. But I don't think you can bring in hundreds of others under the felony murder statute just because they were also trespassing at the time.

I also wonder if, with so many GOPers speaking out, impeachment will be enough to get him to resign if he believes he might actually be convicted.

And we will disagree. Having a majority of Republicans as well as Democrats officially condeming the act will have much more weight than a largely Democrat only impeachment that will be chalked up to partisanship.

That you have to point this out should speak for itself.

Looks like McConnell isn't going to talk to his BFF on the phone anymore

OK. I literally have no idea if any presidents have ever been censured. Perhaps history majors know. I understand this is my own personal bias showing through, but I was a political science major. It's just not as important.

Censure is just "I don't like that thing he said and he shouldn't say it again". It is very easy for GOP to vote for that.

Impeachment is "that thing he said should require him to be removed from office." And will require people to go on the record with their support of it. Important.

He would resign long before conviction, but they are not getting 19 Republicans to convict. They might get 4 or 5.

FFS. If you believe this you must impeach immediately. It isn't someone else's job to save us.

Agreed.

She. Is. Grandstanding.

At this point, I doubt McConnell would even put the impeachment up for a vote. Why make his members take such a politically fraught vote.

My sense is that no one is quite sure what to do at this point, and maybe they are all just kind of hoping that Trump makes the decision for them by resigning or by tweeting something so abhorrent that they can use that as cover for removal.

Actually, it doesn't. There has only been one censure in history that was directly of a President, and that was Andrew Jackson. I am far from a history major, or even that smart, but I knew that. Censure is always mentioned when talking about Jackson, just like impeachment.

If you truly thought him so dangerous that he might cause the end of the world...

1. You'd have kept your butt in the Capitol after the certification and moved toward impeachment ASAP.
2. You wouldn't scare the crap out of the American people by making it public that you had to make that call.

I would impeach in the House even if there's no chance of conviction in the Senate. It's the right thing to do for one, and you want all the Rs on record. If they want to defend the coup then they're on the record. My guess is the Senate won't want to defend it. Whether there's enough to convict or not I dont know. I would hope the Toomeys and Sasses would vote to convict but if not they're on the record defending treason.

You vote to impeach. If McConnell sits on it and then Trump does something worse, then you have your election fodder for the next decade on how the Republicans helped a madman stay in office.

You do it and then take over the title party of Law and Order.

Also Ben, you do realize they were rushed out because of a fascist mob then they reconvened, and they still had dickheads like Hawley and Jim Jordan drag out the process until like 4 in the morning. Boyfucking Matt Gaetz was applauded stating it was Antifa and not Trump's shit eaters.

Look at the whole picture...Trump wasn't even silenced by his own party, he was silenced by social media companies.

The American people I'm pretty sure were fucking relieved when the Orangucon was on time out for 24 hours...

You're in a discussion with multiple people insisting that censure totally has the same cultural & historical impact as impeachment because, out of that group, only you remember that Andrew Jackson was censured. You're still not seeing the irony there?

Because we aren't thinking about Jackson. In 150 years, people won't readily thinking about Trump either. But those that do, will remember if he was censured.

It's certainly not worth arguing further, but your argument is baffling to me.

I don't know if they'll remembered he was censured; I hope they remember he was an idiot asshole

You're forgetting one thing, Ben. The weekend! And it's Super Wildcard Weekend to boot!