I was not willing to sit through the hours and hours of presentation of other things that I already knew. I wanted them to focus on the decisive question: Trump's responsibility. Some people have a low standard and think that if Trump stirred up the crowd and made them feel energized to do what they independently decided to do, he's responsible enough. But they're choosing, I think, to offer nothing to those of us who think Trump needs to have specifically intended the breaking into the Capitol. Can anyone point me to the part of the trial where my concern is addressed? I'm not willing to stare at a smokescreen.
The post title is a play on an old Obama quote that I've always found highly amusing, but I'm quite serious in asking my question. Whether or not I am part of that You're-responsible-enough-Donald crowd, I want to be pointed to the part of the trial that addresses the question: Did Trump intend that the crowd break into the Capitol and terrorize the members of Congress?
The angry, violent mob came to Washington at Trump’s invitation, the prosecution concludes.
But there is nothing wrong with drawing a big crowd of protesters. The huge crowd was overwhelmingly peaceful. Some portion of it became a mob and resorted to breaking into a building. But to say that isn't to say Trump caused the break in. And you don't need a "invitation" to go to Washington. We all have a right to travel to Washington and to protest whatever we want. Protests tend to take place at the site of the thing that is being protested. And speakers speak to crowds. We don't normally condemn that. I want to see consistency and clarity on these issues. Should Black Lives Matter speakers be denounced because they draw crowds and stir up emotions and later some of the crowd becomes a violent mob?
Even after the attack, managers say Mr. Trump showed a ‘lack of remorse.’This is a makeweight argument. If you don't confess that you've done wrong, you're tarred as lacking remorse. Of course, if you do confess, you've confessed. That's even better for the prosecution.
Vice President Mike Pence’s presence looms large as a traitor, victim and hero.So what? What relevance to Trump's guilt?
Trump still appears to have enough votes to be acquitted.Not surprising and not anything that counts against Trump.
Posts
139 comments:
The trial was a disaster. The Dems used unverified news reports as the backbone of their case.
My impression from scattered viewings is the Democrats attempted to establish Trump's intent by reciting multiple layers of hearsay filtered through unnamed media sources.
And that perhaps one of only two named source, Sen. Mike Lee, stood up there and then and objected to the characterization, which the Democrats then withdrew.
(Bumped)
NO! And you are nuts if you think he did.
Corey Booker did though. He said to go to the Hill TODAY... and get up into Congressmens faces...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkXY0ii5Kj8
Nice title, Ann.
It would be nice if Trump’s lawyers read this blog and took heed.
Trump's plan is to get one part of the government to take on responsibility for determining whether there was a stolen election, since the courts wouldn't rule on it.
For which he needs a crowd outside to make his point, not directly to Congress but indirectly by suggesting lots of voters are interested.
He was outfoxed by agitators, followed by "oh this is so serious" narrative all over. Poor AOC was having sexual assault flashbacks, presumably from when she was a bartender.
Women love it.
The barbed wire is a nice touch. It must really be bad, as Carlin said of the seven forbidden words.
If you mean like and to the extent that Democrats across all levels of government suggested, encouraged and directed antifa and BLM to attack people, police, and government facilities? No, he did not.
It is AMAZING how this ONE incident is NOT mostly peaceful. Was it too close to home for Democrats? Is it only Democrats and progressives and liberals that are allowed to riot?
As everyone knows (a) this was NOT incitement, (b) it was NOT an insurrection, and (c) Trump is a citizen, you can't impeach a citizen.
#BadTouchBiden
The Viking hat was the worst part of the trauma.
Your point is the point of this entire show. They are to show intent. That's hard to prove unless he actually said at some point, 'attack the Capitol'. He didn't quite say that. The other point, which his own attorney's need to make, is that this was surely a planned attack. But by whom? Who led it. Mobs are fairly easy to rile up and get moving. Who did the riling at the site? Who were they?
As for intent:
Kamala Harris actually said, "they're not going to stop (the riots), and they shouldn't." Then she paid for their bail to help get them back on the streets. Was that intent?
Or Obama in 2008 (the 'sane' days) saying, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Or Maxine Waters literally telling Democrats, ”Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Or Cory Booker when he said: “Please don’t just come here today and then go home. Go to the Hill today. Get up and, please, get up in the face of some congresspeople.”
People- Republicans- have been attacked. Rand Paul. Steve Scalise (and the entire Republican congressional baseball team), and many others in restaurants, at their homes, coming out of stores. Who drove them to it?
I know...none of that matters now. Trump is on the docket. The ex-President, now civilian, is on the docket to be impeached. This is a clown show. Propped up by a media party apparatus. Disgusted with the lot of them.
Well put Temujin!!!
The Dems used unverified news reports as the backbone of their case.
That is an evergreen sentence right there.
Jonathan Turley highlights how the Democrats squandered the opportunity for any real discovery over the last few weeks.
Any faith they have in their claims is bad faith.
As with the election, the Democrats seem to have an aversion to discovery in favor of pure narrative control.
Intent? Incitement? Procurement?
I'd say of course not, but is that only because Little Steven isn't Trump?
Tom @Tom65763975
@StevieVanZandt Stevie, You is (sic) this NJ cop who arrested the Boss for blowing a 0.02? I think Silvio needs to put out a contract on him.
Stevie Van Zandt @StevieVanZandt
I hear that. Totally unbelievable.
I think if there was any proof that Trump had intended that, it would have been all over the media and would have been the focus of the Democrat's case.
I haven't watched the trial either, but I have read some commentary on it and it looks like they didn't even attempt to prove that.
It is astonishing how little we know about this supposed coup attempt.
How many "insurrectionists" were there? How many cops? How many cops and "insurrectionists" were injured and what were their injuries? Were any of the "insurrectionists" armed & who armed them?
And what is the real name of this "Q" person?
We are being bamboozled.
The ex-President, now civilian, is on the docket to be impeached
During Trump Shampeachment 1.0 I recall the civics lecture was that it was the House with the power to impeach. The Senate was to have a trial with SCOTUS presiding to decide is removal from office was warranted.
In Trump Shampeachment 2.0 Trump is no longer in office so a Senate trial seems moot...but apparently we've now given the power to impeach to the Senate and added to the powers of the Senate the power to prohibit Trump from running for public office or building a Presidential library.
That seems suspicious.
This whole affair was rushed because the House had to vote before Trump left office. We don’t even now have all the required facts to make an assessment - even a fair one if you want to try to be objective. There is more info available now, but it is not being shared. One takeaway from that is that the more recent data does not support the charge in the impeachment article.
Out of 50,000 perhaps 50 actually broke in ; half of them were black bloc
Did Trump intend that the crowd break into the Capitol and terrorize the members of Congress?
for the sake of argument, let's assume he DID...
Can we ALL Agree, that IF he Did intend that; he did a piss poor job of it all.
WHERE were the armed mobs? Where were the mass executions of Congressmen (ANY executions?)
There is an old saying, 'When you strike at the Congress, you must kill the Congress'
Does a child playing with matches intend to burn the house down? Or a CA camper who is careless with their campfire in fire season? No, he didn't intend for 5 people to die and 140 get injured but he's morally responsible and violated his oath of office.
He knew what his supporters had done in the Michigan capitol and supported them, so he knew what could happen.
And he didn't care that Pence was in danger, but still issued a tweet attacking him.
IMO, it's not freedom of speech--Trump is our employee, he worked for 328 million Americans and unborn future Americans, and he failed us and is unqualified for future employment.
Really after the hundreds of cops slain and maimed in dozens of cities this possun m congress doesnt have a leg to stand on.
"Does a child playing with matches intend to burn the house down?”
The accusation is that it was a planned insurrection.
You know, like when BLM and Ante-Fa were throwing bombs into a Federal Courthouse. Not a peaceful demonstration that turned violent due to a few bad apples. Bad apples we are hearing remarkably little about, BTW.
"He knew what his supporters had done in the Michigan capitol and supported them”
"Special rules for the especially heinous supporters of my opposition” is right out of Botha, Mussolini, and yes Hilter’s playbook. And you go along with it. You have been whipped into a lather by a massive firehose of propaganda and you like it. That’s because these propagandists are good at what they do.
Some people have a low standard and think that if Trump stirred up the crowd and made them feel energized to do what they independently decided to do, he's responsible enough.
These people are easily proven to believe this only because it fits their political interest.
This principle would make Kamala Harris and hundreds of Dems guilty of supporting riots last year and yet exactly zero of these people support such a judgement.
“Unqualified for future employment”, with respect to an elected office, is the collective voters decision, not Congress’s decision.
The current usurpers rode the wave of the mob, even covering their bail expenses as the campaign of terror was organized by a former?? Terrorist,
The idea is that we infer intent from some things he said that in retrospect led to a riot, while discounting his explicit instructions to protest peacefully and lawfully as mere lip-service. Then we assert that he should have stopped the riot after it started, while admitting that when he did ask for the riot to stop, his words had no effect. (All without proving that smart phone coverage was working in the Capitol at the time, or that any rioters were waiting for “stand down” instructions from Trump (you’d need actual witnesses for that).) Also while claiming that the riot was planned, and that the FBI and other LEOs knew this and presumably told those in charge of Capitol security, who then failed to provide a sufficient law enforcement presence.
Bill Harshaw said...
IMO, it's not freedom of speech--Trump is our employee, he worked for 328 million Americans and unborn future Americans, and he failed us and is unqualified for future employment.
2/12/21, 7:50 AM
If I am one of his employers, I have the right to decide for myself if I should hire him again.
In this case, Congress was the victim, and have a victims POV, which is expected. But they’re adjudication of the trial and/or punishment should not be something the Peoples will is required to follow. This is a political exercise, after all, not a criminal one, where ones rights can be limited upon conviction.
I do despair when I look on Twitter and see how many people think that because there was a riot, Trump incited the riot. I don't know if they are paid troll farms (something I suspect a lot on Twitter) or if that is the level of critical thinking we have these days.
After January 6th, by Charles Kessler, Claremount Review of Books.
.... If Trump’s speech has a political target, it’s the “weak Republicans” who acquiesce in election fraud and will not fight in the trenches alongside him — the “Liz Cheneys of the world,” as he calls them. (And of course this was before she came out for his impeachment!) “We’ve got to get rid of them,” he says. He specifies how that should be done: “we have to ‘primary’ the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them.” Later he adds, “in a year from now, you’re going to start working on Congress and we’ve to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good.” A year from now means as the 2022 election cycle gears up. His incitement, so to speak, is to oppose the weak Republicans by challenging them in the normal process of American primary elections.
In the meantime, he calls on the audience to “walk down to the Capitol” in order to “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back your country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.” He adds: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” It isn’t sedition to “peacefully and patriotically” protest, to cheer on brave legislators and boo (or in some cases, buck up with “pride and boldness”) the weak ones.
And what if, as Trump hints is likely, the protestors are ignored and Biden receives a majority of the electoral votes and becomes president, what then? “We’re going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity.” The penalty he points to is eventual public and private obloquy. “If they do the wrong thing, we should never, ever forget that they did, never forget. We should never, ever forget.” Despite his constant, characteristic, and exaggerated appeals to strength versus weakness, his ultimate appeal is not so much to might but to a form of right, based not merely in history but in “eternity.” To know you have acted shamefully is the worst penalty, he advises, or ought to be, which is where public opinion—and the possibility of later electoral defeat—comes to bear as an external sanction against the otherwise shameless.
This glimpse suggests how far Trump’s speech is from being a call to substitute might for right by inciting his partisans to riot. In fact, the chief business of the speech is a long, informative rehearsal of the facts behind the fraud he alleges took place in seven states. Though it has humorous moments, the statement is pretty dry, and he even apologizes for that. He wraps it up by calling for a series of changes in election laws to require voter ID and to prohibit ballot harvesting, unsecured drop boxes, universal unsolicited mail-in balloting, and the like. It surely didn’t sound like a rallying cry to trash the Capitol.
The House’s article of impeachment quotes from the conclusion of this long section and of the address: “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” But the context proves that the fight Trump was calling for was political and legal, not criminal. Rather than seeking to obstruct the democratic process, he was urging his followers to use it to the fullest extent of the law. In my judgment, there isn’t a word of “incitement of insurrection” in the speech. ....
(h/t Paul Mirengoff, Powerlineblog)
Its astroturf journolism,
Bill Harshaw said...He knew what his supporters had done in the Michigan capitol and supported them, so he knew what could happen.
His supporters ARE NOT BLM and Antifa....Those are Biden/Harris/Obama supporters. Stop trying to pin the Riots and looting on Trump when it was the left including the new Vice President who said "“They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop,” she told him. “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.” and then posted information about a Bail out fund for her little Brown shirts. Stop watching CNN...YOU may learn something.
*their* adjudication
If Trump had intended it he'd be driving the back nine with Pelosi's gavel.
He's not a half measures kind of guy. But what the actual break in smells of is an Antifa false flag action. Just way too many signals for it to patriots.
He knew what his supporters had done in the Michigan capitol and supported them, so he knew what could happen.
That was entirely peaceful. I didn't like it aesthetically, but it was entirely peaceful.
Now, there have been a lot of violent protests this summer, but they weren't Trump supporters and they weren't at the Michigan Capitol.
So maybe you have a better point than you meant to have.
I’m with Narciso. We have no information about what really happened. Trump has held hundreds of rallies, almost all of them attacked violently in some way by leftists, and I’ve personally witnessed leftists dressed as Trump supporters try to incite violence and shut down a rally inside the Fox Theater in Atlanta as hundreds of other radical leftists attacked cops and abused attendees outside. I know the left. I believe the Democrats are intentionally not investigating the Capitol riot because they know precisely how many of the people who were involved in the real violence at the Capitol were either leftist agitators or FBI informants. We need to know the facts about what really happened. We do know what happened at the Trump rally, though. Like all other Trump rallies, without exception, tens of thousands of citizens gathered peacefully and left the site as tidy as they found it. They did not enter the Capitol because of the rally. The tiny number of Proud Boy types are the libertarian/leftist cusp that seeks to create anarchy without any clear political motive other than anarchy. That said we need to purge these assholes from the citizen activist movement. They don’t contribute anything politically or organizationally, no matter how much Steve Bannon likes pretending he’s uniting Bernie Bros and Proud Boys. Bannon has made himself the problem: he bears a hell of a lot of responsibility for what happened, if anyone does.
Bill Harshaw, are you a Con Law professor?
Sasse asking for the delay in the Kavanaugh vote after getting yelled at by protestors who had trespassed into the private areas of the Senate building were as responsible for what happened as anybody.
My original comment on this fiasco was "What was he trying to accomplish? What did he think would happen?"
I concluded that he was foolishly reckless but wasn't guilty of incitement.
I'll stay with that.
MayBee--was that Sasse or Flake? I think it was Flake.
Amadeus- you're right. Flake. I get the two of them confused.
So change to:
Flake asking for the delay in the Kavanaugh vote after getting yelled at by protestors who had trespassed into the private areas of the Senate building were as responsible for what happened as anybody.
I got Minnesota and Michigan confused. May bee is right....The people who showed up in Michigan were entirely PEACEFUL, something the left can't comprehend.
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/protesters-storm-govt-building-burn-county-flag-hoist-antifa-flag
@Amadeus 48, pretty sure you’re right.
@Maybee, I believe it was the aptly-named Jeff Flake. Moreover, at the time I was pretty certain that Flake had prearranged the stunt with the pussy hatters.
The union of act and intent is required. If his speech cannot fairly be construed to incite, his intent is not relevant. If it can, his intent is relevant.
Most would say that his speech did not incite ”insurrection” or any illegal act. In fact, that was a fair inference from an earlier Althouse blog on the topic.
It doesn't matter. It's ironic Kama Sutra theatre where the bad boy doesn't get fucked. The Trump team is colluding with Republican senators to craft a defense that gives them a plausible reason to acquittal Trump.
What really matters is does Jobiden have the ovaries to pull the trigger on a criminal trial. He's in a double bind between the progressives and the pragmatists.
Personally I think FPDJT should be prosecuted criminally to call the bluff of the violence threatening Trumpers. Bullies are cowards and they need to be exposed as such. They should try him for capital crimes and remand him to custody.
He's a rabid dog and should be treated as such.
We have a guerilla army funded by corporate cash extorting guerillas which has laid waste to half the store frontsin this country, exhorted by chinese and probably iranian propaganda. Proud boys is near beer with a chaser
"the breaking into the Capitol"
As video shows, part of the crowd did not "break into" the Capitol, but had doors opened to them by security personnel that then stood by. Nor did a part of the crowd "break into" anything else, instead, as video also shows, walking around peacefully.
So even if you go along with the "trial" narrative, rather than rejecting it out of hand as a grossly unconstitutional political stunt, the "evidence" would have to be a bit more precise.
WTH? Are we supposed to come up with a secret intent to justify going after sonmeone?
We don't have to guess at what was said at the ralley - the entire thing was recorded - audio, video, transcript. It isn't hidden. For any supposed intent to matter, it has to be transmitted some way.
So if you claim to know his intent, show it.
Quote the words. Point to the place in the video where that intent manifests itself.
If they could have done that, this "trial" would have been all of 10 minutes long. Instead, we get these video montages and navel-gazing on what intent is and how we can bend the rules just this once -- because that kind of thing never comes around to bite us in the ass, does it?
And if they could have done that, we wouldn't have had deceptively editted video brought out as some type of evidence. The prosecution team (whatever they call themselves) just re-did the Charottesville hoax yet again. The one that's been debunked dozens of times - the one Biden trotted out twice.
I'm old enough to remember when using that bit of lying hackery was somehow bad or disqualifying. Right up until the vote. Then, not so much any more.
"Intent" is the safe word D's trot out when they are caught red-handed committing crimes as in the private email server was not "intended" to sidestep federal law or FOIA requests or scrutiny but for convenience or we did not "intend" to mislead the FISA court by withholding exculpatory information and on and on.
Democrats should have enlisted a few mind readers to divulge Trumps thoughts at the time of the peaceful gathering at the capital.
Of course he didn’t Althouse just as he didn’t pee on a bed in a French hotel or speak to Putin during the demonstration. The thought is preposterous and only arises because of a preexisting distaste for Trump and a willingness to believe stupid things about him.
Sure, the President of the United States thought he could arouse a tiny group, a few thousand, to take over the Capitol,seize control of the government and overturn an election. A group with no leader, with no direct communication with the President. Magical thinking. Sad thinking.
Congress runs on bullshit - blah, blah, blah. Why would the trial be different?
It seems as though the whole country may run on bullshit. Think: Russia hoax, “very fine people,” Trump tweets, phony impeachments, Fauci, NYT, CNN, etc.
"I want to be pointed to the part of the trial that addresses the question:".
A lynching is not a trial. A trial is a lawful proceeding in a courtroom. I'd have thought you would know that, but I guess you never did practice, did you.
This is getting a bit weird. Anyone with an IQ above 80 can see what's happening. The only thought that comes to mind is 'how bad is the stuff the Dems are trying to cover up?' It's gotta be worse than any conspiracy theory I can dream up. Kabuki can be entertaining if done right, but this is bizzare.
Incitement is an overly narrow and legalistic impeachment charge that is highly difficult to prove. A broader, more effective charge would have been failure to uphold the oath to the Constitution by attempting to persuade Pence and Raffensperger to violate theirs.
If they focus on intent, don't they put themselves out there for the same thing to happen to them?
This is a politicized Congressional trial and if taken too seriously the Supreme Court will get involved and shut these kind of playful political events down.
If Trump has even inadvertently shown us how corrupt our institutions are, which I believe he has, why are the left-leaning normal people defending these institutions and still so angry with Trump? So weird to me.
I, for one, look forward to the surprised looks on the faces of leftists when an actual authoritarian, reactionary, counter-revolutionary anti-progressive arises, and incites the populace against progressive Democrat party members and supporters. I look forward to it with a horrified, saddened heart, and the sure certainty that the Dems brought it upon themselves.
They need Trump out of the way so they can openly brag about election theft instead of cloaking it in a Time 'magazine' story...
It's killing them that they can't just yet...
"The Dems used unverified news reports as the backbone of their case."
"Unverified news reports" is being generous. Call it what it is in plain English:
gos·sip
/ˈɡäsəp/
noun
casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.
I’m a little surprised that our hostess should take any of this so seriously that she would give more than a passing glance at something as irrelevant as intent. This impeachment business is nothing more than political theater. The entire point of the exercise is to mount a mummers’ play on, perhaps, the best stage on the planet in which the wrenboys and pace-eggers give us all an object lesson in the manifest evil of 77 million Trump voters who had damn well be certain never to wrongthink vote ever again!
- Krumhorn
"Constitution by attempting to persuade Pence and Raffensperger to violate theirs.”
It’s right in the Constitution that Congress can object to and has the power to adjudicate electoral votes, so I am not sure what your point is.
I especially love the argument that there is no requirement for due process since this is a political question. Well how convenient that the Democrats plan to use their elected power to settle the “political question” of who the Republicans are allowed to run for office next time.
As that that guy on South Park always says “I thought this was America.” In America such questions are decided by the voters. This is a political vendetta against a political opponent. The voters should decide whether Trump should be POTUS in 2024, not his political enemies.
77 million! Inflation.
Isn’t it true that one of the impeachment managers, I am not sure if it’s the same one that slept with that Chinese spy, but one of them objected to electoral votes last election and that Democrats have objected to electoral votes for George W Bush and Donald John Trump? Should they be in the dock too?
Look at what the Democrats changed the law with a bogus Consent Decree to allow as a valid signature.
https://welovetrump.com/2020/12/31/check-out-what-qualifies-as-a-signature-match-in-georgia/
This is why the “audit” that showed that 99.99% of the signatures in Georgia they looked at matched. Because Democrats gutted the signature matching criteria prior to the election, and therefore the “audit" using those standards is as laughable as a recount after bogus votes have been allowed.
It’s interesting that the Democrats in Maricopa County AZ are still refusing to provide this kind of information to the Arizona legislature. My guess is because they hadn’t previously gutted the AZ laws, and so outright broke them.
Earnest Prole-- the whole thing is ridiculous because Trump has left office in disgrace. After a presidency of solid achievements, he did not handle the election and its aftermath well. He got outsmarted, outspent, and out-strategized.
There is only one thing that could possibly resurrect him after the January 6 fiasco: this impeachment trial and possible political prosecutions hereafter.
The man showed terrible judgment on January 6 and pushed arguments that were not supported by more than speculation after the election. He is through. Do I think Joe Biden got 10 million more legitimate votes than Barack Obama? I'm skeptical. Do I think that the gates were opened for vote harvesting beyond any normal range? Yes, but how many? How did the GOP do so well in the House of Representatives? How could Trump have fomented defeat in the Georgia Senate races? This was an election like no other.
The fact is that Trump conjured defeat for himself and the Georgia senators. The Time magazine story outlines how it happened. But the Dems are overplaying their hand. We need to move on from this election for the good of America.
I don't want to defend Trump post-election. But if you make me, I will.
I don't want to defend Trump post-election. But if you make me, I will.
You're misreading me. My comment was narrowly focused on the Democrats' failure to write an effective impeachment charge.
It’s right in the Constitution that Congress can object to and has the power to adjudicate electoral votes, so I am not sure what your point is.
You're half right. Congress indeed has the power to adjudicate electoral votes but chose not to. Trump asked Pence to unilaterally override Congress and declare him President.
I find it odd that you think it makes sense to meaningfully participate in a discussion on the trial that you decided to opt out of. Seems like a set up on your part. There was a clear focus on intent throughout, though I don't have the energy or inclination to read the transcript of a trial I have already seen to spoon feed to you information that you decided to turn a blind eye to for whatever reason. How could you possible know there was nothing new (to you) if you didn't watch it? It's like commenting on a case where you only read the first page and then simply relying on the views of others who may or may not have read the case and who have a clear bias. It is a strange game you are playing.
Further, most of the people who offer comments that disagree with the extreme right group think here are vilified, called assholes, fuckers, fascists, threatened with violence, you name it. Why bother? Most people don't like that treatment. Hardly a place to engage in intelligent, insightful debate. Imagine such behavior in your classroom.
I will note a couple of things. The argument was not really that lack of remorse showed intent. It was that he did not do anything to quell the violence once he became aware of it. There was not a single momentary event which was over and done with before he could have done anything. Someone who unintentionally incites a crowd would be expected to do whatever was in his power to quell the violence once it started. By not doing anything for hours it indicates bad intent and a failure to uphold his oath to faithfully execute the laws.
Also, a great deal of evidence showing that in the run up to the rally he offered encouragement and thanks to his supporters that engaged in violence. E.g, he tweeted "I love you Texas" after a bunch of hoodlums came close to running a Biden bus off the highway. The tweet included a video of the incident with a soundtrack of raucous music added by Trump.
I know this is your blog to do with as you please, but come on. The fact that no one rises to your challenge means that your initial "feelings" were right? Hardly.
re: Doug--not con law professor, just an old fart.
"I want to be pointed to the part of the trial that addresses the question:".(intent)
Howard said;
Personally I think FPDJT should be prosecuted criminally
Howard our host is clear. Asking for some crowd source help in finding the Democrats evidence of intent. You can't even get close to the question. But demand a criminal trial...that requires intent. Focus here. Help yourself out and tell is the crime you see? (that doesnt require intent)
Incitement is an overly narrow and legalistic impeachment charge that is highly difficult to prove
So what is the goal of the Democrats? Snap vote to impeach, 4 weeks to cultivate witnesses, and all they got is a bunch of video, that mostly ignores the single article of impeachment.
This is a politicized Congressional trial and if taken too seriously the Supreme Court will get involved and shut these kind of playful political events down.
Under what Constitutional power? SCOTUS can no more tell the Senate how to conduct business than congress can order SCOTUS around.
This is an important core truth all need to understand. This week some commenter asked why people keep thinking Judges are going to save them? If you don't like this impeachment, you have to rule, and hand down sentencing at the ballot box. No Judge is going to fix this. Thats whats wrong with Dems that falsely claim they can use this impeachment to stop the people from Voting for Trump in the next presidential election. The senate has no power to dictate to the states who is allowed on the ballot. That is an enumerated power left to the States.
As long as I'm engaging, let me also say that I do not recall you ever explaining why you believe the senate does not have jurisdiction, though perhaps I'm mistaken. I recall that you agreed with Tom Cotton, but his statement that you linked to contained no legal analysis.
Everyone agrees that the House had the power to impeach Trump, who was still President at the time. And the constitution says that the Senate has the "sole power to try ALL impeachments." (emphasis added) Seems pretty clear to me that one focusing on the language would conclude that the Senate has the power to try this impeachment.
Cruz now says that the Senate does have jurisdiction, though they don't have to exercise such jurisdiction and should not have done so in this case. Of course three days ago he voted that the senate lacks jurisdiction.
bananarepublic2020 said...
Also, a great deal of evidence showing that in the run up to the rally he offered encouragement and thanks to his supporters that engaged in violence. E.g, he tweeted "I love you Texas" after a bunch of hoodlums came close to running a Biden bus off the highway. The tweet included a video of the incident with a soundtrack of raucous music added by Trump.
2/12/21, 10:38 AM
You use some pretty words but like many, they are used to forward lies. Provable lies. Watch that video, the Trump fans did not attempt to run the Biden bus off the road. A Biden supporter did.
It is NOT the President's job to try and calm a crowd. That is what law enforcement is for. Yes Trump COULD have chosen to get involved but he was not required to. He did more to calm that crowd than all the Democrat politicians did to calm any antifa riot.
Try better.
Whatabout....
That's right. As Trump said, the caravan was there to protect the bus. Of course it makes perfect sense that a Biden supporter would try to run the Biden bus off the road.
1) I agree with our hostess that specific intent is an element of the charged offense and the Democrats didn’t address it, let alone prove it.
2) The Democrats could have charged in the bill of impeachment that it was an impeachable abuse of power to recklessly encourage a crowd to violence against the Congress even if that didn’t constitute a crime. They didn’t do that, so it’s irrelevant now that they may have proven that Trump was reckless.
3) The Democrats could have charged Trump with orchestrating a campaign of lies about election fraud in order to steal the election. Had they done that, they would have had to prove that Trump’s claims if fraud were false and that he knew they were false. They didn’t do that, either.
"Whatabout....
Whatabout is risible leftist speak for “ignore my blatant hypocrisy and obvious double standards.
I agree as well about the need to show intent, or, put another way, those facts from which intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt.
But what is the answer to those who argue recklessness is sufficient, ie heedless of or indifferent to foreseeable consequences?
Since he is no longer POTUS, they can’t impeach him again for what they imagine that they have now “proven” instead of the stuff they actually impeached him for, so I guess it’s up to the voters to decide whether Trump should be POTUS again in four years.
“Whatabtoutism” Means that I am going to deliberately apply standards you you that I would never apply to myself and you better like it.
Actually asking “what about” is a way to try to clarify the standards being applied, obviously. And the rejection of such a question clearly shows that the person refusing to answer it has no intention of clarifying the standards, since he knows damn well that he is using a different standard and has no intention of conceding that point.
I think readering might actully be a teenager based on his lightweight comments. Maybe as he grows older and sees more actual history, he will come around.
Once again I reminded of the stalinist show trials. During the 30's American liberal/left "intellectuals" had endless debates on the guilt or innocent of those accused. Dewey actually formed a commission to look into it, and judge if the trials were fair. Was Trotsky really a fascist, and Nazi double agent? Many smart people believed so, while other liberals - sort of 1930s ALthouse's - wanted more evidence, or were somewhere in the middle.
Btw, you even had the American Ambassador to the USSR, state that the Stalinist trials were the fairest he'd ever seen in 30 years of legal practice.
Once can worry about the details, but then we should have gone over the details during the impeachment proceedings. Instead they were rammed through the House in 2 hours with almost no debate. And we know all 50 Democrats were going to vote to convict, no matter what. Like the Stalinist show trials, the truth is irrelevant.
The fact that they didn’t even try to prove the charges they actually brought shows that this has all been a sham and a farce.
You have to hand it to the Democrats. They have complete and total party discipline. They ALL toe the party line and go after their enemies without mercy or and with complete disregard for the truth. And they ALWAYS find some RINO or "Maverick" who wants positive press coverage, or some future job at Goldman Sachs, who will give them "Bi-partisan" cover.
Its quite astounding. We all know that if the shoe were on the other foot, the same people howling for Trump's blood and crying tears over the "Outrageous attack on Democracy" would be playing the tough guy, and laughing at a few broken windows and a stolen lectern.
"whataboutism" is actually about equal treatment, and is a completely appropriate reaction.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/impeachment-blunder-author-tweet-introduced-trial-says-it-was?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=facebook_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons
And they didn't try to run the Biden bus off the highway. THat is a significant exaggeration. Presumably you made it out of ignorance, not as a deliberate attempt to mislead. A group of Trump supporters were following the Biden bus around - not trying to run it off the highway.
Oddly I agree with Howard that this should be a criminal trial, with all of the rights of the accused accorded by the U.S. Constitution, and the proper time taken, rights to call witnesses, etc. I don’t even mind a D.C. jury, they know what getting railroaded looks like.
The author of a tweet introduced by Democrats at the Senate impeachment trial said Thursday her statement "we are bringing the Calvary" was a clear reference to a prayer vigil organized by churchgoers supporting Trump and not a call for military-like violence at the Capitol riot as portrayed by Rep. Eric Swalwell.
Jennifer Lynn Lawrence also said she believes the California Democrat and House impeachment manager falsified her tweet, adding a blue check mark to the version he introduced at the trial suggesting she was a verified Twitter user with more clout when in fact her Twitter account never had a blue check and has never been verified. - Narciso’s link
No believing Christian mixes up Calvary with Cavalry. My mother made fun of us kids making the mistake watching our John Ford movies and F Troop, and she wasn’t even a native speaker of English or even that much of a Christian.
Why do the Democrats have to falsify evidence by adding the blue checkmark to make her seem more important, like a leader, and why didn’t they ask her intent? Put her under oath? We all know why.
bananarepublic2020 said...
That's right. As Trump said, the caravan was there to protect the bus. Of course it makes perfect sense that a Biden supporter would try to run the Biden bus off the road.
2/12/21, 11:16 AM
Again you only prove you did not watch the video.
The Trump fans were heckling the Biden bus. The Biden fan tried to cut in front of the pickup that was directly behind the Biden bus. She did wrong, she caused the accident.
Try better.
Provable lies. Watch that video, the Trump fans did not attempt to run the Biden bus off the road. A Biden supporter did.
This is certainly true, and was reported at the time. Though probably not on CNN, MSNBC, or in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Democrats are creating a historical record here, and I can only assume that they think that they will have iron fisted control over how the history will be written in the same way they have iron fist control over the press.
"Of course it makes perfect sense...”
Refers to own prejudices and therefore has no need of the original document, which is the video.
The enemy of propaganda is a reliance on original sources. There is very little reliance on primary sources in this sham of a trial.
What strikes is the appalling un-seriousness of this show. It is slap-dash and rushed just to get it on "the calendar". Pelosi might well have said, "We need to pass the impeachment to see what's in it".
I wonder what Mike Mansfield and Peter Rodino, veterans of the more deliberate and thoughtful Nixon investigations in 1973 and 1974 would think of the current theatrics.
You say "heckling" I say terrorizing. You think it was safe and lawful what they did? You think it was appropriate that Trump cheered them on? We should be able to crystalize the difference in our views on the incident. We both saw the same video.
bananarepublic2020 said...
You say "heckling" I say terrorizing. You think it was safe and lawful what they did? You think it was appropriate that Trump cheered them on? We should be able to crystalize the difference in our views on the incident. We both saw the same video.
2/12/21, 12:15 PM
You think it was safe and lawful what the Biden supporter did? The investigators said she was at fault. EVERYTHING else you say/write is sour grapes because ORANGEMANBAD. She was not law enforcement but attempted to interject herself into (using your mindset) a dangerous situation, also cause ORANGEMANBAD.
We did see the same video. That makes it all the worse for you as you deliberately made false claims about what it shows.
He is gone and the left still can't get over the fact that he (and half the country) got him into the White House over "At this point, what does it matter" Hillary.
This is the opposite of Obama. The right just wants him to go away and shut up. The left WON'T let Trump go away. In this relationship you all are the crazy ex-girlfriend. You want him gone and now you are mad he is gone.
bananarepublic2020 said...
You say "heckling" I say terrorizing. You think it was safe and lawful what they did?
Safe and lawful is the new standard huh? Revealing this standard was never applied to BLM terrorizing people in passing cars or starting fires in occupied buildings. The discrepancy in how the left treats its allies and others sometimes makes me think they determine the standard based on the outcome rather than whether the standard is appropriate.
Is there some reason neither of you will answer my questions. 1) Was what the Trump Train did on the interstate safe and legal? 2) Was it appropriate for Trump to cheer them on? Two simple yes or no questions. You answer mine and then I will answer yours. This is only fair since I asked first.
5th Takeaway- He watched the rampage for more than 2 hours nd did not attempt to stop his followers. He hoped they would succeed.
“I find it odd that you think it makes sense to meaningfully participate in a discussion on the trial that you decided to opt out of. Seems like a set up on your part. There was a clear focus on intent throughout, though I don't have the energy or inclination to read the transcript of a trial I have already seen to spoon feed to you information that you decided to turn a blind eye to for whatever reason. How could you possible know there was nothing new (to you) if you didn't watch it? It's like commenting on a case where you only read the first page and then simply relying on the views of others who may or may not have read the case and who have a clear bias. It is a strange game you are playing.”
Well said.
“You're half right. Congress indeed has the power to adjudicate electoral votes but chose not to. Trump asked Pence to unilaterally override Congress and declare him President.”
And when Pence didn’t do Trump’s bidding, Trump tweeted how Pence basically stabbed him in the back while rioters were already in the Capitol. “Hang Pence, hang Pence, hang Pence” could be heard in the Capitol after that Trump tweet about Pence.
Is there some reason neither of you will answer my questions.
One element of Left Wing Privilege is demanding others respond as they wish even as they lie about others. Standards don't apply to them.
Another manifestation is Inga's conspiracy nuttery while complaining others are conspiracy nuts.
I think the House managers' summation did address Ann's question, and answered it with a firm and clear "no."
“He knew what his supporters had done in the Michigan capitol and supported them, so he knew what could happen.
And he didn't care that Pence was in danger, but still issued a tweet attacking him.”
Trump tweeted support for those armed protestors in the Michigan Capitol, it’s not a stretch that he approves of people who support him entering Capitol buildings to stop proceedings dealing with government functions he doesn’t like.
No, he didn't intend for 5 people to die and 140 get injured but he's morally responsible and violated his oath of office.
It is absolutely impossible to reason with a person this dishonest and stupid.
I want a divorce.
“Earnest Prole-- the whole thing is ridiculous because Trump has left office in disgrace.”
This is not the opinion of the majority of Trump supporters here. People here still think Trump was the noble victim of a stolen election and whatever he did was warranted, even sending Pence to overturn a Constitutional finalization of the votes in Congress, as if because Trump said so Pence had the power to do so.
Nice to see that Tim in Vermont says he thinks about me. Doubt it, though.
bananarepublic2020 said...
Is there some reason neither of you will answer my questions. 1) Was what the Trump Train did on the interstate safe and legal? 2) Was it appropriate for Trump to cheer them on? Two simple yes or no questions. You answer mine and then I will answer yours. This is only fair since I asked first.
2/12/21, 1:05 PM
1) No, so what. They by their actions did NOT cause any death or injures. No accidents.
2) As I believe he "cheered them on" by tweeting the video that was already posted, he could not have cheered them on. He was not disappointed. So what?
Now what about ALL the Democrats encouraging antifa? Telling their supporters to get in the face of Trump supporters? To confront them and make them uncomfortable? Where was/is all the tut-tut and condemnation for that? Antifa tried to burn down a police station (more than once) with police in it. Where is your condemnation for that?
Trump did not tell his supporters/fans to do any of this. He clearly said peacefully, and I believe he meant it. You offer zero proof he did not. All you offer is that he did not go down there and get in their way and make them stop. It was NOT his job. DC has a police force for that. It was their job. If this situation was SO dangerous why is there video of the police opening the doors to let the "rioters" in? Where was the tear-gas, the rubber bullets, the fire hoses? It was planned all right, by the Democrats. Not Trump.
“Now what about ALL the Democrats encouraging antifa?”
Baloney.
Trump should’ve been impeached for directing Pence to do the opposite of what the Constitution calls for. Trump should’ve been impeached for his attempt to manipulate the election in Georgia by strong arming Raffensperger.
"Nice to see that Tim in Vermont says he thinks about me.”
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
All the Democrats encouraged and cheered on Antifa and BLM.
You are the most outrageous fucking liar on this board, Inga.
The blood is on your hands. Violence is your m.o. The violence is all you, lying Inga.
"Trump should’ve been impeached for his attempt to manipulate the election in Georgia by strong arming Raffensperger.”
Not too late for a criminal trial with rights of the accused, discovery, cross examination, and genuine rules of evidence. My bet is that the Democrats would rather have the accusation, then examine the truth of what happened.
Not only did the Democrats uniformly encourage and cheer on Antifa and BLM violence, they paid for it through their shell game of non-profits and institutions.
You’re a Nazi, Inga.
Here is what Georgia called a “signature match” and based on the rules that the Democrats got changed prior to the election, legally it is, even though anybody can see that the ballot was not filled out by the guy who signed the driver’s license in the same name.
https://welovetrump.com/2020/12/31/check-out-what-qualifies-as-a-signature-match-in-georgia/
So yeah, let’s look into Georgia, which Biden ‘won’ by a narrow margin.
99.99% signature match per the audit. Saddam wouldn’t even take it that far. Kim might in North Korea.
itzik basman said...
But what is the answer to those who argue recklessness is sufficient, ie heedless of or indifferent to foreseeable consequences?
I have a simple answer to that: Apply that standard to all Democrat politicians, After you've impeached every single one of them whose "reckless" conduct led to riots, murder, and / or attacks on Republican members of Congress, then we'll worry about Trump.
Let's start with Kamala Harris, and her support for a bail fund that supported political riots. Impeach
Then there's Joe Biden, and his refusal to condemn violence by Antifa and BLM. Impeach
Nancy Pelosi, who called for insurrection. Impeach
Chuck Schumer, who threatened violence against Supreme Court Justices unless they ruled his way. Impeach
Democrat prosecutors, who refused to charge Democrat rioters for their crimes. Impeach them all
Democrat Mayors, who kept the police from breaking up riots and immediately arresting anyone who engaged in any violence. Impeach them all
Democrat Governors, who refused to call out the National Guard to stop riots. Impeach them all
Once you've dealt with all these people, whose crimes all predate Trump's actions on 1/6, then I will be happy to discuss whether Trump acted in a. reckless manner.
Until then?
GFY
Todd said...
bananarepublic2020 said...
Is there some reason neither of you will answer my questions. 1) Was what the Trump Train did on the interstate safe and legal? 2) Was it appropriate for Trump to cheer them on? Two simple yes or no questions. You answer mine and then I will answer yours. This is only fair since I asked first.
1: It was at least as safe and legal as the driving by the Democrats. It was entirely safe and legal until Democrat thugs engaged in unsafe and illegal driving targeting the Trump supporters (making a lane change in front of a car where you don't have legal clearance to do so is a crime. The person you want to get in front of owes you no duty to let you in).
More importantly: surrounding a campaign bus with cars supporting the opposition, while at a legal distance (which is what the Trump people were doing until the Democrats attacked them), if safe, legal, and funny.
The Democrats flipping out over it just made it more funny.
2: Is wa appropriate and correct for President Trump to cheer them on
Your turn
Here is what Georgia called a “signature match” and based on the rules that the Democrats got changed prior to the election, legally it is, even though anybody can see that the ballot was not filled out by the guy who signed the driver’s license in the same name.
Why is the date on the "application" December 19, 2020? WTF?
Have you ever heard of "unintended consequences"? Don't you see the danger in letting low level election officials disregard ballots if they think the signature doesn't "look good enough." If you already think elections officials are corrupt, how does giving them more power and more discretion to decide which votes count and which votes do not make things better? Way to put out a fire with gasoline.
The way to handle forgery is to send people to prison--not to empower the clerks to decide which votes count and which votes don't.
Todd,
Whether there was injury or death doesn't mean the protest was safe and lawful. Any objective viewer would see a problem with the protesters aggressive behavior on an interstate highway. Very dangerous. Very lucky no one got hurt. I'm sure if you or your family were the target of such behavior you would agree.
I don't understand your second answer. Are you saying that he did not cheer them on or that it was okay if he did? Either one I disagree. He retweeted the video with his own soundtrack and said "I love Texas." Okay in your book, Not mine.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who encouraged the riots over the summer. Here in the Twin Cities the amount of damage was horrific and hurt particularly hard the minority communities. These communities were fragile to begin with and will never fully recover. Almost all the democrats here to my recollection condemned the violence in the strongest terms. Any that did not - such as evil Omar though I don't recall exactly what she said - should be condemned. Do you really think most democrats supported the violence? Get real.
I would say that here about 98% of the protesters were peaceful, though a significant number of them stayed out beyond the curfew and should have been arrested for that. The other two percent caused a great deal of destruction. I'm not defending them. Never have.
Also, at least one person charged with arson here is a white supremacist. You think that antifa pretends to be trump supporters? It works both ways.
bananarepublic2020 said...
Whether there was injury or death doesn't mean the protest was safe and lawful. Any objective viewer would see a problem with the protesters aggressive behavior on an interstate highway. Very dangerous. Very lucky no one got hurt. I'm sure if you or your family were the target of such behavior you would agree.
Now do BLM and antifa blocking all those highways and city blocks for MONTHS on end with NO law enforcement stopping them. Taking over city blocks for weeks at a time. Attacking those that they have political differences with for MONTHS all with a wink and nod from Democrats at ALL levels of government, again done in the name of their constituents. Were they all voted out of office? Then their constituents approved.
I don't understand your second answer. Are you saying that he did not cheer them on or
that it was okay if he did? Either one I disagree. He retweeted the video with his own soundtrack and said "I love Texas." Okay in your book, Not mine.
I am saying it was history by the time he saw it so not actually relevant. How can you encourage a past event?
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who encouraged the riots over the summer. ... Do you really think most democrats supported the violence?
Well a WHOLE lot of Democrat politicians from local mayors all the way up to congress critters egged it all on and did it in YOUR name so yes, I think a whole lot DID approve as long as it didn't happen in their back yard cause, you know, ORANGEMANBAD.
I would say that here about 98% of the protesters were peaceful, though a significant number of them stayed out beyond the curfew and should have been arrested for that. The other two percent caused a great deal of destruction. I'm not defending them. Never have.
Funny that "mostly peaceful" stuff hu? The "event" on 1/6 was mostly peaceful too but apparently "mostly peaceful" is reserved for those that the Democrats/media/liberals approve of and "riot" and "insurrection" is for those "deplorables".
Also, at least one person charged with arson here is a white supremacist. You think that antifa pretends to be trump supporters? It works both ways.
White supremacist, says who?
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who encouraged the riots over the summer.
It's interesting that pretty much all leftists claim the same thing now. But since these people are speaking up to accuse Trump shouldn't they have similarly spoken up against antifa/BLM violence? I recall no calls for Kamala Harris to be impeached, I recall no claims these constituted sedition or an insurrection or calls that these people were traitors all of which are standard on the left of the 1-6 riots. Where were these accusations?
Almost all the democrats here to my recollection condemned the violence in the strongest terms.
This is of course nonsense. The few leftist criticisms of violence were entirely proforma immediately followed by condemnations of the people actually critical of violence.
I would say that here about 98% of the protesters were peaceful,
Mostly peaceful then? It's revealing the same effort to bifurcate protesters and rioters was never made for the 1-6 groups.
I guess the TLDR version is, Trump is jot and canmot fairly be held responsible for the events at the Capital on Jan 6. Correct?
If so, then Ted Cruz was right about this tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I would say that here about 98% of the protesters were peaceful
I would say about 98% of the pro-Trump protestors at the Capitol on 1/6 were peaceful. So I guess that means what the other 2% or less did is irrelevant, yes?
bananarepublic2020 said...
Whether there was injury or death doesn't mean the protest was safe and lawful.
Driving along the road next a a bus, with flags waving from your vehicle, is generally both safe and lawful.
Any objective viewer would see a problem with the protesters aggressive behavior on an interstate highway. Very dangerous. Very lucky no one got hurt.
Really? Exactly WHAT is the "aggressive behavior" they showed? Did they cut off the bus? Did they throw things at the bus? What exactly are your charges here, and what is your video proof of those charges?
Note: we're very clear that Democrats "lived experience" is all lies. So either you have video of a car or truck doing something, unprovoked, to the bus, or you have nothing.
a Democrat playing chicken with the protestors, and getting it cuffed down his throat, is not the fault of the protestors, it's the fault of the Democrat who started teh game of chicken.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who encouraged the riots over the summer. Here in the Twin Cities the amount of damage was horrific and hurt particularly hard the minority communities. These communities were fragile to begin with and will never fully recover.
The riots happened, and did so much damage, because of support from Democrat politicians. Starting with Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, and Harris, and going down from their to local Mayors and prosecutors.
Since you're not calling for the impeachment of all those people, and since you didn't vote against all the Democrats you could, your words now are worthless.
Also, at least one person charged with arson here is a white supremacist. You think that antifa pretends to be trump supporters? It works both ways.
So, that's what, 1 out of 1000? That's well under your 98% cutoff.
The second "takeaway":
Even after the attack, managers say Mr. Trump showed a ‘lack of remorse.’
I find this one interesting. I'm not sure exactly what Trump is supposed to be showing remorse about?
I think the very concept is presumptive of guilt. He could feel remorse about inciting a riot, if he in fact incited a riot. If he didn't, is there something else he should be feeling remorse about? Anything at all? Waiting.
Read the new reports of what he said to McCarthy when the minority leader called to get him to call off the assault. Evidences enjoyment of what was happening.
The facts will keep coming out after this weekend. This story goes in only one direction.
Readering said...
The facts will keep coming out after this weekend. This story goes in only one direction.
From pathetic to really pathetic?
"From pathetic to really pathetic?"
I don't know how it could get worse but I've been wrong before. When it comes to "pathetic", you can just about be assured there are Democrats chomping at the bit, shouting "Hold my beer!"
Well, hard core Trumpists have to say something .... You're not the audience, so ....
Professor Turley agrees that the Democrat managers missed the mark. He suspects that the Democrats never intended to succeed, like a boxer throwing a fight, based the lack of any evidentiary record supporting the charge of incitement and nit calling witnesses to testify under oath either in the House or tge Senate.
jvb
Pelosi probably had a "Karen" moment and asked to speak to the managers. Driven by hatred and blinded by overreaching animus, led by alleged law professor and suburban DC Congressman Jamie Raskin, using deceptively-edited "evidence," the case crumbled. And when Trump's lawyers played the Dem incitement montage, Stacey Plaskett went straight for identity politics. That's all they have left.
Not paying attention, I guess.
Even after the attack, managers say Mr. Trump showed a ‘lack of remorse.’
He didn't just show a lack of remorse. He delighted in the result of what he ordered his revolutionary guard to do. He refused to act against them. He sent out tweets justifying what they did, saying, “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long." You'd have to be blind to not count that justification of his rioters' actions as a show of complicity. I think you just like justifying whatever evil anyone with enough power will do. It's pitiable how scared you and the Republicans must be of holding him accountable. We need less cowardly and less irresponsible people looking at and offering insight on things like this.
readering said...
Not paying attention, I guess.
No, rendering, we ARE paying attention
Which is why we know the "case" is utter shit, and looking worse each day.
You really need to try pulling you head out of your ass, and looking at the real world
Trump found not guilty by the Senate
Congratulations, Readering
Post a Comment