Author Topic: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment  (Read 27250 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19251
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #350 on: January 25, 2021, 08:30:40 PM »
Good news, Pat Leahy will preside. The senior Democrat promises to be impartial.  Because that's what old dogs do easily, learn new tricks.

The bigger the clown show, the more the FUSA loses legitimacy.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Impeachment, Rats trying to flee sinking ship
« Reply #351 on: January 28, 2021, 06:29:27 PM »
Trump haters (Dems plus Susan Collins) trying to find a way out of the (second) phony Trump impeachment trial.

https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/27/politics/proposal-from-susan-collins-led-group-would-bar-trump-from-presidency/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
WSJ on the Jan 6 rally
« Reply #353 on: January 30, 2021, 06:10:57 AM »
Jan. 6 Rally Funded by Top Trump Donor, Helped by Alex Jones, Organizers Say
Publix Super Markets heiress donated about $300,000 to the Ellipse event, organizers say

The rally in Washington on Jan. 6 was arranged and funded by a small group of Trump supporters.
PHOTO: MICHAEL REYNOLDS/SHUTTERSTOCK
By Shalini Ramachandran, Alexandra Berzon and Rebecca Ballhaus
Jan. 30, 2021 8:07 am ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT



The rally in Washington’s Ellipse that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was arranged and funded by a small group including a top Trump campaign fundraiser and donor facilitated by far-right show host Alex Jones.

Mr. Jones personally pledged more than $50,000 in seed money for a planned Jan. 6 event in exchange for a guaranteed “top speaking slot of his choice,” according to a funding document outlining a deal between his company and an early organizer for the event.

Mr. Jones also helped arrange for Julie Jenkins Fancelli, a prominent donor to the Trump campaign and heiress to the Publix Super Markets Inc. chain, to commit about $300,000 through a top fundraising official for former President Trump’s 2020 campaign, according to organizers. Her money paid for the lion’s share of the roughly $500,000 rally at the Ellipse where Mr. Trump spoke.


Ms. Fancelli tapped the fundraising official, Caroline Wren, to handle funding for the Ellipse event, according to organizers. Ms. Fancelli donated more than $980,000 in the 2020 election cycle to a joint account for the Trump campaign and Republican Party, records show.

Neither Mr. Jones nor Ms. Fancelli responded to several requests for comment. In a statement, Ms. Wren said her role for the event “was to assist many others in providing and arranging for a professionally produced event at the Ellipse.”


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Re: Trump parts with his lawyers two weeks before the impeachment trial.
« Reply #355 on: January 31, 2021, 09:37:27 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-parts-with-impeachment-defense-lawyers-less-than-two-weeks-before-trial/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=22810134

Weird to see NR report word for word from the also biased AP.  First reaction by design, uh oh, Trump is completely out of control - again.  OTOH, 5 lawyers from South Carolina who don't even support Trump probably aren't the only lawyers he is talking to.  And he has already gained from them all their valid arguments.

45 Senators just went on record saying the whole thing is completely unconstitutional.  He needs only 34 to vote with him for acquittal, so the whole thing, if it happens, is a political show trial. Trump's background is showmanship.  His wheel house is political showmanship.  The prosecutors, 'House Managers', were chosen for anti-Trump showmanship.  The response should be in kind.

"Trump wanted them to defend him using unfounded allegations of widespread election fraud and the pair were unwilling to do so, a source told the AP"

   - Good for them, but if they don't see truth in the statements Trump was making, why would they be the best lawyers to c defend him? 

Ted Cruz is fully qualified and was fully ready to argue the fraud investigation case, election stolen case, to the
US Supreme Court.  If not someone else, he will be in attendance, not camera shy, available to speak and ready to go.

"Trump has until Tuesday to respond to the article of impeachment."

   - OMG, just 2 more days?  Thorough, exhaustive response requires 10 words: 

  Client is not guilty.  Proceeding is unconstitutional.  Vote to acquit.

Don't be surprised if there is no trial. If there is a trial, don't be surprised if Democrats end up regretting it.  They take on Trump at his own game, give him a platform to tell the country his side right when he has lost his twitter feed and bully pulpit to do that.  Don't be surprised if Trump takes the stand, not for a moment of denial, but to make his full case that the election was stolen and that the media, courts and election authorities conspired to hide real facts.  Part of his defense is here are the facts...

One more trial point, shouldn't Sen. Leahy recuse himself from voting on anything?  In a trial with no rules, they can have anyone they want preside, but literally, one man is prosecutor, judge and jury?  A country that would does that, we would call what?? 

Besides that the trial is already lost, all legitimacy lost, and the policy agenda is hampered.  Cut losses, you idiots.

On what day do you think the next 'delay' will be announced?  Then what happens with the right to a speedy trial.  All governed by the rules of how to impeach and remove from office an official who is already not in office.  This is SO nonsensical.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #356 on: January 31, 2021, 12:47:41 PM »
I would love to see Trump and Cruz tag team!!!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #357 on: January 31, 2021, 05:22:15 PM »
I would love to see Trump and Cruz tag team!!!

Yes.  Why put in surrogates and spokespeople at all?  This is live TV, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it.  Why give it away to lawyers?  This is political theater with the world watching.  Trump is guaranteed at least equal time.  Why squander it.

Only a couple of people could do it better than Trump.  Maybe Cruz.  Maybe Jim Jordan.  Lay out the case of voter fraud like never seen before.  Biden corruption in Ukraine and China are relevant too if you look at the context of the persecution.  Sen. Leahy will gavel it down.  "THE JURY WILL DISREGARD THE TRUTH THEY JUST HEARD!  Trump doesn't need to recognize the authority of the chair and argues why it's relevant, how they announced their efforts to impeach before his inauguration.

If there's a trial, Democrats lost control of it before it started. The recent vote on unconstitutionality is relevant too.

WHERE IS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS?  Oops, this is not a Presidential impeachment trial as defined by the constitution.  It's something else, unprecedented, undefined and without rules.  What.Could.Go.Wrong.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19251
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #358 on: January 31, 2021, 05:23:50 PM »
I would love to see Trump and Cruz tag team!!!

Yes.  Why put in surrogates and spokespeople at all?  This is live TV, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it.  Why give it away to lawyers?  This is political theater with the world watching.  Trump is guaranteed at least equal time.  Why squander it.

Only a couple of people could do it better than Trump.  Maybe Cruz.  Maybe Jim Jordan.  Lay out the case of voter fraud like never seen before.  Biden corruption in Ukraine and China are relevant too if you look at the context of the persecution.  Sen. Leahy will gavel it down.  "THE JURY WILL DISREGARD THE TRUTH THEY JUST HEARD!  Trump doesn't need to recognize the authority of the chair and argues why it's relevant, how they announced their efforts to impeach before his inauguration.

If there's a trial, Democrats lost control of it before it started. The recent vote on unconstitutionality is relevant too.

WHERE IS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS?  Oops, this is not a Presidential impeachment trial as defined by the constitution.  It's something else, unprecedented, undefined and without rules.  What.Could.Go.Wrong.

We are well past the point where rules/laws matter.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #359 on: January 31, 2021, 05:34:08 PM »
We are well past the point where rules/laws matter.

Right.  It's all theater now and we won't often be invited onto the stage.  Make the best of it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19251
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #360 on: January 31, 2021, 05:39:33 PM »
We are well past the point where rules/laws matter.

Right.  It's all theater now and we won't often be invited onto the stage.  Make the best of it.

Yup.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
Constitution does not bar Trump's impeachment
« Reply #361 on: February 08, 2021, 01:40:37 PM »
The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Removal from office is best understood as akin to a ‘mandatory minimum’ sentence for a crime.
By Chuck Cooper
Feb. 7, 2021 1:55 pm ET



During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, his defenders argued that his misconduct was ultimately private and didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. In the current impeachment of Donald Trump, that’s a hard argument to make with a straight face, since the then-president’s offenses, culminating in the siege of the Capitol, were obviously public and political. So his defenders claim instead that it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try him now that he’s no longer in office.

Forty-five Republican senators voted in favor of Sen. Rand Paul ‘s motion challenging the Senate’s jurisdiction to try Trump. But scholarship on this question has matured substantially since that vote, and it has exposed the serious weakness of Mr. Paul’s analysis.

The strongest argument against the Senate’s authority to try a former officer relies on Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which provides: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried.

But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a “mandatory minimum” punishment: If an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, he is removed from office as a matter of law.


If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t. Article I, Section 3 authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”


That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction. The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.” The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”

Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer. Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.

Some have argued in the alternative that the trial is unconstitutional because Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be presiding. (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the chief justice was asked and declined.) Article I, Section 3 provides that “when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside.”

This argument is mistaken, and the definite article is why: Mr. Trump is no longer the president. Section 3 excludes the vice president from a trial of a sitting president because she would accede to the office if he were convicted. No such consideration applies to Kamala Harris. It appears that Ms. Harris has also declined to preside, so the role will be filled by President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy. But she could unilaterally reclaim that prerogative at any time, including to cast tie-breaking votes on procedural motions or the decision to disqualify Mr. Trump.

The senators who supported Mr. Paul’s motion should reconsider their view and judge the former president’s misconduct on the merits.

Mr. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11948
    • View Profile
The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
« Reply #362 on: February 08, 2021, 02:39:49 PM »
Well Chief Justice doesn't see it that way

or he would be there


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19251
    • View Profile
Re: The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
« Reply #363 on: February 08, 2021, 02:57:36 PM »
Well Chief Justice doesn't see it that way

or he would be there

The constitution means whatever the left wants it to mean!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Re: The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
« Reply #364 on: February 08, 2021, 03:10:08 PM »
"The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial"

  - The constitution doesn't define the Senate trial of a private citizen either.  Hence Chief Justice Roberts saying no for him. 

Next in charge of the Senate is VP Harris who also said no.  Her handlers know this is bad politics for Biden Harris to be involved.

Is there really going to be a trial?  One reason the Chief Justice is involved in a Presidential impeachment trial is that constitutional issues do come up during these trials.  Now ultra leftist partisan Pat Leahy will address those?  I don't think so.

On possibility is that the trial starts with constitutional issues that are unresolvable on the spot and gets interrupted for a Supreme Court hearing and ruling.

Another possibility is that Republican Senators consider the 'trial' to be regular Senate order and are not bound to sit silently, can raise objections, ask questions or even participate in the defense, since Leahy is in effect participating in the prosecution.

Most likely scenario I suppose is that Republicans allow 'House Managers' to droll on and then the Trump defense answers it all and knocks their socks off.

One thing is certain with Trump on trial.  The defense will go on offense.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #365 on: February 09, 2021, 03:09:32 PM »
The argument this 'trial' was 100% persuasive yet no Democrats came over and Republicans lost one more vote.  But the larger question is still answered, 'prosecution' does not have enough votes to convict.  As identified earlier, this 'trial' is being conducted only for show.

Prosecution relied on carefully edited video to imply Trump incited this attack.  Left out of course was where he said go forward "peacefully".

Defense was a professional and persuasive, detailed focus on the words in the constitution. There is only one President. You can't have the impeachment, conviction removal and disqualification clause apply to 'President' Trump and not have the Commander in Chief clause apply to him as well.  The key word and is not negotiable in the consequence removal and disqualification. You can't disqualify him but not remove him, and you cannot remove from office one nit un office.  Also emphasized was the word shall.  Required by the constitution, not negotiable.

Most importantly is the obvious remedy for an official out of office who commited high crimes, prosecute him - and give him all the constitutional protections of a criminal defendant in the process, not conduct a political trial on a private citizen.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2021, 08:23:43 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Impeachment 2.0, Day 2
« Reply #366 on: February 10, 2021, 10:10:15 AM »
They keep introducing the idea that rigged and fraud is false.  Doesn't that open up the truth defense for Trump?  Was there fraud?  Was there rigging?  How much cheating is too much?

Managers make the point that the Jan 6 rally ended just as Nancy Pelosi gaveled the joint session to order.  Does that not prove there is no way anyone could attend the rally, a distance away, AND break into the capital building.

Then there is the "fight like hell" quotes and wording, like no one in the room has ever uttered or heard those words in a political context that DID NOT REFER TO VIOLENCE.

"Senators, [alleging fraud] is dangerous."

What??  Alleging fraud needs context of whether or not there was fraud.

Senators, ignoring fraud is dangerous. 

To sum up the House Managers argument: Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition

I keep looking for new information.  It's just not their.  Just the Left's version of everything that happened through the campaign and post campaign.

Swalwell:  President Trump lost by 7 million votes.  Does he think popular vote is now the law?  Trump lost by 43,000 votes, if the numbers are correct.  And we know they aren't.  All elections have fraud.  This election had fraud.  This election had more opportunities (and likely more motive) for fraud than any election in history.  The complete investigation of all this was conducted by whom, completed when?  No one, never. 

Protest of an election loaded with fraud and anomalies fully uninvestigated was bound to go on until the certification was complete - on Jan. 6.  Everyone had a right to be concerned or upset.  No one had a right to break things, hurt people or trespass.  The link between the two is wholly missing.

The exculpatory quotes of Trump are glaringly absent. 

From memory, 'I hope Vice President Pence will do the right thing.'
   - How can he do the right thing if Trump is calling for his assassination and to violently stop the proceeding?  That makes no sense.

"Go peacefully and patriotically." 

House Managers:  "Deliberately, intentionally, premeditated."
  - If they are referring to the violence:  No it wasn't.

Technically speaking, was it the 'stop the steal' movement or was it the steal itself that incited the mob?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2021, 10:57:46 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Impeachment coverage
« Reply #367 on: February 10, 2021, 12:56:25 PM »
Powerline's John Hinderaker will be on Fox Prime Time tonight with host Mark Steyn, with a hit time of 7:10 Eastern. The topic will be impeachment.  Should be a fair and entertaining take on the 'trial', even though Mark Steyn cannot pronounce Hinder-acre 's name.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/catch-me-on-fox-news-tonight.php
-------------------------------
Here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoPxbBabxfM
« Last Edit: February 11, 2021, 08:21:38 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Umpeachment breaks into chaos to end day 2
« Reply #368 on: February 11, 2021, 08:52:13 AM »
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/538357-impeachment-trial-descends-into-chaos-over-lee-objection

House manager quotes Lee (hearsay) out of media.  Sen Lee steps up to say it's false.  Leahy sounds drunk or is he permanently incoherent?  Slurs words, calls the wrong question.  Lee clarifies.  Vote called on the wrong question.  Schumer intervenes stops vote.  House manager 'clarifies' that the point being made was meaningless anyway.  Vote on appeal of the false ruling canceled.  Testimony stricken 'without prejudice'.  Adjourned.

Band Chicago: "Does anybody really know what time it is, does anybody really care?"

Can't make this stuff up. 

House Managers making the strong point that the people breaking into the capitol were bad people doing bad things.  So stipulated.  Yet we now know none of them were at the speech.  So now it wasn't the speech, it was the whole stop the steal thing from long before the election.  But long before the election is when the steal was planned.  The steal is declared false because some people said it was false.  Okay.  That wins you all Democrats and 5-6 Republicans, but we are trying to find out if Donald Trump intentionally incited THIS violence.  If intent is not necessary, why do they keep pushing it?

Not accepting the result is the crime, but the lead House Manager is on record not accepting the result of the previous election right up to January certification.  Lock him up.

Another House Manager used a photoshopped tweet.  All of them are using superimposed (never before seen) video to imply that this is what Trump was seeing while it was happening.  What don't they understand about never before seen?  Trump was still trying to get Senators to make objections to certification.  Isn't that what he was supposed to be doing given these facts.

Democrats are saying he should have called off the riot, but that just supports their false presumption that he called it on in the first place.  He did not.  Trump asked Pence to do the right thing.  He asked demonstrators to be peaceful.  He thought the proceeding was still going forward, and after interruption, it did.  All that will come out for all to hear except for Democrats holding their hands over their ears during the Trump defense. 

Then they will vote and the result will be no worse than the 56-44 of the 'constitutionality' vote.  Trump acquitted, twice.

Meanwhile 'slow' Joe knocked down restrictions on China, decimated the energy sector, halted the economy, formed a task force to take down the judicial branch, extended school closings, pushed back the foreclosure crisis, borrowed another 2 trillion, purged the military, opened the border, socialized medicine and sided with Iran in the Middle East.  How come they don't want to talk about that?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
How to do an insurrection
« Reply #369 on: February 11, 2021, 01:34:03 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #370 on: February 12, 2021, 04:40:44 AM »
Is there a youtube of the Dems impeachment video of yesterday?  (13 minutes or so?)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11948
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #371 on: February 12, 2021, 05:38:17 AM »
Hey CD

I found video of yesterdays
impeachment sham:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLM45VguY2o

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #372 on: February 12, 2021, 06:28:12 AM »
Smartass :-D :-D :-D

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Unpeachment 2, Day 3, The Defense
« Reply #373 on: February 12, 2021, 10:10:39 AM »
One hour into it, I think the defense it hitting it out of the park.  The first attorney covered the whole case, answered every charge and could have rested right there and won the same vote they will win anyway tomorrow.

The second lawyer is going over the charges in detail with context using the door opened by the House Managers, edited video montages.  Democrats must HATE watching themselves doing exactly what they accuse.  It's like the best of conservative talk radio on steroids with no commercials.  Democrats in their own wards making fools of themselves.  Trump finishing his sentences clipped by the House Managers, making it perfectly clear he supports nothing but following the rules, working within the legal framework, supporting law and order, calling for peaceful protest.  Contrast with Democrats openly supporting mayhem.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19251
    • View Profile
Re: Unpeachment 2, Day 3, The Defense
« Reply #374 on: February 12, 2021, 02:50:41 PM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/392690.php

Dems already making threats to unleash their paramilitaries.



One hour into it, I think the defense it hitting it out of the park.  The first attorney covered the whole case, answered every charge and could have rested right there and won the same vote they will win anyway tomorrow.

The second lawyer is going over the charges in detail with context using the door opened by the House Managers, edited video montages.  Democrats must HATE watching themselves doing exactly what they accuse.  It's like the best of conservative talk radio on steroids with no commercials.  Democrats in their own wards making fools of themselves.  Trump finishing his sentences clipped by the House Managers, making it perfectly clear he supports nothing but following the rules, working within the legal framework, supporting law and order, calling for peaceful protest.  Contrast with Democrats openly supporting mayhem.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Trump 2, Unpeachment 0
« Reply #376 on: February 14, 2021, 06:44:05 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/12/ted-cruz-asks-impeachment-managers-if-kamala-harris-incited-riots-from-black-lives-matter-protests/

Yes, one of the two strangest moments of the trial.  Trump's had no lawyers to back him up that it was reasonable to challenge the result and believe the election was stolen.  And Impeachment Managers were unfamiliar with this VERY famous statement and behavior of sitting Vice President Kamala Harris.  How could they not know; it was played multiple time IN the trial?  Why didn't one of the impeachment managers who was familiar take the question.  In other words, he lied and Cruz was right.  Keep the Senate in session and try Kamala while you are are here, or do you want to wait 23 months and do it when Republicans take the House and impeach here then?  If they do, the Senate must drop everything and hold a 4 day trial with the partisan outcome known in advance, like this was.

What a strange proceeding and what a painful waste of time for all involved.  Trump got stained especially by the slightly increasing number of Republicans turning against him.  Majority against him in both chambers is not a win, but he did win acquittal and is free to run again.  Maybe it was enough to make him not want to.  More likely the opposite. 

The charge of incitement is a crime, high crime, but the proceeding had no legal standards.  Hearsay?  Admissible.  Falsehoods?  Admissible.  Innuendo? Admissible.  Level of proof required for conviction?  Undefined.  Chopped up, overlaid montages of video:  the new standard.  Repetition:  ad nauseum.  Judge presiding?  None.  Jury sequester?  No.  Objections allowed?  None.  Presumption of innocence?  No.

With friends like Mitch McConnell, who needs enemies.  He voted to acquit after saying more persuasively than the impeachment managers Trump was guilty.

Prosecution made the summer riots look like they were nothing and this was everything, yet we had 1600 buildings destroyed in one city alone, including the police headquarters and a federal building.  That was nothing but this was everything?  Absurd.

The whole point of the prosecution was how bad the riot was, not Trump's role in it.  The worst direct quote they had was him saying "fight like hell".  Then the defense played 1000 times people in the room had said the same thing. The real incitement, they argued, was to challenge the result at all.  Then the defense played actual House Mangers challenging the previous election, and the previous losing candidate saying the previous election was stolen.  In fact, Democrats challenged all recent Republican won elections, without consequence.  Trump made a more persuasive challenge than previous challenges because of all the evidence he had on his side.

If this was incitement, how come 100% of those at Trump's speech did nothing violent?  What is the proof that those at the front end of the violence were even Trump supporters, a point was made a thousand times.  And if they were, that makes Trump no more liable than the Bernie Sanders was for the shooting of the Republican leadership.  No charge there.

For me, it was inciteful that media and lying politicians were calling legitimate questions false and baseless when they were neither.  They said it was fully litigated in the courts, but the courts had refused that.  It was inciteful that the US Supreme Court declared the majority of states do not have standing.  What??  It was inciteful to me that Governors and state officials changed rules made by the legislatures, when the constitution specifically gives that responsibility to the legislature. It is inciteful that they leave the border open when in charge and then let those people vote.  Felons too.  Yet I did not insurrect.

Last time all of Washington looked away through the unpeachment charade, the coronavirus came in.  What did we miss this time?

The proceeding wasn't constitutional.  Trump didn't incite.  There were no standards of evidence. There were no witnesses. There was no one to remove if they did convict.  This was a political farce.  This was Democrats and some Republicans telling 74 million people who they can't vote for next time, and more importantly sending a message that you don't challenge the integrity of the Democratic vote machine no matter how corrupt it gets.   

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13927
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Sicknick Murder Story retracted
« Reply #377 on: February 14, 2021, 06:45:31 PM »
One day after the trial, oops this one wasn't kilked by Trump protesters as reported.

 https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/14/the-new-york-times-retracts-the-sicknick-story/
« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 07:18:08 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #378 on: February 14, 2021, 08:12:59 PM »
And throw in the rapid cremation , , ,

Separately,
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mark-meadows-trump-national-guard-riot/2021/02/09/id/1009314/

Translation:  This is why no witnesses.  Pelosi would have been called and revealed as responsible.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 16, 2021, 08:27:39 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19251
    • View Profile
Re: A very interesting question
« Reply #383 on: February 16, 2021, 08:58:21 PM »
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/16/who-is-in-charge-anyway/

Trump was mostly only slightly "president" during his term. The Deep State ignored or undermined every directive they could.
 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53629
    • View Profile