Trump’s weak defense will expose the depravity of GOP senators who acquit him
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump’s weak defense will expose the depravity of GOP senators who acquit him
As former president Donald Trump’s impeachment trial gets underway, the choice GOP senators face is being wildly mischaracterized. We keep hearing that they must choose between sticking with the former president or opposing him — between showing “loyalty” to Trump or not showing loyalty to him.
In one typical framing, the Associated Press reports that the Senate trial will test “the loyalty of Trump’s Republican allies.” A CNN analysis declares GOP senators must now decide whether to pay a price for “deserting an ex-president who still dominates his party.”
Either GOP senators are loyal to Trump, or they desert him and face the consequences: The choice is entirely framed as revolving around Trump.
But that isn’t the choice GOP senators actually face, and describing this choice accurately is of paramount importance.
The real choice they face is not between sticking with Trump or going against him. Rather, it’s between sticking with Trump or remaining faithful to their oath of office , which requires them to defend the Constitution against those who would undermine or destroy it, and to the oath of impartiality they take as impeachment jurors.
Trump tried to overthrow U.S. democracy to keep himself in power illegitimately, first through corrupt legal efforts, then through nakedly extralegal means , and then by inciting intimidation and violence to disrupt the constitutionally designated process for securing the peaceful conclusion of free and fair elections.
Trump fully intended to subvert the constitutional process designating how our elections unfold, and intended this every step of the way . GOP senators cannot remain “loyal” to Trump without breaking their oaths to execute their public positions faithfully.
The weakness of Trump’s own defense will reveal the true contours of this choice — and demonstrate how his defenders, both on his legal team and in the GOP Senate caucus, will try to bury the inescapable nature of this choice under mounds of obfuscation.
Trump’s laughably weak defense
Trump’s lawyers will first argue that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try Trump, on the grounds that he no longer holds office. This idea has been roundly debunked by lawyers across the political spectrum, including Chuck Cooper, a conservative legal icon.
As Cooper argued , the Constitution provides for a Senate vote not just on removal for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but also for “disqualification” from ever holding office again, which by definition must also apply to those who are no longer in office but might run again later.
But the larger thrust of this “defense” is pernicious in another way.
GOP senators hope to take refuge in the idea that former presidents are exempt to give themselves a rhetorical and political means of dodging a direct vote on whether what Trump actually did constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
This has been widely depicted as mere tactical maneuvering. But it’s much worse than that: It’s an active evasion of their own duty as public officials to defend the Constitution. This defense, then, actually unmasks their dereliction of this duty.
Trump incited violent insurrection
Trump’s lawyers will also argue he is not guilty of “incitement of insurrection.” They will say he didn’t “direct anyone” to carry out the attack, as he used the word “peacefully” while haranguing the mob on Jan. 6.
And they will say that because the riots were “preplanned by a small group of criminals,” then Trump cannot have “incited” them.
All this is pure baloney. Trump spent months urging his supporters to mobilize for war over the election results, which he said could not be legitimate if he lost, meaning a struggle to overturn them would inevitably be a righteous cause in their own defense. If some preplanned the attack, they did so at what they understood — correctly — as his direction, as their own language has confirmed .
What’s more, if some preplanned the attack well in advance, many did not , and people in this latter group also attacked the Capitol. They, too, were incited by Trump’s haranguing leading up to and on Jan. 6.
And if Trump intended them to be peaceful, it’s strange that he again whipped up rage at then-Vice President Mike Pence while the mob rampaged into the Capitol looking for Pence and lawmakers who were counting electoral votes. It’s also odd that as the rampage worsened, he refused entreaties to call for the very calm his lawyers claim he wanted to see.
Acquitting Trump means declaring that these known facts do not point to high crimes and misdemeanors.
Senators have a duty
Senators take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution.” When serving as impeachment jurors, they take another oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution.”
“That second oath doesn’t replace the first,” Brettschneider tells me. “It clarifies it.”
In acting as jurors, Brettschneider says, senators are supposed to answer “the specific question” of whether the president is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
“Trump tried to subvert a free and fair election by spreading disinformation, trying to force public officials to overturn the results and riling his supporters up to attack the Capitol,” Brettschneider continued. “That is about as paradigmatic a high crime as one can get.”
When senators are in the role of jurors, Brettschneider continues, the two oaths interlock to set the terms of their “constitutional duty,” which precludes operating out of “partisan loyalty to a president.”
In other words, it’s either the former or the latter. The choice is not just about whether they are going to be “loyal” to Trump or not. That idea actually undersells the extraordinary dereliction of duty GOP senators will be committing if and when they vote to acquit.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
The impeachment managers just showed about a 20 minute video that followed the events of the 6th.
None of it would have happened had Trump not lied about the election results and egged these people on for two months, culminating with his speech on the 6th.
He has to be held accountable.
Raskin's opening video was devastating to trumps defense.. It won't make any difference since trump supporters in congress will give him a pass no matter what he does.
So not really devastating, by your own words, following your declaration.
Castor was rambling and incoherent which should be devastating and would have been in any actual court setting, but because the fix is already in and Castor could drop his drawers and shit on the podium and the majority of spineless Republicans will vote to acquit, it doesn't really matter how bad Trumps lawyers do.
Gee, that makes it look like Democrats are tilting at windmills again then.
How Quixotic of them.
I was watching one of the representatives of the former occupant of the White House go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about fairness, and due process, and fairness and due process - which was pretty much all the moron said.
What would the former occupant of the White House or those who represent him know about fairness and due process?
They presented facts with video and laid out an excellent case. What did one of Trump's lawyers do, he read a poem.
The Dems have a weak and lame case
Care to say why?
Repube's have NO case.
None needed.
That's repukes
One of Trump's lawyers just said that if Trump is barred from ever running again , millions of people who want to vote for him again would lose their right to vote for who they wish. Oh, thats interesting.
Does that mean that we should be able to vote Barack Obama back into office, because we want to, and shouldn't be deprived of our choice ?
That's a bit obtuse JR as he served two terms which is the limit by law. Point taken though.................sort of
Tell you what, why don't you just write in Obama on your ballot for the next few elections. I don't believe anyone will prohibit you from doing so.
Wouldn't want you deprived of it!
Because you missed it, here is the point. Obama is not eligible to run again, so he cannot receive votes. If Trump is convicted or otherwise LEGALLY barred from running again by Congress, his status will be exactly the same as Obama, ineligible to be elected president in 2024, so no voters will be "deprived" of anything.
I could be wrong, but i could swear that someone JUST made that exact point to YOU. (Thanks and a hat tip to Just Jim NC).
And being disqualified for running again would require first a conviction of impeachment and then another vote. Are you saying the second vote is already a done deal--that it is rigged?
My comment was very clear and easily understood.
Do your runaround with someone else.
As was mine.
Your comments are always very clear and easily understood by those with smarts, common sense, wit, and intelligence.
No.
You just did your usual sniveling, whining, complaining, moving the goal posts, and deflecting.
If there was something in my post that you did not understand, I can try to explain it to you.
It what alternate reality does that make one goddamned bit of sense?
Another poster said that pretty much exactly word for word so now I know where they got their talking points from.
Moronic.
It looks, smells and feels like a turd; but most Republicans will call it cake and eat it right down.
The GOP Senators have already proven that they intend to participate in jury nullification, AGAIN.
In your mind.
Jury nullification is perfectly legal.
That doesn't mean it's always right, or just.
Perhaps that is why I claimed no such thing.
BTW, the opposite of what you stated is also true, right?
Not in an impeachment trial. The oath the Senate takes:
Jury nullification is NOT impartial justice.
So I suppose you will be suing on behalf of the Democrats when Trump is not convicted?
Why would you suppose that Tex?
There is no such thing as "jury nullification" in an impeachment. This, for the 1000th time, is not a criminal trial.
I know you'll figure it out.
According to whom Sean?
Relevance?
According to whom Sean?
Anyone familiar with the impeachment process. Senators, who control the rules of the trial, are not the same as jurors in a criminal trial. You get that, right? You understand the jury in a criminal trial doesn't vote on what witnesses to hear?
Relevance?
You are taking a term a from a criminal trial and applying it to a completely different situation where it's inapplicable. Senators are free to apply their own judgment to ensure justice is served. Every Senator is free to decide what the appropriate burden of proof is, for instance. Jurors in criminal trials are not.
I never claimed that the Senators are the same as jurors in a criminal trial so your comment is moot.
You understand that is irrelevant to the concept of jury nullification right?
Jury nullification has occurred in both civil AND criminal trials Sean, so I didn't take it FROM anything.
Yet the fact that jury nullification is a REAL documented thing proves that juries have indeed decided for themselves, doesn't it Sean?
Oh and BTFW, jury nullification is about the jury finding the prosecution has MET the burden of proof but they acquit ANYWAY. Much like what Republican Senators did in Trump's first impeachment.
ct that jury nullification is a REAL documented thing proves that juries have indeed decided for themselves, doesn't it Sean?
Rather than engage in your silly game where you make declarations you can't support, I'll inform you how this works. . Senators are not jurors. If someone from the House refers to them as jurors, they will be corrected. Do you know what that is? Because they have completely different roles.
The Senators control the trial and can overrule the presiding officer (who is not a "judge"). Jurors don't overrule the presiding Judge.
. In a trial, the jury is instructed by a Judge what the law is and how it s applied and what burden's each party has to meet to prevail. That doesn't happen in an impeachment trial. Each Senator is free to make up their own mind using whatever standards they believe to be relevant to render their decision. Senators are free to decide what the applicable "law" is. See the massive difference?
Thus, a jury engages in nullification by ignoring the the instructions regarding the law they receive from the Judge. That's what nullification is Senators can't engage in nullification because they are not bound to follow any instructions and each Senator creates their own standard to decide the impeachment upon. They are free to render a verdict however their own sense of justice instructs them.
jury nullification is about the jury finding the prosecution has MET the burden of proof but they acquit ANYWAY. Much like what Republican Senators did in Trump's first impeachment.
There is no burden of proof in an impeachment trial. Each Senator decides for himself what the standard is for impeachment. That's why it's so silly and ignorant to borrow terms from the legal system and think they apply in a completely different setting with completely different standards. Senators are not bound the way jurors are, so they can't engage in nullification.
Are you claiming that jury nullification isn't REAL Sean? I presume that you aren't since you go on to say:
So exactly WHAT declaration did I make that YOU haven't already supported?
BTFW Sean, early in our history, Judges regularly informed juries that they had the right NOT to follow the law [nullify].
Of course not. Where on earth would you get that from? Jury nullification can occur in legal proceedings. IT can't occur in a political process like impeachment.
xactly WHAT declaration did I make that YOU haven't already supported?
Your entire argument that the Senate can engage in jury nullification. The Senate is not a jury and a Senator doesn't "nullify" a law no matter how he or she votes on an impeachment charge..
Did you not read my post? Or not understand it?
W Sean, early in our history, Judges regularly informed juries that they had the right NOT to follow the law [nullify].
And that has zero to do with impeachment.
It's the part of my comment that you block quoted Sean. DUH.
The Republican Senators have and will violate their oath:
By doing so, they commit the act of 'jury nullification' whether they are rightly called a 'jury' or not.
But everything to do with jury nullification which is what we are discussing.
There's no possible construction of the English language that would allow a sentient adult to claim in good faith that I suggested jury nullification isn't real.
The Republican Senators have and will violate their oath:
While this is an obviois deflection from your claim that they are engaging in "jury nullification," Of course they haven't and won't. Maybe if you stopped offering unsupported conclusions and actually did some research before offering your opinions, you'd realize how wrong you are.
ing so, they commit the act of 'jury nullification' whether they are rightly called a 'jury' or not
Good lord. I've explained this to you. A Senator's oath requires him to act justly, however he or she sees fit. That means a Senator can fulfill his oath, for instance, by acquitting Trump if doesn't think Private citizens should be impeached. A Juror is required to follow a set of instructions about the law and how it's applied. The act of nullification occurs when a juror ignores the instructions about the law given by a Judge. A Senator is free to apply whatever standard they see fit, because an IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A TRIAL AND SENATORS ARE NOT JURORS BOUND TO FOLLOW ANY INTERPERTATION OF A LAW OTHER THAN THEIR OWN.
DO you understand the difference between the legal system and a political process yet?
ut everything to do with jury nullification which is what we are discussing
That's what your reduced to? Making silly circular arguments since you can't make a substantive argument? Sad.
ahhh... sentient is the key word there
There is absolutely no wiggle room in that statement
There is absolutely no wiggle room in that statement, either.
President Trump dishonored, disobeyed and abrogated his constitutionally defined duties to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by bearing true faith and allegiance to the words within. He bore bad faith and dis-allegiance to the words in the Constitution.
He is guilty of incitement of the riot and much much more.
Each Senator defines justice for themselves. So it's very easy for two different people to come to different conclusions without violating their oath.
Since I didn't make that claim, no worries Sean.
Oh the fucking irony.
Take your own advice about unsupported conclusions Sean.
Bullshit Sean. I posted the Senator's oath in my prior comment. READ it.
The irony of YOU whining about circular arguments is galactic.
Does each Senator get to decide on his own truth, also?
The evidence is incontrovertible that Donald Trump violated his oath of office. Therefore, the Senators either have to convict him, or they can choose to wipe their behinds with the CotUS, because that is how much they respect the document.
Actually, sadly, yes. The founders made the assumption that the Senate consisted of senior statespersons. That they would do what is constitutionally correct and proper for the nation. I do not think they envisioned this sort of leadership-dominated partisan system that we have devolved into.
But in this case it is even worse. I think a lot of the senators are afraid that convicting Trump would cause them to lose their reelection bids.
Objective jurists would convict Trump. It is obvious that he committed an impeachable offense - violating the oath of office by using the power of the office to whip supporters into a frenzy while engaging in a multi-month con-job claiming he won the election and that our system is corrupt.
That became obvious after the 2020 impeachment acquittal. There were no consequences for Senators that voted to acquit Trump despite admitting that the House had proven that Trump was guilty as charged.
Before that, we didn't know for a fact that Senators could proudly violate their impeachment oath with no repercussions.
Here's the thing. Whether a an act or act rises to the level of being "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an entirely subjective exercise. There is no precedent and if there was, it wouldn't be binding on Senators anyway because they are not mere jurors, bound to follow the law a judge dictates them, because they are each free to determine that standard for themselves. [deleted]
The evidence is incontrovertible that Donald Trump violated his oath of office.
Even if it was, it doesn't compel a Senator to violate his conscious if he believes the act doesn't rise to the level that justice demands his impeachment and removal from office. What is a removable crime will vary from person to person, and two Senators operating in good faith can come to different conclusions.
Republicans are a broken toy, their fans need to find a new one to play with.
Good old reliable MItch. As I said prevously, he makes a pendulum look like an amateur.
He played his cards wisely
In my opinion, now that the Republican Senators can no longer hide behind a technical defence ot Unconstitutionality they will expose themselves as being in favour of insurrection rather than good government as a message to the voters of their electorate, if they vote to support Turmp. Should the time come that they in fact be re-elected after supporting Trump, then the majority of their electorate will be as guilty of lacking integrity, principle and backbone as the Senators they support. If that happens, it would not be saying much good about that segment of the American people.
Where do you get that from? The Senators are always free to vote to acquit if they believe the charge is unconstitutional. That's what happened in the Belknap case that is all the rage to cite as precedent.
T
sounds a lot like the " deplorables argument" that was tried a few years back to me that led to a political defeat for one person..
They likely will be re elected what others think not withstanding , and since the way senators are elected changed from how it was origionally done , candidates will now and forever be playing to the majority voting base where ever they are running
Donald Trump will be acquitted of these ridiculous charges and by the time 2022 or 2024 rolls around the American people are going to be so fed up with all these destructive progressive policies they will elect anyone who is not a democrat.
You call these charges ridiculous. Not that the process is unconstitutional but rather that it is 'ridiculous' to accuse Trump (with the power of the presidency) of working his followers up into a frenzy based on months of demonstrable lies. Trump engaged in a massive con and you deem holding him accountable for this to be 'ridiculous'.
Unbelievable Vic.
You are going to hear something unbelievable T;G at some point in this "trial."
You are going to hear the words of Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris. We shall see what you think they were doing and if you think they should be impeached?
So the racoons came out to trash the system and the plan is to blame it on squirrels ... sheesh ... @!@
If we are going to impeach based upon our interpretation of political speech, nobody should be exempt.
In a trial of Trump, the actions and/or words of others are not relevant. If they did something wrong then they should be impeached and tried.
A defense of hypocrisy or 'two wrongs make a right' is no defense at all ... it is deflection.
I remain surprised that you apparently think it ridiculous to hold Trump accountable for working his supporters into a frenzy for months with unabashed and demonstrably false lies and then encouraging them to march to the Capitol and fight because their votes and their president have been stolen from them.
You better tell the Trump team. The focus will be the hypocrisy of those making the accusation.
A defense of hypocrisy or ' two wrongs make a right ' is no defense at all ... it is deflection.
No it's not. It's completely relevant in this case.
Here:
Starting with Waters, how can you even compare what she said to Trump's Jan 6th speech in which he said go peacefully?
I remain surprised that you apparently think it ridiculous to hold Trump accountable
Accountable? Don't you mean a chance to prevent him from being a candidate again? If that's all you care about, I'm hoping it's someone else in 2024 as well. Trump is too great a unifier and motivator for the democratic party. As I say, the dems will have alienated so many with their radical transformation of America, it may not make much difference by then.
You apparently agree with what they are doing.
See? ⇡ You agree with them. My original sentiments are still applicable.
Well given I wrote accountable I think you should take that as my position. But since you mentioned it, I am in favor of a vote to prevent him from running for any public office again. So holding him accountable for his actions and preventing him from the opportunity to repeat same are both actions that I support.
I despise Waters. But put that aside because she is not on trial, Trump is. So face the facts. You just cherry-picked from his statement to make it seem as though he did not incite this mob. Consider the entirety of what he said:
To not read the parts in blue is to engage in major league confirmation bias. Trump, while ostensibly telling his supporters to go home, justified their anger by telling them they are right to be angry because they have been wronged. He did not tell them to cease and desist, he told them that they were justified but now they must go home.
How can you possibly defend this guy?
I don't defend him for not accepting defeat.
I do defend him for his right to hold a rally.
I do defend him from being held responsible for what extremist groups planned in advance for what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. Sound familiar?
Good.
Well, of course he has the right to hold a rally/
You ignore the fact that Trump spent months using the influence of the presidency working his supporters up into a frenzy over the fiction that he won in an landslide and that their votes and their president has been stolen from them through fraud.
How do you ignore this Vic?
I'm not. Those are two separate issues. He never gave up on his belief that he was cheated. Perhaps it might have been better if we didn't have all those rule changes before the election.
On the other hand, he created a movement, which he gets to speak to. He can hold rallies and peaceful demonstrations. The old fashioned liberals used to regard that as our most basic right.
We already did Vic. It was ridiculous.
I presume that when you ask about Waters, Schumer and Harris being impeached, you are trying to imply that they are somehow guilty of incitement. Pray tell WHO did they incite and what crime did they commit?
If that were the case then you would be arguing that Trump is clearly guilty of encouraging / justifying an attack on the Capitol and not taking action to stop it until much later.
Is Trump guilty —while holding the highest office in the land with all of its rights, privileges and powers of influence— of telling his supporters that the election was stolen and that they should fight like hell for their rights and never give up and that they should go to the Capitol where the steal was being confirmed?
Again, please cite WHO they incited and what crime was committed.
Didn't he speak for over an hour? He did mention the word "peaceful" ...once.
Any person who had the misfortune of believing this man would have been outraged and ready to march to the Capitol. Unfortunately, several thousand people headed his call and did march, did overrun the perimeter that had been set up and besieged the Capitol with hundreds of invaders who actually went inside the Capitol building with the expressed intent of disrupting the congress.
There is no defending his actions or those of the mob that he engendered and set in motion. None what-so-ever. Anyone who attempts to defend against these actions is complicit with the lies and complicit with these seditious acts.
The only people I hold responsible were the groups who planned the attack - long before the speech you keep quoting from & interpreting:
Trump was setting the stage for the attack on the Capitol from Nov 4th on. At least. You could argue he was setting the stage even before the election when he repeatedly was saying the only way he could lose is if it was stolen from him.
By the same token, we can go back and look at all the claims by Trump that the only way he could lose is if the election was rigged. And he was claiming that the election was fraudulent during the year of 2020.
Do you not remember this? Do you (somehow) not see how Trump as PotUS is the instigator behind his supporters believing the election was stolen?
Too late John, everyone made it about the speech - it's in the charges.
Nope, it's not too late. Its all part of the same process.
So you believe that everyone involved in the insurrection who attacked the capital and attempted to stop the certification and transfer of power had "planned in advance" to do so? That position simply is not supported by the facts. Were there extremist groups who had pre-planned their attack and led the crowd of thousands in the insurrection? Yes, of course, but they would not have been able to do what they did without the large crowd that showed up after marching down to the Capital at Trumps behest, and the crowd would not have followed the insurrection leaders had they not been worked into a frenzy by Donald Trump saying over and over again that the election was rigged, his Presidency was being stolen and they needed to "fight like hell" if they wanted to save their country.
Many in the crowd who have now been arrested have attested to the fact that they felt they were under direct orders from the President, that they had his blessing to go to the capital and "stop the steal" which they believed meant to stop the certification. Trump even threw Mike Pence under the bus and the crowd listened and declared him a traitor and chanted "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" simply because he was attempting to do his constitutional duty and certify legitimate election results.
The time to contest the election results had passed, the dozens and dozens of legal court challenges had been tossed out for having ZERO evidence of any election fraud or "rigging" or "stealing", yet dishonest Donald continued the lie, continued to rile up his base his false claims, with dangerous rhetoric, right up to within minutes of the attack on the Capital. And then it was 3 hours into the attack before Trump came out and made a statement half condemning the attack while also telling the attackers "we love you" and "you're very special".
The fact is, if this had been a Democrat President who had done such things every single conservative here would be outraged and supporting his immediate impeachment to ensure that such a vile seditionist could never again hold public office. But sadly we live in such divided partisan times, the conservatives here consistently defend, deflect and twist the facts in an effort to protect their wannabe Dictator so that he has a chance in the future to rise back into power, and I have no doubt those who are so loyal to this scum bag as to refuse to accept the facts will not hesitate in the future to come to his call and commit such heinous acts once again.
I also remember long before that when Trump was warning the state legislatures in battle ground states about democrat lawyers filing hundreds of lawsuits to change election rules. The rule changes allowed things like PA allowing ballots to be counted up to the Friday after the election even if there’s wasn't a postmark. Nevada passed a bill requiring mail-in ballots to be sent to active, registered voters as a way to keep voters safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pennsylvania’s highest court gave the Democratic Party a series of victories, relaxing deadlines in its fledgling mail-in voting law, approving more ballot collection sites, and kicking the Green Party’s presidential candidate off the November ballot.
Did anyone heed the warning? Nope, the they sat back and the dems beat them.
Do you (somehow) not see how Trump as PotUS is the instigator behind his supporters believing the election was stolen?
He couldn't do it without the rule changes. Whether or not there was fraud, those rule changes favored democrats. Beyond that Time Magazine published a breathtaking story of what went on behind the scenes:
https://time.com/magazine/us/?fbclid=IwAR02kTXwD7PnzUdGPlzf8KOF_LUCextXSsYkK9k-N-iLyMs3T3z6LX6hBVEpage%2F2page%2F6page%2F7page%2F3page%2F3page%2F2page%2F2page%2F2page%2F3page%2F5page%2F4page/485
What rule changes?
You just can't stand that the former occupant of the White House essentially lost by a LANDSLIDE despite all their efforts to keep us from voting.
Biden won this election legitimately, right? Do you agree or not? Trump lied to the world claiming he had legitimately won when in fact, the opposite is true. Right?
Were they illegal? How exactly did they favor Democrats? Were not Republicans allowed to vote by mail or any of the ways that the new rules allowed? The rules were amended because of the Corona virus, not because anyone was trying to make sure Trump lost. Anyone who believes it was specifically to help Democrats should show their evidence, not just stating their blatantly partisan opinion. And when you say "Whether or not there was fraud" you're just ignoring the fact that there WAS NO FRAUD as found over and over again in every case. To make your statement factual it should have read "There was no fraud and those rules could be used by any eligible voter in any political party."
The only evidence courts have found in recent years of rule changes specifically intended to help one party were those that found Republican legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans" who Republicans know largely vote for Democrats "with almost surgical precision," according to the court. Now that's some racist disgusting election rule changes to favor one party over another. The rule changes made this year were made in an effort to help those who wanted to avoid crowds and possible exposure to a deadly virus to still be able to vote. And after dozens and dozens of court challenges they were found lawful and legitimate. Anyone still whining about the Corona virus election rule accommodations is just a sad sore loser.
False Vic. The Article of Impeachment cites Trump's 'prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election.'
Bullshit Vic. He said the same about the 2016 election, until he won...
Your gal Hillary Clinton claimed publicly that Trump was an illegitimate President and that he stole the election from her.
No huge outcry about her saying all that, was there?
Link?
look it up, it was an interview. surely you can find IF you look just a little!
if you are truly interested. look on abc the view and on CNN
YOU go look up 'burden of proof' and get back to me Tex.
I have no interest in following your assertion down a rabbit hole Tex.
Post a link.
and I have no interest in doing the research FOR you.
it doesn't matter in the least to me if you refuse to see what is readily available with a ten second Google search.
I have already looked it up before posting so at least one of us knows the truth.
thanks, Jim!
Hard for me to post links from my phone.
what did that take you--10 seconds to look up?
As far as I know or anyone would know at this point.
Do you agree or not?
Trump lied to the world claiming he had legitimately won when in fact, the opposite is true. Right?
I wasn't thrilled with Trump’s speech at the time. I was against the challenge to the electoral votes and I thought the President’s false statements about the authority of Vice President Mike Pence to “send back” those votes did his cause a great disservice and misled people. However, I have to add that, without evidence of intent, this case of incitement should fail in the Senate. I've yet to see any evidence.
Whatever she said, did she say it 10 times a day for 60 days straight?
Trump is completely responsible for what happened on Jan 6th. Completely. Those people would not have even been there if Trump didnt ask them to come and "fight" to "save America" (aka him) .
They should convict him tonight. We dont need any more evidence.
You don't have any!
hell, you never needed ANY evidence!
Wow Jim, you are so right! Hillary Clinton sayin that almost 3 YEARS AFTER the election is EXACTLY like Trump saying it from the day of the election until the day he left office. /s
Oh and BTFW, where's the part about Trump stealing the election from her? Did I miss it?
did you miss it?
did you bother to look it up for your own self?
Thank him all you want but Jim didn't help you Tex.
His and your claim is a false equivalency.
But hey, cheer away...
[Deleted]
No Tex, I saw Jim's post supporting your false equivalency.
Why would I do that? You have the burden of proof.
Oh and BTFW, still waiting for a link to Hillary Clinton saying that Trump stole the election from her. Tick tick tick.
[Deleted]
Given the evidence (the lack of fraud evidence) and the actions Trump took (recorded, delivered) it is clear that Trump was lying to the world for months (and has never come clean). His rhetoric clearly was designed to motivate his supporters into believing his lie and to act on that belief. Not sure it is possible to offer better evidence than what has been presented thus far.
It is excuses like 'no evidence of intent' (as if it is ever possible to prove intent by going into another's mind) that will end up with Trump being acquitted due to partisan desires over-weighing objective reality.
Well gee Tex, since your cheered Jim, I'll presume that's all you've got.
Total fail.
[Deleted]
what you presume doesn't hold any interest for me.
I dont care if you believe the truth or not, doesn't hurt me any.
What Hillary did is much worse, of course. She had known for THREE YEARS that Trump was legitimately elected, and still lied about it.
the signs are all around you...
Sad.
Have you seen any evidence that, with a different outcome on 01/06/21, Donal Trump would have
refused a second term?
The evidence is all around you if you will look at it.
During the assault on the Capital, Trump & Giuliani both called Tommy Tubberville too ask him to
obstruct the certification process, not to ask about the security situation or the safety of Tubberville or Pence
or any other Congress person.
He only cared about winning at any cost, even if it cost the soul of our democracy.
So cute! Jim has his own cheerleader!
Texan, tell me what about all this you want to debate me on. Just you and me, in our own words, no trolling.
Donald Trump lied about the election every day, for more than 3 months. Every day, multiple times every day. It is ridiculously easy to prove that.
Is it your opinion that his doing that for three months didnt "incite" anyone?
People who were there that day SAID they were there because Trump asked them to be. He had been asking them for months to DO something to help him.
Is he guilty in a criminal sense? That will be up to prosecutors and juries.
Is he guilty of violating his oath of office, grievously ? Absolutely. The Senate is well within its rights to convict him.
. when you learn the difference between someone lying and inciting we can do that.
not any point until then.
What a lame excuse to run from a challenge.
sorry, I won't fall for childish taunts
no you prefer to make them
ha ha ha you very funny!
Sean, Hillary incited the sum total of ZERO people to commit crimes.
Well since the permit for the 'rally' SPECIFICALLY states that there would be NO MARCH, and the first fucking thing that Trump said in his speech is that they were going to MARCH to the Capitol, that sure as hell looks like intent to me.
Perhaps it would be more constructive if YOU learned that someone lying can incite people to commit crimes.
I believe Congresswomen Diane Degette addressed that yesterday.
When Trump got involved by picking the orators and the order and the music, he,
Trump sent the Women for America First back to modify the original permits to include the march to the Capital.
Even more intent by his own hand.
The 'superseding' permit issued on Jan. 5th states that:
The permit states that the 'rally' was supposed to last until 3:30.
NO ONE applied for or received a permit for a 'Rally' @ the United States Capitol.
It was called a March, not a rally.
What it was 'called' and what they were permitted to do are obviously 2 different things.
trump always knew he would push the "Stop the steal" button when it was needed.
trump started o rchestrating his "Stop the Steel" Power grab gambit before he was even elected in 2016.
Never Underestimate trump ... EVER !
Trump planned on rolling out the ‘rigged election’ playbook when he got beat by Hillary Clinton. Even he was shocked to learn that Americans were stupid enough to avoid that scenario by voting for the least qualified candidate to ever hold the office in that election.
So True ...
Then he had plenty of time to grow it and then use his plan on 01-06-21.
This man is and has been a true danger to our democracy since BEFORE he even announced he was running. "Stop the Steel" was trump's trump card.
AND was ignored by the masses.. Scarry !
IT backfired, trump trumped himself, the only way this could end !
[removed]
I would have liked to have seen and possibly addressed this.
Trump is a moron.
What you really mean is never underestimate how brainwashed many of his followers are.
No John, I meant what I said. If I wanted to say what you say I did, I would have.
I believe America needs liberals,conservatives,moderates and independents.
IMO: America is stronger when we really do work together. And John,
I think WE both can agree ... trumpetts we don't need.
trump ruled by intimidation and fear he still tries to, plans to and will.
Rightfully so, many republican politicians still fear what trump can, could and may still do to their careers.
Not to mention, trump always leaves a trail of tears in his wake.
Ask the inserectioners sitting in jail tonight.
trump trumped trump ... let it end here !!
Hey steve! It's good to see you here again. You have been sorely missed.
Given that kind of fear, I wonder how many more years those Republicans will be afraid of Trump and what they perceive what he can do to their careers. 5? 10? 20 years? IMHO, if they are that afraid of Trump they should just retire from their seats, or just not run for re-election again.
What those Republicans should fear far more than Trump are those who will be casting their votes in the future elections, because the voters carry a lot more power than a disgraced ex-President. So their caving to Trump out of fear for their careers can be a real turn off for the voters.
JMOO
Hello back to you Raven and Good to see you as well. I've missed being here. Thanks for the Welcome back.
"What those Republicans should fear far more than Trump are those who will be casting their votes in the future elections."
True True true... and at this time trump still has a great deal of influence on what those future voters do and who they will vote for.
To revise my post I may have should have said "afraid of trumpism"
Thanks Raven, Good point.
I totally agree, steve. That seems to be another divisive cult here in America, much like the Peoples Temple, Heavens Gate, Branch Dividian and other such radically extremist cults that seems to make the rounds ever so many years.
The biggest difference in my opinion, is these cults, such as White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, etc, are out to hurt and/or kill those who disagree with their extremist beliefs, unlike the religious cults that wind up hurting or killing their own.
In a similar way, Trump has become a cult leader whose supporters have also become as killers of those who refuse to accept him as their god. And they will only grow larger if the American people themselves do not stand up and refuse to accept it. The government can only do so much, and they will need the support of the true American people to bring these cults to a halt.
Again, just my own opinion.
True, however as a civilized society we can only do so much to influence others thoughts.
IMO: IF we can legally bar trump from ever taking power in America again at this time I think that would be a reasonable move.
Cults need a leader or they fracture and hold little power over the rest.
It is nice to see you Steve. It's been a long time.
I understand about the social media burnout. I sometimes spend way too much time here.
Good to see ya!