╌>

JBB

JBB

The Defense - Donald J Trump - Second Impeachment Trial - LIVE - The NewsTalkers

  
By:  JBB  •  Opinions  •  3 years ago  •  135 comments

The Defense - Donald J Trump - Second Impeachment Trial  - LIVE - The NewsTalkers
"Reportedly" Who do you believe, Trump's lying lawyers or your lying eyes?

256

What are your thoughts regarding the so far lameass defense of Donald J Trump in his historic second impeachment trial?

256

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  author  JBB    3 years ago

Trump's lawyers are making the case...against him!

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  JBB @1    3 years ago

They sure come off looking desperate But, I did hear one damn good point that makes me question IF this impeachment is such a good idea after all. 

Its kinda complicated to write it out though. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    3 years ago

Indeed, the first guy, don't know why I can't think of his name, is it Castor?  Said he was the 'lead prosecutor'.  LOL!

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
1.2.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Tessylo @1.2    3 years ago

LOL I caught that as well. 

Although his immediate body language did make me wonder if that wasn't a intentional slip of the tongue to bring home the fact that he usually is prosecuting and what he's really doing today is Prosecuting the congress for being wrong. 

A twist of sorts. trumps MO: blame the other guy, prosecute congress for trying to prosecute trump.

Remember, this guy is on trump's payroll.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @1.2.1    3 years ago
"Remember, this guy is on trump's payroll."

LOL!  He ain't getting paid

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
1.2.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    3 years ago

According to a source familiar with Trump's legal arrangements, attorneys' fees are being covered by his campaign's legal budget.

LOL.. Tessylo, You are probably correct. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @1.2.3    3 years ago

Looks like he hired his legal team from the fertilizer isle...

BTW: Good to see ya, been a while. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
1.2.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  MrFrost @1.2.4    3 years ago

Thanks mrFrost Good to see you as well. 

As far as trump's legal team I think at this point "ya take what ya can get" may apply... 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.2.6  Split Personality  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @1.2.5    3 years ago

I am embarrassed for Philadelphia...

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
1.2.7  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Split Personality @1.2.6    3 years ago

LOL

I look at it like someone from somewhere had to do it. 

"But I did I laugh soon after the defence started talking."

Talk about out of place....lol 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 years ago

I was struck by the lengthy defense of what Trump said about Charlottesville. 

Trump said "they had a permit".  referring to the pro-Robert E Lee "protesters".  

Yes they had a permit, a permit applied for and held by a white racist group. 

Trump is a moron. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 years ago

The American Moron Association just called and they want to disavow any relationship they may or may not have had at any time in the past or the future with Donald J Trump, the former President...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  author  JBB    3 years ago

256

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 years ago

The Trump lawyer is purporting that Democrats also said "if i lose it will be because the election was stolen" and then showed a series of clips in which exactly one person said that (sherrod brown). The others in the clips said something different.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6  cjcold    3 years ago

Van Der Veen is drunk!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  author  JBB  replied to  cjcold @6    3 years ago

You don't have to be drunk to defend Donald Trump, but it probably helps. A lot. It probably helps a lot...

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
7  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     3 years ago

Looking at a person's past and their present is usually a good indication of where they will go in the future.

I have seen to never underestimate trump. 

trump trumped himself good this time but he will be back.

Links below all "Comeback kid trump" articles:  

Never underestimate this megalomaniac !  Ever !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    3 years ago

www.usatoday.com   /story/news/factcheck/2021/01/15/fact-check-quotes-democratic-leaders-riots-out-context/6588222002/

Fact check: Quotes from Democratic leaders about riots, unrest taken out of context

10-13 minutes

The claim: Democratic leaders in the House and Senate called for violence during BLM protests

Democratic leaders applied a double standard to Black Lives Matter protesters and  supporters of President Donald Trump who breached the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, according to a Facebook post.

The Jan. 6   post  features a meme with images of Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris superimposed over images of buildings on fire. Text overlays of quotes purportedly from last summer's BLM protests are attributed to each.

"Direct quotes when BLM was BURNING down cities and killing people in the streets! 'Peaceful protests' the media called it," user Kyle Rubenstein wrote. His post has over 600 shares.

Actions taken by insurgents who infiltrated the Capitol on Wednesday while results of the 2020 presidential election were certified were labeled differently, according to Rubenstein.

"Trump supporters take to the capital, dont burn or loot. News calls it domestic terrorism. This is why we are fed up!!!!" the caption ends.

In an email response to USA TODAY, Rubenstein elaborated on his post.

"Let's see all the lies the media 'news' has been feeding the country about the political non sense going on in the world today and the fact you fake fact checkers are hiding or trying to hide the truth or blocking freedom of speech just bc one agrees with oneside not the other seems some folks need to put their big boy pants on and grow up," Rubenstein wrote.

A   similar meme  was posted to Facebook on Jan. 8 using the same quotes; it has received 3,500 shares.

Another   posted that day  to the page American Kool-Aid Drinkers included additional remarks from former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and CNN host Chris Cuomo. All quotes are compared to an excerpt from Trump's now deleted  tweet  to his supporters on Jan. 6: "Go home with Love & in Peace. Remember this day forever!"

"Much of our material is, 'unoriginal,' in that it comes from another source, i.e. various social media sources. With that said, AKD is more an aggregator of humorous memes, Mike Hunt American Kool-Aid Drinkers told USA TODAY. 

Quotes taken out of context

The claims were posted after violence at the U.S. Capitol that led to the deaths of five people. Clashes between Trump supporters and Capitol police recalled images from Black Lives Matter-led racial justice demonstrations last summer, some of which turned violent.

Several incidents preceded the BLM protests, including the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor — two unarmed Black citizens — at the hands of police and the killing of Black jogger Ahmad Aubrey by white supremacists early last year,   according to USA TODAY .

But the quotes used in the claims are either related to BLM protests and incomplete, or have nothing to do with them at all. 

Here's a breakdown of circumstances surrounding each quote.

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris

Harris has gone on record as supporting peaceful anti-violence demonstrations after police officers in Kenosha, Wisconsin,   shot Jacob Blake , a Black man, several times in the back on Aug. 23.

Harris said that "protesters should not let up!" according to the claim. That abbreviated quote has been fodder for social media claims before, USA TODAY has  reported .

The full statement is more nuanced. During a June 17   interview   on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," Harris told Colbert that protests — not riots — should not let up.

Colbert observed that reporting on protests happening in major cities across the country appeared to be dwindling, to which Harris responded: "That's right. But they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I'm telling you.

"They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop," she continued. "They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day.

73138a3f-a8d5-404e-8e0f-cbaa906b1b59-AP20356733818257.jpg?width=660&height=440&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

"Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not," Harris concluded,   according to USA TODAY

The vice president-elect made a distinction between rioting and protesting in a rebuttal to Trump's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in September, CBS News   reported .

"We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder," Harris said. "Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice." 

Rep. Ayanna Pressley

Pressley's statements about last summer's BLM protests were similarly taken out of context.

"There needs to be unrest in the streets," Pressley said, according to the claim.

The quote, grabbed from Pressley's Aug. 15 interview on MSNBC's "AM Joy," is incomplete. A clip with her full remarks was   posted   to BlackEnterprise.com.

"Don’t let up, send emails, make phone calls," the congresswoman told host Tiffany Cross in reference to the protests. "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. And unfortunately, there's plenty to go around," she concluded.

Pressley's statement was shared widely in conservative social media circles. After the interview, thousands of messages, some "ominous," were sent to her office,   according to The 19th News .

Rep. Maxine Waters

Unlike Harris and Pressley, Waters' charged statement about "pushing back" against Cabinet officials predates last year's BLM protests.

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere," Waters said, according to the claim.

The California congresswoman's remarks were in response to the Trump administration's 2018 "zero tolerance" family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border, CNN   reported  on June 25, 2018.

Waters called for reuniting migrant families in her full statement.

"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. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” she said, according to CNN.

Trump said Waters called for "harm to his supporters" in a  tweet  later that day.

"Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!" the president tweeted.

Waters made no reference to Trump's supporters and underscored that she had no sympathy for members of the current administration in an MSNBC interview that same day.

“The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the President, ‘No, I can’t hang with you,’” Waters said of administration officials, according to CNN.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi was also referring to the Trump administration's family separation policy with her statement about nationwide uprisings. 

"I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be," Pelosi said, according to the claim.

During a June 14, 2018, press conference, Pelosi was asked about former House Speaker Paul Ryan's comment about legislation being the best way to change the separation policy. She disagreed.

5fdd02ad-5130-4007-a585-9f84253f9edd-AP_Electoral_College_Congress.jpg?width=660&height=437&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

"This is an act of the administration. They have been planning this for a while," Pelosi said, according to a   video   provided by C-SPAN. 

Near the end of a lengthy response, Pelosi expressed surprise that there weren't uprisings in the street.

"When we had a had a hearing on a subject related to this asylum seeker, refugees, etc., the (National) Association of Evangelicals testified that refugees and asylum ... they called it the crown jewel of America's humanitarianism," she said. "And in order to do away with that crown jewel, they're doing away with children being with their moms.

"This is ... I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be," Pelosi continued.

The remarks about uprisings were in no way tied to BLM protests.

Our rating: Missing context

We rate this claim MISSING CONTEXT, based on our research. Two quotes attributed to members of the Democratic Party that allegedly referenced last summer's Black Lives Matter protests actually predate the events. The two remaining quotes were not provided in full. None of the people mentioned in the claim called for violence over peaceful protest, according to sources.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
8.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @8    3 years ago

But John... they did say those things!

Context, schmontext...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1    3 years ago

Facts schmacts . . . . 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
8.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    3 years ago

Incitation? I didn't see any incitation.

Violence? I didn't see any violence.

original

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9  Tessylo    3 years ago

149619481_4236243896387249_1270511087592733722_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Z45ExRq5t4AAX9GbJjh&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=7aa9041a601003b858031907caf78b49&oe=604D23FD

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1  author  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @9    3 years ago

Jan 6th, 2021 was a violent attempt overthrow of the government of the United States of America!

Trump bears most of the responsibility as leader.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
9.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  JBB @9.1    3 years ago

It was a horrible thought out plan that had no real chance of success. trump planned it. 

trump trumped trump... the only way this could end.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.1.2  cjcold  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @9.1.1    3 years ago

Trump's legal problems are just beginning. SDNY will have their day.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
9.1.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  cjcold @9.1.2    3 years ago

As it should be, trump always leaves a trail of tears in his wake. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
9.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tessylo @9    3 years ago

But a Republican caused it so no problem. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.2    3 years ago

But of course . . . 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    3 years ago

Trump impeachment trial: Live coverage and news from the Senate

By Meg Wagner, Melissa Mahtani, Melissa Macaya and Veronica Rocha, CNN
10-13 minutes

48 min ago

Fact check: Defense lawyer falsely claims Trump’s first two tweets during the Capitol attack urged calm 

From CNN's Daniel Dale

Trump's defense lawyer Michael van der Veen claimed during today's presentation that “the first two messages the President sent via Twitter once the incursion of the Capitol began” on Jan. 6 urged people to “stay peaceful” and called for “no violence.”

Facts First: This is not true.

Trump’s “stay peaceful” tweet at 2:38 p.m. ET and “no violence” tweet at 3:13 p.m. ET were his second and third tweeted messages after the Capitol was breached, not his first.

Trump’s first tweet was at 2:24 p.m. ET: “Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”  

Rioters had already entered the US Capitol building by the time of the Trump tweet about Pence. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @10    3 years ago

Trump lawyers showed a video montage of Democrats saying "fight"

From CNN's Aditi Sangal

While   presenting their case   in the Senate, former President Trump's defense lawyers showed a video to argue that prominent Democrats have consistently used the word “fight” and the phrase “fight like hell” in several speeches and interviews. The video spent a significant time focusing on Sen. Elizabeth Warren. 

"The House managers spoke about rhetoric, about a constant drumbeat of heated language," Trump lawyer David Schoen said. "We need to show you some of their own words."

The Democratic leaders shown on the video were not saying “fight” to a crowd that would later head to the US Capitol with the 2020 electoral votes at stake. Some of the statements shown in the video were made during media interviews or at rallies.

Remember:   The   allegation of "incitement"   is central to  the impeachment case House Democrats are making  because it ties his words and actions to the Jan. 6 insurrection on Capitol Hill.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    3 years ago
Chuck
@RxwtlossChuck
·
27m
Trump defense lawyers lied multiple times in opening minutes! Trump lawyers said House Mgrs. did not send tapes over to them & they were required to do before their own use !! Lied about Antifa being @Capitol; FBI ruled otherwise; #Fact - #check #readily #available #ImpeachmentTime
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
10.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.1    3 years ago

Did you... did anyone... expect honesty?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.3  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    3 years ago

Moreover, it is self-defeating for the Trump lawyer to complain that Trump was quoted without context and then to use abbreviated "fight" snippets (some mere nano-seconds long) of democrats speaking without context! I 'clocked' his blunder on that one.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
11  Thrawn 31    3 years ago

There is a reason his defense has been so pathetic. They know the GOP senators are fucking cowards and terrified of their base. That is all. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
11.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Thrawn 31 @11    3 years ago

IMO: They only have one real defence: trump never spoke the words "Take over the capitol" He implied it over and over, yet knowingly he never said the words out loud in public.

I'm not real politically savvy but I do highly respect WORDS.

  Words do matter. Each word has a meaning.  

trump did not tell his followers explicitly what to do what rioters did, he did imply it for many though.

So, Considering  that Words do matter.

IMO: That is different than ordering or even asking his followers to do a specific task.

 
Is implication of a desired outcome by an elected official illegal  ?   a high crime or misdemeanor ? 
........................................................................
Bar trump from ever running again !!  

......................................................  but,

If legally and rightfully possible so, but trump's implying to riot and seise the capitol does open the door to an implication now being the basis of illegality ?  Really ?

If I imply someone needs to be killed, will I be breaking the law ? 

Words have power. Freedom of speech is important. How it was used is part of this trial. Proceed with caution. Please. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
11.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @11.1    3 years ago

UPDATE: As the vote was being casted, I was very carefully reading these following words to myself, the articles of impeachment and thinking .......

...........................................................................

RESOLUTION 
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United 
States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. 
1 Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the 
2 United States, is impeached for high crimes and mis3 
demeanors and that the following article of impeachment 
4 be exhibited to the United States Senate: 
5 Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of 
6 Representatives of the United States of America in the 
7 name of itself and of the people of the United States of 
8 America, against Donald John Trump, President of the 
9 United States of America, in maintenance and support of 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:32 Jan 07, 2021 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\HRBRAZELTON\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\11.0\GEN\C\CICILL 

1 its impeachment against him for high crimes and mis2 
Demeanors. 

......................................................................................................................

ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION 

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’  and that the President ‘‘shall be removed from Office on  Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or  other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed— Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that: 
On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representa tives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump addressed a crowd of his political supporters nearby. There, he reiterated false claims that ‘‘we won this election, and we won it by a landslide’’. 
He also willfully made statements that encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—imminent lawless action at the Capitol. Incited by President Trump, a mob unlawfully breached the Capitol, injured law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress and the Vice President, interfered with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the election results, and engaged in violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts. 
President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021 was consistent with his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election. Those prior efforts include, but are not limited to, a phone call on January 2, 2021, in which President Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to ‘‘find’’ enough votes to overturn the Georgia presidential election results and threatened Mr. Raffensperger if he failed to do so. In all of this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
VerDate 
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
WOW, I just read this. I have just finished watching the whole impeachment trial proceedings (not watching any commentators at breaks).

I Agree with all that is written above.  

I would need to vote Guilty. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
12  author  JBB    3 years ago

256

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
12.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  JBB @12    3 years ago

lol

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
13  Ender    3 years ago

I didn't watch it today. It seems like the only thing I missed was republicans saying...look at the other guy...

Pointing fingers in every direction.

Basically saying, look squirrel...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
13.1  author  JBB  replied to  Ender @13    3 years ago

You are correct. The defense is a big whataboutism.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14  JohnRussell    3 years ago

The question about why Trump did nothing to stop the riot is a kick in the stomach to the defense. His lawyer basically said "no mas". 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1  author  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @14    3 years ago

What did the President know? When did he know it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @14.1    3 years ago

His own defense lawyers don't have an answer to that question. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1.2  author  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @14.1.1    3 years ago

EXACTLY!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1.3  author  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @14.1.1    3 years ago

Trump knew what you and I knew when we all knew it that day January 6th! For two hours he knew our Congress was under seige by his supporters while he encouraged them. Only after Pence called in reinforcements did Trump and his followers concede the field

of battle. A battle against the United States!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @14.1.3    3 years ago

The Q and A period has been brutal on the defense. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1.5  author  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @14.1.4    3 years ago

The gop is just a bunch of Trump bootlickers.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
14.1.6  cjcold  replied to  JBB @14.1    3 years ago

If he didn't know everything ahead of time, both he and his intelligence agencies were idiots.

The proud boys and other violent right wing groups were specifically invited by Trump.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.1.7  CB  replied to  cjcold @14.1.6    3 years ago

Trump knew. The intelligence was there to be read and interpreted. It gives new meaning to the presidential debate quote: "Proud Boys stand back and stand-by." - Period!

(We even had commenters on 'horseback, wearing armor holding a lance' telling us our country as we know it is soon ending, and posted 'images of planes and bombs exploding in D.C. on January 6, 2021' on NT!)

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
15  author  JBB    3 years ago

Finally someone asks the most pertinent questions.

What did Trump know? When did he know it? What did he do to stop it once he knew? When did he act?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16  JohnRussell    3 years ago

Things are going downhill fast for the defense once they got to the question and answer portion. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17  JohnRussell    3 years ago
Claire McCaskill
@clairecmc
·
12m
“The attack on the Capitol had nothing to do with Donald Trump”. Say wut?
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18  JohnRussell    3 years ago

Mark Hamill
@HamillHimself
·
43m
What did the President know & when did he know it?

President's Lawyers: CricketCricketCricketCricketCricketCricketCricketCricketCricketCricket

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19  JohnRussell    3 years ago

Trump's lawyer who is answering all the questions is imploding. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
20  Buzz of the Orient    3 years ago

nuke-capitol-defense-cl.jpg

The spineless unprincipled Republican Senators would STILL not have the integrity and balls to convict him.  So those are the people Americans want to be their representatives?   jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
21  Hal A. Lujah    3 years ago

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more strenuous attempt to polish a turd than today’s proceedings.  And by turd I mean Trump, of course.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
22  author  JBB    3 years ago

So, does everyone agree Trump is guilty as charged?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
22.1  charger 383  replied to  JBB @22    3 years ago

no

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
22.1.1  author  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @22.1    3 years ago

It seems the yeas have it...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
22.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JBB @22    3 years ago

Excellent question. It will be interesting to see how Newstalkers declare themselves.

I say ''Guilty as charged''.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
22.3  CB  replied to  JBB @22    3 years ago

Of course Donald Trump is guilty as charged. He requested "the dark web" to attend his protest rally in Washington, D.C. They did. Donald had incendiary rhetoric 'poured' from the lips of his rally warm-up 'acts,' They consumed it.  Donald Trump directed their focus to the House and Senate building. They when to it.

It was all because of a 'big lie' vocalized and repeated under the express control of Donald Trump and people died (on "both sides") that day. Subsequently, they have federal cases and so does Donald!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
22.4  Gsquared  replied to  JBB @22    3 years ago

Yes.  Guilty as charged.

"Trump aimed a dagger at the heart of our constitutional system."  That's a quote from Elizabeth Drew, a long-time, very astute, political journalist.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
22.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  JBB @22    3 years ago

"incitement of insurrection"

I agree trump is guilty of "incitement of insurrection"

He did and said many things toward this act of insurrection for Damn sure. 

In true trump fashion President trump misrepresented, mislead, misdirected, exaggerated, attacked, diminished, and manipulated reality using words.

However, trump wasn't a total idiot, many times, many times trump used his words very carefully. He did not  say words such as , "Attack the capitol", "Hang the VP", "Storm the capitol", "take over the capitol".

All those words he knew would cross the line and jeopardize his power.

SO We are left with the intent to "incitement of insurrection"

NO real words saying , instructing or ordering his followers to even riot.

Guilty of    "incitement of insurrection"   Yes, but proceed with caution. 

intention is a slippery slop in a world of word meanings without specific words to back it up.  

I'll concede, trump's also aware of this trump card, (lope-hole) or he would have been more specific at his last rally.  Yes, He knew what he was doing ! 

and he did it the safest way he could.. for HIMSELF. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
22.5.1  CB  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @22.5    3 years ago

And another 'flotilla' of victims are drowning in the chill of legal exposure while Donald Trump 'takes' the yacht home. PSYCHE.

One has to ask: What did the "patriots" hear when 'President Donald' spoke?

Donald Trump gaslighted his own supporters. Lucky for them that only so many could get their 'close-ups' on the Capitol grounds smearing piss and shit, breaking and entering,  maiming, torturing, and killing and being killed.

Donald Trump is attempting to get away leaving his private and personal 'marks' holding the bag!  Whew! It is good for the 'marks' that some are left over . . . for the next escapade!

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
22.5.2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  CB @22.5.1    3 years ago

I fully agree.

trump always leaves a trail of tears in his wake. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
22.5.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  CB @22.5.1    3 years ago
One has to ask: What did the "patriots" hear when 'President Donald' spoke?

Again I agree, I'd say many thought they heard a march to arms, as intended. again intentions are hard to prove though.

trump's calling card, misusing words to HIS advantage over and over !!  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
22.5.4  CB  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @22.5.2    3 years ago

It's the tale of Trump's reel:

An ode to the men and women, boys and girls, who are giving their lives to a Donald Trump production.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
22.5.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  CB @22.5.4    3 years ago

Why do I have a feeling that trump's sequel would be worse than his debut ? 

and probably damage a lot more actors. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
22.5.6  CB  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @22.5.5    3 years ago

Life experiences likely have taught you be on guard against the coming stench of an unwashed, unrepentant, beast of a man prowling through the political brush consuming lesser politicians with growling bites and mufflling of their whimpers. This producer has an ambitious and unpredictable narrative and yes. . . it is a horror story.

One more thing: Trump productions are full of "cancelled" (culture) stars! They politically 'bleed' out and there blue hulls are dragged off into the night.