Now it sounds like even if he was found guilty, that there is no constitutional means to prevent him from running for President again. According to constitutional scholars, the Senate could only choose to ban him from a appointed position, not an elected position.
So even if the Senate was able to convict him, their options would be limited. No doubt they would try to ban him from running for public office again, but that would likely end up in court and it would be more likely than not that a final USSC ruling would fall against the Senate.
Looks like a giant exercise in futility that Democrats can only lose and not actually win.
148 comments:
Your misunderstanding of the Constitution is epic.
The decision by the Senate, cannot be appealed to The Supreme Court.
Joel Pollak
@joelpollak
For the second year in a row, and the second impeachment trial in a row, Democrats have declined the opportunity to show Americans what constitutional principles of due process really mean in practice, and have created a show trial that undermines public faith in justice overall.
8:00 AM · Feb 9, 2021·TweetDeck
479
Retweets
10
Quote Tweets
2,186
Likes
https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1359125042479570952
Even if he is not convicted, the Senate majority can make him ineligible to run for federal office again.
The decision by the Senate, cannot be appealed to The Supreme Court.
except that's not what CH is arguing, alky.
THIS is what he's arguing. and he's right.:
...And, ironically, even on conviction Congress lacks the power to stop Trump from running again, as noted by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman:
Under the disqualification clause, can Congress prospectively bar an impeached officer from being elected to Congress or to the presidency?
If the House impeaches a president, vice president or officer of the United States, then that defendant is tried by the Senate. If the Senate tries and convicts (by a two-thirds vote), then the convicted party (if still in office) is removed. The Senate may also impose a second punishment on the convicted party. Under the disqualification clause, Congress may bar the convicted party from prospectively holding “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” This provision grants Congress the power to prevent a convicted party from being appointed to a federal position, but does nothing to prevent a convicted party from being elected to the House, Senate or the presidency.
Congress has disqualified only three impeached officers (all federal judges) from holding future office, and none have subsequently run for elected federal positions. As a result, we have no substantial law here and little commentary. We have already explained that Justice Joseph Story indicated that elected officials did not fall under the scope of the Constitution’s general “officer of the United States “and “Office … under the United States” language. This latter language is at least as wide as the disqualification clause’s “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” language. Story’s position is also supported by Hamilton’s roll of officers. Of course, we also believe the practice of George Washington and other founders who succeeded him as president confirms that the “Office … under the United States” language in the foreign emoluments clause does not reach the presidency. The same result should apply here.
An impeached, tried, convicted, removed and disqualified defendant is barred from being an appointed federal officer, and not barred from being an elected official.
https://works.bepress.com/seth_barrett_tillman/583/
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Even if he is not convicted, the Senate majority can make him ineligible to run for federal office again.
not according to the law.
An impeached, tried, convicted, removed and disqualified defendant is barred from being an appointed federal officer, and not barred from being an elected official.
so far alky I will award you 5 rakes on this thread. though it is early and the opportunity exists for you to earn more.
now, ladies and gentlemen, this is the part of the show where the alky's 'invincible ignorance' kicks in.
for the uninitiated:
The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead of being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy
can anyone spare a tractor-trailer load of rakes? i just know we're going to run out on this thread.
The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote, the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html
If he is not banned from running for federal office again, any lame duck President has the authority to do anything he wants, with no way of stopping him from being the President for life.
He or she could incite an Insurrection and block the counting the electoral college votes.
Here is shitty Schiff’s defense for impeaching a former president, straight from British history
Adam Schiff
@RepAdamSchiff
·
17h
Parliament impeached the former Lord Chancellor in 1725 for acts of bribery during his term.
And in 1787, while America's Founders met to draft our Constitution, Warren Hastings of Britain was impeached for abuses he committed while Governor-General of Bengal.
"Blogger Roger Amick said...
Even if he is not convicted, the Senate majority can make him ineligible to run for federal office again."
RRB Said:
not according to the law".
Roger you're up.
the "lawyer" alky is the poster boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect.
and stepping on rakes
the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.
which is exactly what CH addressed in this post:
So even if the Senate was able to convict him, their options would be limited. No doubt they would try to ban him from running for public office again, but that would likely end up in court and it would be more likely than not that a final USSC ruling would fall against the Senate.
which brings us here:
The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.
so... the alky has his rakes arranged in a circle...
The truthers are unbelievably ignorant.
Many people have been impeached and convicted by the Senate, after they left office
The decision by the Senate, cannot be appealed to The Supreme Court.
Really?
So what if the Senate tells Trump he cannot run again and the GOP allows his name to be on the ballot?
How does the Senate stop it? They have no police authority or ability to create a legal judgement that prevents it?
Yep... the only way they could stop it would be by going to court!
The First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings." If there is a single line that sums up the sense of legal impunity in the second Trump impeachment, it is that line from a letter sent by law professors to deny any basis for the former president to challenge his impeachment on free speech grounds.
The scholars call any such arguments "legally frivolous" but only after misstating the argument and frankly employing a degree of circular logic.
The scholars start by stating the obvious: that there is no First Amendment "defense" that bars the impeachment or conviction of a president. Since there is not even a requirement that a high crime and misdemeanor be an actual crime, few argue that there is a categorical bar on the use of speech for the basis of impeachment under the First Amendment.
The scholars go to great lengths to contest an argument not in dispute in stating "Congress’s power to impeach is not limited to unlawful acts." However, that is not the argument that has been raised by many of us about the implications of this poorly drafted article of impeachment.
ANDREW MCCARTHY: TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, WHAT MAY SURPRISE YOU
Constitutional rights and values are always relevant to an impeachment. While many subscribe to the "anything goes" school of impeachment, these senators are performing a constitutional, not just some political, function pursuant to a stated standard for removal.
As such, they need to weigh the gravity of conduct and the implications of any conviction for the future. Ironically, some of these scholars have emphasized that this is a purely political process where senators have free range in determining what they consider to be a basis for conviction. Yet, Trump’s objections of constitutional and prudential concerns are being widely dismissed as frivolous, "bad faith," or irrelevant to that decision.
It is common in impeachments for the House and the Senate to evaluate charges in reference to criminal and constitutional cases. While not controlling, they often weigh heavily in the review of articles of impeachment. Yet, these scholars insist that "The First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings, so it cannot provide a defense for President Trump."
Johnathan Turley.
A very conservative scholar
Indy is right about you Scott
Turkey isn’t a very conservative scholar
Wap another rake
*Turley see Alky auto fill actually puts in real words
Very conservative
In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.[22]
In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy,[23] provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.[24][25]
Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, "It's something that no one thought—certainly I didn't think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us."[26]
He is a critic of special treatment for the church in law, asking why there are laws that "expressly exempt faith-based actions that result in harm."[27]
Turley disagrees with the theory that dealing with bullies is just a part of growing up, claiming that they are "no more a natural part of learning than is parental abuse a natural part of growing up" and believes that "litigation could succeed in forcing schools to take bullying more seriously".[28]
He has written extensively in opposition to the death penalty, noting, "Human error remains a principal cause of botched executions... eventually society will be forced to deal directly with a fundamental moral question: Has death itself become the intolerable element of the death penalty?"[29]
He has opined that the Supreme Court is injecting itself into partisan politics.[30] He frequently has expressed the view that recent nominees to the court hold extreme views.[31][32]
Many people have been impeached and convicted by the Senate, after they left office
name a few.
one even.
and give us the circumstances, outcomes, and most importantly corollary's to Trump's case.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Johnathan Turley.
A very conservative scholar
Jonathan Turley is arguably the most well-known LIBERAL constitutional scholar and law professor in America.
Jonathan Turley is arguably the most well-known LIBERAL constitutional scholar and law professor in America.
It’s unbelievable
The only time that the Chief Justice is required to conduct the impeachment trial, when the President is in office.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1359216739054190593
Raskin cited some of "the nation's most prominent conservative legal scholars," including former 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell, Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calebresi, Washington lawyer Charles Cooper and hundreds of others who have said it is constitutional to impeach and try an official after they've left office.
Raskin cited some of "the nation's most prominent conservative legal scholars," including former 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell, Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calebresi, Washington lawyer Charles Cooper and hundreds of others who have said it is constitutional to impeach and try an official after they've left office.
Raskin cited some of "the nation's most prominent conservative legal scholars," including former 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell, Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calebresi, Washington lawyer Charles Cooper and hundreds of others who have said it is constitutional to impeach and try an official after they've left office.
Post it in bold 5 more times
IS THIS A SIGN THAT THINGS ARE ALREADY SHOWING SIGNS OF BEGINNING TO GET BETTER?-----
GOP Lawmaker Avoids Censure Over Impeachment Vote
1:38 pm
Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI) avoided censure by Republican leaders in his west Michigan district after they deadlocked 11-11 Monday night, causing the censure resolution to fail, the Detroit News reports.
IS THIS A SIGN THAT THINGS HAVE ALREADY STARTED GETTING BETTER?---
How Biden United a Fractious Party
1:25 pm
“For years, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden wrestled over the Democratic Party’s future in a public tug of war that spanned three elections, two administrations and one primary contest,” the New York Times reports.
“But when Mr. Sanders walked into his first Oval Office meeting with the new president last week and saw the large portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt opposite the Resolute Desk, the liberal luminary felt as if he were no longer battling Mr. Biden for the soul of the party.
“After a 15-month primary contest that highlighted deep divides within the party, Mr. Biden and his fractious Democratic coalition are largely holding together. United by a moment of national crisis and the lingering influence of his predecessor, the new president is enjoying an early honeymoon from the political vise of a progressive wing that spent months preparing to squeeze the new administration.”
_____________
Democrats and All Other Americans Unite!
We have nothing to lose but a want-to-be fascistic political party on the right!
Several Republicans have coalesced around a defense of Trump — that, under the Constitution, you can’t impeach and remove someone who’s no longer in office.
But there is historical precedent for impeaching and trying to convict a former federal officeholder.
In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears.
The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.
And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.
But Belknap was eventually acquitted, with the Senate failing to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict. (A significant number of senators believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he no longer held office.)
Many people have been impeached and convicted by the Senate, after they left office
So this was bullshit
Alcee Hastings was impeached from his federal judgeship for bribery and returned ti Congress as a represenarive from South Florida.
Indy is right about you Scott
You referring to the guy talking to himself and his five followers on Twitter?
Actually regardless of the snipits Roger produced...
Jonathan Turley remains steadfast against impeachment. He testified for the Trump defense at the first impeachment. Turley does not technically believe that the impeachment trial is constitutional, but calls it a "close question".
In fact Trump asked Turley if he was interested in representing him at this trial, but Turley said no (not because he doesn't believe in his case, but because he didn't want to get involved).
Turley has been mocking Democrats on Twitter (as well as making a case against impeachment) for some time:
The House does not want to discuss the case law on incitement and free speech. Yet, it now refers to this as a trial on "the most grievous constitutional crime ever committed by a President."
“The First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings.” If there is a single line that sums up the sense of legal impunity in the second Trump impeachment, it is that line from a letter sent by law professors this week...
Notably, the scholar admit that they are divided on the question of whether this is criminal incitement. Thus some of these scholars (like some senators) believe that Trump’s speech might indeed be protected under Brandenburg.
There is still no word of an interview, let alone a charge, on a purportedly clear crime committed more than a month ago. One possible reason is that it would likely collapse in court. It is much easier to claim easy prosecutions than to prosecute such made-for-TV charges.
.If criminal incitement is such a strong case, make it — charge him. Yet, such prosecutions could come at a cost. Trump is likely to prevail at trial or on appeal on this evidence. He then could claim not just vindication on a federal charge but also on his second impeachment.
There is no evidence of a strategy to actually win the trial since the House offers little on intent. Rather the strategy on both sides seems to be to enrage the emotions of viewers rather than prove an actual case for incitement to insurrection.
The House seems to prefer to keep the trial on the level of speculation — trying Trump on how his words were received rather than intended. While the impeachment article refers to a crime of incitement to insurrection, it reads like an impeachment for negligence.
There appears no price too great to pay to impeach or prosecute Trump. If everything is now politics, this trial is little more than a raw partisanship cloaked in constitutional pretense.
If Trump is acquitted, this will all be moot. The Democrats know it. The only reason I can think of to do this is to feed red meat to the radical left base.
Otherwise, impeachment is unpopular, especially if it is perceived as act of political vengeance.
Most people want to move along from the Trump years and resent the prolong drama impeachment entails.
Impeachment may be "unpopular," yet a majority of Americans polled approve of Trump's impeachment and are for his conviction.
2:08: As for Alcee Hastings, the same Senate that voted to convict him also voted not to preclude him from holding further federal office.
It requires a separate vote.
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said...
Post it in bold 5 more times
the dogma of TDS lives loudly within him.
thank God Lydia's not around. can you imagine the epic ass-whuppin' he'd put on her when Trump is acquitted?
she'd look like that weekend guy with a jockstrap on her face.
Sometimes I don't take enough time to read it. But the nation's most prominent conservative legal scholars," including former 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell, Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calebresi, Washington lawyer Charles Cooper and hundreds of others who have said it is constitutional to impeach and try an official after they've left office.
Impeachment Minefield Awaits 2024 GOP Field
3:30 pm
Politico:
“Torn between demands of the GOP’s pro-Trump base and traditionalists mortified by Trump’s post-election behavior, senators like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton will be forced to strike a balance. That means calibrating their defense of Trump for a primary electorate whose level of devotion to the former president three years from now remains unknown.
“Their effort will be complicated by one obsessive viewer, in particular: Trump…
There’s broad consensus among Republican strategists about one thing: the trial is politically disadvantageous for the Senate’s 2024 contenders, distracting from hearings in which senators can object without reservation to President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees — something with near-universal GOP appeal.”
Roger Amick said...
Sometimes I don't take enough time to read it
But the alky posts it here anyway
As I said he is the poster boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect.
ROFLMFAO !!!
And the "pastor" posts straight from Goddard's ass
probably didn't have time to read it either.
but knows what kind of shit is always posted there
And plagiarized straight to here.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Sometimes I don't take enough time to read it
Just like the pedo
But the nation's "most prominent conservative legal scholars"
I have read many articles from "prominent conservative legal scholars who argue the opposite. I wonder, out loud, who believes that a former circuit court judge and two others that I have never heard of are all considered part of the "most prominent conservative legal scholars".
Sounds like some "non-conservative" is telling us about who we should look to for "prominent conservative" legal views
"Roger AmickFebruary 9, 2021 at 2:44 PM
Sometimes I don't take enough time to read it."
What happen to your ability to Read 600 words a minute?
Did it go away like Lydia?
KansasDemocrat said...
"Roger AmickFebruary 9, 2021 at 2:44 PM
Sometimes I don't take enough time to read it."
What happen to your ability to Read 600 words a minute?
When you're copying at 1200 words a minute what do you expect ?
I see President Trump is hosting the Super Bowl winning team in the unofficial White House at Mar-a-lago.
Two GOATS getting together.
Maybe Tiger will drop by and make it three.
One more and that would be the GOAT foursome !!!
Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) warned Friday that one-third of Republican voters could leave the party if GOP senators vote in impeachment proceedings to convict President Trump. Paul made the comments in an interview on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle.
The senator’s remarks come amid an increasing divide between congressional Republicans who oppose impeaching the president and a smaller number who support the measure following the riots at the Capitol on January 6. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) is reportedly hopeful that Republicans can use impeachment to purge Trump from the GOP, although he would need the support of at least 16 additional Republican senators to vote to convict.
Thousands of people are changing their party registration in several states
But the alky posts it here anyway
gents, I need a rake count on this thread so far.
anyone?
How many posts, there’s your number
Thousands of people are changing their party registration in several states
that's right alky, and I'm one of them. I'm sick of the GOP failure theatre, I'm done with fucking snakes and worthless like Ben Sissy, and if the GOP wants to be a valet for the democrats they can do it without me.
Trump supporters, of which I am one, are AT LEAST 74 MILLION strong, and I'll bet the actual number is closer to 80 MILLION. time and again I've watched the GOP get fucking rolled, while doing nothing to fight back. 2020 was the most epic fucking election steal of all time, and everyone who could've done something about it and should've done something about it did nothing.
the GOP is dead to me. Sasse, et. al. seem quite content to suck Schumer's ass. Well go for them. they can do it without my support.
that's 17 rakes for the alky on this thread today.
Thank you Trump and sad for anyone still there
US goes one year without a combat death in Afghanistan as Taliban warn against reneging on peace deal
BUT OF COURSE:
Senate Says Trump’s Trial Is Constitutional
5:11 pm
A divided Senate voted 56 to 44 to proceed with the impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump, rejecting his lawyers’ argument that it is unconstitutional, the Washington Post reports.
The following Republican senators voted with every Democrat: Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.
Cassidy had previously voted “no” when this question was put to the Senate two weeks ago.
Professor Says Trump Lawyers Misrepresented His Work
OF COURSE. HE'S A KNOWN LIAR.
4:42
“A constitutional law professor whose work is cited extensively by former President Donald Trump’s lawyers in their impeachment defense brief says his work has been seriously misrepresented,” NPR reports.
Said Michigan State University professor Brian Kalt: “The worst part is the three places where they said I said something when, in fact, I said the opposite.”
Ex-Trump Aide Considering Alabama Senate Bid
February 9, 2021 at 4:39 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 13 Comments
Former Trump adviser Cliff Sims is considering a run for Alabama’s open Senate seat, Politico reports.
Sims departed the White House in 2018 after working in the communications office and published Team of Vipers, a bestselling memoir that documented his experiences in the White House and detailed staff infighting.
Trump attacked the book upon its release, describing Sims as a “low-level staffer” and “gofer” whom he “hardly knew.”
Trump’s Impeachment Lawyer Sued Him Last Year
4:35 pm
“Last year, Philadelphia lawyer Michael van der Veen filed a lawsuit against then-President Donald Trump accusing him of making ‘repeated claims’ that mail voting is ripe with fraud ‘despite having no evidence in support of these claims,'” the Washington Post reports.
“This week, van der Veen is adopting a different posture as part of the team of attorneys defending Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result in his Senate impeachment trial.
“How a longtime personal-injury lawyer found himself at the center of that trial, which opened Tuesday, may say more about his client than his own legal career. Trump struggled to find lawyers to take on his case, parting ways with several who were unwilling to claim that the 2020 election was stolen, as the president is said to have wanted them to do.”
EVEN LAWYERS LIKE THIS ONE REFUSED TO LIE THAT BIG FOR TRUMP.
US goes one year without a combat death in Afghanistan as Taliban warn against reneging on peace deal
this is impossible!
how can this be?!?!?!
the alky assured us that the Taliban, beholden to Russian bounty $$$ for dead Americans, were mowing down American GI's by the dozen.
The following Republican senators voted with every Democrat: Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.
guys like me are leaving the GOP in droves. and assholes like this are who is directly responsible.
fucking shitstains.
ONE VOTE MATTERS – How Weighted Race Distribution and One California Vote Brings Entire 2020 Election into Question
When covering all the election fraud in the 2020 election, one California vote may be the vote that provides unquestionable proof that the election was rigged.
In November 2020 after the election, we began reviewing the results of the 2020 election and looking for election or voter fraud. Hour after hour, day after day of reporting on unquestionable fraud, we uncovered significant finds. We noted that in the middle of the night on Election Night in certain states, a dump of ballots occurred, overwhelmingly for Biden, and then after that point, the results went in a consistent pattern with all votes after the original spike for Biden being awarded the same percentage between President Trump and Biden.
We called this the ‘Drop and Roll’:
Another group continued this exercise across the country and found numerous instances of the same thing occurring in numerous states.
This was captured in prior elections as well and was related to software from a company named Diebold. Diebold was purchased by Dominion voting systems and apparently, this functionality is still used today:
T
The practice of allocating votes through a computer algorithm is known as weighted race distributions. This is basically awarding votes to the candidate of choice. It is done by multiplying votes by percentages and allocating votes to candidates based on these results. Each vote should equal one vote. But in the weighted race distribution method, votes are the equivalent of percentages and are allocated and counted based on these preset distribution percents. Using the WEIGHTED RACE DISTRIBUTION method in US Presidential elections is illegal.
The fact that voting machines in the US have this ability is shocking and concerning.
How do we know weighted race distributions occurred in the 2020 election? One vote provides undisputed evidence that this method of vote counting was in place in the 2020 election and in all places, the vote was cast in California. As noted above, rather than count the vote as one vote for either President Trump or Biden, the vote was allocated 66% to Biden and 32% to Trump with the remaining percent allocated to a third-party candidate.
This proves the vote was allocated based on a preset determination.
continues
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/one-vote-matters-weighted-race-distribution-one-california-vote-brings-entire-2020-election-question/
PROVEN and INDISPUTABLE VOTE FRAUD
Biden and Dems stole more than just the presidency.
Trump/Russia was investigated for years and Trump let it continue.
Biden election Fraud has not been investigated and Dems wouldn't even allow 10 days.
Biden's America
Banana Republic.
1984
Boy is America FUCKED
No wonder Twitter banned gateway pundit a couple of days ago.
the Fraud collusion continues
With the media's blind eye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ivVOPWrFfW4
The worst terrorist attack on the United States of America.
Innocent men allow investigations
Guilt ones don't
Trump allowed while innocent, Biden won't allow while likely guilty
Biden's America
Vote Fraud
Banana Republic
1984
* Guilty
Has not been "debunked"
The Trumpian Disease must be eradicated, and this impeachment trial is the method chosen by the duly elected representatives of our federal government. I would have preferred a censure, because there likely won't be a conviction. Perhaps even a few more Republicans would find their integrity, and help to censure Trump. Nevertheless, this public shaming of the former president serves a legitimate purpose.
Emerald Robinson
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1359171495180836867
The Biden Administration on the Houthis: “They’re not terrorists!”
The Biden Administration on Trump supporters: “They’re probably domestic terrorists!”
China, Iran and Russia got the "president" they wanted
Right now they are winning
Dershowitz Had ‘No Idea’ What Trump Lawyer Was Doing
5:24 pm
Alan Dershowitz, who served on former President Trump’s impeachment defense team during last year’s trial, blasted attorney Bruce Castor for his opening remarks during today’s impeachment proceedings, telling Newsmax: “There is no argument. I have no idea what he’s doing. I have no idea why he’s saying.”
Jonathan Chait:
Trump’s lawyer rambles through hilariously incoherent impeachment defense.
GOP Lawmaker Falsely Says Insurrection Was ‘Staged’
5:20 pm
Michgan Senate Majority leader Mike Shirkey (R), the highest ranking Republican elected official in the state, recently said he believes the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol was not carried out by supporters of former president Donald Trump, calling the idea a “hoax” and stating that the attacked was “staged,” the Detroit Free Press reports.
Said Shirkey in a video: “That wasn’t Trump people. That’s been a hoax from day one. It was all staged,”
DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?
YEP. IT'S ON VIDEO.
(HE DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS BEING RECORDED. PEOPLE SAY WHAT THEY REALLY THINK IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT.)
The worst terrorist attack on the United States of America.
Wow
Bam another rake.
God you’re stupid or just so fucking lonely and crying out for attention
You can watch the remarkable video at politicalwire.com. It's rather long.
LivePDDave
https://twitter.com/LivePDDave1/status/1359151005712146438
You mean to tell me the FBI figured out who the Nashville bomber was in 15 minutes but can't find who planted pipe bombs in the most surveilled city in the world?
Why did Nancy refuse troups ???
what are troups?
*troops
Richard Grenell
https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1359152085527392272
Russia stopped under Trump.
Russia resumes under Biden.
Seems like a story to me...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/russian-led-nord-stream-2-pipeline-resumes-construction-in-europe-after-halting-under-trump-report
Russia loves Biden no matter what Biden and the MSM say
Is that why the Russians tried to get Trump reelected?
'Out-of-control woke leftism and cancel culture' from the U.S is a threat to FRANCE because it 'attacks' the nation's heritage and identity, French politicians and intellectuals say
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9242453/Out-control-woke-leftism-cancel-culture-threat-FRANCE-French-politicians-say.html
The French public is catching on
Trump ‘Displeased’ with His Impeachment Lawyers
6:32 pm
DO Tell!
“For former President Donald Trump, the opening day of his second impeachment trial did not go as planned or to his liking,” Politico reports.
“Cocooned at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump watched as his defense attorneys responded to an emotional presentation by House impeachment managers with a series of dry, technical and at times meandering arguments about due process and the constitutionality of the proceedings. As they droned on, he grew increasingly frustrated with the sharp contrast between their muted response and the prosecution’s opening salvo.”
_______________
They're not passionately lying for you the way you wanted them to, are they Donald?
Better fly in thee and testify for yourself, the way a real man does. The Democrats will welcome you with open arms.
They'll be nice to you.
They won't skewer you.
(Don't believe your lawyers.)
Jack Posobiec
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1359208478305366017
The Democrats wildly misleading impeachment argument is now playing clips from Jan 6th without any timestamps or explanation of the timeline
This is post hoc fallacy on steroids
Dems rely on help from the MSM, big tech and idiots who waterboy
How many rapes and killings today in China on the Uyghars by Biden's "good guys" "pastor"
Didn't that happen in Europe too a while back by someone else people like Kennedy were calling good guys ?
Biden's America
1984
in there
Don't any of you read MY 5:39.
Scott Adams
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1359147690454515712
If you want to disguise the fact that the fake news has brainwashed you into becoming a revenge-puppet, publicly declare on social media that Trump's call for peaceful protests for election transparency incited a violent coup involving a Viking hat and plastic ties.
Biden's America
Animal Farm
Still counting the rapes and killings you are cheering on "pastor"
Millions are in camps so it may take a while
And I guess there is no transparency,
But Biden has said they are "good guys" and without any exceptions like Trumps good people on both sides.
The Senate voted today to proceed with the impeachment trial for Donald J. Trump.
Six GOP senators, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), broke with their party on Tuesday to join all Democrats in asserting that the trial was within the Senate’s jurisdiction even though Mr. Trump is no longer in office. The 56-44 vote now sets the stage for several days of presentations from both sides on the facts of the case, which are to begin on Wednesday.
Senator Bill Cassidy (R La ) is one of the most conservative Senators in the current Republican party.
I've been watching you people destroy the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln.
Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave.
In my lifetime I have seen Republican Presidents since President Eisenhower, until Donald J. Trump. Until Trump, they have been patriotic Presidents.
If the Republicans don't walk away from Trump, they may join the Whig party into history.
I may have misspelled Whigs, but my point stands.
Benny
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1358923097907281922
“Facebook was used by 73 of the people charged with crimes, more than all other social media sites combined.”
“Parler was banned from using Amazon’s online infrastructure... but was only used by eight people charged.”
But those are the "good big tech" guys that helped Biden steal the election
Biden's America
1984
Animal Farm
You do realize alky you haven't debunked a single thing today.
But you have stepped on many more rakes.
Can you even explain how in California you can have a fractional vote unless a machine is allocating ???
Bidens America
1984
IT WAS A BUM START BY A BUM LAWYER IN A BUM CASE
CBS
GOP senators baffled by Trump's legal team after first day of impeachment trial
BY GRACE SEGERS
FEBRUARY 9, 2021 / 6:11 PM / CBS NEWS
Washington — The majority of Republican senators voted that the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump is unconstitutional, after hearing nearly four hours of arguments from House impeachment managers and Mr. Trump's attorneys on the first day of proceedings.
However, while most GOP senators determined there is no constitutional basis for a trial, many were unimpressed by the presentation by the former president's lawyers.
AND THAT'S PUTTING IT MILDLY, HA HA!
"President Trump's team was disorganized. They did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand. And when they talked about it, they kind of glided over it, almost as if they were embarrassed of their arguments," GOP Senator Bill Cassidy told reporters after the first day of the trial.
"If I'm an impartial juror and one side is doing a great job and the other side is doing a terrible job on the issue at hand, as an impartial juror I'm going to vote for the side that did a good job," added Cassidy, who was one of only six Republicans who voted in favor of the constitutionality of holding a trial.
Much of the criticism from Republicans was directed at Bruce Castor, the attorney who presented first. In a rambling speech, Castor argued that it would violate Mr. Trump's right to free speech to hold an impeachment trial. But his argument was derailed with seemingly unrelated digressions, such as when he extensively praised the integrity and patriotism of senators.
"In fairness, I was really stunned at the first attorney who presented for former President Trump. I couldn't figure out where he was going," said Senator Lisa Murkowski, another Republican who voted that the trial was constitutional. Senator Susan Collins, who also voted in favor of the trial's constitutionality, said she was "perplexed" by Castor's argument.
But even some Republicans who voted to dismiss the trial criticized Castor's performance.
"I thought the President's lawyer, the first lawyer, just rambled on and on and on and didn't really address the constitutional argument. Finally, the second lawyer got around to it and I thought he did an effective job," Senator John Cornyn told reporters.
Senator Lindsey Graham said about Castor, "I thought I knew where it was going, and I really didn't know where it was going."
"It took a long time to get to where I think the meat of the question is," Graham said.
David Schoen, who spoke after Castor, argued that the impeachment trial was a partisan ploy by Democrats to prevent Mr. Trump from seeking office again. He also argued that the trial was rushed and did not allow for due process.
"I don't think the lawyers did the most effective job," Senator Ted Cruz acknowledged. Cassidy told reporters that at one point during the arguments, he leaned over to Cruz and asked, "Are they talking about the issue at hand?"
"And he goes, 'Not now,'" Cassidy added.
_________
Better go there yourself and straighten things out, Mr. Ex Prez.
... you have stepped on many more rakes.
I counted only one.
He misspelled Whigs.
Not important.
Still counting the rapes and killings you are cheering on "pastor"
Millions are in camps so it may take a while
And I guess there is no transparency,
But Biden has said they are "good guys" and without any exceptions like Trumps good people on both sides, except white supremacists.
You can count fractional bodies with whole numbers if that is easier for you
Or body parts if you find that easier
No one gives a fuck about spelling errors or grammar you dumb fuck.
Except you
Or for that matter what you find up Goddard's ass
ROFLMFAO !!!
Supporting a country that is performing genocide is very important.
But the "pastor" is silent
He supports the man who calls them "good guys, guys"
Rep. Jim Jordan
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1359281537431265287
There’s one line from President Trump’s speech that the Democrats left out of their video today:
“Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Dems are against that. They support burning down cities.
thebradfordfile
https://twitter.com/thebradfordfile/status/1359279605002166273
Biden sold out America to China, Russian, and Ukraine.
They impeached the wrong guy.
You left of Iran
Joe Biden's America
1984
Animal Farm
Dictator
Jack Posobiec
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1359209525778202629
Raskin said he wanted to try the President based on the facts, then entered a doctored video into evidence
Biden's America
Banana Republic
Animal Farm
The founding fathers feared a President would win by being a demagogue, and holding onto power as a dictator. They knew about Trump 245 years ago.
Blogger JamesNewLeaf said...
Don't any of you read MY 5:39.
That’s the only thing you’ve posted in more than a week that I’ve read pedo.
No one reads your spam, roll right past it. You’re boring and incapable of original thought
Lmao
I always hire the best people.
--D. Trump
LOL, No, with THAT one, you sure didn't.
--j NEW LEAF (repeatedly slapping knee).
Is there someone posting here as JamesNewLeaf who "cheerily approves" of rapes and murders somewhere?
...I just checked. No.
Just some of F'n's crazed babbling.
Figures.
Do Not Read This
Adviser Says Trump Could Be In Legal Jeopardy
7:37 pm
A Trump team adviser told CNN that former President Donald Trump could be in serious legal jeopardy if he finds himself charged in criminal court for the charges he’s facing in his impeachment trial: “Trump is f****d if anyone ever charges him. No one wants to work with him.”
No one will pedo, it’s far more interesting to await another Roger proclamation, like red states have no urban areas or minorities. Kind of like when you said Atlanta had a small airport
Stupid ass old man
Funny how you keep responding to things I say.
______
When Trump was elected, Mike Bloomberg called to congratulate him. Trump asked him for any advice. Bloomberg said, "Do what I always do. I try to surround myself with people who're smarter than I am."
"There IS no one smarter than I am," Trump said.
_____
LOL. But these lawyers he FINALLY ended up with sure don't seem to be. LOL.
James these people have typical tribal people. Our ancestors were all in tribes in Africa, until they migrated into Europe and Asia . Then they traveled across the border between what is Russia today into Alaska and then into North an South America.
What they forgot that we are all Africans!
Donald Trump Jr.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1359292433037721600
Of course they do. That's one of the many perks the Chinese will get for giving Hunter $1 Billion!
They didn't do that out of the kindness of their Hearts. Great ROI for them
Biden Admin Quietly Drops Trump Proposal To Track Chinese Influence In US Schools
And the Chinese raping of chained up underage Uyghars and their genocide continues. Biden call them "good guys, guys"
And human trafficking begins exploding at our southern border, rapists no longer returned to Mexico as result of Biden EO.
Democrats try hiding election fraud by running a bogus impeachment and send the House home.
Hunters laptop is being criminally looked at despite what Joe lied about and 50 "former intelligence officers" said was Russian disinformation. Hunter's lawyers partner is hired by DOJ in a high level position. Hunter smiles and receives $2 million book advance and buys 5.4 million dollar house. Joe says none of his family will benefit financially from his presidency.
Biden's America
Banana Republic
1984
shameful
Alky google Denisovan and Neanderthal we all have a bit in us as well as African
But you’re the only who cares
No one else does
Wap another rake
Benny
VIDEO: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1359222053111541762
Looks like we have a lot of Democrats to impeach.
And imagine if the people spreading Russian collusion HOAX misinformation were banned from the news and social media
Caliphate4vr said...
Alky google Denisovan and Neanderthal we all have a bit in us as well as African
But you’re the only who cares
No one else does
Wap another rake
alky is so desperate now he's probably trying to get reparations
alky is so desperate now he's probably trying to get reparations
Nothing else for him to do, in his room with a tv
“Winning” the impeachment trial means removing any reasonable doubt in the minds of Americans that President Donald Trump incited a riot, that he let it continue in desperate attempt to keep power and that Republicans simply do not care. The House impeachment managers did a masterful job on all points in their opening arguments on Tuesday.
Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), the lead House manager, demolished the notion that presidents get a free pass to commit high crimes in the waning days of their terms. On its face, Raskin explained, it’s absurd to argue that “conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president and your second year as president and your third year as president and for the vast majority of your fourth year as president, you can suddenly do in your last few weeks in office without facing any constitutional accountability at all,” he said, adding that it would have been the Founders’ “worst nightmare.”
Let’s not forget that the only reason the impeachment, which the House voted on before Trump left office, was not sent to trial immediately was because then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his fellow Republicans stalled. They break the hypocrisy meter by turning around and claiming that the Senate, therefore, cannot try Trump now.
Beyond conclusively establishing the trial’s constitutionality, Raskin brought back to life the horrifying hours of Jan. 6 when insurrectionists, hyped-up on Trumpian fury, assaulted the Capitol. The Post reported: “Almost every senatorial eye in the chamber was glued to the screens as lead House manager Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) played a 13-minute video depicting the events of Jan. 6 to introduce the impeachment case against [former president Donald Trump] — with a few notable exceptions.” It was obvious why Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rick Scott (Fla.), and Rand Paul (Ky.) cravenly averted their gaze: The scenes were so disturbing as to render their defense of the former president a moral abomination.
The voices of rioters parroting Trump’s incendiary words dismantle the notion that rioters were not motivated by Trump. “If that’s not an impeachable offense, then there’s no such thing,” Raskin concluded after the video.
Jamie Raskin won the impeachment trial before it began.
Opinion by Jennifer Rubin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/10/jamie-raskin-won-trial-before-it-began/
Bruce Castor, the first Trump attorney to speak, addressed everything from the mechanics of record players to the quality of the late Sen. Everett Dirksen’s (R-IL) voice before getting to the issue at hand.
Another Republican who voted with Democrats, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), told reporters that she was “really stunned at the first attorney who presented for former President Trump,” Castor.
“I couldn’t figure out where he was going, spent 45 minutes going somewhere,” the senator said, according to a Capitol Hill pool report. “I don’t think he helped with us better understanding where he was coming from on the constitutionality of this.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who also voted that the trial was constitutional, said she was “perplexed by the first attorney, who did not seem to make any arguments at all, which was an unusual approach to take,” according to a pool report.
Even senators who voted for the Trump lawyers’ argument thought they did poorly.
“I don’t think the lawyers did the most effective job,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told reporters, according to a pool report.
House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), by contrast, was “impressive,” Cruz said. “He’s a serious lawyer.”
“The President’s lawyer, the first lawyer, just rambled on and on and on and didn’t really address the constitutional argument,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), according to a pool report.
“Finally the second lawyer got around to it and, I thought, did an effective job. But I’ve seen a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments and that was it was not one of the finest I’ve seen.”
Ted Cruz is a traitor now on Thecoldheartedtruth!
Castor was incoherent
Atlanta has the biggest airport in the United states. Cali is the Dumbest truther ever since the crazy old lady quit posting here.
far more interesting to await another Roger proclamation" Cali
Correct.
Atlanta has the biggest airport in the United states.
Actually it’s the busiest in the WORLD, try to keep up Alky. Hell in this country alone Denver, Dallas and Orlando are bigger but not busier.
Eat your porridge step on another rake and go to bed
"If the president were to openly defy clear federal authority and order unlawful acts, he would move from the realm of using arguable discretion to that of being a danger to the system as a whole."
Jonathan Turdley
If you’d ever been through DIA you’d know the difference
DIA is the second largest airport in the world, and that means it's bigger than Manhattan
McConnell IS PLAYING A STRANGE, TANGLED GAME.
HE HAD THOUGHT HE COULD LEAD THE GOP AWAY FROM TRUMP, BUT THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE WORKING FOR HIM. HE HAS NOT COMPLETELY GIVEN UP, THOUGH.
"VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE," HE SAYS, AFTER COWARDLY FAILING TO VOTE HIS OWN.
McConnell Signals Impeachment Is a Conscience Vote
11:00 pm
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is signaling to fellow Republicans that the final vote on Donald Trump‘s impeachment is matter of conscience and that senators who disputed the constitutionality of the trial could still vote to convict the former president,” Bloomberg reports.
“The Kentucky Republican has also suggested that he hasn’t made up his mind how he’ll vote, even though he voted Tuesday to declare it unconstitutional for the Senate to hear the case against a former president.”
LIKE MUCH OF THE GOP, HE IS FORFEITING ALL CREDIBILITY. AMERICANS NEED TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE BY VOTING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OUT.
An Act of SACRILEGE
The Atlantic
Why Jamie Raskin’s Speech Resonated
David A. Graham 5 hrs ago
The emotional high point of Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial probably came in its first hours.
Closing out the opening presentation from the Democratic House managers, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland offered a powerful speech in which he choked back tears as he recalled the attempted coup of January 6. The speech was poignant for personal reasons—as members of Congress know, and as my colleague John Hendrickson wrote last month, Raskin’s son, Tommy, had died by suicide just days before the insurrection—and because, no matter how heartfelt it was, it is unlikely to have much effect on Trump’s expected acquittal. (Indeed, later in the afternoon, the Senate voted 56-44 to proceed with the trial—only one Republican having been swayed by the day’s argument to reverse his vote from an earlier procedural motion.)
But Raskin’s speech framed the attack on the Capitol fomented by Trump not just as a technical matter or a violation of law, but as a violation of something the nation holds sacred.
Raskin recalled the horror of January 6. “All around me people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones, to say goodbye,” he said. But his focus was not on the fear he and others felt but on what was left after the riot. Raskin described two low points from that day. One was his daughter’s reaction. She had come to the Capitol and taken shelter under a table, fearing for her life. After the rioters were expelled, Raskin apologized and told her it wouldn’t be like this the next time she visited the Capitol.
“She said, ‘Dad, I don’t want to come back to the Capitol,’” he said. “Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw and heard on the day and since then, that one hit me the hardest.”
The other moment, he said, was “watching someone use an American-flag pole, with the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers—ruthlessly, mercilessly tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.”
These two vignettes struck a tone that has been rarely heard in recent American political life. One essential theme of the Trump presidency was that practically nothing is sacred—not norms, not alliances, not the rule of law, not common decency. (President Joe Biden’s inaugural address traded in religion-inflected rhetoric that would have felt banal in the past, but that was bracing after four years of Trump.) Raskin’s expression of reverence for the flag is also unusual among today’s Democratic politicians, who tend to treat such overt paeans as jingoistic.
Yet the idea that an American citizen would be afraid of or repulsed by the idea of visiting the Capitol does strike against something sacred, as does the image of an officer defending that space while being attacked with the country’s flag. Raskin is not alone in this sense. In a video shot by the New Yorker writer Luke Mogelson, a Capitol Police officer, outnumbered, pleaded with rioters to leave the floor of the Senate: “I just want to let you guys know, this is, like, the sacredest place.” And in National Review, the former Trump-administration staffer Mario Loyola wrote, “That hallowed ground was violated today by an unspeakable sacrilege that will redound to President Trump’s shame for all time.”
The Capitol is not necessarily a pleasant place—angry exchanges and corrupt agreements happen there all the time. But it is intended to be a place that belongs to Americans, and one where battles are fought with words and not weapons. (There is a reason the historical exceptions to this are notorious.) The sanctity of the space matters because it is a physical representation of constitutional government.
In seeking to overturn the election and then inciting an insurrection, Trump attacked the physical forms and structures of American government. But the crowd that stormed the Capitol also struck at its intangible heart. If Raskin’s speech resonated with many who listened, it was because they shared his sense that what happened on January 6 wasn’t just a crime—it was an act of sacrilege.
THE GOP WILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO LIVE THAT DOWN.
Fuck off pederast
This impeachment trial a circus for the Democrat media mob to entertain the masses that they have brainwashed and addicted to hate, so they don’t see the Dem policies being rapidly forced into place that are destroying our lives, stealing our freedoms, and putting America last.
So getting in class instruction in schools one day a week will be Biden's big victory. Someone should tell him that under Trump, most are already hybrid based. The goal is 5 days a week Joe.
The dirty secret is the Elite Class , The Democrat Politicians and Hollywood kids are in class, private schools and private teachers. $$$$ speaks.
So getting in class instruction in schools one day a week will be Biden's big victory.
wow.
one whole day?
like, in a row?
that's quite the lofty goal by day 100. and probably do-able for a guy who calls a lid each day by 11 AM.
one can only assume that Biden* wishes every pupil in America to finish at the bottom of their class... like he did.
Biden's school one day a week is like his working one hour a day.
And that's just for signing whatever is put in front of him.
Biden's America
Animal Farm
Banana Republic
On Topic
Trump never conceded he lost, but his impeachment lawyer did!
One of the lawyers heading former President Donald Trump’s defense at his second impeachment trial did what Trump himself has not: conceded Joe Biden won the presidential election.
In opening remarks Tuesday, lawyer Bruce Castor said: “The American people just spoke, and they just changed administrations.” He added that Americans are "smart enough to pick a new administration if they don’t like the old one, and they just did.”
He probably shouted WHAT THE HELL?
alky plagiarism:
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-elections-impeachments-13f27eab74b260d2a41b331e2adf3461
rake #1
Government Motors (GM) – The automaker beat estimates by 29 cents a share, with quarterly profit of $1.93 per share. Revenue came in above estimates as well. GM characterized the quarter as a strong one despite production interruptions caused by the pandemic.
President Olinski from Yemen saved Government Motors.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-impeachment-live-updates-democrats-deliver-arguments-senate-trial-n1256974/ncrd1257230
Stocks making the biggest moves in the premarket: Under Armour, Twitter, Bunge & more
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/10/stocks-making-the-biggest-moves-in-the-premarket-under-armour-twitter-bunge-more.html?__source=androidappshare
rrb IQ 45
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-impeachment-live-updates-democrats-deliver-arguments-senate-trial-n1256974/ncrd1257230
7:27 IS FUNNY.
Democratic Manager Raskin Draws Praise...
“Our case is based on cold hard facts,” said Mr. Raskin, as he kicked off the Democrats’ presentation. He then played a 13-minute video of Mr. Trump’s remarks and the violence on Jan. 6. “If that’s not an impeachable offense, then there is no such thing,” he said, alleging Mr. Trump incited the mob; the former president has denied doing so. Mr. Raskin closed with personal remarks about the recent suicide of his son and the terror his daughter felt when she was trapped in the Capitol. “This cannot be the future of America,” Mr. Raskin said. “We cannot have presidents do this because they refuse to accept the will of the people.”
When rrb gets ashamed of posting as rrb he posts as truthseeker
that's like beelzebub posting as St. Michael
The Fake News
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-impeachment-trial-five-takeaways-from-the-first-day-11612926927?st=1t0vdlz4ojc0wzq&reflink=share_mobilewebshare
7:51 in the next thread up is interesting.
Only six Republican senators joined with Democrats on Tuesday to affirm that an impeachment trial of a former president is constitutional—and those six did not include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. However, Bloomberg News reports the Kentucky Republican is still weighing up whether he’ll ultimately vote for Donald Trump’s impeachment, and has signaled to his Senate colleagues that they’re free to vote with their consciences on the matter—and not along simple party lines. At least 17 Republicans would have to vote with Democrats in the 50-50 chamber to reach the required two-thirds majority to convict Trump of the House’s impeachment charge of inciting the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. Given the meager numbers who voted to declare the trial constitutional, it appears extremely unlikely that the threshold will be reached.
Read it at Bloomberg News
When rrb gets ashamed of posting as rrb he posts as truthseeker
false.
i never change my alias.
so whether this is the rake-stomping alky or the child-raping pederast...
go fuck yourself.
"If the president were to openly defy clear federal authority and order unlawful acts, he would move from the realm of using arguable discretion to that of being a danger to the system as a whole."
Jonathan Turdley
Good thing Trump didn't do that
I will answer in my next post
Oh boy. We all can't wait.
Unless they provide a solid link between the ex President and the people who committed an insurrection. Emails....direct tweets to the organizers..or????
By Adam Edelman and Alex Moe
Democratic House impeachment managers will unveil "never-seen-before" video of the deadly Capitol riot during their opening arguments Wednesday as part of the case they're building against former President Donald Trump, senior aides said.
The Capitol security footage "will provide new insight into both the extreme violence that everyone saw, the risk and the threat that it could have led to further violence and death to many but for the brave actions of the officers and shows really the extent of what Donald Trump unleashed on our Capitol," the aides to the impeachment managers told reporters.
"We have the goods," they said. "Yesterday was our dry constitutional argument day. Today, the actual trial begins. We have the goods, we will be presenting the goods. We will be tying the evidence all together in a compelling case that will make it clear for everyone — Democrats, Republicans, everyone — that Donald Trump committed the most heinous constitutional crime possible."
The video "shows a view of the Capitol that is quite extraordinary and a view of the attack that has never been public before," the aides added in previewing the team's approach for the second day of Trump's second impeachment trial.
The day's proceedings will kick off Wednesday at noon ET, with the Democratic impeachment managers commencing their opening arguments.
---
Some Republicans are saying that the videos were manipulated. But any documentary of historical events doesn't have EVERYTHING that happened.
The Republicans have to provide credible evidence of fraud or manipulation.
But the bottom line is the Senators should base their decisions without political agendas. But.. they won't do that.
The videos today will be from security cameras, inside of the social media camera
It will start in a few minutes
The calvary is coming Mr President.
Rioters charged with insurrection and their attorneys agree: This is all Donald Trump’s fault. As the former president’s attorneys take to the Senate floor to absolve their client of inciting an insurrection, some of the most damning witnesses against him are the MAGA fanatics who say they were only following the commander-in-chief’s orders when they rampaged into the Capitol on Jan. 6
Drew Hernandez
VIDEO: https://gab.com/livesmatterofficial/posts/105708167595490039
The 2nd Sham Impeachment of Trump has started and this is how it’s going.... you can’t make this stuff up. This is clearly all an ACT
Fake impeachment and weak "prosecutor"
Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) added a bit later: “My fellow managers have shown and will continue to show clear evidence that President Trump incited a violent mob to storm our Capitol when he ran out of non-violent means to stop the election. Once assembled, that mob, at the President’s direction, erupted into the bloodiest attack on this Capitol since 1814.”
Kyle Becker
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1359577450297126924
If Twitter was abiding by 'standards' instead of adhering to left's political agenda, it would be all over the Dem impeachment managers for spreading dangerous lies about the Trump impeachment trial. Labels slapped all over the place. And yet... nothing.
The left loves to have these lies so they can freely spread the misinformation
Joe Biden's America
Banana Republic
1984
Post a Comment