DEVASTATING ARGUMENT presented by Rep. RASKIN, et al, on DAY 2 of SENATE IMPEACHMENT

Because, at Trump's direction, they stormed the Capitol to give "support" to those who wanted to disrupt the Electoral Count and following Trump's tweet, after they'd broken in, that stated: "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."

1) Pence was acting in accordance with the Constitution and U.S. law. He didn't have the legal authority to return the certified ballots unless BOTH the House and Senate voted to do so. They didn't.
2) It isn't the President's right to call an election the way HE sees it.
3) He used that call...election fraud, which he determined, to justify "different rules," presumably the "different rules" allowed Pence to return the certified votes.
4) The videos shown today that a number of the rioters were willing to kill Pence as punishment for not following Trump's orders.

 

Kool aid good! Burp!

 

I wasn't answering about any riot. Or incitement. You only asked what lie he told.

 

Whataboutism is a terrible defense.

 

What? Nope. Where did I say that.

 

You guys favorite flavor:

 

I know. Every night when I lie on my pillow it whispers to me all about the election fraud that no one can prove as lie after lie got debunked

The lie that started months before the election

It's ok - you can admit the truth - you know it is all a lie. We'll protect you from the big bad Donny wolf

 

It is obvious this is as big a farce as before.

 

yes - the trial is a waste of time

Doesn't change the fact that Trump is a horrible person though

 

Not necessarily. If he's convicted and banned from future office holding it prevents him from returning as a threat, plus (and maybe more importantly) it serves as a deterrent to future dictator-wannabe. And the next one might be smart.

 

He won't be convicted. This is not a trial in front of an impartial jury. Very few Republicans will want to anger Don Corleone Trump for fear of finding a horse's head in their bed

 

It's been worthless. Did nothing to establish intent. It's like showing pictures of a fire and claiming it "proves" arson. If Dems wanted to show intent they would show that Trump prevented or delayed the deployment of the National Guard, as obviously the presence of the National Guard would impede insurrection. But, nothing. Just fools up there playing pretend, knowing they have no basis for conviction, no hope for conviction so engaged in nothing more than a 3rd world style Show Trial of their enemies. It sure will be nice when Crazy Nancy and her fellow henchmen are swept from the scene and back in the minority after the 2022 election.

LITERALLY EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT WHEN THEY DO IT: Uh Oh… Dem Impeachment Manager Tried to Block Electoral College Votes in 2017

​

Rand Paul pops this clown right in the mouth by noting that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the Democrats’ lead impeachment manager in the Senate trial, himself fought against the certification of the Electoral College vote in the 2016 election. Democrats have impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection” because Trump engaged in lawful constitutionally protected free speech encouraged Republicans to contest the electoral certification on January 6 before the Capitol riot. Raskin himself has argued that Trump holding the view that the 2020 election election was hincky was an illegal and incited the violence.

“So, it’s ok for Dem Jamie Raskin to try to ‘overturn’ Trump electors but it’s incitement to violence when Trump urged Congress to ‘overturn’ Biden electors?" Hypocrisy.

Democrats named “Raskin to lead impeachment of Trump for advocating for the same thing Raskin did in 2016.”

Then the senator quoted Raskin’s argument, noting that it applies to Raskin’s own actions in 2017.

When Raskin rose in a futile attempt to block the certification of Electoral College votes in January 2017. Then-Vice President Joe Biden shot down his objection.

“Our election was badly tainted by everything from cyber-sabotage by Vladimir Putin, to deliberate voter suppression by Republicans in numerous swing states,” this fool Raskin told The Baltimore Sun.

In other words, this fool Raskin had falsely claimed that Trump stole the 2016 election by working with Russia but he had also publicly admitted that no challenge to the Electoral College results would get anywhere, but he still pulled a pointless stunt to slow the certification.

Now, this fool Raskin is the public face of an impeachment trial based on the premise that Trump “incited an insurrection” by encouraging Republicans to return the Electoral College certification to the State Legislature and speaking about his views on the day of the Capitol protest.

While fool Democrats accuse Trump of having “incited” these rioters, Trump repeatedly encouraged his supporters to remain peaceful.

If Trump supposedly incited violence by contesting the Electoral College results, then what did that fool Raskin do in 2017?

 

It will fail because it only takes 34 Senators for full and complete exoneration, and 44 correctly see this as an unconstitutional attempt to strip a private citizen of their rights based on nothing more than constitutionally protected Free Speech. We aren't the fools kicking a dead horse, the House Managers aren't even pretending that they are presenting a case that will result in conviction. They have done absolutely nothing to make the case for intent even though the crime of "incitement" clearly requires intent. Yet, nothing from these fool House Managers making the case for criminal intent.

 

No 44 Senators don't. Most politicians on both sides only care about power. They don't care about the country or what is just in the least

Trump and his sycophants were pure crap
as is Pelosi and anyone named Clinton

Both sides just see what they want to see

 

He not more incited the Mob than Bernie incited the shooter at the Softball Field. You Leftists making crap up and thinking people believe you? Only the depraved are buying the narrative you just put forth.

 

I'm not ready to conclude the same...yet. Also, I expect criminal prosecution on the same to follow. The DoJ requires a higher standard than 67%. The use the same standard for an indictment as is given juries for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt). As a result, they get a 90%+ conviction rate in criminal prosecutions. But...the downside is that it probably takes a longer investigation. And, remember, he no longer has the power to offer pardons to potential partners in crime.
I thought that might be Pelosi's plan and why she held off sending the Article of Impeachment to the Senate...waiting for him to leave office and lose the pardon power...but it doesn't look like the House Managers are going to bring forward inside witnesses to testify against him. I would think people like Pence, Barr, Bannon, Stone, et al would have something to offer?

 

I remember the softball field shooter as being a supporter of Bernie...but how did Bernie "incite" him into the shooting?

 

Sure they have. The way you prove "intent" short of a self-confession. This is more like a mafia trial, using RICO statutes. You show a pervious pattern, with a predilection toward violence and lying and then sprinkle that with facts surrounding the crime itself, strengthened by witnesses. This is just a warm-up for the criminal prosecution. He lied to the crowd, which incited them to violence.

 

Your dishonest and pathetic attempt to mischaracterize the riot as “staying between the ropes in single file line” is noted... and rejected.

You saw that image for about one minute, which is about as long as the mob let it last.

Trump has been messenging this to the far right almost since the election. His incitement’s go all the way back to. the 2016 campaign.

He said he would be with his mob. But he left them holding the bag, while he watched on TV and enjoyed the chaos he had wrought.

 

Not true. We pretty much, ALL of us, expect Trump will not be found guilty, because of a minority of dissenters. How do you figure that means he IS not guilty, despite a majority of Senators voting that he is? (If there are less than 50 votes to convict, you can rightly call that a victory.)
You'll use any excuse, I guess, to claim being right.

 

Do you think he didn't know what was happening or that they were flying trump flags and had gone there at his direction? Witnesses in the WH aside, and I would love to hear from them, trump continued to fuel the riot until he knew it had failed. That alone is proof that he was supporting the rioters. He was the commander in Chief, the Capitol was under attack, and he only offered more rhetoric to incite the crowd.

That any of this is being questioned is ridiculous. But then everything about trump and his cult has been ridiculous. Dangerous, treasonous, traitorous, criminal, but still ridiculous.

 

Meh, orange man bad is yesterday's ruse.

 

And free speech carries the liability of what you say. It isn't a get out of jail free card.

Contrary to what the trump cult preaches, you cannot say anything you want, incite a crowd to riot, send them to kill the VP, attempt to lead a violent coup, and not suffer consequences for what is said and done.

 

They don't have the stones because they handed those to Trump on a gold platter four years ago.

 

Was Fox News not showing it? It never occurred to me to check.