We recently discussed how the Senate will have to decide whether to call witnesses in the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. The use of a snap impeachment raises a basis for some senators to oppose such witnesses on institutional or prudential grounds. Democrats opposed any witnesses in the Clinton impeachment and there were no witnesses in the first Trump impeachment trial. Not surprisingly, the House is demanding witnesses. The initial vote in the trial shows that it is substantially short of the number of senators needed to convict and Trump could be acquitted on a virtual 50-50 vote. So here is my question: why has the House not used the last few weeks to call these witnesses and build the needed case to show intent to incite an insurrection? Weeks have gone by with key witnesses speaking to the press but not to the House. Why?
I raised this possibility weeks ago since such House hearings could influence the Senate trial. Even if the transcripts were barred by the Senate, senators would be aware of the evidence and testimony. There has been limited testimony on the response to the riot but most key witnesses have not been called to public hearings on evidence related to Trump’s conduct or intent. Many are clearly willing to testify since they are speaking openly with the media.
I have no idea if such evidence exists but I, like most Americans, would like to know if it does. I was critical of Trump’s speech while he was giving it. I also opposed the challenge to the electoral votes and criticized the President’s false statements about the authority of Vice President Mike Pence to “send back” these votes. However, I have also said that, without evidence of intent, this case of incitement would fail in the Senate. Indeed, while many legal experts have claimed that this is a strong case for criminal incitement, I believe it would ultimately collapse in the federal courts on free speech grounds.
The House can show intent directly and circumstantial from evidence of the President’s conduct and statements before and after the speech. The National Guard deployment is clearly a place to start. Did Trump delay or obstruct deployment? We still do not know despite this being one of the easier questions to answer. Those questions will not be answered by calling the “Shaman” on whether he felt that Trump wanted him to riot or engage in insurrection. Such testimony will show how Trump’s words were received (which is relevant) but not what he intended.
There is a tendency in Congress to follow the litigation rule not to ask witnesses questions that you do not know the answer to in advance. However, the absence of hearings on Trump’s role is glaring as the House managers claim that many in the Senate do not want to hear the truth. There are two houses of Congress and the Democrats are in total control of the House.
There has clearly been inquiries and limited testimony but very little information has been made publicly, including information that is clearly in the possession or available to the House. Instead reports indicate that the House is building what was described as an “emotionally charged” case before the Senate with cellphone calls and witness testimony rather than evidence focusing on the intent element. I admit that I have the bias of a criminal defense attorney but that is not a case for conviction. It is a case of public appeal.
This question is even more striking given the public statements of key witnesses like former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller and his two closest aides, Kashyap “Kash” Patel and Ezra Cohen. Miller says that Trump told him the day before the riot that “You’re going to need 10,000 people.” Miller added “No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” He said Trump responded “You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do. You’re going to need 10,000.’”
That account shows Trump knew that there might be problems with the rally the next day. Many voiced the same concern. However, it also shows Trump warning that troops would be needed. The question is whether he did anything to prepare for such a deployment or interfere or delay with deployment. Witnesses like Miller would know. Yet, they are giving interviews but not public testimony under oath.
The House has held hearings on the riot but those hearings seem weirdly tailored to avoid core issues related to the trial. For example, U.S. Capitol Police chief Yogananda D. Pittman testified but did so in a closed session. She reportedly apologized to Congress “and the American people” for the obvious securing failures on Jan. 6th. She also said that they were aware of the danger of a riot in advance but failed to take adequate steps” “Let me be clear: the Department should have been more prepared for this attack.”
Maj. Gen. William Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, has also given interviews and said that deployment of his troops were delayed by over an hour because he needed approval from the Pentagon. He said that he usually has authority to deploy without approval. If that is true, why was he not called for testimony in the House to explain the timeline and whether the authority was removed specifically for that day?
There is a great deal of information in the hands of Congress on the requests for deployment and interaction with the Trump Administration. There are records and other non-witness sources of evidence that could also be used to create a record. Yet, the House has been comparatively passive in calling those witnesses that it wants to hear from in the Senate. Again, why?
This is the same pattern with the first Trump impeachment when the House waited weeks demanding witnesses that it could have called or subpoenaed before the House Judiciary Committee. It did nothing and then denounced the lack of testimony on key issues. Both trials turned on intent and the House could not expect to prevail without such evidence. It was like a case of planned obsolescence in building a case to collapse.
There are by my count at least ten key witnesses who have already spoken publicly or would be easily attainable including Miller, Walker, Pittman, Patel, Cohen and others. Yet, there is nothing but crickets from the House.
” Not surprisingly, the House is demanding witnesses. ” And now it looks as if they have one; an arrested participant in the Capitol attack, who no doubt has been bullied into believing that he’ll escape prosecution if he testifies that Donald Trump instigated the attack! I’d be amazed if he’s going to be the only one!
The lawyers for several of the people who were arrested have stated that their clients believed Trump wanted them to engage in this behavior. There is no evidence that anyone bullied them into it, so consider the possibility that they said it because it’s true and they think it will help them.
their clients believed Trump wanted them to engage in this behavior.
Wow! That’s terrific. Do they know Christine Blasey-Ford? Adam Schiff? Do you know what the #1 symptom of TDS is? You guessed it; believing the worst of Trump without anything to prove it true. Damn!
With few exceptions, the people who’ve been arrested are Trump supporters.
It’s irrelevant to the lawyers whether you think the defendants have TDS.
It’s irrelevant to the lawyers whether you think the defendants have TDS.
Lol! What is relevant is whether the lawyers can provide evidence that would reasonably validate their beliefs. They won’t. So TDS.
If the defendants choose to testify, they can be questioned about their beliefs and about the Trump statements that contributed to their beliefs.
Again, with respect to the legal case, it’s irrelevant whether you characterize these Trump supporters’ beliefs as TDS or not.
Hey Anon. Have you actually heard their testimony in a court of law. Of course not. Could there be a possibility that the story that is being circulated by the MSM could be misinformation. Could it be that they know if they say the right thing they might get a lighter sentence. Could it be that some hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. With info like this your like a bird on a June bug. Excuse my lack of confidence in your information filter. Your reputation proceeds you.
The lawyers have made public statements about their clients, and in some cases, the defendants have made public statements. For example, the QAnon Shaman’s lawyer said “Let’s roll the tape. Let’s roll the months of lies, and misrepresentations and horrific innuendo and hyperbolic speech by our president designed to inflame, enrage, motivate.” “What’s really curious is the reality that our president, as a matter of public record, invited these individuals, as president, to walk down to the Capitol with him.” “[My client] regrets very, very much having not just been duped by the president, but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made.” On the 6th, Jenna Ryan posted a video saying “We’re gonna go down and storm the capitol. They’re down there right now and that’s why we came and so that’s what we are going to do. So wish me luck.” Later, in an interview, she said “our president, President Donald Trump, asked us to go to the march on the 6th. And he said, ‘Be there.’ So I went and I answered the call of my president.”
I likely think less of you than you do of me, TIT, but it’s irrelevant to the legal issue.
Jonathan: So you think the House has a duty to now call witnesses to “build the needed case to show the intent [by Trump] to to incite an insurrection…”.Under Rule 1 of the Senate’s 1986 procedures the Senate “shall have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses”. There is nothing to prevent the Senate from calling the witnesses you mention or others. We know this won’t happen because most Senate Republicans don’t have the cajones to actually try Trump. Even from Mar-a-Lago Trump still controls most Republicans. So don’t throw the burden back on the House that has already carried out its constitutional responsibility.
In Trump’s first impeachment it took a whistleblower complaint to expose Trump’s scheme to get Ukraine to try to dig up dirt on the Bidens and weeks of House hearings to reveal the true extent of Trump’s abuse of power. That’s because Trump made his infamous phone call to the president of Ukraine from the privacy of the Oval Office. In addition the House inquiry was hampered by Trump’s intransigence, i.e., his refusal to turn over documents or allow administration officials to testify. In stark contrast, this second impeachment did not require weeks of testimony or reams of documents. The evidence was in plain sight. On January 6 Trump stood up in front of his supporters and incited them to storm the Capitol. Millions around the country watched aghast at what Trump was calling his followers to do. Maybe you think all these eye witnesses should all be called to testify? Hey, sign me up! But you bizarrely claim that when it comes to Trump’s “intent” : “I have no idea if such evidence exists”. Come on, Jonathan, your defense of Trump doesn’t pass the laugh test!
Denis, the house formulates the evidence to explain why the case for impeachment should be sent to the Senate. After the evidence is presented a vote is taken. If approved the case is sent to the Senate. Professor Turley simply inquires, if you’ve got the cards lay em on the table. If you don’t have the cards and you keep betting on a losing hand everyone in the saloon sees you as a drunken fool. Go home Cookie go home.
The House has already impeached Trump. The House impeachment managers will present their case in the Senate trial, and if the Senate wishes, it can call additional witnesses. Both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team have until Feb. 9 to file briefs prior to the start of the trial. Turley doesn’t set the time-table.
How many times must it be said that no witnesses were brought in the impeachment proceedings. No defense was allowed. You can not find an example of any impeachment that was conducted in this manner. All the kangaroos showed up in the court. Why oh marsupials on what grounds did you impeach? Grounds! we don’t need no stinking grounds responded Roo in consternation as he brought the gavel down.
The Professor’s commentary is that of an experienced litigator: why hasn’t the House – the Prosecutor – done the basic groundwork of getting testimony from the very witnesses it needs to make the case to obtain the conviction it so obviously desires?
What prosecutor, wishing to win a case, doesn’t get witnesses under oath AHEAD OF a trial so he knows what their testimony will be AT trial? Any prosecutor who’s competent makes sure he knows who his witnesses will be at trial, and he knows exactly what they will say about every important issue in the case before he puts that witness on the stand – Why didn’t the House of Representatives, which has subpoena power, do that?
You think it so obvious . . . yet now we learn the pipe bombs were left outside the DNC & RNC the night before (Trump’s pretty good if a speech he hasn’t given yet “incited” the bomb maker to make those bombs & put them in place before he ever gave it). And it may well be the timeline will show people were going at/into the Capitol BEFORE Trump said anything about “going to the Capitol” (well, that would be inconvenient).
IMO, the House didn’t do any of that because it doesn’t want a “fact intensive” trial. Their case is simple: “Trump spoke, there was a riot, QED.” The “case” you think is made is exactly the case they want to make – the spectacle, which was horrible, is all that matters . . . whether Trump actually “caused” it is irrelevant.
Hearings on the Insurrection would lead to one penetrating glimpse into the obvious after another and be about as useful as hearings on whether grass tends to be green in the summer.
Here’s the obvious answer to the obvious question: There was no insurrection. For every person in the mob who entered the Capitol Building, there were a thousand people peacefully stand outside, most of them unaware that anything was happening. If this was an insurrection, it was the first peaceful insurrection in history.
Also, no one was armed. This would be the first unarmed insurrection in history.
Also, there was no destruction, no arson, no mayhem. Another first in history.
Also, the “insurrectionists” killed or seriously injured no one. The only person killed was shot by the police, while she was doing nothing more violent than trying to crawl through a window. The other deaths were from unspecified health events. The mob killed no one.
There was no insurrection. This was a mob, of course, but a mob who, once inside, milled around aimlessly taking selfies and giving interviews.
No insurrection? Tell that to member of Congress and the VP who had to be lead to safety by security staff with tuns drawn. You are correct that most of the people in area around the Capitol were not involved with went on inside the Capitol. But this who did enter did kill a policeman and injure many other LEOs. It was an attempt to stop the Constitutionally mandated process of counting the certified electoral college votes. That is an insurrection.
That is an insurrection.
Actually it isn’t. It isn’t even a clown insurrection like that in the state of Chiapas in 1994. And here you are crapping in your Depends.
Multiple people were armed. It was not peaceful, several people were killed by the crowd, including a police officer. There was significant destruction. Federal property was stolen. IEDs were planted elsewhere.
Multiple people chanted “hang Mike Pence” and looked for him and Pelosi to kill them. A gallows was constructed outside.
If you want to read about some of this, start with the arrest and complaint records –
https://www.justice.gov/opa/investigations-regarding-violence-capitol
They do not wish to end up at discussion’s end as the assailant not the victim. Precisely because they have no ability to think things through.
One possible answer is that if you produce witnesses now, they will be covered, but any last effect would have dissipated by the time the Senate gets to them. The Rs have a remarkable ability to forgive and forget very quickly and we want the details, the revelations to come when they are in Senate chamber where it will have maximum impact.
Has it occurred to Professor Turley that House impeachment managers are quietly working with law enforcement to build just the record he believes is non-existent?
Such a hearing is exactly what feral Republicans in the House want, and the Democrats are too smart to fall for that approach again. The element of surprise will, in this case, serve the House impeachment team well.
I also disagree with the Professor on how he thinks such a case would fare in the courts. The time to establish clearer rules regarding dangerous speech has come.
David, so the Democrats fell for putting witnesses on the stand under oath. They wouldn’t want to fall for that again. Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Wouldn’t want that to get in the way this time. Thanks for the info.
“Too smart” and “Democrats” are not words that belong together. They commonly have the stronger hand and are on the right side of popular opinion and still mess it up.
MollyGee, consider a recent phenomenon. Their are those who make public statements who when under oath change their story. An example would be Brennan testifying that he had seen no proof of collusion. If their information is true why don’t the Democrats want them to affirm their statements under oath. A little matter of false statements under oath with punishment by law might just curb their enthusiasm. Can you smell the quiet.
If the House held hearings between the impeachment and the trial as JT now suggests they should have, I could easily see JT criticize the effort as evidence they they rushed impeachment, did not properly investigate, and questioning whether it is appropriate to do outside the impeachment record etc. My other thought is that it is little late to make this suggestion now — it would have been useful right after impeachment.
The president’s own words dispute any attempt to incite any violence. In fact, his words explicitly called for peace. It is evident that it is indeed the political left attempting to incite violence through an attack on the first amendment.
But let’s also be honest about this political stunt. This is not an impeachment trial. The Chief Justice has even declined to participate in this political theater. There are no consequences that can come from such a show trial other than more skepticism of the political class and its antipathy against We the People.
Ellis:
Business Insider column:
The GOP thinks one line from Trump’s Jan. 6 speech will excuse the rest of it and everything else he did to incite the Capitol siege
“You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong,” Trump said during his speech. “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Throughout the speech, Trump peppered his supporters with false claims about the election — including that he “won it by a landslide.”
“You will have an illegitimate president,” Trump falsely said of President-elect Joe Biden. “That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen.”
The president explicitly urged his supports to march on the US Capitol, at one point suggesting he’d walk there with them as Congress went through the formal step of accepting the election results certified by the states.
“Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
Trump in a tweet on December 26 called the 2020 election “the biggest SCAM in our nation’s history,” adding, “History will remember. Never give up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-cherrypicks-one-line-from-trump-jan-6-reject-impeachment-2021-1
Joe, both sides use strong rhetoric. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” I don’t believe Obama was being literal, and I don’t believe Trump intended literal violence. There are so many other instances of militant, leftwing rhetoric that qualifies as permissible speech.
As to the election, it takes a very high standard of evidence for courts and legislatures to intervene. That doesn’t mean significant fraud didn’t occur in 2020. I accept that you differ on that point.
No one has presented convincing evidence of significant fraud in the 2020 election. Instead, what has been presented are affidavits that are largely either hearsay or that describe things that are legal, and video excerpts that show legal activity when viewed in full.
None of the members of Congress alleging fraud in the 2020 presidential election allege fraud in the 2020 congressional elections. That makes it hard to take the allegations seriously, since the very same ballots were used for both.
Nothing you note incites or calls for violence, it proves my point.
And after all the evidence we have seen if you don’t accept the massive fraud that installed Biden as president then you are without help. You can choose to ignore it, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Joe, Hillary told Joe Biden not to concede under any circumstances.
She was talking about election night. Have you never bothered to listen to the context of her comment?
I think that if all relevant questions were to be asked and answered, it could very well come to light that the leaders of the House and the Senate denied reinforcements that were reportedly requested by their respective Sergeants at Arms. Getting answers to many of these questions would destroy the narrative that Speaker Pelosi has crafted. I would like to see that narrative challenged. I would like to see Speaker Pelosi answer questions under oath. When viewed from an historical perspective, the rationale for the impeachment seems to be an extension of the Russia-collusion narrative. Why have the Democrats concluded that a claim that the election was stolen is a lie? There has not been an investigation of sufficient depth to conclusively establish that.
Turley, who cares what you think?
Many of us who read the blog care what Professor Turley thinks. That’s why we read it. If you don’t care, why not do a crossword puzzle instead?
Witnesses, Representatives, and Senators need to stay away from window seats when booking flights into Wash DC for the impeachment trial.
There have been reports of a gremlin seen walking on airplane wings at 20,000 feet.
Jonathan, I have admired your integrity and intelligence for some time. Even when I disagree with you, I feel you are speaking from conviction. That has not changed. I am concerned that lately you have seemed unwilling to call out the destructive, inciteful rhetoric from the left. After the election you rightly pointed out that dismissing Republicans (and many democrats) concerns about the elections would only fuel suspicions about the integrity of them. The Democrats screaming that anybody who expresses doubt is “Unpatriotic” or an “Insurrectionist” is classic consciousness of guilt behavior. The inflamed rhetoric, the dismissal of 75 million white, black, asian, and hispanic voters as “white supremacists” feel calculated to trigger the same extremism they claim to fear. I am also surprised that you have not commented on the sheer number of executive actions. Or the appointment of Nicholas McQuaid, partner of Hunter Biden defense attorney to head the Justice departments criminal investigations division.
Kiss the impeachment good bye. The Wall Street Journal article today shows that Donald Trump had no involvement in planning the rally. He only agreed to speak. The rally in Washington’s Ellipse that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was arranged and funded and organized by a small group including a top Trump campaign fundraiser facilitated by far-right show host Alex Jones, organizers said. There were no plans to storm the Capitol found by investigators from this group,nor did anyone encourage it.
Turley: “Those questions will not be answered by calling the “Shaman” on whether he felt that Trump wanted him to riot or engage in insurrection. Such testimony will show how Trump’s words were received (which is relevant) but not what he intended.”
I wish you had expanded on this point because it seems to me that Trump’s intent must be determined by the reasonable man’s standard. That is, how would a reasonable man interpret Trump’s rhetoric. Can a person be said to have intended to state one thing if most listeners came to think just the opposite? Admittedly, Trump did say that his followers should peaceably walk down to the Capitol, but that was the only statement he made which was contrary to everything else in his speech intended to enrage his audience. Does a person have to explicitly state, “Storm the Capitol” in order to be found guilty of incitement? On the contrary, it is the overall implicit message of his speech which can incite a mob albeit with a dismissive line or two counseling restraint in a clever attempt to shield one’s liability for inciting a mob- “I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,” comes to mind!
Even if Trump’s speech does not amount to criminal incitement, could he not have done more to quell the agitated crowd? He has a presidential duty, after all, to protect the Capitol and the institution of Congress. Accordingly, is he not guilty of failing to emphasize to his followers that there must be no violence whatsoever? They presumably would have followed his command if only he had made his intention unmistakeable! Whose fault is it that it was not? Do the Republicans want to push all the blame onto the crowd?
And Turley once again pushes the false narrative that Trump’s conduct at issue in the Impeachment centers on or about January 6th. Turley will not acknowledge Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen. Turley is understandably loathe to concede that the incitement which culminated on January 6th had been building for 2 months for the obvious reason that his employer Fox News is guilty of broadcasting and reinforcing the Big Lie to millions of its viewers. But for Trump TV, Newsmax, OAN, and Infowars agitating their viewers with this lie, there would not have been the incentive to fly and drive long distances to D.C. A crowd poised to overthrow an election they had been led to believe was stolen from them and were hell-bent to take their country back come what may. Knowing full well why the mob was there and the foreseeable consequences, Trump consciously refused to do all that he could have to calm them down and prevent a catastrophe.
Fox News, et. al., is on trial too in this upcoming Impeachment which explains why Turley as the legal face of Fox is advocating dismissing the trial on procedural grounds before evidence is presented which exposes his network’s complicity. Notwithstanding the upcoming evidence, it is a foregone conclusion that not enough Republicans will break rank to convict. However, I suspect conviction is not the real point of this trial. The point is to force the Republicans to go on the record in the face of this assault on our democracy for the sake of posterity. As more evidence of Trump’s malfeasance is revealed, it remains to be seen whether Republicans are more fearful of breaking with their party than they are worried what will become of their legacy by failing to break at long last from Trumpism which will no less be discredited and vilified as McCarthyism in the long judgement of history.
Conspiracy theory.
What you forgot to say: “We all know what Trump intended. We can read his mind. And the minds of the thousands of protesters. And the minds of 75,000,000 Trump voters. He’s vile; they are vile; and all of you are vile.”
But to you, I say, I know what’s in your mind: A deep hatred of Donald Trump.
Consider therapy, Jeff.
Steve, why shouldn’t I hate chronic and habitual liars like Trump and Clinton? Tell me.
Then by your logic you should hate Joe Biden as well. Biden is a well known chronic habitual liar and serial plagiarizer. He is now plagiarizing Trump’s Covid relief plan (with only minor changes) and lying about Trump having “no plan.” Biden is plagiarizing Trump’s ‘Buy American’ policy. But instead of being the “jobs, jobs, jobs” president as Trump was, Joe Biden is literally killing hundreds of thousands of good paying American jobs with every stroke of his pen. And that was just in the first week of his presidency.
Your point of reasonable-man is spot on. But when you throw in Fox and everyone else, your bias is showing.
Correct. I am biased against liars on Trump TV. I admit it!
+10 Jeffery
You didn’t mention Trump selling the 1/6 event and with promises of big results before it happened.
Jeffrey, so now peaceful and patriotic can now be interpreted as burn it down. Right out of newspeak in 1984. He said love thy neighbor to rile up the Christians. Don’t you understand that go in peace really means tear it down in Jeffreys interpretation of his new found amendment to the constitution. Once you stretch it so far it becomes ludicrous. You are correct when you state that conviction is not the point of the impeachment. The point is to keep you on the hate Trump team for as long as possible. Mission accomplished. Speaking of McCarthy. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party boils down the intent of your argument.
silverman makes a joke. the mccarthyism has come from the Russia Russia Russia conspiracy theorists. Not Trump
sal sar
Cointelpro blacklisting tactics – used to disrupt legal 1st Amendment exercises by citizens – is also a genuine type of coup. 1st Amendment activity is also part of the democratic process, Bush (like Nixon) silenced perceived “political enemies”. Why not start the investigation in 2000 with John Ashcroft? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already accumulated hard evidence of Cointelpro tactics in Ashcroft’s abuse of the federal “Material Witness Statute.
Why do you pose things as questions when you know the answers? We’re still waiting to see the remaining depositions from the first impeachment….hmmm.
The D’s are doing this for pure spite. What a waste of public monies. They should all be censured for perpetrating a fraud on the Senate and the American public They have no real case, just vitriol.
I disagree. This is just a tremendous distraction. Look at the birdie! That’s all it’s ever been. This whole nonsurrection was planned and executed by the left with a few gullible Trump supporters who fell in the trap to avoid having to hear the evidence on voter fraud and the thing was kept at a fever pitch so that evidence would never have a chance to come out. They must have been disappointed that Trump supporters didn’t do more damage than they did but they sure worked what they had. In this, they have been 100% effective. They have now made it a felony to even talk about election fraud. They figure if they keep screaming about impeachment Americans will stop thinking about how the election was stolen, how Biden has issued 40 EO’s in a week, and how the country is on the fast track to communist totalitarianism. Meanwhile, the AMA has magically discovered that hydroxychloroquine is very effective against COVID. Remember that drug? The dangerous drug that was going to kill everybody so we weren’t allowed to talk about that either and doctors who prescribed it had their licenses revoked? That drug? The one Trump advocated early in March 2020? The one that would have made all the lockdowns and financial devastation unnecessary? Now it’s suddenly the wonder drug that Professor Raoult said it was a year ago. Yeah the Dems hate Trump but this impeachment isn’t about spite. It is a cynical and highly effective technique to keep the attention of the public on something other than what is really happening in this country. And since nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, the technique is succeeding brilliantly.
Deboluccia hit the nail on the head.
Actually, it’s the definition of insanity.
You’re quite meticulous about this, dotting them i’s and crossing them t’s.
They didn’t hold hearings because they knew bloody well that the transcript of the President’s speech would make a dog’s breakfast of the proposition that he incited anything. See Ann Althouse examination of the salient passages. Liz Cheney is a tool.
Isn’t “stupidity” sometimes defined as doing the same thing over and over hoping for different results?
Either the Democrats under Pelosi’s wonderful leadership merely trying to stir the pot and score points on their loony base….or they are incompetent as they are doing a second time what Professor Turley warned them about and actually told them how to build a winning case……so which is it merely being partisan politicians scoring cheap points with a blind and deaf base or plain old incompetence?
Could be either. I’ve never seen evidence that Pelosi has an altruisitc, public-spirited bone in her body, so the ‘pandering’ explanation makes sense. Then again, I’ve never seen evidence that her intelligence extended beyond navigating Democratic Party office politics, so the ‘stupid’ explanation also makes sense. She’s also 81 years old, so the ‘senile’ explanation is plausible as well.
I feel your pain Deco.
Sorry for you that Pelosi will accurately be remembered as not only the most powerful woman of her time and first to be Speaker, but also a masterful politician with many legislative achievements and a few notches on her gavel, including Trump’s defeats in 2018 and 2020.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/440/163/e4e.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuKYZMcWwAA3Tql.jpg/
Sorry for you that Pelosi will accurately be remembered as not only the most powerful woman of her time and first to be Speaker,
Which will be of interest only to frivolous people.
with many legislative achievements
A statement which could be made only by someone who has not examined the list of bills she’s sponsored over 34 years – all of them constituent service trivia.
Actually, it’s the definition of insanity.
Ralph, you ignore the facts, which are Pelosi sought to avoid both impeachments – in 2018 Democrats with a few exceptions did not run on impeaching Trump and she squashed any movement in that direction until the Ukrainian QPQ – including begging GOP leadership publicly after 1/6 to clean up their own mess. Again they wouldn’t.