Below is my column in the Hill on the trial briefs filed by the House and the Trump team for the second Trump impeachment trial. The brief of the House promises an emotionally charged but legally insufficient case for conviction. Indeed, there is no evidence that the “prosecution” is designed to win the trial since the House offers little on the issue of intent. Conversely, if Donald Trump insists on arguing election fraud, he could conceivably engineer his own conviction. 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.
Here is the column:
I don’t believe Punxsutawney Phil said anything about winter this year. Phil’s handlers claim to speak “Groundhogese,” but there are just some things that should come from the marmot himself. If you’re a groundhog skeptic like me, you will be equally unsatisfied by the filings for the second Trump impeachment by House impeachment managers and the Trump team.
The House brief outlines what will be a highly emotive case but one conspicuously lacking evidence of a critical element: intent. Likewise, the case laid out by Trump’s new counsel may be equally disconnected from the allegations. In this trial, we will hear a lot about how the groundhog appeared, what people thought he said, and even where he went afterward — but little from the groundhog himself.
The House
The House brief is built around how Trump’s speech was interpreted rather than intended. The House reportedly plans to show video clips from the riot and statements of the rioters referring to Trump and his speech. That would show how the speech was received, but not how it was meant.
The House is, in many ways, a captive of its own excess. After refusing to hold a single hearing to look at the language and implications of impeachment, House leaders pushed through an article for “incitement of insurrection.” The ill-conceived, poorly crafted article guaranteed that few Republicans could support it. It also refers to a crime that would be difficult to prove in a court of law; the president’s speech likely would be found to be protected by the First Amendment, if not at trial then on appeal. The Supreme Court has routinely protected speech absent clear advocacy of violence.
Trump’s speech would not satisfy the standard laid out in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio. Calling on one’s supporters to march on federal or state capitals is common in politics. In his speech, Trump told supporters to “peacefully” walk to the Capitol to show support for his election challenge and opposition to those refusing to back it. However, there is a difference between reckless and criminal rhetoric.
The House filing raises more questions than answers, particularly on the relative passivity of the House to create any record — a “snap impeachment” without hearing, testimony or investigation, which I have criticized. There was no chance that the trial would occur for weeks after Trump left office and, under its own theory, the House could impeach a former president in days or years after leaving office. Yet, it refused to hold even one hearing.
While demanding witnesses in the Senate, the House could have called witnesses before its own committee to lock in their testimony for weeks and create a public record that could be referenced in the Senate trial. As I have previously noted, there are at least ten key witnesses who could be called, including many who have spoken publicly. Those witnesses include former Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and his two closest aides, Kashyap “Kash” Patel and Ezra Cohen. Some are referenced in this filing, but the House has declined to put them under oath. Why? These witnesses could answer questions on whether Trump impeded or delayed the deployment of the National Guard. Indeed, the House is clearly in possession of information on when the Guard was first offered and interactions with the administration on its deployment. Moreover, while Trump — like prior presidents — is unlikely to testify, others have recounted meetings with him before and after his Jan. 6 speech.
Instead, the House suggests that when Trump later tweeted around 2:30 p.m. to his supporters to “stay peaceful” and “support our Capitol Police and law enforcement,” he didn’t mean it. In this, 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.
The Trump team
Trump’s original legal team reportedly resigned after he insisted that they focus on allegations of electoral fraud. If so, it could prove a case of Trump snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Trump currently is set to secure a second acquittal by close to the same margin as in his first impeachment trial. Converting this trial into an argument over electoral fraud would be viewed as a sign of contempt by some senators who have lost patience with him.
Trump’s filing does address his claim of a stolen election but states, rather obliquely, that “Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th president’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false.”
Trump’s view of election fraud certainly is germane, since it is referenced in the impeachment article. However, it is the worst possible defense to advance before the Senate. It doesn’t matter if Trump was right about fraud; it only matters whether he sought a rebellion rather than a recount.
Beyond the constitutional challenge, the second-best argument is that this is not incitement but protected speech, which is raised in Trump’s filing. The House emphasized Trump’s use of language like “fight much harder,” “stop the steal” and “take back our country.” Yet, that language not only is consistent with previous Trump speeches but is similar to language used by Democrats. Indeed, Democrats have challenged electoral votes in the past, and many denied the legitimacy of Trump’s election on his inauguration day as violent protests erupted in Washington.
Finally, Trump can argue that he has been denied due process by this snap impeachment. Since the House maintains that it could impeach Trump at any time after leaving office, it could have afforded him an opportunity to respond and for witnesses to be heard in the House. But those defenses will be lost if Trump wants to make this a trial on election fraud.
Both sides’ filings bode poorly for this trial, which could become a raw reflection of our age of rage. No minds will be changed — just more weeks of political winter.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law with George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as an expert witness for the impeachment hearings of Presidents Clinton and Trump, and he has consulted Senate Republicans on the historic and legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current Senate trial. Follow him with Twitter @JonathanTurley.
January 30, 2021: Yesterday speaking with a friend living in Borroloola, Australia about a report from Yulara that there is a remarkable decrease in the largest Mob of Kangroos. He did some research and found that the Boomer of the Mob had organized a trip to Washington DC to be in attendance at a trial. The report stated that the Boomer was taking his favorite Jill along with the majority of the troops; they should arrive before the trial starts in February. He will be giving testimony concerning the (validity- legitimacy) of the charges at the trial. He has previously given testimony at various venues about rules of the court and acceptable charges that may be presented. He did allude to the fact that persecutors in the Kangaroo court system may bring any charges, appoint the Judge to conduct the trial, and establish any rule or rules while the trial is conducted. The Boomer was then asked if he will view the Declaration of Independence or request a copy of the Constitution of the United States of American as amended. He indicated he will not take the time away from the trial, and asked why should he, stating they have no relevance to the proceeding he is attending. While leaving the Boomer was asked what political affiliations he may have, he stated the only affiliation he has is with the Kangaroo Court System and was grateful for the invitation to give testimony at the trial. ————February 5, 2021: A follow up report I received from Australia today makes note that large troops of Kangaroo’s from Mount Isa, Halls Creek, Lake Mackay, and Lake Disappointment are traveling to Alice Springs to view the United States Senates Kangaroo Trial of President Trump and listen to their Boomer representative give testimony about the foundation of a Kangaroo Court System and the lack of rules or written law. The lead Boomer (Karl) of the migrating Kangaroos from Lake Disappointment Area had spoken to a representative of the Troops who are in Washington DC and that they were being treated very well by the plangent charging party. A local resident in Alice Springs reported that most of the arriving Kangaroos carried signs with “GUILTY” written on both sides, and that they looked mass produced. Unknown how many Kangaroos will ultimately arrive but it’s reported it will be a profusion from the many travelers reporting on the migration.
Turley: you seem not to understand that America is already enraged–enraged at Trump’s endless lying, enraged over the arrogance of trying to force Secretaries of State to void valid votes and award them to him, enraged at lying to his disciples about his election loss being fraudulent (most Americans do not believe this), enraged that he demanded that they march to the Capitol, and if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have a country any more, enraged that he told the Proud Boys to “stand by”, enraged that he let the Trump Insurrection go on for hours without trying to stop it while police officers were being beaten and bludgeoned, enraptured over the tangible proof of his power and glory, enraged over defecation on the floors and urination on the walls of offices of Democratic congresspeople, and enraged that he not only won’t shut up about it, he’s planning another vainglory tour right after the second impeachment trial–trying to keep his grasp on the faith of the deplorables and to rail against any Republican who has or will vote against him. The announcement of this tour is, of course, intended to intimidate Republicans who might have a conscience, a soul and some modicum of patriotism. Now, if this isn’t third-world “politics”, what is it? If Trump isn’t trying to be a dictator, if he isn’t driven by craven narcissism, then how do you explain this? Has any President in our history ever behaved like this? Borrowing an idea from “A Time to Kill”, just imagine how things would be if Obama had cheated to get into office, if he trashed the economy, if he botched a pandemic, alienated our allies, was predicted to lose re-election, had historically-low polling numbers, and started lying about his re-election being “stolen” even before Election Day, exhorting black people to “fight for their country, because if you don’t you won’t have a country’. Imagine if the Trump Insurrectionists had all been black. We all know how differently things would have turned out. About all of this, American patriots are enraged. Turley, using whatever credibility he has left, is trying to help Trump get away with this. Is trying to help a loser narcissist like Trump the reason you became a lawyer?
We don’t need a trial to get us to the point of rage. You, as a paid GOP “advisor” opine that intent is the weak link here. What could your fat hero’s intention have been, other than to try to force Congress to keep his fat ass in our White House, despite the will of the American people, and no matter the cost, by telling the faithful that they wouldn’t have a country left if they didn’t fight for it? Do you think he really didn’t know that the Proud Boys and their dimwitted ilk carry guns and are just itching to use them? Do you think he didn’t know how Fox News and other pro-Trump media constantly targeted women, especially those of color in Congress like AOC, Omar, Pressley, Pelosi and others, and that it’s just a coincidence that they were actually hunting for these women, especially AOC, and that they invaded Pelosi’s office? In fact, did you see the campaign poster of that white trash bottle blondie who got stripped of her committee assignments yesterday, pointing an assault rifle at AOC, Omar and Pressley? Stuff to be proud of–right? Your client said he would be leading them to the Capitol, and those who have been arrested all state they were following his directive and that they believed his lies. What was his “intent” when he called Raffensberger and demanded that he “find” 11,700+ votes (if this isn’t proof that he knew he lost, what is it?), and when he refused, threatened him with criminal prosecution? How about when he called the GA Governor and Attorney General, demanding that they give him GA? How about firing Barr for telling him there was no fraud, and firing Chris Krebs for stating that the election was secure? How about 60+ courts ruling there was no fraud? You think he really didn’t know the truth? Would you, as a paid mouthpiece, try to claim that Trump had a good-faith belief that he really won the election, that his inciting of his disciples was based on patriotism, or that he had no intention for his gullible disciples to start rioting when he told them if they didn’t act, they wouldn’t have a country any more? How about when he told the faithful that he hoped Mikey Pence would “do the right thing”–i.e., refuse to accept the certified Electoral College votes, which he had no power to do? Why do you think they erected a gallows and shouted “hang Mike Pence”? How could any sentient person not see the desperation, the abject narcissism, the pathetic failure of a man who cannot accept defeat, and who would do anything, including inciting a riot, to avoid the truth that he lost? How could Congress fail to act–this is not a “snap impeachment”–Trump should be prevented from ever serving any elected office again, but everyone knows that the cowardly and un-patriotic Republicans will absolutely NOT do the right thing, and that Turley will argue they are justified. We all know that it’s because the Republican Party is losing ground and that they are desperate to hold onto power, even if its from people like the Proud Boys, so they kiss Trump’s enormous ass. So, Turley’s arguing that intent is weak, and that this impeachment is just the product of the “age of rage”? Any other reaction to Trump;s lying and inciting of a riot that left 5 people dead would be outrageous. So long as he can wield power, he will do so, and the rest of the world looks on in dismay.
Speaking of ass yours is hanging out your mouth. Lies 1. Your lies about Trump Russian collusion. 2. Your lies about Ukraine. 3. Your lies which MURDERED over 300,000 Americans who could be alive today if they had used Hydroxychloroquine . 4 the election was fraudulent c
Nothing, no facts, can shake your faith in Trump, in Fox, in ultra right-wing media. Whatever he says, no matter the total lack of factual support, and no matter how much proof to the contrary, is what you will believe. You won’t even believe Dan Coats, a lifelong Republican appointed by Trump to oversee all the US intelligence agencies, who said Russia did help Trump cheat and defeat the will of the American people. The Ukraine call speaks for itself–you shouldn’t need me to explain it to you. The narcissist saw the polls predicting his loss, so he tried to get Ukraine to gin up a fake “investigation” about Hunter Biden. We all heard it, but you refuse to believe. You don’t believe the peer-reviewed studies that proved that hydroxychloroquine not only is ineffective, but more COVID patients died who took it versus those who didn’t. You don’t believe 50 Secretaries of State, including Republican ones, the recorded telephone call with Raffensberger, 60+ courts, Bill Barr or Chris Krebs. Instead, you believe someone with a track record of constant lying.
I read every word of this unintelligible screed slavered by a hyphenated parasite.
It’s all irrelevant. The Founders plainly intended that “insurrection” would be protected speech. The “insurrection” clause was added almost a century later by partisans after the Civil War without discussion. The Second Amendment gives “the people” the right to bear arms in militias, which were local military/law enforcement forces. Until fairly recently, scholars made clear its intent was to maintain an armed populace who would have the ability to rebel against tyrannical government. If Democrats succeed in this, it’ll go to the Supreme Court – unless John Roberts pitches another tantrum and refuses to hear it. As for election fraud, why are Democrats like Turley so desperate to keep it from being discussed? They must know something. James Carville apparently did. He said it would look like Trump won then the absentee ballots would change the outcome. How did he know this? Ballots are supposed to be secret.
The riot at the capitol was distinctly not an insurrection.
The rioters were not armed, did not constitute a formidable opponent and held no idea, design or hope of any degree of success, other than to provide a false rationale for communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) to criticize President Donald J. Trump, who was reelected actually.
___________________________________________________________________________
Insurrection parsed.
Merriam-Webster
“Insurrection implies an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.”
rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, insurrection, mutiny mean an outbreak against authority. rebellion implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers revolution applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising revolt and insurrection imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers mutiny applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship’s cook
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The 2nd Amendment provides citizens the right to keep and bear arms. All laws infringing, by any means and/or method, on that right are irrefutably unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment, in a completely independent, separate and unrelated clause which does not bear, states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, in that the militia maintains the potential to overthrow a tyrannical, oppressive, rogue and unconstitutional government.
________________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The singular American failure and deleterious component has been and is the Supreme Court. Beginning with the totally unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and continuing through American history up to the current wholly unconstitutional and criminal impeachment of a private citizen who is not the president and who is a former president, the Supreme Court and judicial branch have failed to immediately strike down acts and actions which are unconstitutional, and it has failed to assure the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. Indeed, judges and Justices of the judicial branch, long ago, should have been and must be impeached and convicted for abuse of power, usurpation of power, dereliction of duty and criminal negligence, deliberately and with malice aforethought, against the Constitution, America and the American People; the most egregious of crimes.
If Turley’s a Democrat, I’m the 6th man for the Lakers.
How do you like playing with them?
Is that Lake Victoria?
Beyond the constitutional challenge, the second-best argument is that this is not incitement but protected speech, which is raised in Trump’s filing. The House emphasized Trump’s use of language like “fight much harder,” “stop the steal” and “take back our country.”
Moreover, if you actually listen to the speech, you’ll find that Trump’s tone was much calmer than the transcript would suggest.
You want to just focus on the speech right before the Trump Insurrection–but how did the disciples get there and why were they there? Trump started lying about a stolen election before Election Day, and this is because, following an historic run of low approval ratings, every poll showed he would lose. He started stirring them up by telling them during a debate with Biden that the Proud Boys should “stand down and stand by”. “Stand by” for what? Do you think he doesn’t know who the Proud Boys are and their love for weapons? After he lost the election, he started the vainglory “Stop the Steal” tours. Now what possible reason could there be for these tours? The votes were cast, under historic scrutiny, they were counted, under bipartisan scrutiny, they were certified by Secretaries of State, so what possible purpose could “Stop the Steal” rallies serve, other than to incite a riot? Trump knew he lost–there can be no serious question–he was told by: Barr, Krebs, Raffensberger, 50 Secretaries of State, 60+ courts, including the SCOTUS, and Pence, but he kept on lying to the deplorables. He told them if they didn’t fight, they wouldn’t have a country left. There is no doubt about intent. There is no doubt that he must be prevented from ever holding office again. Republicans who are Republicans first and Americans second, will not do the right thing. They won’t impeach him, which will only enlarge his ego and power. That is indeed dangerous moment for American democracy.
“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.”
For what purpose?
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2021/02/02/two-quick-analogies-about-leftist-thought-processes/
A concise discussion of some elements of the liberal mentality in our time.
This whole impeachment is just the latest manifestation of the whole “hate crime” system. As if intent can be determined based on how someone felt about their victim.
I believe Mr. Orwell would refer to is as “thought crime,” but your point is well taken.
The 2nd Trump impeachment trial has similarities that occur in nature. And it isn’t Punxsutawney!
Piranha fish feeding frenzy. BBC Nature video.
The House Managers’ Brief argues that under Article 1 of the Constitution anyone can be impeached and convicted, and that Article 2 deals only with the specific case of the impeachment and conviction of civil officers. But the standard of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanours is set out only in Article 2. Does that mean that in other cases under Article 1 the House and Senate are free to choose any standard they want? That would be absurd. So the better view must be that Article 2 exhaustively defines when impeachment and conviction may occur, and Article 1 merely defines the procedures for any such impeachment and conviction, and sets out the limitations on punishment in the event of conviction. Under Article 2, only civil officers may be impeached and convicted, and because it says the relevant civil officer “shall” be removed upon conviction, it strongly implies that the civil officer must then be in office at the time of impeachment and trial.
I wonder what the Democrats think will happen. They cannot be so lost that they already know this is not a waste of time. They did not even take the time to create a proper record. Why?
I wonder if this bothers them because these chickens came to roost in their home. Maybe all of them should look in the mirror and understand their lack of action in condemnation last Summer for the riots gave the other side all the reason they needed.
Trump giving a whining speech was both wrong and stupid, but he did not call for insurrection. He whined like all the other losers.
Impeachment was also wrong and stupid, but the House could have created a record to make their case and did not. They did not even try. It is a mockery of the process.
No wonder no Congress has suck trust ratings.
As I read your post, I wonder why do we have trials at all. After all the more the public hears about the crime, the more enraged they become. Let’s do away with trials. In fact, let’s let all defendants have their friends and accomplices make up their jury. Let’s allow jurors decide how trials will be run. Let jurors threaten prosecutors. Yes, that’s the ticket!
The impeachment trial in the Senate is not your typical criminal trial and you know it. It is a hybrid and an impeachment trial serves an educational purpose. If the public is enraged by the perfidy of DONALD Trump and his administration so be it. Of course, it could also convince the public that he is innocent but you and I know that no Republican cares about that. His defense team and he have virtually admitted he’s guilty of the acts charged but that he was justified because of unproven “ voter fraud”.
Let the trial proceed. It’s time there was a complete airing of all these issues. Republicans are afraid that the American people will see who they really are.
Laughable grasping at straws.
Some basic principles of law and justice.
People are innocent until proven guilty.
People are not hailed into court on mere suspicion, a prima facie case must at least be made that there are in fact charges to be answered.
People are not convicted and deprived of their rights based on feelings but on evidence of actual wrongdoing.
In other words, we don’t get to say “I know this person did something, not sure what it is, but let’s have a trial. Something is bound to turn up.”
Those are the actions we expect from authoritarian regimes and racists.
It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare.
Edmund Burke – Observations on a Late Publication on the Present State of the Nation (1769)
Since the Rs won’t grow a spine and vote to convict Trump. The facts are out there and they just don’t care. The point of the trial now is to get them all on record supporting what Trump did. Also, JT is continuing the same lie that all of his defenders are, pretending that the impeachment is only about one speech where it is clearly about the entire time after the election.
Where did Trump call for armed insurrection? He did not. Everything else is tea reading. The House had their chance to nail this down and did not. Why? Because they think they can cause more damage by blaming Republicans for not voting for impeachment. The Democrats had better hope he is not convicted because Trump ends up in front of the Supreme Court and that will be overturned. This is a sham and not only was this botched, but then kicked. The House should be embarrassed with such a poor job on such an important matter. History will not be kind to them.
SCOTUS has no role in impeachments and they can’t overturn it. And you are making the same error that JT did, this is not about one speech, but about two months of lies.
He can still appeal to the Supreme Court if he is convicted and “removed”. The process has not worked as by law. The Supreme Court is the final say on interpretation. I think he has a very good case, not on impeachment, but remedy. He was not provided a chance in the House to rebut. It was rushed through. If this was a court of law, this is overturned. Even if you impeach, you still must follow the Constitution.
Personally, I do not think it gets nearly that far. This fails In the Senate.
People normally don’t have a chance to rebut an indictment, and the impeachment in the House is like an indictment. He’ll be provided a chance in the Senate to rebut. The Senate is where the trial is.
A conviction in the Senate is not appealable.
No,
It is about Trump calling for an incitement to insurrection. He did not call for insurrection. I am not arguing with what you actually mean, but this is the charge.
SCOTUS has no role in impeachments and they can’t overturn it.
SCOTUS can indeed rule that the proceedings and putative were a nullity. If the Senate purports to bar Trump from holding office in the future, the courts will have to resolve the question as soon as any election official anywhere decides to put his name on, or leave his name off, a ballot.
That should be “putative punishment” in lieu of “putative”.
It is hard to address your post respectfully but I’ll try.
Impeachment is not intended to punish people for taking unpopular, unproductive, or even delusional positions. It is not intended to punish or remove people for doing a bad job. The mechanism was set up differently from the English system in an attempt to avoid what it has become today, a partisan joke.
If the impeachment is about what he has done since the election, why was there no record made of his actions?
You and the Democrats are plowing some dangerous ground. If any climate warrior burns a car lot of SUVs, can a future Congress Impeach Biden for inciting violence with his alarmist talk of the existential threat of climate change? Or if racial riots once again erupt, for his talk on racial justice?
For the record, I accept the results of the election, warts and all but you cannot prove that there was no fraud, and you cannot prove that it wasn’t stolen. We can only infer that given the facts we know, the results should stand.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” – Donald Rumsfeld
Fifty Secretaries of State do NOT have to prove there was no fraud. Trump has to prove there WAS, and he can’t because there wasn’t any. So said 50 Secretaries of State and 60 courts. So said his Attorney General, Bill Barr. So said Chris Krebs, in charge of cybersecurity, a Trump appointee. Trump’s claims of fraud were made BEFORE the election. Refer to the numerous vainglory rallies, in which Trump told the deplorables to be poll watchers because the election was going to be stolen. The ONLY reason he said this is because he had an historic run of low approval ratings and was predicted to lose in the polls. He made an absolute fool of himself by declaring victory before all of the votes had been counted, much less certified, and then when it was clear he had lost, he started the “Stop the Steal” vainglory rallies, tried to bully Secretaries of State, tried to bully Mike Pence, and then exhorted his disciples to go to the Capitol to fight for their country or they wouldn’t have a country any more.
You claim it cannot be proven that the election was not stolen, so why did 50 Secretaries of State certify the results, including Republican ones? Why did 60 courts, plus the SCOTUS, rule there was no widespread fraud? How logical is it that someone who lost the popular vote in 2016, who had historically low approval ratings and was predicted to lose, won anyway, and by a landslide, despite historic unemployment, despite an historic recession, despite botching the pandemic all on his watch, and telling a record number of lies? Does that even make sense?
cretins like Natch want YOU declared an ENEMY of the STATE
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-new-domestic-war-on-terror-is
JT is continuing the same lie that all of his defenders are, pretending that the impeachment is only about one speech where it is clearly about the entire time after the election.
The article of impeachment specifically states that it is only about one speech.
It does not. It says that the Jan 6 speech was the culmination of months of lies
And even ties in a bit of election fraud material from Georgia, I believe.
Elvis Bug
Or rather election tampering.
Elvis Bug
Since the Rs won’t grow a spine and vote to convict Trump.
They won’t convict Trump because the Senate has no jurisdiction and the charges against him are humbug.
Yes, no jurisdiction other then the constitution specifically giving the Senate the power to try all impeachments.
Arty’s just pulling it out of his butt like he normally does.
And he’s not subject to that as a private citizen. Stop being childish.
This nonsensical and unconstitutional impeachment is built upon the unethical and immoral foundation of consequentialism which is the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.
The DC Democrats are continually b a s t a r d i z i n g the Constitution of the United States of America. The House of Representatives have abused their power to impeachment twice, there needs to be severe consequences for their unconstitutional actions.
The anti-Trump, anti-Republican and anti-Conservative scorched earth persecution precedence that the DC Democrats have set over the last four years is destructive to the foundations that the United States is built upon, these “Democrats” have become the enemy of the people. Somehow the Supreme Court of the United States need to rhetorically slap the House Democrats.
Yeah, Steve, not like the good old days of the Clinton Impeachment, where high ethics guys like the recently disgraced president of Baylor, Ken Starr ran a year long inquisition over a blow job.
Somebody get the smelling salts ready for Steve. His soul is too tender and beautiful for this cold cruel world.
You idiot hacks are constantly repeating the LIE that the Clinton impeachment was over a blow job when the actual facts are that it was about Clinton’s lies under oath.
You people are pathetic hacks.
Yes, it was about Clinton’s lies about a blow job, just like Joe said.
Anonymous wrote, “Yes, it was about Clinton’s lies about a blow job, just like Joe said.”
You’re a verifiable liar, that is NOT what Joe said! Joe intentionally parroted the LIE that it was about a blow job and intentionally left out the the part where Clinton actually broke the law, you know ILLEGAL activity that was “high crimes and misdemeanor” impeachable offense.
I’m quite sick and tired of all you liars trolling this site.
FO and get a life.
According to the SSCI, Trump also lied under penalty of perjury (in his responses to the Mueller’s questions). Do you think Trump should have been impeached for that?
Please provide something to support your opinion.
“According to the SSCI, Trump also lied”
Anonymous the Stupid, according to many you are a liar. What does that mean? Neither your statement nor the one I just made means much of anything.
Amen!
It was about a blow job Steve.
The actual complaint that led to his impeachment and to losing his law license was because Clintom lied under oath in a judicial proceeding.
It’s on the record.
Although I agree with you to the extent that he should also have been punished for using his position of power to take sexual advantage of a young and vulnerable intern. Look at what happened at CBS when Matt did that.
I think Matt Lauer was a serial offender on a scale that exceeded Clinton. He had an electronic lock on his office door and he had a stash of sex toys in his office. A lot of the #metoo stuff was humbug, but unless there has been a major fraud on the reading public, Lauer actually was someone allowed to get away with murder for a good while.
In re Lewinsky, she wanted what she got (at that moment in time). She was injured by the subsequent lallapalooza and hasn’t made the best use of the intervening years. (Unmarried and childless, last I checked). She was a young woman with bad instincts who had been poorly educated by her mother. Her father also made some odd decisions, like hiring an attention-whore medical-malpractice lawyer to represent her.
Linda Tripp, whose conduct was odd and who was the subject of so much public hostility, opened a gift shop in NoVa and remained so employed until her death. IIRC, she managed to keep her marriage together.
joe friday wrote, “It was about a blow job Steve.”
Facts are on my side, all you have is innuendo, lies and BS.
Here are the actual facts…
It doesn’t matter if you like the facts, the facts don’t change.
Facts rule, BS walks!
You have proved yourself a very poor Loser, Scooter.
The fellow posted the very Articles used in Bubba Clinton’s Impeachment and yet you continue with insults and refuse to admit your false statements.
As we so often have to do….you are entitled to you opinion as it is yours to voice….but you are not entitled to your own imaginary facts…..that is an Adam Schiff for Brains act that gets seen through by even the dullest amongst us.
You have proved yourself a very poor Loser, Scooter.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201206/do-you-know-someone-i-can-never-be-wrong-syndrome
No clue how his family puts up with him.
Awww, why was joe friday’s comment deleted, other than the problems I noted I don’t see that there was anything that violated any moderation standards.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-domestic-terrorism-bill-is-a-targeting-of-almost-half-of-the-country/
its way past bjs now folks.
We see the Trump Legal Team’s response….it is not based upon claims of election fraud….thus the rules that out. Trump is not going to appear…that rules out that potential disaster. We know how an earlier Senate Vote went….which signals how the Trial Vote shall wind up so the question now is who gets beat up the worst out of this….Trump winning Acquittal in both Impeachments…..or the Democrats who screwed the Pooch twice in failed Impeachments, a loss in the Mueller Investigation, a loss in the 2016 Election, and having to deal with 74, 000, 000 Voters (and gaining) who do not and shall not accept that Biden actually won the 2020 Election.
We are already seeing the start of the campaigning for the 2022 Election which historically results in losses in Congressional races for the Incumbent Party…..which in light of the gains in the House by the Republicans and an evenly split Senate…..does not bode well for the Democrats.
Have the Democrats, drunk with power, just cut off their noses to spite their face by all of their over the top accusations and hate filled rants?
A Betting Man would put his money on a disastrous 2022 Election for the Democrats….will they be whistling past the graveyard until that axe falls or blindly carrying on as if they had not put a foot wrong in all of this?
We are already seeing the start of the campaigning for the 2022 Election which historically results in losses in Congressional races for the Incumbent Party
Just means the Democrats will have to steal more votes.
EVERYTHING the Democrats are doing is enraging the people which is exactly what they want, so they can call us the extremists that they really are. AOCSmollett is a joke, and yet she is taken seriously after accusing a sitting Senator of wanting her murdered and a Capitol police officer of looking at her funny. This will not end well for any of us, but it is coming. Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it, and get it good.
You are a joke to refer to AOC as AOCSmollett.
AOC is as much a drama queen fake as Smollett. Own it.
At least Jussie had principles.
She isn’t, and no I won’t own your garbage. Own your own garbage.
Turley writes:
“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.”
WTF Dude. How is that different from the other impeachment trials we’ve had? These are political acts, not legal ones, and the part of the Constitution outlining them is very sloppy, and poorly conceived and written. You can make up whatever legal theory you want and run with it.
Oh, yeah, obviously you already know that!
Uh, Clinton did what he actually was accused of in his impeachment. That is not speculation.
Johnson was a political hit and he was saved by a Senator sickened at what was happening at that impeachment.
Trump’s first impeachment was a sham on the charges and was another embarrassing mess. BTW, Biden admitted he did exactly what Trump was accused. I wonder if he should face impeachment.
It was blow job Quiet Man. Clinton did what any husband would do when caught, it wasn’t some gross misuse of his power.
Trump was guilty on the QPQ which is why the GOP refused to hear a willing 1st person witness – or any witnesses – and Trump is guilty again this time. Johnson’s was political and set up on a flimsy legal basis, but was consequential as he as Lincoln’s VP undermined the Lincoln’s program in a highly important time and situation in our history.
Joe Friday,
You should really reread your history. That was not what Clinton was impeached, it was for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. It came out right after the trial he did both unequivocally.
Gainesville was told by his handlers to studiously ignore the fact that Clinton was disbarred.
Joe: Thank you for confirming that Mr. Clinton’s impeachment was not about his indelicacies and was, in fact, about provably lying under oath. Tank you also for confirming that there was never any quid pro quo, and that the House utterly failed to attempt *any* fact-finding endeavors. They clearly could have call ed as many witnesses as they desired, but failed to provide the Senate with any trail record upon which to based any allegation founded on facts. I totally agree that Mr. Trump is as innocent this time as the last.
Until your elegant post, I had my doubts. Thank you so very much for clearing all this up. Well said!
What would any man do when caught in possession of stolen goods? Lie
What would a murderer do when found to have no alibi? Lie
What would a rapist do when faced with eyewitness testimony? Lie
You seem to be saying that is is ok to lie under oath as long as you do that to avoid the consequences of your actions. If we cannot compel truthful testimony under oath, we will have no justice system and people will resort to seeking their own vengeance.
Clinton had more than one option. He could have told the truth, he could have lied, as he did, or he could have settled Paula Jones’s lawsuit, admitted no wrong, and required a non disclosure agreement. Innocent and guilty defendants have found it cost effective to settle but he had to Bigfoot her and try to brush her off as some trailer trash, unworthy of the rights due a full citizen.
No matter how they try to spin it THAT was Bill Clinton’s High crime
Johnson was a political hit and he was saved by a Senator sickened at what was happening at that impeachment.
There were seven Republican senators who voted to acquit. If I’m not mistaken, one was bribed.
That may be, but what saved Johnson was that one vote. Never heard about a bribe.
“Enrage”
The Dems are cynically enraging the country to keeps their voters active.
Regardless of damage to the country, regardless of consequences, regardless of morality.
Now watch the lefty bloggers scream: “But Trump deserves it.”.
Maybe (that is a matter of opinion), but destroying our republic is not a matter of opinion – that is a cynical act worth all the disgust that ordinary people heap on the practitioners of destruction.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-domestic-terrorism-bill-is-a-targeting-of-almost-half-of-the-country/
DEMOCRATS’ EVIL LEADERSHIP CABAL ARE CALLING REPUBLICANS TERRORISTS.
DON’T IGNORE THIS– THEY INTEND TO TURN AMERICA INTO A TOTALITARIAN STATE
Voters of goodwill of both parties MUST communicate displeasure with this militarization to elected reps and media asap
if you stay silent it may be someone you love who ends up eating a bullet as a presumed “American Taliban”
Sal Sar
The Democrats should be careful for what they wish- remember Harry Reid’s ‘nuclear option’ and how it bit the Democrats years later.
Amen to that!