Over the last four years, we have seen an alarming trend of law professors and legal experts discarding constitutional and due process commitments to support theories for the prosecution or impeachment of Donald Trump or his family. Legal experts who long defended criminal defense rights have suddenly become advocates of the most sweeping interpretations of criminal or constitutional provisions while discarding basic due process and fairness concerns. Even theories that have been clearly rejected by the Supreme Court have been claimed to be valid in columns. No principle seems inviolate when it stands in the way of a Trump prosecution. Yet, the statement of House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., this week was breathtaking. A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing. Yet, it appears a signature of this team of House managers. Rep. Eric Swalwell earlier insisted that the failure to then President Trump to turn over documents should be cited as evidence of guilt on any underlying claims.
Presidents have historically not testified at impeachment trials. One reason is that, until now, only sitting presidents have been impeached and presidents balked at the prospect of being examined as head of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch. Moreover, it was likely viewed as undignified and frankly too risky. Indeed, most defense attorneys routinely discourage their clients from testifying in actual criminal cases because the risks outweigh any benefits. Finally, Trump is arguing that this trial is unconstitutional and thus he would be even less likely to depart from tradition and appear as a witness.
Despite the historical precedent for presidents not testifying, Raskin made an extraordinary and chilling declaration on behalf of the House of Representatives. He wrote in a letter to Trump that “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
Raskin justified his position by noting that Trump “denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment.” Thus, he insisted Trump needed to testify or his silence is evidence of guilt. Under this theory, any response other than conceding the allegations would trigger this response and allow the House to use the silence of the accused as an inference of guilt.
The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.
The statement also highlighted the fact that the House has done nothing to lock in testimony of those who could shed light on Trump’s intent. After using a “snap impeachment,” the House let weeks pass without any effort to call any of the roughly dozen witnesses who could testify on Trump’s statements and conduct in the White House. Many of those witnesses have already given public interviews.
Of course, the relative passivity of the House simply shows a lack of effort to actually win this case. The Raskin statement is far more disturbing. The Fifth Amendment embodies this touchstone of American law in declaring that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It was a rejection of the type of abuses associated with the infamous Star Chamber in Great Britain. As the Supreme Court declared in 1964, it is the embodiment of “many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations.” Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964).
Central to this right is the added protection that the silence of an accused cannot be used against him in the way suggested by Raskin. There was a time when members of Congress not only respected this rule but fought to amplify it. For example, in 1878, Congress was enacting a law that addressed testimonial rights but expressly stated that the failure of an accused to request to testify “shall not create any presumption against him.”
The Supreme Court has been adamant that the type of inference sought by Raskin is abhorrent and abusive in courts of law. In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1964), the Court reviewed a California rule of evidence which permitted adverse comment on a defendant’s failure to testify. The California rule sounded strikingly like Raskin’s position and mandated that a defendant’s “failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be commented upon by the court and by counsel, and may be considered by the court or the jury.” The Court rejected such references or reliance by prosecutors as unconstitutional.
Later in Carter v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “the privilege to remain silent is of a very different order of importance . ..from the ‘mere etiquette of trials and …the formalities and minutiae of procedure.'” It goes to the most fundamental principles of justice in our legal system.
In the past, when such concerns have been raised, members and pundits have reached for the “anything goes” theory of impeachment. Such principles are dismissed as relevant in the purely “political” process of impeachment. I have long rejected this view. This is not a political exercise. It is a constitutional exercise. These senators do not take the take to act as politicians but to act as constitutional actors in compliance with the standards and procedures laid out for impeachments. It would make this process a mockery if, in claiming to uphold constitutional values, members like Raskin destroy the very foundations of constitutional rights.
Yet, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe (who has routinely favored any interpretation that disfavors Trump) declared Raskin correct promising to use a decision not to testify as evidence of guilt: “If Mr. Trump declines the chance to clear his name by showing up and explaining under oath why his conduct on January 6 didn’t make him responsible for the lethal insurrection that day, it’ll be on him. He can’t have it both ways.” No, it is on us. The House cannot have it both ways in declaring that it is upholding constitutional values while gutting them.
It is true that this is not a criminal trial. It is a constitutional trial. As such, the Senate should try an accused according to our highest traditions and values. That includes respecting the right to remain silent and not to have “inferences” drawn from the fact that (like prior presidents) Trump will not be present at the trial or give testimony.
This is not the first time that reason has been left a stranger in our age of rage. There appears no price too great to pay to impeach or prosecute Trump. Now, the House is arguing against one of the very touchstones of our constitutional system and legal experts are silent. If everything is now politics, this trial is little more than a raw partisanship cloaked in constitutional pretense.
The column also appeared on Fox.com.
Nothing new here. You vote to become a communist country you get fascist rulings. End of subject.
In Federal criminal cases, the jury CANNOT draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to his case [Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)]. However, I believe the defendant must ASSERT his or her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination for this to be the case.
In Federal civil cases, the jury CAN draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to his case [Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)].
There is no guidance on reconciling Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination and inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify in impeachments.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong about these later points.
Impeachments are not a judicial process but rather are political escapades undertaken pursuant to certain sections of the US Constitution.
Any argument about Due Process and acceptable conduct of the proceeding is decided by the presiding officer…..the Chief Justice of the United States.
In the latest of Democrat Pipe Dreams….the Chief Justice has elected to not do that.
Does the fact the Chief Justice does not feel bound by the Constitution in this latest one indicate the SCOTUS does not consider this to be a “legal” Impeachment?
The notion that Senator Leahy has the ability to be both Judge and Joror and be unbiased and attend to the duty of Judge with any acceptable standard of jurisprudence is a Fool’s Errand.
Here we are debating whether an Accused can be convicted merely upon asserting his Right to remain silent and not take the Witness Stand in what at best is a Kangaroo Court.
Is that where we are as a Nation?
Have we reached the point that we are expected to sit back and watch such an event and think it.right and proper?
Why do the Democrats hate and revile this Man as they demonstrate by their abhorrent words and actions?
Are the Democrats so taken up in that hate that they are blind to reality?
Why must the Democrats feel compelled to get off of the safe path that exists and by their own decision elect to start wandering around in the minefield littered with devices that once triggered by a foot put wrong that are surely going to hurt them badly?
Folks….the Democrats are devoid of their commonsense here.
It shall not turn out well for them and that is a very good thing.
The Constitution isn’t explicit about whether the Chief Justice must preside over the impeachment trial of a former president, and you shouldn’t pretend that the “Chief Justice does not feel bound by the Constitution” here.
Senators have been both presiding officer and trier previously. For example, Sen. Inouye presided over the impeachment trial of Judge Thomas Porteous in 2010, and Inouye also served as a trier and voted to remove Porteous. According to you, did Sen. Inouye have “a Fool’s Errand”? Or do you only have a problem with Sen. Leahy personally? Inouye isn’t the only example. When the Senate tried former officer Belknap in 1876, Sen. Ferry of Michigan presided.
For the record, in Clinton’s impeachment trial, Sen. Harkin objected to the Senators being referred to as “jurors,” and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that “The Senate is not simply a jury — it is a court in this case, and therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors.” If you want to read Sen. Harkin’s reasoning that Rehnquist agreed with, here’s a transcript –
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/15/transcripts/barr.html
The exchange starts with Sen. Harkin saying “Mr. Chief Justice, I object to the use and the continued use of the word “jurors” when referring to the Senate sitting as triers — a trial on the impeachment of the president of the United States. Mr. Chief Justice, I based my objection on the following.”
The Presiding Officer doesn’t actually serve the role of a judge. As Sen. McCaskill noted, “The Presiding officer in impeachment trials makes no rulings, they are made by vote of the Senate.”
Trump will not “be convicted merely upon asserting his Right to remain silent and not take the Witness Stand,” nor did Raskin or anyone else suggest otherwise.
I’d hope that any patriotic American would “hate and revile” Trump’s “abhorrent words and actions.”
“I’d hope that any patriotic American would “hate and revile” Trump’s “abhorrent words and actions.”
Even Trump’s strongest supporters recognize his weaknesses and don’t approve. That a President is human should be accepted by all and his actions affecting the public as President should be how patriotic Americans assess his Presidency. He gets good marks that would have been better if the left was not so contemptible.
I’d hope that any patriotic American would “hate and revile” the liars in Washington that do not even try to stick to their promises and steal from the American public whether it be directly or indirectly. Those are the supposed Americans that like to call themselves Americans but are not patriotic Americans. That should include members of the public that are so anxious to limit free speech and the civil liberties of others. That includes the liars.
I’d hope that any patriotic American would “hate and revile” Trump’s “abhorrent words and actions.”
He hasn’t done anything ‘abhorrent’ other than issue some bad pardons. He hasn’t said anything worth hating and reviling either. He just isn’t deferential to leftoid mascot groups, doesn’t utter your preferred tropes and doesn’t talk in WashSpeak. Leftists are incapable of being anything other than trivial and vicious in our time.
I’d hope that any patriotic American would “hate and revile” Trump’s “abhorrent words and actions.”
Then you don’t have a clue how true patriotic Americans think. First of all, they don’t think political party first. They think in terms of rights; life, liberty and property. And, they most certainly don’t ignore lawlessness based on party preferences. In other words, they are not hypocrites.
“Any argument about Due Process and acceptable conduct of the proceeding is decided by the presiding officer…..the Chief Justice of the United States.”
You are correct.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution is very clear on that point:
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”
Suppose the argument is that the Constitution is silent about who should preside over the impeachment of a *former* president. That, too, is correct — because the Founders never anticipated that anybody would be insane enough to impeach and remove from office a president who is no longer in office.
You mean the framers never anticipated Congress would be so devoid of principles that they would abuse their authority to impeach citizens to prevent them from serving in government? Oh, they underestimated the evilness of human nature and the ignorance of the people.
Next up; the disenfranchisement of millions of Conservatives merely because they’ve been redefined as domestic enemies.
“You mean the framers never anticipated . . .”
Constitutional Convention (1787)
A delegate stands: “A question, please, for Mr. Madison. Suppose a future Congress decides to impeach a *former* president. The current draft of our Constitution does not offer them any guidance. What should that Congress do?”
Madison (rising, slightly bemused): “Abdicate.”
Abdicate.
🤔🤣
The Constitution is silent about who should preside over the impeachment trial of everyone other than a sitting president. It says nothing about who should preside over the impeachment trial of a judge, for example. The Constitution leaves it to the Senate to determine that, as part of its power to try all impeachments. Do you likewise conclude that “the Founders never anticipated that anybody would be insane enough to impeach and remove from office a” judge, simply because the Constitution doesn’t specify who must preside over the impeachment trial of a judge?
“simply because the Constitution doesn’t specify”
This type of backward thinking doesn’t work and displays ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills. It doesn’t match the forward thinking of the Constitution “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside””
Notice that Allan S. Meyer didn’t answer the question, “Do you likewise conclude that “the Founders never anticipated that anybody would be insane enough to impeach and remove from office a” judge, simply because the Constitution doesn’t specify who must preside over the impeachment trial of a judge?”
His inability or unwillingness to answer displays his ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills.
Anonymous the Stupid, you missed the point of my comment. Why will no one be surprised?
Conveniently, you drop the money-shot clause, “…who is no longer in office” from your quote of Sam, “… insane enough to impeach and remove from office a” [ president | judge | whoever ] …”.
Norm: Excellent point. It’s typical, dishonest quoting to distract and deflect.
It’s not dishonest at all, nor is it an attempt to distract or deflect. The Constitution doesn’t specify who is to preside over the impeachment trial for the vast majority of people who can be impeached, regardless of whether they are still in office.
As I has already pointed out, the Senate tried the former Secretary of War, William Belknap in 1876, and Sen. Ferry of Michigan presided. Belknap was no longer in office. He had resigned. Turley has noted this in more than one column.
I quoted you because I wanted to ask you about your more general reasoning re: what the Constitution is silent about, and its silence about the presiding officer isn’t limited to cases where the person is no longer in office. In fact, it is silent about the presiding officer for the vast majority of those who are eligible to be impeached. Notably, you haven’t answer the question.
Since that phrase is important to you, how about you start by answering a narrower question: do you believe that “the Founders never anticipated that anybody would be insane enough to impeach and remove from office a [Cabinet Secretary] who is no longer in office”?
A bit more nonsense.
Poor Allan feels neglected. He wants Commit’s attention so badly, and she always ignores him.
Why would I want Commit’s attention? She posts nonsense and might not even be a she. You draw too many conclusions for a person that has difficulty making one. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.
Allan the Stupid, Commit chose to ignore you. Why don’t you do the same with her?
Commit doesn’t post nonsense. Back before she decided to ignore you, you’d regularly lose the debates with her. Even here, you can say what’s “nonsense” about the facts she posted.
Why do you respond to Commit if you don’t want her attention, Allan?
Why do you respond the multiple anonymous commenters if you don’t want our attention, Allan?
Anonymous the Stupid, you see yourself as a referee, but that is an impossible task for you. You lack the intelligence to understand complex issues.
Stupidity is not a desirable trait but you flaunt it anyhow. Such stupidity is excused for not knowing that commit was talking nonsense. She doesn’t reply to slew of people because that alias gets embarrassed when made to look like a fool. On the other hand you are too much the fool to get embarrassed.
When I comment with people spouting nonsense I am not looking for a response. The response by one who spouts nonsense is more nonsense something you prove all the time. That you like to blame your frequent stupid responses on others is understandable but we all know that you pretend to be more than one person. If on a rare occasion another person is caught acting like you and being Stupid, so be it.
There was a horrible ruling from the CA Supreme Court stating silence could be used as evidence of guilt.
In People v. Tom, California’s Supreme Court justices upheld the prosecution of a man based on the district attorney’s argument that the defendant’s silence was evidence of guilt.
https://reason.com/2014/08/22/anything-you-dont-say-will-be-used-again
Do you see the ratlike face and crooked nose of this false leader who has no respect for our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition? This slimy Ganelon is an alien in our midst.
You understand in your very bones how far this has gone, and how it must end.
Facebook removes page of international disease experts critical of COVID lockdowns
The page “disappeared without warning,” said Stanford University epidemiology a professor Jay Bhattacharya.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/facebook-removes-page-international-disease-experts-who-have-been-critical-covid?utm_source=breaking-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
And who does Zuckerberg employ that knows anything about the subject? I’m hoping better services run him out of the market at this point.
Zuckerberg doesn’t give a hoot about the virus or America. His focus is on globalism, China and the expansion of his empire. His empire is what he thinks of as America.
His Barber.
On March 24, 2020 the Centers for Disease Control fooled all Americans there were more deaths from COVID-19 coronavirus infection by changing the guidelines for determination of co-morbid conditions that contributed to death.
According to a breaking report at GreenMedInfo, this led to a 16.7-fold increase in deaths attributed to COVID-19, or ~425,000 COVID-19 related deaths on January 29, 2021 or 13 deaths over 10,000 Americans.
Using long-established guidelines, the accumulated death toll from COVID-19 would have been just 25,429 deaths on that same date, or less than 1 death per 10,000 Americans (see chart below). The entire fraud, which violates U.S. law, is described in detail in the October 12, 2020 issue of Science, Public Health Policy & The Law, and has gone unreported by the nation’s news media.
https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_411c766e79174b17b8911fcae08722b1.pdf
Besides trying to overturn some 300 years of hard-fought, Western jurisprudence, there is only one thing going on here: Raskin turning the Senate chamber into his personal Star Chamber. (See the infamous Lilburne case.)
I wouldn;t trust anything you read about the Star Chamber. Charles was the good guy.in that dispute,
Raskin and the Senate have descended into wanton insanity and are now entirely and completely lawless.
Raskin illegally solicits, in the Senate, accomplices and accessories to his manifest crime of wrongful and malicious prosecution.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The object of a congressional impeachment and senatorial conviction must and shall be “THE” president and may not and shall not be a former president.
“THE” president may be impeached and convicted.
The perpetrators of and participants in this impeachment trail to convict are witting and willful criminals acting with malice aforethought.
“Impeachment…and conviction…”
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No person is required by law to be a witness against himself.
This second, fraudulent, political show trial and impeachment trial to convict is unconstitutional and constitutes unconstitutional double jeopardy.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Thank you.
Except: Of the 5th amendment, it appears this applies: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury”. Yes? However, how is the impeachment double jeopardy (repeated trial for the same crime)?
What they can do to Trump they can do to you.
No Rights? No Problem.
It’s not about justice anymore anyway.
.
https://youtu.be/ED1YDmLpvkQ
If Raskin really believes what he said, he should be disbarred due his lack of legal knowledge. Did someone take his bar exam for him?
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Trump can invoke the 5th Amendment. But he actually has to do so — he has to say something along the lines of “I’m invoking my 5th Amendment rights” — if that’s what he’s going to use.
No, he doesn’t.
“No, he doesn’t.”
That is correct. The *only* thing he (or any citizen) has to do is not testify.
Why do some think that having a keyboard makes them an expert?
5th Amendment
“…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,…”
_______________________________________________________________
How does a person not “…be compelled… to be a witness against himself…?”
He ignores fake subpoenas and/or fraudulent requests to appear.
He doesn’t show up for a fake, communist show trial.
President Trump doesn’t have to do a ——- thing.
America, a society of laws, is now lawless.
I am not on twitter but I saw Prof. Turley’s tweet on the sidebar today: “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.” Words RECEIVED rather than INTENDED. Many times I read/hear something that was said by a person who media feels is important enough to quote and I think that should not have been said because there is someone, whose mental stability may be suspect and will take it to the limit–Is that the fault of the person who SUGGESTED the idea? A suggestion to protest or stand out on your town common to stand up for your beliefs, does that mean to go rip up your city or town, destroy businesses, loot, harm others? No it does not. What was Congresswoman Maxine Waters intent when she made her remarks?
A suggestion to protest or stand out on your town common to stand up for your beliefs, does that mean to go rip up your city or town, destroy businesses, loot, harm others?
As we’ve seen over the last 4 years, everything Democrats have accused President Trump, Republicans, Conservatives of doing, has been nearly identical to what Democrats and their leftist mob have been doing. Conspiring with Russia…check. Obstruction…check. QPQ…check. Ism, Ism, Ism…check. Disenfranchisement…check. Abuse of power…check. Insurrection…check.
This behavior would obviously be described by rational people as hypocritical. However I believe they are at their root, classic and irredeemable narcissists. Of course anyone seeking elected office has to have a little narcissism in them, but that has usually been subordinated by the checks and balances of our system. But what happens when virulent Leftists get elected to office? Since their worldview opposes our constitutional order, they function like a deadly virus to our system. In this case, they’ve infected the Democratic party from the inside and their Leftist ideology has infected our culture. And in classic narcissist form, they will never view their own behavior negatively, even as they accuse everyone else of doing exactly what they are doing.
Narcissists lack empathy. So they struggle thinking of others needs. And they are exploitative. So they play various tricks to get what they can from situations.
You’re innocently co-ordinating your efforts with them and everybody else, trying to reach harmony. Whilst they’re plotting how to gain as much as they can for themselves.
Narcissists aren’t team players. They’re chaotic people who are out for themselves. And they bring their chaos into other people’s lives.
Nothing is simple around narcissists. Because they try to bend the world to their will. Which requires a lot of scheming, manipulation, and conflict. Which is never straightforward and simple.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/why-nothing-is-simple-around-a-narcissist#4
Trump is a malignant narcissist. What you’ve quoted applies to him.
That was not unexpected. And like every narcissist, he made a lot of promises on the campaign trail. His conservative base grew however, because he worked tirelessly to fulfill those promises. And in a twisted Shallow Hal sort of way, Democrats couldn’t see the real President Trump. Tony Robbins can’t cure what ails the Democratic party.
You really should choose a better artist.
I didn’t choose the artist they used in the film. I only chose the film trailer.
If you want to recommend a better film that discusses Trump’s malignant narcissism, please do.
“If everything is now politics, this trial is little more than raw partisanship cloaked in constitutional pretense.” Duh.
The whole point of this is to bait Trump into appearing where he would surly make a fool of himself and ensure his own conviction. I do not blame them at all for trying.
OTOH, Americans who support democracy, elections with integrity, free press and free speech will appear on day 1 of the “trial”, wear black bloc to lend an element of strategy, uniformity and solidarity so as to conduct a peaceful protest in the US Senate chamber just like ANTIFA. Pallets of bricks, Molotov cocktails and incendiary devices provided by Kamala Harris would be grand.
thoughts?
https://www.bustle.com/p/why-does-antifa-wear-black-masks-berkeley-protests-attracted-the-resistance-movement-79339
The Real Reason Antifa Members Wear Black Masks Is All About Strategy
In terms of physical appearance, Antifa members use the Black Bloc tactic which involves wearing head-to-toe black apparel and covering their faces with black masks or balaclavas. The reason for this is fairly simple. The black masks conceal the identities of activists and also lend an element of uniformity and solidarity among members.
At Berkeley’s Sunday rally, several reports of antagonism from Antifa protesters surfaced as one had apparently threatened to break the cameras of journalists for recording Antifa activists. Another reporter accused an Antifa protester of using pepper spray on him. For reasons like this, the movement has attracted quite a bit of criticism from both liberal and conservative commentators.
On the left spectrum of politics, specifically, Antifa’s tactics of direct confrontation and all-black obscured identity is supported by some while rejected by others. Those in support of the movement’s more confrontational strategies — such as getting into scuffles with the police and physically attacking far-right white supremacists — insist that the rise of Neo-Nazism in the United States warrants a leftist and progressive response that is not afraid to make use of judicious and collective violence. But those who criticize the movement tend to use an argument based on moral equivalency and believe that there is no difference between either side if both resort to outbursts of fury.
It’s as if the Democrats took the title of Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope and decided that would be their only guiding principle. They began with the hope a concocted Russian disinformation dossier would seal the election of Clinton…Failed. They hoped they could entice the President to obstruct the bogus Mueller investigation,..Failed. They hoped they could obstruct his policies putting America First…Failed. They hoped they could flip a Biden Ukraine QPQ into a Senate impeachment conviction of Trump…Failed. They hoped he would lose popularity with a pandemic received from their CCP partners…Failed. They hoped they could incite rioting and civil unrest around the country to trigger Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act…Failed. They hoped Big Tech and the MSM would be able to hide Biden and his corrupt family from the public…Succeeded. They hoped they could get away with justifying unconstitutional changes to election laws on COVID…Succeeded. Now they hope impeaching former President Trump on the very thing they did throughout 2020 will make him politically toxic…they will fail miserably.
Olly, why don’t show us where the Clinton campaign used the Steele Dossier in her campaign?
The rest of it is your bedtime story – don’t wear it out over the next 4 years.
Joe: Thank you for confirming, literally (in the fullest, correct sense possible), *every single one* of Olly’s points. I appreciate your superior rhetorical skills. Keep up the good work!
why don’t show us where the Clinton campaign used the Steele Dossier in her campaign?
Bwahahahahaha! Let me guess, for you, it depends on what the meaning of the word in, is. 🙂
The law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee has acknowledged its clients’ role in paying for opposition research on Donald Trump that helped fund the now-infamous dossier of allegations about the now-President and Russia.
A source familiar with the matter told CNN on Tuesday that the law firm Perkins Coie, as part of its representation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained the intelligence firm Fusion GPS and entered “into an engagement for research services that began in April 2016 and concluded before the election in early November.”
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/fusion-gps-clinton-campaign/index.html
The rest of it is your bedtime story – don’t wear it out over the next 4 years.
The next 4 years? LOL! You idiots will own those facts in posterity. Bwahahahahaha!
Olly, I asked you to show how the Clinton campaign used the Steele Dossier in the campaign and you failed. No one disputes the campaign took over paying Fusion GPS after the GOP primary was over. The point is that the campaign either judged the information not substantiated – though some of it was later by the Mueller Report and GOP majority Senate Intel Comm Report just released in August or no one in the campaign of any importance even knew about it. The latter is more likely to be true.
How can it be credible that is “more likely to be true” that “no one in the campaign of any importance even knew about [the Steele dossier]” while they had hired Fusion GPS? Sounds like an implausible denial.
Once again, JT refers to a letter without ever linking to the letter so that readers can read it in its entirety.
Here’s a copy –
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1357391055675621382
Gee, what a terrible letter! It’s an outrage that must not stand!
Give me a break.
Thanks anonymous.
PS Turley writes: “A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited…” as if Trump would have to come to the Senate to be grilled. No, he wouldn’t “testify in the Senate…”, he’d probably do it at Mara Lago with his attorney in his lap.
This column is real drivel.
Joe: As a true expert on drivel, you would certainly know. Thank you for such an insightful and forcefully argued post. You are a credit to, and shining model for, Internet posters across the globe!
Yup, that’s one of those useful rhetorical techniques: Focus on some trivial or immaterial error or inconsistency (that Trump could give testimony at a place outside the Senate chamber), to cast doubt on JT’s central point, the evidence for which does exist in the letter.
Exclusive: The TCF Center Election Fraud – Newly Discovered Video Shows Late Night Deliveries of Tens of Thousands of Illegal Ballots to Michigan Arena
By Jim Hoft
Published February 5, 2021 at 7:20am
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-tcf-center-election-fraud-newly-recovered-video-shows-late-night-deliveries-tens-thousands-illegal-ballots-michigan-arena/
Once again it is all for show. Instead of doing what was required well, they rushed it and, nothing. While I am no Trump fan, he did not do what he was accused of in calling for insurrection. It was all in the heat do the moment. I believe they do not think this will follow them in the future. They do not learn from history. Whips change hands and memories run long. The Democrats have set themselves up for failure in both conviction and in the future. This will lead to blowback. They had better hope Biden is clean as a whistle because we will return to this in the future.
They could have condemned Trump’s childish action that day, but they had to go that extra mile. I suspect it will cost dearly in the future.