We recently discussed how House managers are claiming the right to use Trump’s failure to testify at his trial as proof of guilt (despite the fact that presidents historically have not given such testimony at Senate trials). Now CNN has released (on the day before the start of arguments) an account from an unnamed former “senior aide” that Trump was watching the riot in the Capitol unfold and “loving watching the Capitol mob.” The same pattern emerged in the first Trump trial. It is being described as the “smoking gun” evidence needed to secure conviction. The story highlights the decision of the House not to call witnesses before or after its snap impeachment. The question is why the House would use implication, innuendo, and inference when it could have used direct evidence to seek the conviction of Donald Trump.
The CNN story highlights what has not occurred in the second trial of Donald Trump. No prosecutor would let weeks go by without seeking to lock in the testimony of witnesses who could offer direct evidence of the statements and actions of Trump during this period. The media has had no difficulty in locating these witnesses and about a dozen names are already known. We know them because many of them have already spoken publicly — an indication that they could have been easily called to appear before House committees without subpoenas (or would not contest subpoenas).
I have no problem accepting that Trump relished scenes of violent protest, but I would like that evidence come in the form of testimony, not media reports. It is the type of account that can shed light on Trump’s state of mind but the House seems entirely content to be a mere pedestrian watching the media interview key witnesses.
The result is a trial that seems circumstantial by design. There is of course ample evidence of what occurred. No credible litigator leaves a record circumstantial if they can use direct evidence. Much of this evidence and many of these witnesses are known to the House. Yet, it has chosen largely to put on a circumstantial case.
The question is whether the House will highlight this failure by referencing the CNN story, relying on media reports rather than sworn testimony. It literally has no record in the House of an impeachment hearing, an impeachment investigation, or a formal response from the President. So it will either rely on videos of the rioters or it will seek to reference named and unnamed witnesses presented in the media rather hearings. The disconnect will only magnify prudential concerns raised by senators and commentators, including myself.
There is also a pattern to this belated release. We saw the same thing unfold before the first Trump trial. The House refused to subpoena or call witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee. The media then released stories just before the trial from some of the very same individuals who were not called to testify. Some individuals would clearly have testified while others said that they just wanted subpoenas. Later witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton accused the House of “malpractice” in its flimsy prosecution of the impeachment. Now we have the same late minute gotcha stories after weeks of inaction from the House.
This may be the bias of a criminal defense attorney but I prefer evidence of modus operandi to media operandi at impeachment trials.
(music to tune of The Night They Drove Ok Dixie Down)
The Night! They drove ol Trump head down!
All the people are praying.
Put that Trump in jail he’s Klansman up for sale!
Etc.
Shades of Kavanaugh. The democrats do not have one iota of evidence or a scintilla of Constitutional validity to support this charade. Therefore they will use any vile tactic available, including using their CNN public relations arm, to slime Trump. It is not about a legal process, it is about appealing to the lowest common denominator, that being their radical Marxist base.
Chuck Shumer incited a mob to invade public buildings during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. What was the penalty for his inflammatory speech?
Ah, the double standards come so clear now, it’s a pleasure watching this unfold
The people realize more and more every day, there is no hope in false elections. Who knows then what the future will hold?
Sal
40 years from now these unhinged psychotic TDS losers will be sitting in their condos in Miami in their apricot shirts and white polyester shorts, furiously rocking back and forth drooling, grunting, tooting perseverating and mumbling
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
God will be kind if he allows me such a retirement. I do rather like South Beach
Sal Sar
By God, Trump will have a fair trial and then we will hang him!
If career prosecutors believe Trump “incited an insurrection”, then file charges. Make them present evidence in an actual court of law.
But it’s not about justice. Trump got more votes than any other incumbent president in history. He got 12 million more votes than he got in 2016. He only “lost” by 40,000 votes in three states.
Democrats are abusing their power to try to disqualify him from office with a Senate conviction. They are engaging in the worst, most blatant form of voter suppression in seeking to deny Americans of our right to decide for whom we can vote in 2024.
There’s a good reason why Chief Justice Roberts is not presiding over this sham proceeding. I hope Trump’s lawyers sit stuffed kangaroos in chairs around the defense table.
Troll, “ If career prosecutors believe Trump “incited an insurrection”, then file charges. Make them present evidence in an actual court of law.”
They have. Haven’t you been paying attention? An impeachment is about charging a president. The articles of impeachment literally state that the charges are incitement of insurrection.
The senate trial IS Trump’s “court of law”. Because only the senate can try the president it is where the charges are debated. Evidence IS going to be presented.
God so many constitutional illiterates are complaining about a process that they don’t understand at all.
Sleep through Civics Class did you?
Unable to comprehend what you read….suggesting your education was more about indoctrination than leaning in the classical sense?
The Senate is not a Court, does not have the Rules of Procedure of a Federal Court, and certainly would never be able to sustain a conviction where the Judge votes as Juror as well as presiding over the Trial.
Scooter….you are the “Troll”…..and are guilty of the usual Leftist tactic of transference and deflection.
You need to polish up on your understanding of Saul’s Rules…..as your implementation of them failed miserably.
They couldn’t even get a real judge to dress it up this time.
“the Judge votes as Juror”
Senators are not jurors. They are triers of impeachment. Don’t take my word for it. Read the exchange between Sen. Harkin and Chief Justice Rehnquist about it during Clinton’s impeachment trial –
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/harkintext011599.htm
BTW, “The Senate is not a Court” is also false. It’s a legislative branch court rather than a judicial branch court. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that too.
Ralph, “ The Senate is not a Court, does not have the Rules of Procedure of a Federal Court, and certainly would never be able to sustain a conviction where the Judge votes as Juror as well as presiding over the Trial.”
Thank you for demonstrating why you don’t seem to get it. Everyone is complaining about this trial as if it is just like a court in the judicial branch.
It’s not. The constitution itself gives the senate exclusive power to set its own rules depending on who is the majority party. The constitution explicitly states that the senate SHALL hold a trial. How that trial is conducted is at the sole discretion of the party in power.
It is entirely constitutional. That’s why it garners so much ire from the right, because democrats are in control and they can set the rules as they see fit according to the constitution allowing them to do so. Republicans took advantage of this very same principle when they chose not to hear witnesses. During the first impeachment trial.
Those who are complaining the most are those who go can’t grasp the idea that the senate trial is NOT a court of law as it would be in the judicial branch.
I’m not the one who is constantly confused by what the term ‘impeachment’ is. It’s one step of two. Trump is already impeached. Impeachment does not mean removal. That only happens in the senate.
No, the Senate is not a court of law. Impeachment is not a criminal trial or civil legal case, and impeachment trials are not bound by the rules that regulate courts of law and criminal and civil cases.
The Senate is a court for impeachment trials, but not a court of law. The Senate has its own rules for impeachment trials.
svelaz pot calls kettle black. lol
Roberts isn’t presiding because Trump is no longer President, and the Chief Justice is only required to preside over the trial of a sitting president.
It is literally written into the Constitution that the Senate can choose to disqualify someone who has been impeached from serving in office again. It’s not an abuse of power. If you dislike it, you’re free to work to amend the Constitution to eliminate that.
America is hysterical and incoherent after 100 years of the ridiculous 19th Dumbmendment.
Silly rabbit, women are for kids!
George, women clearly aren’t for you. I expect that your misogyny has resulted in your being an incel.
Love me some impeachment trial of Trump L’Orange. Bring witnesses, video, accounts of high level staffers. Nothing but the best for the guy who entered office stealing $50 million from his inauguration fund and left fraudulently raising money off the big lie of his actually have won an election. And jailing children in between. And yes, getting impeached for extortion previously in between. And yes, how could I forget, massively bungling a pandemic response and cratering the awesome economy he inherited.
Let’s get this party started.
Elvis Bug
Elvis, sure you know 56% of Americans want him convicted and banned fro office in the future, and that’s before his months of planning for Jan 6 are common knowledge.
It would definitely be hard to tell reading many comments on this page, but absolutely, the world, and the majority of residents of the U.S. want Cheeto Shartmeister to hit the bricks and not come back.
Elvis Bug
Joe Friday, according to Turley’s own logic, because a plurality of people believe trump should be removed a trial is what needs to be done. Just as a thorough investigation of voter fraud must be done because a plurality of people believe the election was stolen. I don’t see why Turley isn’t using this line of reasoning. (Sarcasm)
A plurality of Americans DO NOT believe the election was stolen. There was NO voter fraud, as every Secretary of State (even Republican ones, and even after Trump tried to get them to award him Biden’s votes) has determined, as Bill Barr determined, and as 60+ courts have determined. All the Trumpsters have is the word of a chronic, habitual liar who cannot handle defeat, and who actually thought he could get his disciples to storm the Capitol and prevent the certified votes from awarding Biden the victory he earned.
Natasha, I realized I didn’t phrase that right. What I meant was a plurality of Trump supporters believe the election was stolen. Turley uses this as a reason for establishing a commission to thoroughly investigate the claims made by Trump.
My point was that of Turley is perfectly willing to use that line of reasoning it should be perfectly reasonable to use the claim that a plurality of voters want trump to be convicted therefore he should be.
I was wrong go to say a plurality of voters believe the election was stolen, my mistake.
What, exactly, would a “commission to thoroughly investigate the claims made by Trump” do? Each state has laws to protect the anonymity of voter registrations and their votes. Some states require a voter to register as a member of a specific political party. That information is privileged and confidential for reasons that are obvious. For mail or absentee ballots, the voter had to be registered to receive a ballot, the request for which was noted and this prevented the voter from in-person voting unless the ballot didn’t get returned by Election Day. If someone requested a mail or absentee ballot, and showed up in person, that vote was listed as provisional and wasn’t counted until after the deadline for the mail ballot to be returned. If the mail ballot was returned, the provisional vote did not count. If the mail ballot didn’t arrive in time, the provisional ballot did count and tardy ballots were not opened or counted. When the ballot was returned, it was separated from the envelope to preserve the confidentiality of the vote itself. For in-person voting, each registered voter had his/her ID checked by bipartisan poll workers and noted in the computer system. Each ballot was put into a counting machine and the paper ballots were placed in a secure container and taken to the location for counting, all under bipartisan custody and scrutiny. The vote totals were taken from the machines by bipartisan poll workers. There was no opportunity provided for anyone from either party to cheat, shred ballots, mess with the machines or monkey with the totals because the entire process, equipment and ballots themselves were under both bipartisan scrutiny and poll watchers. There were recounts, and re-recounts, and even signature match validations done. No fraud. Trump is lying when he says that people voted multiple times. This was impossible.
Each and every claim of fraud was investigated. There were some glitches, none of which was intentional, and none of which could have affected the outcome. In one Florida precinct, a Dominion machine had not been properly calibrated, and it caused a problem that was immediately identified and corrected. This led to all other Dominion machines getting checked to be sure it hadn’t happened anywhere else. Nevertheless, Trump supporters continue to insist that the Chinese or someone in South America could, and did, manipulate votes processed in Dominion machines in Biden’s favor. There is no proof of this. Trumpsters claim that hundreds of thousands of dead people voted. That was investigated and only 2 instances of this were found.
No investigation will ever cause Trumpsters to believe there was no fraud, because they are disciples of Trump and unless he admits that he really lost fair and square, which will never happen, they will continue to believe.
Natasha, I agree with you. Sadly it is Turley who seems to think that because a plurality of Trump supporters believe the election was stolen it is imperative that a commission must be formed in order to placate their concerns. Problem is you noted exactly why it isn’t needed.
No Trump supporters will ever accept the notion that the election was not stolen unless trump himself stated very publicly that he was wrong. It will never happen.
“56% of Americans want him convicted”
Poll with link please?
Google machine is an amazing thing, Walworths…
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-trump-convicted-barred-holding-federal-office/story?id=75729878
Elvis Bug
“Most voters say former President Trump should be acquitted in next month’s Senate impeachment trial, which they expect to make America’s political division worse.”
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/most_voters_don_t_expect_senate_to_convict_trump_won_t_watch_impeachment_trial
Not that it matters one way or the other.
Other than to purposefully unemployed Troglodytes like you, who couldn’t find their ass with both hands, a flashlight, and a mirror.
“For the 2020 United States presidential election, Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey of likely U.S. voters showed Democrat Joe Biden with a 1% lead over Republican Donald Trump
In 2018, Rasmussen Reports predicted that Republicans would win the generic ballot by 1 percentage point while the actual election results had Democrats winning by nearly 9 percentage points. …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#2020
It’s the same computer polling system that lied and said that Joke Bidim and Willy’s barren, wholly ineligible girlfriend won.
It would be the best favor you could do for the future of Trump style populism, to ban Trump. Have at it!
You don’t seem to understand how it simply proves the point.
You proceed into the “empty fort trap.”
you are a troll with zero critical thinking ability!
Since I’m much more insightful than you, it begs the question: what does that make you???
Elvis Bug
” unnamed former “senior aide”
This is the usual garbage from CNN. It is the same anonymous source garbage provided by the NYT and Washington Post. The amazing thing is that blind Democrats don’t want to know the truth that Trump has tried to call the National Guard into Washington multiple times extending into January before the inauguration. Democrats prevented that effort.
This has been seen all over the country where Democrat leaders have refused to stop rioting, killing, arson and looting. The left is violent and lies about their actions. They watched as the rioters destroyed neighborhoods where minorities lived despite the fact that they continuously lie and say they are trying to help these groups.
Anonymous, “ The amazing thing is that blind Democrats don’t want to know the truth that Trump has tried to call the National Guard into Washington multiple times extending into January before the inauguration. Democrats prevented that effort”
Tried? He actually deployed them. Your Swiss cheese memory seems to betray you. He only deployed them when Black Lives Matter protests were planned. They were long gone before the inauguration. Why would trump deploy the National guard into January? Was he planning a coup?
What’s most likely is that you’re pulling stuff out of your a$$.
They accepted them after the fact. Get your facts straight. Look at how your Democrat leaders defund the police while having police guard their homes. Democrats have been violent and lawless.
How many police departments were defunded S. Meyer? Please point them out. I’ll wait.
Ignorant Time Waster, the last time you made a dumb request like this one the WSJ article you wanted produced was in the comment you had initially responded to. You were informed of that but you still said you couldn’t find it though it was highlighted as an http. I produced the lie and offered to copy the text in its entirety. You never responded to the requested proof so I produced it again and again and even one more time on the next op ed by Turley.
Why should anyone try to prove anything to a person that runs away before acknowledging that he at least saw what was posted numerous times.
You ask for proof because you are an ignorant time waster. No one need to waste their time on such poor unintelligent behavior.
Many departments were defunded and abused by Democrats. NYC is one.
Actually, he asks for proof because you’re talking out of your a&*, Allan.
Anonymous the Stupid, it’s hard to tell who is Stupider, you or Paint Chips. Paint Chips sounds like he is spaced out in a We Ho bathroom. You, on the other hand don’t sound spaced out rather you sound ignorant and incapable of critical thinking. I provided proof in the WSJ attempt. Once is enough.
You should learn how to provide proof since many of your links are like his. Old, not on point, or they actually say something different from what you thought.
Pick your head out of the toilet and take a breath.
“ You should learn how to provide proof since many of your links are like his. ”
Apparently you haven’t learned at all. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink it.
Many have led you to the water you keep asking for S. Meyer. Problem is you say the water is fake. You can stand there like a lame nag all day questing the water while you die of thirst. It’s your prerogative apparently.
I’m sure if you do your own research you will see what I said is true. If not, too bad. Most intelligent people know it. You are not part of that group.
SM
“Many departments were defunded and abused by Democrats.”
“Facing pressure from thousands of constituents calling to defund the police, New York City slashed $1 billion from the police budget.” (CNN)
“Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan plans to sign a new city budget that includes an 18% cut to the city’s police department funding, according to a statement issued by her office Tuesday.” Some members of the city council demanded a *50%* cut. (also CNN)
“City commissioners in Portland, Oregon, voted Wednesday to cut nearly $16 million from the police budget . . .” (AP)
“[T]he Los Angeles City Council approved a $150 million cut to the LAPD’s budget . . .” (ABC)
And that’s only four cities.
Not that such facts are going to faze them. But, still, it’s good to defend the truth.
“Not that such facts are going to faze them. But, still, it’s good to defend the truth.”
He sounds whacked out. That is what happens when one abuses themselves too much.
He won’t be back to acknowledge the proof or comment on it. He’s heading for the nearest bathroom stall.
S. Meyer, “ Not that such facts are going to faze them. But, still, it’s good to defend the truth.”
He sounds whacked out. That is what happens when one abuses themselves too much.”
Hey be grateful that Sam saved you from doing all the hard work you seem to avoid like the plague. At least I can give Sam credit for doing what you were too lazy to do.
Oh, and I did come back, and thanked Sam for doing YOUR job. Talking out of your a$$ is still your MO. Sam has much more credibility.
“Hey be grateful that Sam saved you from doing all the hard work”
Sam didn’t save me, he saved you from adding to your lack of knowledge. I already knew those things. I try to be accurate something you should try as well but you don’t.
SM
Anonymous SM,
“ I already knew those things. I try to be accurate something you should try as well but you don’t.”
Knowing those things and presenting proof are two very different things. If you were truly smart you would have provided the evidence of your claim. Smart people do do that. You obviously didn’t and let someone else rescue you.
You “tried”. But you didn’t do anything. It’s ok to be lazy. We all know you are. Thank Sam. He provided all the information you couldn’t. Thank Sam, jr deserves the gratitude.
“Knowing those things and presenting proof are two very different things. If you were truly smart you would have provided the evidence of your claim. ”
Being smart is already knowing those things. There is no question that most of what I state as fact is generally correct. It is not smart to look things up for an unappreciative person or one that doesn’t value another’s time. If you wanted to be smart you could have looked it up and seen you were wrong. Is it laziness or the lack of curiosity? You have proven both by relying on one type of source never looking to see if what you are reading is correct. That is why you ask for proof. You don’t want to learn that you aren’t obtaining a broad spectrum of views.
SM
If “defund the police” means budget cuts of the type conservatives champion in every other facet of government, then I guess you really showed that guy. Somehow, those cities do still have standing police forces. I’m sure you can come up with a fear-based argument for maintaining the old bloated budgets, but I doubt you can make it convincing.
+10
Good luck confiscating all the guns from law abiding citizens with a reduced police force.
Now if the ATF budget is slated for a 100% increase then maybe there is something about which to be concerned
Sal
Anonymous Sal, nobody is going to confiscate anyone’s guns. Idiots with guns will still have their guns confiscated tho. By other gun owners.
@Brad +10.
That’s an excellent point. As noted by Sam, it seems most of these police departments haven’t had a real budget cut in a while. It may have been a good opportunity to cut bloated police department budgets without facing a backlash by voters.
Sam, thanks for providing the proof S. Meyer can’t seem to muster the energy to find.
A billion dollars cut from NYPD? Don’t you think a billion dollars is a bit much for a police department? What do they have to show for that billion? But it seems it’s not really $1 billion. More like $484 million out of a $6 billion NYC police department annual budget.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5354307002
That’s not such a big cut.
Seattle? “The Seattle City Council voted Monday to cut almost 20% of the Seattle Police Department’s budget — including a last-minute $2 million reduction that could slow future hiring of new officers.
And yet, because members of the city council made headlines last summer by pledging to slash 50%, the significance of trimming a department that has historically seen nothing but growth is easily lost. ”
Hey it seems that they are just cutting their budgets a bit, not really defunding police departments. Seattle seems to have been due to a cut in its bloated budget anyway. I thought republicans were against bloated budgets.
Portland? It seems they just cut $15 million from their budget as well.
These are small budget cuts compared to the overall amounts they get annually.
They are not defunding entire police departments. Some obviously have budgets that are too bloated. Maybe it just came down to use the opportunity to cut already bloated police department budgets.
“Sam, thanks for providing the proof S. Meyer can’t seem to muster the energy to find.”
I guess I taught you to be appreciative of those you wish to be like. In the future Sam might help you with research but I don’t think I will.
I noted your statement of how small the budget is. That’s great because you will be on board for similar small cuts in the federal budget. Start making excuses now because later you are going to sound like an idiot.
SM
S. Meyer, you made the claim man. You are responsible for providing the proof. I simply requested it. You went off an a rant about wasting time and some other issue from long ago.
You said NYC Is one. That doesn’t show your claim to be true. Where’s the data that shows they were defunded? How much was defunded? You made the claim. It is incumbent upon you to provide it. Otherwise you’re still pulling stuff out of your a$$.
“You went off an a rant about wasting time and some other issue from long ago.”
It wasn’t that long ago, less than a week. You don’t seem to remember things very well. But that has been known since you assumed this alias from your earlier one.
“How much was defunded?”
I don’t know the exact amount to date because Democrats have a tendency to say one thing one day and another another day. I think he defunded the next graduating class of recruits or something of that nature and reduced the budget considerably. Crime is rising due to Democrat policies that are seen in other Democrat cities so the police budget should have been raised to meet demand.
Why should I prove anything to a known time waster.
SM
FWIW, that icon identifies this particular “anonymous” is Allan, who also posts with a different icon as “S. Meyer” and sometimes posts under other icons and names.
Process matters in all things in life. That is lost upon the Left as they simply see the End justifies the means and that shall always be their undoing.
Allegations by anonymous sources….folks that is just pure damn gossip as heard amongst a bunch of nattering housewives with nothing to do but stir the pot.
You have a Witness….bring them forth and present a Signed Sworn Affidavit and let them be cross examined by the Defense…..otherwise you are just being a Fraud….just like Adam Schiff for Brains who has still not released all that. evidence he claimed to be holding re Russia Collusion.
Ralph,” Allegations by anonymous sources….folks that is just pure damn gossip as heard amongst a bunch of nattering housewives with nothing to do but stir the pot.”
It’s funny you mention that. Trump himself is fond of using that tactic all the time. When he sprinkles his comments with, “some people”, “many people”, “I’ve heard”, “ people say”, etc,etc.
Trump’s rhetoric is rife with anonymous sources that supposedly back up his claims without ever mentioning who “these people” are. Turley who is a stickler for detail often seems to miss these, willful ignorance or just plain not wanting to criticize Trump?
It’s a reasonable supposition given the character of the media in our time that when a reporter from a hostile outlet attributes something to an anonymous source, the reporter has fabricated it.
Art Deco, I assume you apply this character of the media to conservative branches too.
It’s not exclusive to just the liberal media.
Clearly, you’re not someone who has ever written for journalistic source of merit.
Elvis Bug
It isn’t. In fact, the Trump WH made lots of statements off the record, and those “hostile” outlets reported them. You can even see a video of Mark Meadows making a statement off the record when he didn’t realize he was being broadcast live –
https://twitter.com/connorobriennh/status/1196923920072486913
Show the videos of Trump calling out to the mob. They don’t need witnesses.
Liberty2nd, there will be videos, tweets, and comments made by Trump’s own supporters stating they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.
You say a lot but when the proof comes in you are right only when you make a mistake.
Allan, you forgot to say you love his purdy mouth.
Terminiello v Chicago says that inflammatory rhetoric is lawful. Trump’s speech was not even close to that case nor the other Turley mentioned, Brandenberg v Ohio
But it’s wonderful that Democrats have lowered the bar for impeachments to “lawful political speech we do not like.” That will prove to be a two edged sword
Sal
Kurtz, cut the crap. Trump fully intended to overthrow our election and to that end planned and encouraged an assault on the Congress while it was performing it’s scheduled constitutional duty. An impeachment is a political act, not a legal one and the standards are not the same. You’re a lawyer and ought to know this. If an extralegal attempt to overthrow an election is not sufficient cause. what is?
First of all, it is obvious that he did not intend to overthrow the election. He was the Commander in Chief and made no orders to nullify or cancel it. In case you missed Myanmar’s coup last week, such things are indeed possible. But he did not such thing.
Moreover, he told the crowd to peacefully protest. So you are woefully wrong. Or perhaps you only pretend to believe what you say. It does not matter.. Thank you for your comment.
Also, I reiterate one of my more boring and yet important themes. All law is fundamentally political. By teaching this point with the impeachment, you aid the people in understanding. Thus, I am grateful to the zealous and angry leadership of Pelosi, for the bitter lesson that people need to deeply understand.
I will put it a different way. Legality is the result of power, and not the cause of it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/
Sal Sar
Sal Sar, what about Trump’s constant attempts at pressuring election officials to change the vote? The threats of being charged with a crime if they don’t find more votes?
What about the demands pence send back votes to the states, an illegal and clearly unconstitutional move?
Then there’s the claims of victory despite no proof of winning at all? Trump intended to overthrow the results of the eke election without any credible proof. Encouraging his supporters to do the dirty work is still inciting.
Trial = to lynch mob or not to lynch mob, from the office of the president. No consequences, in the face of the staggering evidence, would be the single biggest mistake in the history of the senate.
Elvis Bug
They want a Soviet show trial and, by gosh, they will have one.
It tells us more about them than about President Trump.
I’m sure talking about Soviet show trials makes you feel like a well-educated history buff, but your understanding seems to be limited to the kind of modern garbage analysis that permeates the internet. Just the basics- If this was a Soviet show trial, the outcome would be pre-determined and Trump would have been convicted and sentenced a long time ago. He may have even been tortured into confessing. He certainly would not have enjoyed the support of nearly half the Supreme Soviet/Congress. He certainly would not have multiple friendly media outlets pleading his case. No, this is nothing like a Soviet show trial at all. The fact everyone knows there’s zero chance of conviction should have been your first clue, but hey, you got to draw a poorly thought out historical parallel. Good for you.
Now, if we can organize a cavalcade of Trump administration officials to denounce him, you might be on to something!
+10
Elvis Bug
Dear Dr. Turley,
A few things:
1) I expect you to be better than, “I have no problem accepting that Trump relished scenes of violent protest”? Give me proof that President Trump would ever have “relished” it. Did he “relish” violence in Minnesota, Seattle, Portland, St. Louis, Memphis, Charlottesville, etc? NO. He explicitly spoke out against violence MULTIPLE times in 4 years and I challenge you to provide an example where he “relished” it. Statements like this are as weak a piece of falsity as the Democrats’ and Press’ constant attacks and ad hominem. It literally reeks of logical fallacy.
2) Why don’t you address the travesty of the Press and Democrats using FAKE “unnamed senior aides” consistently for the last 4 years. It was a propaganda tool and was most often found to be a concoction of Democrats and the Press. It is as Orwellian as it gets and they should be lambasted for such weak and unsubstantive rhetoric – not given succor. It is the cause of the outrage and disunity perpetrated on US citizens by the Democrats and the Press.
3) It is important to remember the liars of the last 4 years because those liars have even more power now. Though the Press is their amplifier and Squealer, we should never forget the long list of Democrat liars, of which I can only name a few: Schiff, Nadler, Clapper, S. Power, Swallwell, Sullivan, Clinesmith, Stroczk, Page, Comey, Brennan, S. Rice, Cuomo, L Lynch, Eric Holder, HRC, Pelosi. And the list of Democrat liars grew most recently with our new President and Jen Psaki spending just 10 days and accumulating multiple lies. Plus we can add all the lying hypocrite Democrats governors who have used Covid against their electorate while acting as totalitarian oligarchs.
When you hear something in today’s Press or from the mouths of Democrats, you need to use critical thinking to evaluate if there’s any basis in reality. Too much of the last 4 years has been manufactured rage and hatred directly spewed from the Democrat party. It’s time to call a spade a spade.
“Highly educated woman”,
Trump is vindictive in all things. He does relish the scenes of violence when it involves his own supporters. He condones such behavior and has done so multiple times at his rallies. He even offered to pay for the legal fees of any of his supporters if they get in trouble for beating up protesters at his rallies. He encouraged the aggressive behavior of his supporters towards the media, and protesters at his rallies.
Trump, “punches back” at his critics, hard. Watching his supporters storm the Capitol because they support HIS contention that his “win” was stolen. He wasn’t stopping them. He let it happen until he was forced to call them off, meekly. He tweeted during the attack about Pence not doing what he wanted which was an illegal denial of votes from the states that certified their elections. His own supporters were chanting “hang pence!” Over and over. People were reading his tweets during the assault on the Capitol. Trump was not in any way trying to stop it. He was enjoying it.
” He even offered to pay for the legal fees of any of his supporters if they get in trouble for beating up protesters at his rallies. ”
That is a lie. He offered to pay some legal fees for those that got into trouble while legally protesting. He said that because Democrat politicians were illegally trying to stop legal non-violent protests by the right while promoting violent protest on the left.
On the other hand the VP Kamala Harris actually was a sponsor of a group that provided bail to rioters that were violent and I think one of those subsequently released killed someone else. You have your head up your a$$.
S. Meyer, nope.
“ Donald Trump encouraged supporters to rough up potential protesters Monday at his final pre-Iowa caucus rally. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them,” Trump said after warning of possible rabble-rousers. “I’ll pay the legal fees,” he added. ”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/02/01/trump-i-ll-pay-for-protester-beatings
Trump made that claim DURING a trump rally. Why would Trump supporters be “legally protesting” at a trump rally?
He encouraged his own supporters to engage in violence. Knocking the crap out of someone involves violence.
You are too dumb to realize that Trump didn’t say any such thing. You are reading a headline and interpreted it as a quote which it isn’t. It’s time to read the article to find that what you are looking for doesn’t exist.
That is the quality of your research. Garbage.
You have once again proven yourself to be a fool.
S. Meyer. You obviously aren’t very bright.
The article quoted Trump directly, “ If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them,”
That was not part of the headline.
Here’s the man himself saying it,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-knock-the-crap-out-of-tomato-throwers/2016/02/01/1d1fe1e2-c92b-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_video.html
I even provided you with a link to the article where you will find the quote. Meaning I read the article. You didn’t.
People that support Trump have been attacked by the left. He was jesting and talking about them throwing tomatoes and that he had security guards to prevent violence from leftist agitators. This was in a rented space where people that would throw tomatoes aren’t invited. It wasn’t the general public.
Paint Chips, you obviously have a brain laden with concrete so you are unable to tell the difference of a legitimate threat and a joke. No wonder you don’t know what you are quoting or saying.
SM
Anonymous SM, “ He was jesting and talking about them throwing tomatoes and that he had security guards to prevent violence from leftist agitators.”
Oh so now he was jesting after claiming it was a lie. Cute.
I never said he was threatening people with violence. I said he was condoning it , encouraging it. That’s a difference you seem to have trouble understanding. Saying to “knock the crap out of them” when one of his supporters literally sucker punched a protester at his rally isn’t a joke. His supporters took it to lean literally what he said.
Anonymous SM, “ He was jesting and talking about them throwing tomatoes and that he had security guards to prevent violence from leftist agitators.”
Oh so now he was jesting after claiming it was a lie. Cute.
I never said he was threatening people with violence. I said he was condoning it , encouraging it.
——–
Trump was neither condoning nor threatening violence. That is why he pointed out that he had security and was being jocular regarding the tomatoes. Too many ingested paint chips and maybe whatever else is available.
SM = S. Meyer for those that have difficulty with comprehension.
Anonymous SM,
“ Trump was neither condoning nor threatening violence. That is why he pointed out that he had security and was being jocular regarding the tomatoes. ”
He wasn’t directing his comments at security. Why would he pay the legal fees of security ? He was addressing his supporters.
He wasn’t joking. He was condoning violence. He never said ,” I’m joking” right after saying it. The only time he said it was when he it was apparent that his supporters were taking his comments seriously. Like in Florida when a supporter at his own rally sucker punched a protester. Trump never came out saying that was not right. He said he would pay for the guy’s legal fees meaning he didn’t condone what he did.
“He wasn’t directing his comments at security. ”
If you listen to his comments or read the quote you could see that he directed his comments towards the audience. The tomatoes and security were brought up because he didn’t want violence. The rest is self evident.
SM
He said he was being serious, Allan. He wasn’t smiling. It’s inconvenient for you to accept that he was serious, so you pretend he was joking.
I understand Anonymous the Stupid, you are too Stupid to understand sarcasm mixed with a warning to prevent violence. Sarcasm and humor can be looked up in the dictionary.
By the way to my knowledge no one ended up throwing tomatoes and no one committed any violence. That contrasts greatly with Democrats supporting the burning and looting in cities. You are such a dork.
That “anonymous SM” is Allan aka S. Meyer.
I guess Anonymous the Stupid is dumber than Paint Chips. Paint Chips knew that awhile back.
Trump said “So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise”
He said he meant it seriously. Was he lying?
Video of him saying this starts at 1:14 –
S. Meyer, here’s another instance of Trump condoning violence.
“ Reporting from BOCA RATON, Fla. — When Donald Trump said Sunday that he might pay the legal fees of a man charged with hitting a protester in the face at one of his rallies, it was the latest of many occasions when the leading Republican candidate for president appeared to condone or accept violence by supporters.”
…” But Trump alone has openly endorsed violent retaliation against people who disrupt his rallies, many of whom accuse him of racism.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html?_amp=true
None of these people were”legally protesting” as you claim. They were supporters at a rally. You’re still talking out of your a$$.
ARE you too Stupid to recognize that is what a TDS reporter wants to believe? There is no evidence that anything said occurred. He did say that he might help if what was done was legal.
You make things up as do your reporters that use anonymous sources. I understand from the grapevine that you live in West Hollywood. I think it is known as We Ho. Don’t you have access to real news that contains actual quotes where you are from?
Second time you responded on this singular question without any proof. That tells everyone that there is no value in what you have to say.
S. Meyer, “ Don’t you have access to real news that contains actual quotes where you are from?
Oh, because it’s not REAL news it doesn’t count.
I provided an article that provided the direct quote from Trump making that statement. You want the video too?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_dBaaK15NDE
Come on S. Meyer. You can see for your deluded self.
I’ve already responded. You have difficulty in differentiating truth from fiction.
SM
Anonymous, you responded by making a false claim. I proved to you what I said was correct. You’re the one having difficulty refuting a claim i proved correct. You claimed the evidence was fake, but…oops, video of Trump actually saying what you claimed was a lie suddenly was “just a joke”, but…oops again, Trump supporters took that “joke” to mean literally what he meant and sucker punched a protester on National tv. Not once did Trump say, “don’t do that”. He just stood there and smiled while his supporters cheered. That’s encouraging the idea of beating up protesters.
Like I said, you’re not too bright.
Paint Chips, you proved cr-p. You have a very thin understanding of reality. I stand by this comment. This represents reality. Your ideas represent fantasy based on ignorance and perhaps too many chemicals.
“Trump was neither condoning nor threatening violence. That is why he pointed out that he had security and was being jocular regarding the tomatoes. “
SM
PS the name is SM or S. Meyer unless you prefer me to not designate who I am.
Anonymously SM, we all know who you are. Are you concerned that you won’t be recognized?
You call others with insulting names. I can call you whatever I want. Today you’re just anonymous SM.
Svelaz…. You must be the most uneducated troll in this group of commenters. The Antifa and BLM terrorist were attacking the capitol before and at the beginning of Trumps speech. This was preplanned by Antifa as well as BLM. They were able to con some misguided Trump supporters into entering the capitol, but make no mistake the damage and destruction of property was all done deliberately by Antifa and BLM.
Punisher, your claims have been debunked by Trump’s own supporters and the FBI.
You’re confusing ANTIFA with the proud boys and Trump supporters with BLM.
If they were attacking the Capitol before Trump’s speech, it seems trump supporters joined in on the mayhem too. Right? Or could it be that Trump supporters like the proud boys who are literally on stating they need to make this look like antifa.
“ The Proud Boys’ chairman, Enrique Tarrio, revealed on Parler that “the Proud Boys will turn out in record numbers on Jan 6th but, this time, with a twist. The twist, Tarrio said, is that they will forgo their traditional uniform for something inconspicuous.
He wrote: “We will not be wearing our traditional Black and Yellow.”
The group’s standard uniform is black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirts, military armor, and MAGA hats.
Instead, the chairman explained: “We might dress in all BLACK for the occasion.” Followers of antifa, an anti-fascist movement, typically wear all-black clothing.
https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-attend-january-6-dc-rally-incognito-all-black-2021-1?amp
Problem is. ANTIFA wasn’t at the Capitol. What many thought was antifa was actually the proud boys.
“ Several posts, particularly on the right-leaning social media platform Parler, shared images that posters claimed as evidence antifa demonstrators were behind the riot. The images did not, however, show any antifa involvement, and in many instances suggested ties to far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys, or conspiracy movements like QAnon.”
https://www.wbaltv.com/amp/article/there-is-no-evidence-that-suggests-antifa-was-a-part-of-the-storming-of-the-capitol/35145385
Lack of solid evidence always interferes with comments made by Paint Chips.
SM
Anonymous, aka S. Meyer, your willful denial of what’s right in front of you is your own problem.
A video of Trump himself saying the words you deny he said at his own rally is as solid as proof you will get.
You’re the one who can’t accept reality because it’s not supposed to be what he said. That’s what cult members usually do when faced with reality. You’re a prime candidate for some delicious kool-aide. I hear it’s refreshing and…liberating.
“Anonymous, aka S. Meyer,”
Apparently your reading skills are poor.
I identified myself at the end with my initials SM because you are a waste of time so no need to fill out the details in the boxes provided.
I already responded to you but maybe you have to look again. Too many Paint Chips. Did you ever try glue?
SM
Anonymous, “SM”, aka S. Meyer,
Not too difficult figuring out what SM stands for. Especially when you’re still having making the same argument S. Meyer is. You’re not fooling anyone.
I bet you think that hiding behind a mop handle can conceal you from everyone.
I used SM because it would be obvious to others who was posting. I guess I assumed that you had a bit more intelligence than you do.
SM
“Two known Antifa members posed as pro-Trump to infiltrate Capitol riot: sources”
https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/known-antifa-members-posed-as-pro-trump-to-infiltrate-capitol-riot-sources/
“The infiltrators were recognized due to their participation in New York City demonstrations, and were believed to have joined in the rioting so that Trump would get blamed, the source said.”
Walworth, only two? Doesn’t seem like a lot of manpower to incite an entire trump loving crowd.
Only two were identified immediately by facial recognition cameras.
Antifa are like roaches. If you see one, there are hundreds more that are hiding until it gets dark.
Almost 200 people have been arrested for illegal acts in the Capitol on January 6th.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
How many aren’t Trump supporters?
Trump also told his faithful disciples that he “loved them”. How sick is that?
The “have no problem accepting” threshold is a fairly low bar in formal logic. It’s on the same level as “Icky-poo” and “Oh yeah? Well you’re a big jerk-face”.
Unfortunately, these are the gold standards of convincing argument in the media and our nation’s corridors of power.
We’re screwed.
Did the mainstream Press organizations just pull an “Orwellian Memory Hole” tactic? Major news and media organizations are comparing Trump to past rogue presidents in American history, but there is no mention of Bush & Cheney.
The Bush Administration violated Ronald Reagan’s prohibition against torture and cruel treatment. A crime under US law and under legally-binding international treaties. Bush violated the FISA Act and lied to the FISA Court (felony crimes for presidents). The FISA Court even created an “after-the-fact” search warrant for exigent circumstances and Bush broke the law anyway, even with the special warrant, not for any exigent circumstances. Attorney General John Ashcroft was severely reprimanded by a federal appeals court for illegally abusing the federal “Material Witness Statute”. Bush was caught performing felony illegal warrantless spying. The Bush DOJ imprisoned Joseph Nacchio of Qwest Communications. Nacchio claimed that about 6 months BEFORE 9/11, Bush officials wanted Nacchio to participate in felony wiretapping of his customers and Nacchio refused to be part of the illegal activity.
The Bush Administration likely broke more federal laws than Trump. Trump incited others to break the law. It’s as though the Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” just omitted this from the history books, right down the “memory hole”. The Press only mentions Nixon and earlier US history. Bush would have been impeached with a different Congress but it just got erased from the history books.
It’s not even close. Bush and his compliant Congress and spy agencies trampled the constitution with the Patriot act
Trump has this on his record that few presidents of recent memory can claim:
“Did not start a war”
Sal
If Barry O’, Hillary deGrift, or China Joe Two-Fingers were subject to one-thousandth of the scrutiny to which Trump endured, all 3 would be folding laundry at the Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary.
I admit, I did not read past the first two paragraphs, but ended with this statement right here “ The question is why the House would use implication, innuendo, and inference when it could have used direct evidence to seek the conviction of Donald Trump.”
I admit, I did not read past the first two paragraphs, but ended with this statement right here “
The answer to that question is because the House has nothing, and they know they have nothing. This is nothing but political theater put on by a bunch of dishonest lying fools who hate this country, and by extension, anyone like President Trump who clearly loves it.
I have no problem accepting that Trump relished scenes of violent protest, but I would like that evidence come in the form of testimony, not media reports.
That’s an odd statement. What evidence exists that would encourage you to accept that allegation?
Olly, perhaps it was a Freudian slip. Turley’s staunch defense of Trump could be that he supports Trump’s claims secretly.
There’s plenty of evidence. Trump’s own supporters are admitting to authorities that they went to the Capitol at Trump’s urging. They expected Trump to pardon them, but they felt betrayed by him. So now they are using Trump as their excuse to defend against charges.
There are plenty of witnesses and evidence.
Turley has always been a Democrat and is a Democrat today. He is smart enough to recognize that Democrats have discarded the rule of law. That is where his expertise lies.
You expect Turley to interpret the law so that he lies to favor Democrats. No, he is not like you. He interprets the law with a leftward spin but unfortunately Democrats are not following the law or its intentions.
S. Meyer, I’m a Republican and have always been a Republican. Republicans always expect a Republican to interpret the law as a Republican would.
No I’m not like you either, but unfortunately Republicans don’t have a very good understanding of the law. Funny how that is isn’t it? I
You have nothing to do with how Turley thinks. I don’t think you know who, what or where you are.
SM
Give up, Allan. You are often mistaken, and you never have learned when to back away from a flawed position. It’s a glaring defect.
That is how Stupid you actually are. Turley admits being a Democrat, Reporters refer to him as a Democrat and others in the legal profession consider him a Democrat but you know better. Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.
There are plenty of witnesses and evidence.
Good luck with that. Like everything else we’ve seen for the last 4+ years, so called witnesses and evidence against Trump end up proving the alleged conduct was done by Democrats. We’re likely to see evidence of what witnesses describe as urging. And if that becomes the new standard for inciting insurrection, then we should expect several more impeachment trials to follow.
The impeachment of Donald Trump is a threat, a warning and a demonstration to every American Citizen of what is in store for them if the have the audacity to think they can exercise their Constitutional Rights and Protections or conduct themselves as if The US Constitution is still in force in The United States.
Dems want to claim the high ground, but resort to gutter tactics to “win” their argument.
They don’t realize that to win, they have to convince Americans.
Other than a few TDS infected partisans (Silberman and Molly prominent among them), the Dems are failing.