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.
“The question is why the House would use implication, inference and innuendo when it could have used direct evidence to seek the conviction of Donald Trump.” When you say “direct evidence,” are you referring to somebody who claimed, apparently without any corroboration, that the President was enjoying watching the rioting? Granted I’m old-fashioned but in my day, hearsay was not equated to “direct evidence.” On the other hand, over 52,000 sworn affidavits of electoral fraud were dismissed by you, Professor Turley, “within a few days of the election,” in your own words. I mean really why bother to investigate, Turley already said the election was clean, nothing to see here. So my question is, why apply different standards when evaluating what constitutes “direct evidence?” The harder you try to act like some fair balance guy, the more you reveal yourself to be the opposite.
This type of violent action is not typically shown in the MSM even though a mayor had to be evacuated at a different time. This is not happening in one place. This is the left in action in various portions of the nation in the present.
———
“This police body cam video was filmed on January 28, released some days later and tweeted yesterday by one of America’s few actual journalists–an almost extinct profession–Andy Ngo. As Andy notes, during an Antifa attack on City Hall last month, the Mayor of Bellingham (unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) had to be evacuated. Sounds like an insurrection, but for some reason it hasn’t been in the headlines.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/insurrection-in-washington.php
This from the Democrat Senate Majority leader threatening individual Supreme Court Justices.
“In front of a crowd of supporters outside the Supreme Court in March 2020, Schumer warned Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Schumer later retracted his comments but received bipartisan condemnation and a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, which is a rare occurrence from the court.
“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Roberts said following Schumer’s comments. “All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”” JTN
Schumer incited violence against those two justices. Let’s look at real threats against specific prominent individuals who are under threat.
Stupid people like Anonymous the Stupid are too Stupid to tell the difference.
Allan the Stupid likely hasn’t read the U.S. Code about incitement and so doesn’t understand what the law says about incitement. Schumer didn’t incite any violence.
He was censored in a bi partisan fashion.You are too Stupid to know the difference between threats. Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.
censor != censure
No one censored him.
The Senate also did not censure Schumer for his comments, though some criticized him and called for him to be censured.
Even when you post anonymously, Allan, your behavioral tics — like projecting your weaknesses onto others, as you did here — give you away.
I hope you can tell when I respond to you. I make sure I am anonymous so others can skip the nonsense you bring to the table. All they have to do is look at the generic poster and trash the comment. I use my alias for those comments that represent suitable discussion for a blog of this nature. I am not accustomed to your type of incivility and low brow discourse.
You were correct, Schumer was not censured. He received bipartisan condemnation along with a rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts. His statement was dangerous and that is something I think you will agree with.
Once again the genius’s from the left are proven wrong.
Manhattan District Attorney Vance’s case against Manafort ends after double jeopardy rule stands
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/manhattan-district-attorney-vances-case-against-manafort-ends-after-decision?utm_source=daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
The above is from me.
Oh, so you’re sayin’ that words actually mean things. That the “manifest tenor” of the phrase double jeopardy, actually means precisely what it says and precisely what we all read, double jeopardy?
Dang! How’s about dat? Let’s proceed directly with that application of the “manifest tenor” and eliminate, once and for all, the entire American communist welfare state. Read it and weep, comrade:
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.
Government exists to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
TRUMP INCITED: A JANUARY 6 TIMELINE
The assertion that Trump acted swiftly and out of genuine horror as his supporters ransacked the Capitol is largely a side note to his lawyers’ defense. In their 78-page brief, they focused on two legal arguments: that the Constitution does not allow for the conviction of an impeached former officeholder and that Trump’s speech to the crowd on Jan. 6 was political rhetoric protected by the First Amendment.
But the decision by Trump’s attorneys to also assert a claim about Trump’s reaction that day in a footnote to their legal brief could give the House impeachment managers an opening. Among the possible witnesses who could rebut the contention that Trump moved quickly to rein his supporters are Republican senators who will now sit as jurors in the impeachment trial.
“It took him awhile to appreciate the gravity of the situation,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, said in an interview with The Washington Post two days after the riot. “The president saw these people as allies in his journey and sympathetic to the idea that the election was stolen.”
That same day, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) told conservative radio broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that it was “not an open question” as to whether Trump had been “derelict in his duty,” saying there had been a delay in the deployment of the National Guard to help the Capitol Police repel rioters.“As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building,” he said, indicating that he had learned of Trump’s reaction from “senior White House officials.”
On Jan. 6, Trump spent part of his morning making a final pitch to Vice President Mike Pence to derail the proceedings. The president tried to convince Pence to use his ceremonial role presiding over the joint session of Congress to reject slates of electoral college votes that confirmed Joe Biden’s victory.
“All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!” Trump tweeted at 8:17 a.m.
As the thousands of people gathered on the Ellipse, Trump monitored warm-up speeches by attorneys Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman from the White House. Around midday, he left the White House and made his way to a tent set up for VIPs near the stage. In videos posted on social media by his son Donald Trump Jr., the president can be seen intently watching the gathering crowd, surrounded by family members and aides. A permit filed with the National Park Service for the event explicitly said there were no plans for an “organized march” from the Ellipse after the rally concluded.
“After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you,” Trump said early in his speech. Later, he added, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” He concluded: “So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue!” Instead, Trump returned to the White House.
Even before Trump’s speech was over, thousands of his supporters turned and began marching toward the Capitol.
By 1:49 p.m. — nearly an hour after the Capitol Police chief had urgently requested backup from D.C. police — Trump remained focused on his recently concluded speech.
He tweeted a video of his own remarks, adding the caption, “Our country has had enough, we will not take it anymore, and that’s what this is all about.”
At 2:11 p.m., the rioters broke into the building, smashing a window with a piece of lumber, video footage shows. Minutes later, Pence was hustled from the Senate Chamber. First the Senate, and then the House, went into recess and lawmakers were hastily evacuated. A spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has said that around this time Lee received a call on his cellphone from Trump.
The president was not calling to inquire about the well-being of the senators who had been rushed from the chamber. Rather, he thought he had the phone number for Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who had said he would object to the electoral votes of some states. Trump was hoping to persuade Tuberville to expand his challenges and slow the process further.
Lee’s spokesman did not respond to requests for comment this week.
Not long afterward, at 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution … USA demands the truth.”Inside the Capitol, the pro-Trump mob had just come within seconds of encountering Pence, who had been rushed into a hideaway by his Secret Service detail.
Finally, at 2:38 p.m. — more than 90 minutes after the siege had begun — Trump tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
Edited from: “Trump’s Lawyers Say He Was Horrified By The Capitol Attack. Here’s What His Allies And Aides Said Really Happened That Day”
Today’s Washington Post
Paint Chips, when you’ve learned the meaning of the term ‘incitement’, get back to us.
Here’s a more detailed timeline –
https://www.justsecurity.org/74138/incitement-timeline-year-of-trumps-actions-leading-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol/
Such deep insight….a lazy cut past from wapoo. a serial propagandist outlet.
Anonymous aka Left Wing fascist socialist.
CNN…LOL. they just had their post Democrat impeachment presentation commentary without a single person dissenting to what the previous people said. It was a choir in perfect harmony … and perfect propaganda….
Let me see, something is being taken in front of the Senate and at the very last second, a report gets floated in the press? Really? Do the Democrats think it is going to work? Really? It did not work the last time. Oh wait, I am confused, that was two Supreme Court picks. Silly me, they would never do something underhanded like that, would they? Amazing how the same play keeps getting run by the same people. I guess they think they can fool all of the people….
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-offered-to-deploy-10000-national-guard-troops-in-dc-ahead-of-jan-6-mark-meadows_3690294.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-02-09-1
Former President Donald Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops in Washington D.C. prior to Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol building breach, according to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Meadows told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that although Trump had been vocal about offering Capitol Police and National Guard presence at the Capitol on multiple occasions last month, his offer was rebuked “every time.”
“We also know that in January, but also throughout the summer, that the president was very vocal in making sure that we had plenty of National Guard, plenty of additional support because he supports our rule of law and supports our law enforcement and offered additional help,” Meadows told host Maria Bartiromo.
“Even in January, that was a given, as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the Secretary of Defense” Meadows said. “That was a direct order from President Trump and yet here is what we see … all kinds of blame going around but yet not a whole lot of accountability.”
“That accountability needs to rest where it ultimately should be and that’s on Capitol Hill” Meadows added.
The Pentagon and the office of Washington D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment by The Epoch Times.
Democrats allege that the president incited the violence at the Capitol in a speech he delivered near the White House on Jan 6. In his address, Trump used the words “fight like hell” in reference to his team’s legal efforts around election integrity. The Democrats allege that Trump used the words to incite his followers to commit violence.
House Democrats, joined by 10 Republicans, voted on Jan. 13 to approve a single article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” making him the first president to be impeached twice. When the Senate trial opens on Feb. 9, he will become the first former president to stand trial.
Meadows described the impeachment effort against the former president as “political theater.”
“It’s really about Democrats trying to once again make a political point,” he said. “This whole impeachment is designed to remove someone from office. President Trump is a private citizen at this point. And yet they can’t stand it. They have to continue to go ahead and try to put forth some kind of narrative that scores political points.”
He added, “But we have seen it before. The American people are not going to have it. We have already had 45 senators say that this is unconstitutional. But it’s more than that. It’s a violation of due process. It’s not what our founding fathers set up. And it sets a very bad precedent of future officeholders.”
Attorneys for Trump on Monday set out their defense for his Senate impeachment trial, arguing that the Senate has no jurisdiction to try a former official, that the House’s charge against the 45th president is deficient, that their client was deprived of due process and had his right to free speech violated by the article of impeachment.
In the 78-page trial memorandum, the attorneys posit that the Senate taking up the impeachment amounts to a bill of attainder, an act that the Constitution prohibits the legislature from taking because it would amount to inflicting punishment without a jury trial. The defense also contends that the “incitement” accusation is contradicted by the plain text of the transcript of the president’s Jan. 6 speech.
“The Article of Impeachment presented by the House is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, any of which alone would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Taken together, they demonstrate conclusively that indulging House Democrats’ hunger for this political theater is a danger to our Republic democracy and the rights that we hold dear,” the trial memo, authored by Bruce Castor, David Schoen, and Michael van der Veen, states.
The President does not need anyone else’s approval or agreement to deploy the DC National Guard.
Yes he does. He has wanted to deploy the NG all year in cities across he nation. But Mayors in those cities refused. The President does not have local jurisdiction, and can only offer help.
I wouldn’t have thought that I’d need to point this out: DC is not in a state.
More info here –
https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/the-law-q-a-who-can-call-in-the-d-c-national-guard/article_fe928bc3-67f1-541c-9e9f-81b87d7b0bac.html
Jonathan: In two columns now you continue to defend Trump’s incitement to insurrection on January 6; first claiming that Trump’s speech is protected by the First Amendment–despite the overwhelming weight of constitutional authority to the contrary. In this column you refer to the CNN report indicating a “senior aide” to Trump apparently saw Trump watching the TV coverage of the Capitol riot in real time was “loving watching the Capitol mob”. Testimony by the “senior aide” would obviously go to Trump’s state of mind but this evidence was apparently not available to the House at the time they were debating the one article of impeachment. So why blame the House? But even had the House had the CNN report then and called the “senior aide” to testify do you really think Trump would have allowed his aide to testify? In the first impeachment House investigation Trump refused to allow administration officials to testify and refused to provide requested documents. It would have been a time consuming and futile effort for the House to make this mistake in the second impeachment. There is no requirement for long hearings and witnesses because the House acts more like a grand jury. The House indicts and the Senate conducts the trial and can call any and all witnesses to testify notwithstanding the fact the House did not.
In a closed door meeting with Republican Senators you apparently convinced them (at least the gang of 45) not to convict Trump. So why the overkill with these two latest columns? You obviously don’t want to leave any stone uncovered. Now your claim is that the House manager’s case is purely “circumstantial”. Not so. All of Trump’s actions leading up to January 6 are in plain sight. All the Senators are direct witnesses to what happened inside the Capitol. And as a self described “criminal defense attorney” you should know a lot of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence. It’s done every day in courts around the country.
Unrelated to your specious legal arguments against convicting Trump is that Trump’s supporters in the Senate don’t want a long drawn out “fair and impartial” trial with witnesses that would substantiate Trump’s attempts to overturn a legitimate election including inciting his followers to invade the Capitol to prevent the certification of the Electoral College vote. Senate Republicans are running scared. Trump has made clear his vengeance knows no limits. He will campaign against any Republican who votes to convict him. No Republican wants to alienate Trump or his supporters. What ever the ultimate outcome of the Senate trial Trump will go down in history as the most corrupt president in American history, impeached twice because he committed grave offenses against the constitutional order. It’s a sad commentary that you, as a noted constitutional scholar cited by the House managers in their presentation to the Senate today, now takes non-sensical positions and seems to think Trump had a First Amendment right to incite insurrection in a desperate attempt to hold onto power and should not be held accountable.
It’s not about defending Trump. It’s about interpreting law and the constitution. You describe Turley’s reasoning as defending Trump because you can’t refute it on it’s own terms. You have to bring in Trump. Who it is has NOTHING to do with any of this. The standards should apply regardless.
Lady justice has to put her Blindfold back on…
How funny and sad it is that once again, the same people who said they voted for Trump because “he says what he means” are explaining that he didn’t mean what he said. And Trump didn’t say that. And if he did, he didn’t mean that. And if he did, you didn’t understand it.
No, he didn’t mean what you said.
The one thing that he has ever said that I believe is, “I don’t take responsibility at all”
What did he mean when he didn’t mean what he said, Arty?
Anonymous the Stupid playing Stupid.
+10
Elvis Bug
Fish wings, you continue to rely on “anonymous sources said” to support your argument. Anonymous sources have said that Fishwing’s mother wears combat boots. Who’s to say these sources are wrong? We should demand that video of Fishwing’s mother wearing combat boots should be presented as evidence. Can you believe it? Fishwing’s is now accepting the anonymous source as evidence against his own mother. He hears her not when she exclaims, “Oh son how could abandon me in my hour of need?. Fishwings responds. But Anonymous says mommy Anonymous says. Anonymous says ladies size 8.
So you deny Trump said ‘I don’t take responsibility at all”? Trump said it. Maybe you can explain who I used as “anonymous sources” Trump supporters own statements?
Context matters, dimwit. How about we had a media that constantly took Joe Biden’s words out of context insisting that it meant something that it didn’t? Can you imagine how low the public perception of Joe Biden would be at this point if he had the same outrageous media mistreatment Trump has gotten?
Joe ‘10% for the big guy’ Biden is gonna put ‘y’all back in chains’ you ‘lyin’ dog faced pony soldier.’ And if he don’t like what you have to say, he’ll ask you to take it outside, so he can beat you up behind the gym, because if you don’t vote for him, ‘you ain’t black’…or something.
Do you think just maybe that the Secret Service & Alex Jones’ Infowars security team & camera guys have all that time stamped material?
I’ve seen much of the Infowars time stamps, Antifa/BLM were leading the riots into the US capital building about 30 minutes before Trump stopped speaking.
People like CNN & Natacha think you are fools as they Lie to your Face!
And let’s say that the DOJ, FBI, CIA are so great, let them show us public the leaders of the Psyop “Q” . We want to see his/their face/faces!
And when they get some free time maybe they can round up the Financiers/leaders of the Antifa & BLM Terrorist Groups.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Anon, the Declaration of Independence statement brings with it that the allegations of abuses and usurpations have been found to be true. If the founders were here today what credence would they give to anonymous sources in order to find evidence of guilt. One would only hope that their wisdom would be greater than those twisting their words on this forum for their own purposes. No need to hope. Their greater degree of wisdom than our posters is a given.
Had enough yet?
_____________
Timeline of the American Revolution
1754–1763: French and Indian War
The Treaty of Paris ended the French and Indian War, the American phase of a worldwide nine years’ war fought between France and Great Britain. (The European phase was the Seven Years’ War.) As a result of the war, France ceded all of its North American possessions east of the Mississippi River to Britain. The costs of the war contributed to the British government’s decision to impose new taxes on its American colonies.
March 22, 1765: Stamp Act
Like the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act was imposed to provide increased revenues to meet the costs of defending the enlarged British Empire. It was the first British parliamentary attempt to raise revenue through direct taxation on a wide variety of colonial transactions, including legal writs, newspaper advertisements, and ships’ bills of lading. Enraged colonists nullified the Stamp Act through outright refusal to use the stamps as well as by riots, stamp burning, and intimidation of colonial stamp distributors.
June 15–July 2, 1767: Townshend Acts
A series of four acts, the Townshend Acts were passed by the British Parliament in an attempt to assert what it considered to be its historic right to exert authority over the colonies through suspension of a recalcitrant representative assembly and through strict provisions for the collection of revenue duties. The acts were resisted everywhere with verbal agitation and physical violence, deliberate evasion of duties, renewed nonimportation agreements among merchants, and overt acts of hostility toward British enforcement agents, especially in Boston. In response, in October 1768, Parliament dispatched two regiments of the British army to Boston.
March 5, 1770: Boston Massacre
In Boston, a small British army detachment that was threatened by mob harassment opened fire and killed five people, an incident soon known as the Boston Massacre. The soldiers were charged with murder and were given a civilian trial, in which John Adams conducted a successful defense.
December 16, 1773: Boston Tea Party
Protesting both a tax on tea (taxation without representation) and the perceived monopoly of the East India Company, a party of Bostonians thinly disguised as Mohawk people boarded ships at anchor and dumped some £10,000 worth of tea into the harbor, an event popularly known as the Boston Tea Party.
March–June 1774: Intolerable Acts
In retaliation for colonial resistance to British rule during the winter of 1773–74, the British Parliament enacted four measures that became known as the Intolerable (or Coercive) Acts: the Boston Port Act, Massachusetts Government Act, Administration of Justice Act, and Quartering Act. Rather than intimidating Massachusetts and isolating it from the other colonies, the oppressive acts became the justification for convening the First Continental Congress later in 1774.
September 5, 1774: First Continental Congress convenes
Called by the Committees of Correspondence in response to the Intolerable Acts, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. Fifty-six delegates represented all the colonies except Georgia.
March 23, 1775: Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech
Convinced that war with Great Britain was inevitable, Virginian Patrick Henry defended strong resolutions for equipping the Virginia militia to fight against the British in a fiery speech in a Richmond church with the famous words, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
April 18–19, 1775: Paul Revere’s Ride and the Battles of Lexington and Concord
On the night of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere rode from Charlestown to Lexington (both in Massachusetts) to warn that the British were marching from Boston to seize the colonial armory at Concord. En route, the British force of 700 men was met on Lexington Green by 77 local minutemen and others. It is unclear who fired the first shot, but it sparked a skirmish that left eight Americans dead. At Concord, the British were met by hundreds of militiamen. Outnumbered and running low on ammunition, the British column was forced to retire to Boston. On the return march, American snipers took a deadly toll on the British. Total losses in the Battles of Lexington and Concord numbered 273 British and more than 90 Americans.
June 17, 1775: Battle of Bunker Hill
Breed’s Hill in Charlestown was the primary locus of combat in the misleadingly named Battle of Bunker Hill, which was part of the American siege of British-held Boston. Some 2,300 British troops eventually cleared the hill of the entrenched Americans, but at the cost of more than 40 percent of the assault force. The battle was a moral victory for the Americans.
January 1776: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense published
In late 1775 the colonial conflict with the British still looked like a civil war, not a war aiming to separate nations; however, the publication of Thomas Paine’s irreverent pamphlet Common Sense abruptly put independence on the agenda. Paine’s 50-page pamphlet, couched in elegant direct language, sold more than 100,000 copies within a few months. More than any other single publication, Common Sense paved the way for the Declaration of Independence.
July 4, 1776: Declaration of Independence adopted
After the Congress recommended that colonies form their own governments, the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson and revised in committee. On July 2 the Congress voted for independence; on July 4 it adopted the Declaration of Independence.
September 22, 1776: Nathan Hale executed
On September 21, 1776, having penetrated the British lines on Long Island to obtain information, American Capt. Nathan Hale was captured by the British. He was hanged without trial the next day. Before his death, Hale is thought to have said, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country,” a remark similar to one in the play Cato by Joseph Addison.
December 25–26, 1776: Washington crosses the Delaware
Having been forced to abandon New York City and driven across New Jersey by the British, George Washington and the Continental Army struck back on Christmas night by stealthily crossing the ice-strewn Delaware River, surprising the Hessian garrison at Trenton at dawn, and taking some 900 prisoners. The American triumph at Trenton and in the Battle of Princeton (January 3, 1777) roused the new country and kept the struggle for independence alive.
See, power precedes legality. The colonials took actions that were powerful and caused them to gain power. but were illegal.
They won the war against the Crown, which then legalized their rebellion.
That’s how it works. Rebellion that ends in failure is always illegal
Keep that in mind
Sal
Why do I get the distinct impression that you support crime as a method of governance?
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) stole the election and nullified the dominion of freedom and free elections in Ben Franklin’s restricted-vote republic (i.e. under a
government elected by citizens who are entitled to vote; distinctly not one man, one vote democracy).
Their election corruption began long ago with the importation of illegal aliens to dilute and terminate the American population and to dilute the electorate; moving on to the imposition of eminently corruptible
vote-by-mail and ballot harvesting schemes, and concluding with unconstitutional and illegal violations of state election laws, manipulation of physical vote counts and the corruption of vote-counting software
through the liberal application of algorithms in thumb drives.
That was illegal.
The impeachment manager’s snuff film was some of the worst agitprop I’ve ever seen. At first I thought the production values were very Jackie Treehorn, but from what I understand most porn is a lot more subtle than what Raskin had to offer. I have to agree with my wife, however, who thought it was pure Ed Wood, Jr. All it needed was some stampeding buffalo and a giant octopus.
The film offered no evidence of a causal link between Trump’s words (loathsome they may have been) and the behaviors of the crowd. For me to buy what Raskin is selling I’d have to be convinced that the crowd would not have acted as they did if Trump had never made any statement. Raskin in arguing in favor of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
This is a bad day for logic.
And clearly a bad day for trump’s rationalizations.