Below is my column in USA Today on the lack of a strategy by the House to secure conviction in the trial of former President Donald Trump. As I have previously noted, the House managers did an excellent job in their presentations and many of the videotapes rekindled the anger that most of us felt over the riot. They also reinforced the view of many (including myself) that former president Donald Trump bears responsibility in the tragedy that unfolded due to his reckless rhetoric. Yet, there was a glaring omission in the substance of the House arguments. The managers did not lay out what the standard should be in convicting a former president for incitement of an insurrection and only briefly touched on proving any “state of mind” needed for such a conviction. That is why I have referred to their case as more emotive than probative. It lacked direct evidence to support the claim that Trump wanted to incite an actual insurrection or rebellion against the United States, as alleged in the article of impeachment. I do not believe that an acquittal was inevitable in this case, but it was all but assured by critical decisions made by the House in this impeachment. The unforced errors discussed below raise the question of whether the Democrats “tanked” the trial.
Here is the column:
The second trial of former President Donald Trump is shaping up to be a curious exercise designed more to enrage than convict. While legal eagles will be analyzing every move, what citizens really need is an Philadelphia Eagles fan to understand what is unfolding. In the NFL, it is called “tanking.” This year, there was a raging debate whether Eagles coach Doug Pederson was actually trying to win or just losing convincingly to secure a better draft pick. The House trial strategy has every indication of a tanked trial, but few are noting the glaring lack of a credible offense.
When it comes to football, tanking allegations arise when the inexplicable speeds along the inevitable. That point was reached this season when Pederson decided not to tie the game against Washington in the third quarter with a field goal and instead put Nate Sudfeld in the game over Jalen Hurts. The House may have reached that point when the managers seemed to be trying harder to make a better case for losing than winning. That was driven home by the selection of such managers as Rep. Eric Swalwell in the wake of his scandal with Chinese spy. Swalwell’s comments not only include disturbing legal claims, but highly personal and offensive remarks like mocking threats against Susan Collins, R-Maine. Swalwell declared “Boo hoo hoo. You’re a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can’t sleep at home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She’s on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.” Pelosi picked not only a member who has viciously attacked Republicans but one of the Republicans most needed by the House in this trial. Sending in Swalwell made the Sudfeld substitution look like sheer genius.
If this was an NFL board of inquiry, three signs of tanking would standout.
The Snap
The first indication was the use of what I have called a “snap impeachment.” The House wanted to impeach the president before he left office, which was perfectly constitutional. I have long maintained (as I did as a witness in the first Trump impeachment hearing) that the House can legitimately impeach a president on his very last day in office if it has evidence of a high crime and misdemeanor. However, after Jan. 6 the House had time to hold hearings (even if only for a day or two) to create a record supporting impeachment. The House leadership refused despite the urging of some of us that no impeachment had ever been submitted with no record of a hearing, investigation or formal opportunity for a president to respond.
It was an ironic moment. In the last impeachment, I criticized the House leadership for impeaching Trump on the thinnest record in the shortest time in history. It then outdid itself by impeaching him a second time with no record and no hearing. Even a day of hearings would have reduced the serious prudential concerns of senators, but the House pushed through a snap impeachment on a muscle vote. That left the House with no record despite being denied witnesses in the prior impeachment by the Senate
The Article
The greatest indication of tanking was the language of the article itself. Even a single day of hearings would have allowed experts to discuss the potential impeachable conduct and the crafting of articles of impeachment. There was credible impeachable offenses in Trump’s conduct on January 6th and its aftermath. Instead, the House leadership insisted on impeachment for “incitement of insurrection.” The House is not alleging reckless or negligent conduct leading to a riot. It is alleging incitement to actually seek rebellion or overthrow of the country. The article specifically refers to section 3 of the 14th Amendment in its prohibition of anyone holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States. Even moderate senators who condemned Trump for his speech would be highly unlikely to convict on such an article.
The House made it easy on those seeking acquittal. It could have crafted an article that would appeal to broader bipartisan support. Instead, it sought the most extreme language alleging incitement to an actual insurrection — virtually guaranteeing a partisan vote and likely acquittal.
The House also included language that only strengthened the expected challenge facing the House in seeking a trial for a former president. The article declared Trump “has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.” Yet, the House was virtually certain that he would already be out of office when he came to trial. The language magnified concerns over the constitutionality of retroactive trials. Not only does the Constitution refer to the trial as deciding whether to remove “the President” but the article itself refers to the purpose of such removal to protect the nation. While the article mentions disqualification from future office, the article is crafted around an urgency that would become a nullity in a matter of days.
The Record
What occurred next was familiar to NFL fans suspicious of tanking. Nothing happened. The House made it to the endzone of a Senate trial and then stopped on a dime. The House demanded witnesses in the Senate but then let weeks pass without calling any witnesses that would be relevant to proving Trump’s intent or state of mind. It could have created a public record and locked in testimony in case the Senate, as expected, declined to call witnesses or severely limited witnesses.
Thus, weeks passed as key witnesses gave public interviews. Yet, the House refused to put them under oath in hearings. Why? A dozen witnesses could have testified and the record could have been referenced or incorporated in the trial. These are witnesses like former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller and his two closest aides, Kashyap “Kash” Patel and Ezra Cohen describing what Trump said and did during the critical period, including discussions of the use of National Guard. Most recently, a senior aide said that Trump was “loving watching the Capitol mob” on television. The witnesses are doing everything short of wearing sandwich boards outside of the House asking to be called, but the House has refused to create a record. If it called hearings, the House would have reduced the concerns over the use of a snap impeachment and dramatically strengthened its case. Instead, the House preferred no record.
The House brief in the Senate further highlighted the lack of direct evidence on Trump’s state of mind. It laid out an emotionally charged but legally incomplete case for the Senate. To convict, the House needs to show Trump was more than reckless. It crafted the article as inciting an actual rebellion or insurrection, not mere negligence. Instead, the House plans to show clips of damage and interviews with rioters to show how Trump’s words were interpreted rather than intended. The thrust of its case is a parade of horribles from that day, a narrative that will harden the minds of many but change the minds of few. Without such evidence, the Trump team will be able to hammer away at similarly reckless rhetoric used by Democrats, including members of the “jury.”
That is why, with the start of the trial, there is growing suspicion of a tanked trial. The House will present a case long on emotions and short on evidence. Trump will then be acquitted and Democrats will look to picking up new talent in the 2022 draft.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Here’s how credibility works: you get to know somebody over time. See them at their best and their worst and make a judgment. In Trump’s case, lots of people believe he loves the country and wouldn’t intentionally do anything to harm it. Conversely, those folks see the Dims as devious political actors who sought to bring him down for 4 years with all manner of lies and exaggerations. With that mindset, it takes overwhelming AND competent evidence to overcome the goodwill Trump enjoys. There isn’t any that the Dims produced so the mindset endures. It’s that simple. Like my father said, “In life, you build up credits with people and you do it all the time since you never know when you have to use them or how much of them.” Smart man.
“In Trump’s case, lots of people believe he loves the country and wouldn’t intentionally do anything to harm it.”
No. They know trump would sell out the country, and anyone in it, for his own benefit and they know it through sheer repetitive evidence. What these people like is that trump is willing to punish the people they hate. And since they’ve lost faith in government in general (if they ever had it to begin with) they’re entirely okay with trump on those terms.
Aninny:
“No. They know trump would sell out the country, and anyone in it, for his own benefit and they know it through sheer repetitive evidence.”
**************************
Keep fighting the facts. It’s what makes you the Donna Quixote of the blog. By the way, losing faith in government is what this country is all about. Only a statist like yourself wouldn’t see that. Like Paine said, it’s a “necessary evil.” You oughta dust off a history book once in while.
Who said I haven’t lost as much faith in government as trumpers??? That’s your limited view. Maybe I’ve lost more. Might be easy to lose track of that in all your Bannon worship…., so I guess i get it. Probably best for me to picture a 10 year old when I read your posts.
Aninny:
My guess is that Bannon is smarter, richer and more important than you and it just sticks in your craw. Likely why you raise his name in every retort — such as they are. Funny you castigate Trump followers are those who’ve lost faith in government and now imply you have to. Do you get dizzy changing your positions in every breath. And, of course, its all feigned given Dims love government. They can’t convince people of their insanity like men can will themselves to be women or that black people inherently need government support or that the environment is ending in 1 or 12 or 20 years so they seize power and force people. So you haven’t lost faith in government; you worship government. Almost as fervently as you worship feeling you can tell people what to do.
Every comment I read of yours is dumber than the last. You’re a talented man there, blowhard.
EB
” to picture a 10 year old when I read your posts.”
Anonymous the Stupid, you have again started with the insults.
“No. They know trump would sell out the country, “
Anonymous the Stupid, you are lying. Ask the Trump supporters on the blog what they think.
Mespo’ statement is absolutely correct.
At least when mespo makes progressively dumber comments he’s got a place to start and then a place to finish. Yours start in extreme idiocy and don’t venture further in any direction.
EB
Here’s how credibility works, mesblow: anyone who consistently refers to Democrats as “Dims,” like you do, has no credibility.
Anyone who understands Trump knows that there’s no room in his life for anyone other than himself. Do you think Melania doesn’t know this? He loves the power, the adulation–why the “Stop the Steal” rallies after he lost the election? What purpose could these have other than to try to cheat his way back into power after being rejected by the American people, losing 60+ lawsuits, unable to bully state election officials and Pence into voiding Biden votes. Has any president in US history ever behaved this way, or lied this much? Trump does NOT enjoy universal “goodwill”, and never has. He lost the popular vote in 2016, 2020, set a record for low approval ratings, and every poll predicted he would lose. He has stirred up the resentment of mostly non college educated white people who feel threatened by the success of black people and women, and that’s his real appeal. How could it be anything else, considering what he did to the economy, record unemployment, lying, botching the pandemic, and losing a trade war with China? How much failure is enough to shake the faith of the disciples? So far, not even inciting a deadly riot is enough, which is truly frightening.
And, he is NOT a smart man, either. Multiple business failure and bankruptcies prove this, plus the fact that his father bailed him out of multiple business failures until he succumbed to dementia and lost control of his finances. He has always been a cheat and liar, according to his niece, who recounts that Trump’s older sister says he cheated on the SAT exam to get into Wharton. Presidential Daily Briefings had to be dumbed down for him because he either didn’t care enough to pay attention to details or has a form of ADD. He’s NO patriot, either–cheated to get out of military service with fake bone spurs and mocked a genuine war hero–John McCain. He’s a loser, and so are those who refuse to see the truth about him.
So many details surrounding January 6 reek of a governmental setup to take down Trump. Connect the dots.
Simple question. Who was prescient to know to be at capitol with camera crew to interview selected rioters who all had the same answers, almost verbatim? Well scripted and orchestrated.
Insufficient security despite knowledge of crowd size, capitol police likely told to stand aside and let the protesters in.
Likely wolves(antifa) in sheep’s clothing, encouraging the protesters thru the gates they had opened with blessing of police, and then the wolves just slip out.
Armed protesters? Who? With what? A flag pole?
Not a single nonprotester was injured, except for a policeman who the government refuses to release details as to cause of death.
The swamp is wider and deeper than Trump could imagine. They took his rally and used it. Trust me. The top
Leaders on the left, Washington police, and likely media knew this was coming well before it happened.
Trump was outplayed by the swamp in this event.
The real players in the January 6 event have yet to be exposed. They are distracting everyone with this impeachment part two.
What’s it like wearing that tin foil hat in the sun?
“tin foil hat in the sun”
What’s your excuse?
It’s quite amusing. I remember this comment section on 1/6/21. There was near universal support for the insurrection-LARPers from the regulars. One prolific poster was having a veritable orgasm over “billionaires shaking in their boots”.
Now, because the events of 1/6 backfired and harmed the conservative movement, people like Mark Novick are convinced that must have been the purpose all along. His Trumpist comrades would never do anything stupid and reckless, ya know?
Since the Trump presidency has also harmed conservatism, ushering in near-total Democratic control, I expect they’ll eventually shift gears and start saying the entire Trump administration was a Deep State psyop, too, aimed at discrediting patriotic Americans and making them look crazy.
@Mark Novick “Governmental setup”?
So the government has been forcing Trump to have a pattern of lying to people about elections being stolen, which he has done since he lost the Iowa Caucus to Cruz (I’m sure everyone remembers him saying he would have won the 2016 popular vote against Hillary but for millions of “illegal” votes without evidence but it seems even Cruz forgets this) : https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-cruz-stole-iowa-tweet-deleted-218674
They forced him to tell the organizers to move the date of the rally up to match the timing of the procedures at Congress?
They forced him to direct the mob to violate their permit and head to congress and he would March with them?
They forced him to not respond or care that the violent mob had broken into congress and to do nothing for hours but act giddy and call congressmen to get them to delay the vote to certify Biden?
You must believe the “Government” is Donald Trump, who in fact only set himself up.
“lying to people about elections being stolen”
As you will be finding out the hard way, verifiable forensic data doesn’t lie:
https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/01/how-djt-lost-the-white-house-chapter-2-was-there-foreign-interference-in-this-election-you-make-the-call/
“to get them to delay the vote to certify Biden?”
There is ‘certifying’ of the vote! The votes are counted and the candidate with the majority is declared the winner. That’s it. The Founders most definitely wanted to avoid the Federal government having any hand in the selection of the president. Any certification already happened at the state level.
Isn’t.
Crucial word got left off. There isn’t any vote certification at the federal level.
Congress votes to accept or reject the certificates from each state’s electors –
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
That’s what was happening on Jan. 6.
“The right of objection that members of Congress now invoke is derived from a misreading of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. It was passed in the wake of the disastrous presidential election of 1876, in which states certified competing slates of electors and sent both to Congress; a governor might send one slate and the legislature another. The 1887 law was meant to allow members of Congress to object to one of the competing slates of electors. But no state after the 2020 election has approved multiple slates, nor has any state legislature petitioned Congress to consider different electors. In fact, the law clearly states that so long as the final determination of electors is “made at least six days prior to the said time of meeting of the electors,” that slate of electors “shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution.” Thus the objections being considered on Jan. 6 had no legal basis.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-fight-isnt-in-congress-11610061953?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
“Congress votes to accept or reject the certificates from each state’s electors”
If this is the case, then that means Congress would be able to nullify the will of the people and the states. The balance of powers would be upset. It could also be used as a bludgeon by competing forces within Congress to determine an outcome favorable to “their side”. The fox should not guard the henhouse.
“They sought to avoid the exact situation we saw on Jan. 6. Millions of Americans were falsely led to believe that the final say in the election of our next president lay with a single body, Congress. And so it was no surprise that thousands showed up to make their voices heard. But the belief that Congress has any say whatever in the “certification” of electoral votes has never been true. It has always been unconstitutional and against our Founders’ intent, as it was when Democrats attempted the same stunt in 2005.
Article II of the Constitution lays out a clear role for Congress. “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” It does not say “certify.” It does not say “object if you disagree.” It does not say “object and decertify if you feel the state’s certification is wrong.” The only contingency the Constitution provides is in the case of a failure of any candidate to reach an electoral majority.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-fight-isnt-in-congress-11610061953?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
See also his podcast from that day, starting around the 10 minute mark but most particularly at the 17 minute mark.
https://holdthesetruthswithdancrenshaw.libsyn.com/the-truth-about-january-6th-with-trey-gowdy-rep-chip-roy-and-ut-laws-steve-vladeck
Turley, amazing this has to be explained to you, but an impeachment is primarily a political act, not a legal one. There are no rules except the judgement of the hopefully wise Senators acting in good faith. Any senators – or citizens – paying attention to the case presented by the House managers and acting in good faith, cannot possibly decide Trump should ever be allowed to be able to ever hold office again. That’s the whole story and end of the story. If you can’t see that, you are morally blind and the hell with your pseudo-legal irrelevancies. You have ridden this Trump train to the bottom, pretending to be objective while ankle biting and otherwise finding legal arguments why he is innocent or at least can’t stopped. Well, he can be, but the ball-less GOP leadership probably won’t do it. No big surprise, nor are your enabling columns, this latest being yet another.
GTH
So how about Pelosi, Schumer, and Maxine? Bet they are ok with you, huh? Drink your kool aid dude.
Billy, I didn’t hear about any of them desperately trying to stay in office after losing their election, including stopping vote counting by Congress.
Seriously, you’re not saying that’s OK, are you?
Word!
EB
GTH:
“Turley, amazing this has to be explained to you, but an impeachment is primarily a political act, not a legal one. There are no rules except the judgement of the hopefully wise Senators acting in good faith.”
************************
The absurdity of the likes of you calling out a law professor who specializes in Constitutional law is unbelievable. The laughter you here is those of us on the blog who are amused at the bloviations of a dunderhead like you.
Speaking of dunderhead…
“The laughter you here…”
I know you can spell better than this. Time to step up be the proper soporific and corpulent puffed up wind bag you were meant to be.
Turley specializes in Democrat and Fox News rivals bashing and GOP apologies, not Constitutional Law. Neither is that difficult, though he regularly f..s them all up. Attorneys are mostly not as clever as they tell each other they are, nor the law that difficult. Procedural rules are, but that’s how they protect their turf and their income stream. Tassled loafers aren’t cheap.
“an impeachment is primarily a political act, not a legal one”
No, you are wrong. Though in the case of this one, you are accidently right.
Congrats. You win the broken clock award!
Walworth, every impeachment we have had has been political, for better or worse, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Most important in this one is not Trump’s legal rights – f him, he’s a nobody – but whether his obvious betrayal of his oath and his intent to overturn our electoral process and tradition of the peaceful transition of leadership – the managers proved both of these – is acceptable behavior from a president. We all know that the GOP eunuchs – their Senate majority – will say “yes sir, how high” again, but it’s doubtful the public – never in favor of him – will go along. He’s done.
“Turley, amazing this has to be explained to you, GTH”
Joe Friday is bringing us one of his many classless acts.
SM
Too clever by half Joe.
ALL LAW is a result of a political process.
There are also, always, countless “rules,” not in the sense of literal ones on printed pages, but ones that are etched on hearts and minds
Fundamental fairness, due process, things like that. Those unwritten rules are usually in play no matter what the venue- they are “culture.”
and some political factions have different rules
When the unwritten rules of culture get far enough apart, then, I ask, is there really anymore a “people” that can be fairly designated by a nation state?
Or does that lead to an excess of conflict which may give birth- to a new nation?
Sometimes, still born. Other times, to live and grow
Sal
Once again the Good Professor starts my day off with some humorous but serious analysis of an important issue confronting the Nation.
Rather than the Eagles, I am thinking it was more like a Dallas Cowboy team coming second in a Super Bowl game that was a runaway for the Winners.
The Democrats played some thugs that brought along a long history of misconduct and tried to earn a very pretty Ring but keep fumbling the ball all during the game.
Swalwell lecturing Republicans about anything and then getting it wrong…..that is not just letting some air. out the ball…it is stomping it flat and trying kick a Field Goal with the thing.
Had the Democrats listened to Professor Turley the first time they tried the Impeachment thing….they might not have had the need for the Two Minute Drill we see being attempted now.
Two Minute Drills can work….but the clock and the other Team’s reaction can scuttle one that is not carried out properly.
Today….the other Team walks onto the field and that last minute play by the Democrats shall run up on the rocks of reality when the Prosecutors and half the Jury see their prior conduct put on display.
They shall look like they played in the Mud Bowl when it is over…..as they have thrown enough around on their own and now are going to get tackled at mid-field.
The notion that there is any way the Articles could have been written to convince Rs to convict is absurd. Also the House Managers made a great case. They tied Trump to the rioters by showing that he incited them for months before and encouraged their violent behavior for even longer. They showed that he encouraged them on while they were attacking the capital and did nothing to even ask them to stop. They showed that Trump wanted to interfere with the EC vote counting, and the rioters did exactly that. The evidence they used were mostly Trumps own words. They left the Senate zero reason not to convict other then “We don’t wanna.”
Molly:
“The notion that there is any way the Articles could have been written to convince Rs to convict is absurd.”
**********************
Sure they could but it would require some evidence they were determined not to take. Like, The House Charges that: a general saisd under oath Trump delayed the National Guard; a staffer sais under oath Trump met secretly with radicals and planned the attack; a confirmed email detailing plans sent to or by Trump. Your problem is you don’t have any evidence, ipso facto the Repubs are bad. What goes around in that mind of your’n.
Excuse the spelling errors.
ok…, but not the fact you’re an a&*hole.
Aninny:
“ok…, but not the fact you’re an a&*hole.”
****************************
You’re cute when your frustrated and mad.
Ahhh and you’re just adorable in all your white supremist bad self, sir bloviation!!
“in all your white supremist bad self, sir bloviation!!”
After the insults, left with no talking points Anonymous the Stupid plays the race card.
He follows this pattern continuously and then whines like a baby.
Mespo, the talking points of the left are limited. When the list runs out the cursing starts.
“ok…, but not the fact you’re an a&*hole.”
Anonymous the Stupid back with more intense insults.
Mespo, “ The House Charges that: a general saisd under oath Trump delayed the National Guard; a staffer sais under oath Trump met secretly with radicals and planned the attack; a confirmed email detailing plans sent to or by Trump. Your problem is you don’t have any evidence, ipso facto the Repubs are bad. What goes around in that mind of your’n.”
Where’s the evidence of this claim? You don’t have evidence either.
The house managers had plenty of evidence. Problem is every Trump supporter is furiously ignoring it because they don’t want to see what really happened. Admitting that what they saw as truth would force them to realize that they too were part of it.
Sevvy:
You don’t know what COMPETENT evidence is and it shows. Hint: It’s not a story from an untested anonymous source.
Mespo, splitting hairs about what type of evidence is “competent” or not is a sure fire sign you have no argument.
Their evidence involves Trump’s own supporters claiming on film that they were following orders from him.
Actual footage showing various supporters chanting death threats after Trump constantly complained about the election being stolen from from him. In any court of law Trump’s rhetoric qualifies as inciting violence.
The willful denial that permeates nearly every Trump supporter is evidence of complicity. It’s the equivalent of being slapped in the face and claiming you were not slapped even after being shown video of the event, because you are willfully denying reality. I understand trump supporters don’t want to come to terms with the fact that you were lied to and gullibly accepted it.
Their evidence involves Trump’s own supporters claiming on film that they were following orders from him.
The Heaven’s Gate cult committed mass suicide because they were told by Applewhite the Hale-Bopp comet was their sign it was time to check out. Competent evidence: 39 dead bodies, including Applewhite…check. Video and documented evidence of Applewhite and the cult saying what they were going to do…check. The comet…check. Effing crazy…check.
Your claim of competent evidence is “supporters” claiming on film they were following orders. Effing crazy…check. What you lack is the order…FAIL! In fact, what you have is video evidence of President Trump telling his supporters to peacefully and patriotically… protest. Just the opposite of what you assert.
“You don’t know what COMPETENT evidence “
Mespo, how would he? He can only spew Democrat talking points and he doesn’t do that very well.
Nothing prevents the Senate from calling witnesses, mesblow. This is the trial phase. Trials often have witnesses.
If the House saw no reason to why should the Senate?
Because the trial occurs in the Senate, not the House.
Because a lot of people here are suggesting that calling witnesses would undermine the House managers’ case.
Tweets!
That did it, now we’re rioting!
LOLz
And apparently how an entire administration governed for 4 years.
The results of the Trump administration demonstrate something quite different, successful policy.
Name one. There are a couple. I’m guessing we’ll disagree on which. Or why.
Middle East Peace.
It’s not at peace. Trump was contributing to the lack of peace via oodles of drone strikes, and he was so fearful of the number of civilians he was killing, he stopped allowing the #s to be reported by the DoD.
Since 1948 the US has looked for peace between Israel and its neighbors. There was one positive event when Egypt and Israel made a deal. Now four other nations have made deals and others were in line to follow.
Biden is already stopping that progress and is funding terrorist organizations and destroying a lot of good that has been done.
As a civility bonus I will provide you a second answer.
Jerusalem, the embassy move there along with Trump saving a lot of money on the embassy.
Wow, I thought you’d go with financing vaccine development. Or I hoped you would because that program was a good one even though the administration didn’t order near enough vaccine overall.
Sorry though, have to disagree with the idea there is actually Mideast peace. or that the embassy move was a positive one.
“Wow, I thought you’d go with financing vaccine “
Why would I have picked that when Biden will be taking credit for all the positive things Trump did with regard to Covid.
I picked the Mid East because Biden’s policies will be almost the opposite. He will be supporting the largest state sponsor of Terrorism and our other two big enemies. Right now China, Russia and Iran are doing naval exercises together. HE is supplying money so that Hamas can name streets and give money to the families of martyrs that died blowing up children. Biden can talk about the Palestinian terrorist groups that terrorize Palestinians and do very little for them with all the money provided by the west and the UN.
Why not blame tweets? There are people here seriously suggesting it only took a couple provocateurs getting rowdy to motivate poor innocent Trumpists to commit felonies. It’s like everyone agrees Trump’s most dedicated followers are really gullible…
yes Democrat party leaders have tweeted countless times in favor of fighting and uprising and so forth./
Once again I thank the Good Professor for making my morning coffee taste less bitter due to his humorous treatment of a very serious topic.
The unforced errors discussed below raise the question of whether the Democrats “tanked” the trial.
You have reminded us regularly that your wife was raised a Jew and you attended a Catholic high school. Dig deeper for your answers or risk being seen as shallow and emotive as those whom you criticize.
Providentially today’s Lectionary readings anchor us to the age old problem of good and evil, man’s desire to think he is God and in the process create a mess of the world. The Founding Fathers of our nation knew where Truth resided, and that deviating from the Creator was folly. If you wish to be an American start there. Otherwise we are no better than China, Cuba, former USSR, etc.
“Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”)
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/021221.cfm
Friday of the Fifth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 333
Reading I Genesis 3:1-8
Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals
that the LORD God had made.
The serpent asked the woman,
“Did God really tell you not to eat
from any of the trees in the garden?”
The woman answered the serpent:
“We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
it is only about the fruit of the tree
in the middle of the garden that God said,
‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’”
But the serpent said to the woman:
“You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
who know what is good and what is evil.”
The woman saw that the tree was good for food,
pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom.
So she took some of its fruit and ate it;
and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her,
and he ate it.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened,
and they realized that they were naked;
so they sewed fig leaves together
and made loincloths for themselves.
When they heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the garden
at the breezy time of the day,
the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God
among the trees of the garden.
I like the analogy but, yes, absolutely, the intent was to tank. This is an unconstitutional, therefore unlawful, proceeding. The Senate simply does not have the authority to assume the role of judiciary to declare it so. And every American knows it. If they did successfully impeach, private citizen Trump would simply sue to overturn and once again Democrats would be left looking oh so corrupt. But in tanking they’ll simply blame it on unpatriotic overly partisan Republicans.
To use the impeachment process which is embedded and clearly stated in our Constitution, just for show, should in itself be an impeachable offense for every member of Congress that played this “tanking’ game, at the expense of our Constitutional republic. Our Constitution was designed to give every man the freedoms and rights conferred by a higher power, and not to use as a political tool for those who have no regard for the rights of man.
The repercussions of the behavior by the Trump haters in Congress will harm our Republic in many ways, mostly yet unknown.
Doug Pederson got fired as Eagles coach. Why tank for a draft choice that may or may not pan out and you won’t be around to benefit from even if it works out? There are better straw men to play than the Eagles, Jon.
Seems to me the Managers put on a masterful case (they even pre-empted you blazing them real time on twitter) but just realized the impeachment process is not effective in our present system of government. The founders did not foresee more than one branch of government going wildly corrupt at the same time. Hell, they didn’t see party polarization becoming what it has, or even political parties in general.
Dems have work to do, work that’s long neglected due to other derelictions of duty of the trump administration. They had a week to build real time campaign ads against the repubs who will vote to acquit no matter what. Mission accomplished. And they were bound to go through the motions of what had to be done despite the futility built in from the start.
Typed a much longer response that seems to have been eaten by the system. Oh well. Ha.
Elvis Bug
Turley: “I do not believe that an acquittal was inevitable in this case, but it was all but assured by critical decisions made by the House in this impeachment.”
Now, THAT is hilarious! Turley, have you no shame? Honestly!!
No evidence
No case.
They tanked it, because a lot of it was LIES that were called out. What a joke and a circus. The left is crazy and the world is laughing at the Pravda Propagandists in our media and in our Congress.
In summary, the democrats made accusations ‘without evidence.’
“Republican” implies “can” do. “Republicon” implies “con men”.
On some level I so hope you’re a sock puppet of Turley’s.
Elvis Bug
It appears that Trump invited terrorist crimes.
It appears so to a doddering fool who should return to his limericks.
Did they ‘tank the trial’, or was the sole purpose to get Republicans on record voting to acquit?
More political theater, I fear, at the expense of the American people that these fools constantly profess to care about!
The garbage that presented the case yesterday on the senate floor kept talking about the “murder” of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick. More than a month after the riot, no charges, no suspect and no autopsy results. All that film footage and nothing. No witnesses, just using Officer Sicknick for political talking points.
Officer Sicknick texted his brother after it was all over and told him that he’d been pepper sprayed a couple of times, but was otherwise all right. They’ve had ample time to review the security cam footage and locate a point in time where he received a blow to the head or to any other part of his anatomy. Crickets. His family was told by doctors at the hospital that he had a blood clot in his brain, something that can arise naturally from atrial fibrilation. Meanwhile, the officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt a propos of nothing in particular has not been subject to any legal process at all. His name has also been successfully concealed.
Babbitt was a terrorist and a traitor who was about to enter an area where Members of Congress were located. There is little doubt that the mob intended to hurt or kill them. It was a fully justified shoot.
Absolutely. Babbit goes to the top of the list of people who got smoked while performing a home invasion.
Also things aren’t going well when someone has to try to deny how a cop was killed during a riot that was essentially a faction stick fight.
Elvis Bug
Same reason to shoot all the BLM and Antifa people who tried to break into federal buildings and burn down police stations where police officers were located inside. Unless MollyG values the lives of Congress members over those of the simple people and officers.
” Unless MollyG values the lives of Congress members over those of the simple people and officers.”
***
She likely works for them.
Babbitt was a peaceful protestor. Got it?
Note, without a doubt, the chief of the Capitol Police has seen the autopsy report, which means that Pelos’s staff knows what’s in it. There is no reason to believe they haven’t filled Raskin in on it since they appear to be leaking to CNN. The Democratic Party is a collecting pool of garbage people.
Your close is a mixed metaphor, Arty. Might want to brush that one up a bit.
FBI intell would be a good witness to how the “insurrection” was pre planned days before
Perhaps Chris Miller had some information to testify on that?
“FBI intell would be a good witness to how the “insurrection” was pre planned days before”
***
Particularly true if they helped plan it.
God himself could have testified about Trump’s guilt and the Republicans, some of whom are Trump’s accomplices, would have still refused to convict. Professor, as usual you can’t stop. The case was solid. The evidence was clear. The Republicans don’t care.
Evidence that Trump intended to incite a violent riot, rather than a noisy protest. I missed that.
And you obviously missed out on the definition of high crimes, too.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/
Oh. I get it. It means we know it when we see it. Intent is irrelevant.
You do get it! Just keep telling yourself that.
On the other hand, back on earth 1…, there isn’t a clearer picture of what trump’s intent was dating back pre-election that trump didn’t broadcast *in his own words*. The Managers put together a great case that hammered that home.
Elvis
God himself could have testified….
Thanks for the segue. It was prophetic that you injected God into this discussion. Feel free to do it more often.
God has testified about many things but alas most people are deaf and mute.
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/021221.cfm
Gospel of Mark 7:31-37
Jesus left the district of Tyre
and went by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee,
into the district of the Decapolis.
And people brought to him a deaf man who had a speech impediment
and begged him to lay his hand on him.
He took him off by himself away from the crowd.
He put his finger into the man’s ears
and, spitting, touched his tongue;
then he looked up to heaven and groaned, and said to him,
“Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”)
And immediately the man’s ears were opened,
his speech impediment was removed,
and he spoke plainly.
He ordered them not to tell anyone.
But the more he ordered them not to,
the more they proclaimed it.
They were exceedingly astonished and they said,
“He has done all things well.
He makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”
Where is the mens rea?
“Where is the mens rea?”
It was subjected to ordeal by water, and it floated.
You know who don’t care? The freakin’ lamestream fake news MSM who are all sucking up and giving Joe & Jill some kind of Hallmark Channel feel-good “news” coverage. It is literally nauseating to have the media not even pretend to be any thing OTHER THAN partisan hacks carrying water for the Democrat Party.