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
The Cuomo administration lied for political reasons and then passed a law to protect themselves from criminal and civil liability. There is a lot of blood on Cuomo’s hands.
—-Cuomo aide says state withheld nursing home COVID death data, fearing federal prosecutors
Melissa DeRosa, the Secretary to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, indicated during a video conference with state Democrats that the administration held back figures about the state’s coronavirus nursing home fatalities amid political attacks from President Trump and the potential that the information could be utilized by federal prosecutors.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/cuomo-aide-indicates-fearing-doj-governors-admin-withheld-nursing-home?utm_source=breaking-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
“”like they admitted that they were trying to dodge having any incriminating evidence that might put the administration or the [Health Department] in further trouble with the Department of Justice.”” —Kimbal
“”The families of thousands of dead New York seniors deserve accountability and justice for the true consequences of Governor Cuomo’s fatally flawed nursing home policy and the continued attempts to cover it up. “
Wealthy Democrats with strong security details dismissed conservatives’ concerns about the BLM and Antifa riots as white supremacy racism. They called the protests mostly peaceful. The looting to be a form of “reparation.” They denounced efforts to send in the National Guard as Fascist. They urged “uprisings”, told people to make a crowd and get into the faces of Trump administration members, urged people to assault conservatives in restaurants. They encouraged and excused the burning and looting of businesses during a pandemic, which would inevitably lead to food desserts and joblessness. What business would continue to operate in a town that rioted and stole? It’s not safe for employees. But they’ll blame racism when the jobs and grocery stores evaporate.
Democrats even bailed out rioters and looters so they could be back on the street doing it again. They promoted anti-law-enforcment prejudice, which lead to assaults on police officers, and skyrocketing crime.
They encouraged and enabled the loss of jobs, businesses, and livelihood of other people.
Yet, what happened the one single time they felt concerned for their safety? All it took was one small group to break into the Capitol building and wave flags around.
They called for the National Guard, which will remain stationed for months. Is this not Fascist anymore? I can’t keep up.
They installed metal detectors. Remember when metal detectors at schools are racist?
They increased armed security. Remember when armed security at schools was a moral failing? Remember when guns for self defense is a fake argument for conservatives?
They shrouded themselves in security and condemned an entire political party for the actions of a tiny few one single time.
Democrats created a situation where many people are in physical danger. Many lost their jobs, their businesses, and their local grocery store.
They care more about their own safety than anyone else’s.
Karen: you like to portray yourself as educated, but you prove you are not when you keep repeating things you saw on Fox. BLM is a SENTIMENT–not an organized group like the Proud Boys. No one fomented them into rioting–they were protesting police murdering black men like George Floyd. No Democrat has ever encouraged looting, burning buildings or harming people, either. That is a lie. False equivalency to the crimes of your fat hero. One small group that broke into the Capitol? Do you have normal vision and hearing? Trump stirred up the faithful, beginning before the Election, because he knew he would lose–lost the popular vote in 2016, consistently lowest approval ratings in the history of presidential polling, and polls predicted his loss. He made a total fool of himself by accepting “victory” even before all of the votes were counted. Endless tweets about election fraud, which over 60 courts rejected. He tried to bully and threaten state election officials to award him votes cast for Biden or falsify vote counts. He tried to bully Pence, and even got several Senators to vote not to accept certified vote counts, which was nothing more than a bald effort to steal Biden’s victory and defeat the will of the American people. He told the Proud Boys to “stand by”. As a last resort, he encouraged a rally on January 6th–why that date?–because that’s when Congress would accept the certified vote totals. He thought he could get the disciples to force Congress to reject certified votes of the Electoral College because he was desperate to hang on to power that he cheated to get in the first place. He is a dangerous narcissist who will stop at nothing for power. Republicans are chicken sh*ts if they don’t stand up to him. And, no one believes that those Neanderthals who invaded our Capitol are representative of the Republican Party–in fact, they are the polar opposite, but if Republicans in Congress let Trump get away with causing the insurrection, they will be the face of the party going forward.
If anyone is to blame for food deserts, loss of jobs, etc., it is those who condone police violence and refuse to hold police officers accountable for murdering unarmed black men, which are not Democrats.
“Democrats even bailed out rioters and looters”
Yep. Because people generally shouldn’t be in jail pending trial. Rich people can bail themselves out, why shouldn’t poor people be bailed out?
Do you also complain about Republicans bailing out Kyle Rittenhouse before his murder trial?
Behold the moral superiority of Democrats:
https://www.rt.com/usa/449368-disney-producer-threatens-maga-kids/
Behold the tedious stereotyping of Democrats by shallow Karen, oblivious to the distasteful and stupid Republicans around here which no doubt she would resist anyone saying represent her.
Anon Joefriday, instead of answering Karen’s arguments point by point you make an accusation about stereotyping and declare Republicans stupid. We are amazed at your quick wit and artful counterpoint argument. Maybe you should give a class.
I’m curious of these same people felt anger over Democrats’ reckless rhetoric igniting riots and looting across the United States for months…still ongoing in fact.
I watched video of Trump’s speech. The parts that I saw spoke of peaceful protest, and fighting against election fraud. Democrats aren’t going to investigate their own actions. The only way to get investigations is to loudly demand it. Of course such demands should be peaceful.
We conservatives aren’t BLM. We don’t threatened to burn down DC. We don’t loot businesses during a pandemic. We have rallies that are safe for children, and we pick up after ourselves.
It’s Democrats who have the well earned reputation for lawlessness, anti police violence and rhetoric, and destroying cities.
One group of miscreants breaking into the Capitol, like Democrats did during Kavanaugh, do not tar an entire movement. Such violence is common and normalized, even excused, for Democrats, and extremely rare for conservatives.
The worst betrayal of that Capitol break in is that prior to that, violence was the albatross firmly hung around Democrats’ necks. Now, after that one single act, Democrats try to make everyone ignore months of widespread insurrection, and claim conservatives are the violent lot.
Bull.
Democrats did not incite riots–murders of people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor did, along with the failures and refusals of law enforcement to hold them accountable. Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch were shoved down the throats of the American people, who were denied the nominee of Obama by McConnell, who stymied the will of the American people whose President, Obama, did not cheat his way into office. Their extreme right-wing views are not representative of the American people. As to Kavanaugh, Republicans shoved forward his vote despite requests of over 25 witnesses who wanted to testify about his character, but were blocked from doing so.
Trump’s Jan. 6th speech isn’t the issue–his entire plan to stay in office despite his predicted loss–is the issue. It is an entire course of conduct beginning before the election and continuing thereafter, including trying to bully state election officials to award him votes he didn’t get, trying to bully Pence, holding “Stop the Steal” rallies, hundreds of tweets containing lies, and finally, Trump’s Last Stand–the Insurrection he thought would bully Congress into disregarding valid, certified votes.
Trump and his followers are NOT conservatives.
“Democrats did not incite riots–murders of people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor did, along with the failures and refusals of law enforcement to hold them accountable.”
Just dealing with the Floyd and the police. Do you want the police to stop arresting people guilty of crimes?
“We conservatives aren’t BLM. We don’t threatened to burn down DC.”
The vast majority of people arrested for the Capitol riots, violence, and destruction are conservative Trump supporters.
You can see their names and crimes here –
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
“One group of miscreants breaking into the Capitol, like Democrats did during Kavanaugh, …”
No, Karen, they’re not alike. The Kavanaugh protesters didn’t break into the Capitol, they didn’t break into anyone’s offices, they didn’t attack the police, they didn’t steal government property, they didn’t construct a gallows, …
Uh, Turley, where in the Constitution does it spell out the evidentiary standard for a presidential impeachment? It’s not there, so how can it be a “glaring error” for Democrats not to refer to something that isn’t there? However, since your job is to throw red meat to the base and pre-defend Republican cowards who fear Trump’s revenge, you are trying to make the case that impeachment must follow the Rules of Evidence and requires meeting a specific burden of proof as for a criminal case. Uh, Turley, who publishes Pattern Impeachment Jury Instructions? Is it West Publishing? I’ve been unable to find this publication. What–there isn’t one? Well, there must be if Turley says there’s a standard of proof that the Senators must be instructed to follow in rendering their decision.
Also, you keep trying to undermine the truth on the video and audio recordings by arguing that there must be witnesses testifying under oath, or the process is flawed and Trump deserves a pass. None of this is true, and you know it. An Impeachment proceeding is NOT a criminal or even a civil trial. Just like the Senate decided whether it is constitutional to try Trump for Articles of Impeachment that were approved by the House while he was in office but not heard by the Senate until after he was gone, which you, Turley, previously opined was perfectly constitutional until you went on the Fox payroll, the Senate decides whether the conduct complained of should disqualify Trump from running from office again. There is no specific burden of proof, evidentiary burden or form of evidence that is required for them to make their decision. And, it is now clear that the 180 degree flip flop you did is to provide cover for those unpatriotic Republicans who will not vote to impeach Trump.
You say there is a “lack of direct evidence” of Trump’s state of mind? Your intellectual dishonesty is shocking to say the least, unless you’re trying to lay the foundation for a case for insanity–that is, that Trump really believes he won the election in a landslide even though, after an historic run of low approval ratings and polls predicting his loss, an economy in the toilet, historic unemployment, a botched response to the pandemic and endless lying, he began claiming his victory would be stolen from him long before Election Day. So, he’s now a soothsayer? Or, in other words, are you claiming that Trump is delusional? So, if that’s your strategy, isn’t insanity a valid reason to prevent him from ever assuming federal office again? If he isn’t delusional, then he’s a conniving liar. Either way, he should never hold office again.
Trump is no soothsayer, and he began laying the foundation for the Trump Insurrection as a backup plan if his lawsuits, bullying of election officials and Pence didn’t work. Part of the strategy was to hold “Stop the Steal” rallies, transportation and security for which we taxpayers funded. Then, there’s the endless tweets, lying about the election being fraudulent and his surrogates like Fox News, Giuliani and others going on the offensive. What other purpose than to rile up his disciples did the rallies and tweets serve? The faithful were being prepped for Trump’s Last Stand–disciples fighting to keep him in office by preventing Congress from accepting the certified vote results, and he loved every minute of it. You keep trying to parse the language he used on January 6th, as if that tells the whole story. That won’t fly either. It was a long-term strategy beginning before Election Day connived by a lying narcissist who was losing in the polls, and who cannot accept the fact that the American people never wanted him in office in the first place, and who never approved of him after he started occupying our Oval Office.
If Trump gets away with this, then we have no standards any more. It will embolden him, and we all know that he’s more than willing to allow foreign governments to help him cheat, that there are no lies that are beyond the pale and that he has the ability to rally White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, gun nuts and misfits into fighting against democracy. That’s what happened, and you know it, too, Turley.
Natasha, Turley knows this, which is what makes his daily charade even more damnable now. He’s spent the week ankle biting the better lawyers on the House floor, pretending his recommendation – take longer, but hey you can’t impeach once he leaves office. Sorry, the January Exception means he skates! – leads anywhere but to a blind alley.
I am surprised at how partisan Turley has been for some time now rather than being an objective observer with who makes legal commentary. This is an impeachment. Not a courtroom trial. Were it a trail, as Turley seems to think, the three Senators advising Trump’s lawyers on tactics would be recused. Trump, simply stated, has failed in his constitutional duties to use his office to quell an insurgency, has egged it on, has called for aggression and placed his own VP in harm’s way. Finding Trump guilty in this instance does not fine him nor jail him. It simply removes him from possibly running again for any national office. As one of the
House managers said; I do not fear him running and winning. I fear him losing
Let’s compare to Demcorats’ behavior regarding the years’ long Democrat insurgency that still rages.
Did Democrat politicians quell accusations of Trump working for Russia or being an illegitimate president? No. They urged unrest and to “resist.”
Did Democrats urge BLM and Antifa to actually read DOJ crime statistics on police interactions? Did they urge them to wait for an investigation? No. They claimed cops were racist, that Michael Brown had his hands up (he didn’t. He’d already gone for the cop’s gun), that there should be uprisings, and to beware because all these riots were going to continue.
Make a crowd. Assault people in restaurants.
Did Democrats say to wait before accusing Trump supporters of bashing a Capitol policeman with a fire extinguisher? No, they promoted it as fact. It apparently never happened.
Compare and contrast to Trump calling for peaceful protests, exercising our First Amendment.
It is the LEFT that openly calls for violence to get its ends met. Not conservatives. We condemned that idiotic group who broke into the Capitol, along with a few Antifa members. Democrats by contrast bailed out looters and rioters. They put them right back on the streets to riot and loot again.
There is absolutely no question which party promotes criminal behavior and violence. If you’re in denial about that, then you’re willfully blind.
Trump’s campaign provided insider polling information to Russians who used it to help him cheat despite the popular vote, which DOES make him illegitimate. Other Republican Presidents lost the popular vote, too, but they didn’t cheat like Trump did. We don’t know if he’s “working for Russia”, but he was publicly deferential to Putin at Helsinki, siding with him over his own intelligence officials, he refused to criticize Putin for poisoning dissidents, he refused to sanction Russia for paying bounties for killing American soldiers in Afghanistan, he fired his own head of intelligence for refusing to lie about Russian interference, and he was trying to borrow money from Russians because no US bank will loan him money. Because he won’t release his financials, we don’t know if he got loans or is in partnership with Russians. He also made a $40 million profit from selling a mansion in Florida to a Russian oligarch. These are facts, not opinions. And, they stink.
BLM is a SENTIMENT, not an organized group, and no matter how many times you repeat this lie you heard on Fox, that will not make it a fact. There is video of Officer Sicknick, who died of a closed head injury due to blunt force trauma, and other police officers getting bludgeoned with fire extinguishers. Trump’s entire course of conduct is at issue, not the one, little, tiny reference to peacefulness. Everyone knows better. How many times did he lie about the election being stolen, how many recounts were there, how many re-recounts, signature match validations, adverse court rulings, and refusals by state election officials and Pence to go along with cheating the American people out of their choice of President? Did this dissuade him from continuing to lie? Did he tell the faithful on January 6th to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more” and that he hoped Pence would “do the right thing”–i.e. refuse to accept certified vote totals, which he had no authority to do? The First Amendment does not protect incitement to riot, and there’s more at issue than Trump’s January 6th speech.
Natacha, Donald Trump is being tried for supposed high crimes and misdemeanors. Let me lay it out for you. Evidence and
testimony are-required at any trial. Unless your in Russia or China. In an impeachment trial or a regular court of law a preponderance of evidence is required to convict. I give you points though. You managed to fit in Neo-Nazis, White
Supremacist, and gun nuts into a discussion about the impeachment. You got in all the buzzwords. Obsession maybe?
“Evidence and testimony are-required at any trial.”
They’ve presented evidence. If you want testimony, encourage them to call witnesses.
Anonymous the Stupid, I wonder if their evidence is from Wikipedia or television talk shows.
You understanding of the word evidence is very soft.
If you’d been watching the trial, Allan, you’d know what evidence they’ve presented instead of having to wonder about it.
You again resort to your favorite trolling strategy: insults.
Anonymous the Stupid, I know how hard it is to be Stupid and recognized as such. This entire impeachment is an attempt of the left to distract the public.
They failed with you because you were already distracted.
Anon, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. The witnesses for the prosecution are then cross examined by the defense. This process is so basic that a high school student would know it.
Tell us,TTT, does a jury decide whether the process is constitutional? Nope, but the Senate did in this case. Do jurors sit in judgment in a matter in which they had first-hand knowledge of the facts and saw and heard what happened, and in which they could potentially have been injured or killed? Nope, but the Senate will in this case. They are all witnesses to some extent, depending on where they were and what they saw and heard. What is the source of law that spells out the rules for how an impeachment trial is to be held, whether witnesses are required, what is the burden of proof, and what evidentiary standards are followed? There isn’t one for impeachments. Your analogy to criminal trials is lame, but you’ve been listening to Fox, so you really, really believe this because the facts against Trump are so damning, so there must be some procedural way to attack the impeachment proceeding. That, too, is lame.
I haven’t suggested otherwise.
I said “If you want testimony, encourage them to call witnesses.” The House managers are not allowed to call witnesses unless the Senate votes to allow witnesses. Didn’t you know that? I don’t expect HS students to know it, but I do expect participants here to know it, because it’s been pointed out here already.
Evidence isn’t just pulled out of thin air. Evidence must be backed up by eyewitness testimony. They needed to just find someone to say they heard Trump give the command. There is an anonymous someone who described Trumps joy at the riots. Why do you think they found someone? They found someone because they know that intent is necessary. If they’ve got the goods why don’t they bring their anonymous source out of the shadows to testify? Surely he could be convinced for the good of the nation. Surely he will do the patriotic thing. He just conveniently slipped back into fantasyland. Who would have known.
The issue is much broader than whether Trump “gave a command” on January 6th. It was an entire course of conduct to try to avert the defeat he knew was coming, beginning before Election Day, lying that the only way he could lose would be if there was cheating. This despite losing the popular vote in 2016, never getting a 50% approval rating, botching the pandemic, the economy, record unemployment, and polls predicting his loss. He began the insurrection stirring up the disciples by lying to them, priming them to believe that their country was being taken from them. He held “Stop the Steal” rallies in which he lied to his faithful followers that this was the worse fraud in US history, stirring up their patriotism for his own ego. He knew better, too. He fired anyone who got in his way, like Barr, who denied there was fraud, like Chris Krebs, who said the election was the most-secure in history, he cajoled and threatened state election officials, tried to bully Pence, filed 60+ frivolous lawsuits, and then, his last stand–a rally to try to stop the certified results from being accepted by Congress. There is massive video and audio evidence of all of these things. There can be no reasonable doubt about his intent and lack of good faith. He was used to cheating and bullying people, and tried his usual tactics on Raffensberger, but they didn’t work. He knew he had lost, but was desperate to try to keep power.
Well said.
He needs to go to prison.
Banning him from Twitter and Facebook isn’t enough.
But again, the real fault lies with the American public who support him, and the Republicans who enable him.
Trump is a charlatan and a fraud and a conman who couldn’t con his way out of a pandemic.
You can fool some people sometimes, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.
“Evidence isn’t just pulled out of thin air.”
But if you’re the dishonest House managers, you can fabricate “evidence” to achieve your ends.
They doctored tweets, and intentionally mispronounced words: “calvary” as “cavalry.”
They doctored the video of Trump’s speech.
They constantly used the word “reportedly” (and its variations). In making a case in the real world, “reportedly” means: “I got nothing.”
I’ve called both of my Senators to encourage them to have witnesses.
The House Managers should call: VP Pence, Sen. Tuberville, some of the rioters who were arrested and are saying they were responding to Trump’s call, some of the people who were at the WH with Trump when he was delaying sending the National Guard and who can testify about what Trump was saying and doing instead.
The defense counsel can call who they want. Trump can testify if he wants, I bet the House Managers would love to question him.
Person A: “Peacefully protest! May your voices heard but be peaceful!”
Person B: people broke into the Capitol responding to Person A’s call.
Case dismissed.
Remember when Democrat governors and mayors refused to accept the national guard to quell Democrat violence and insurrection?
They even seized city blocks of Seattle, renaming it CHOP, and refusing to allow police entrance, even when there were shootings and rapes.
Remember that, or are you going to slither away?
It sounds like the only aspect Dems have to criticize Trump is his initial hesitancy to send in the National Guard. Which Pence allegedly took care of.
Meanwhile, Democrats called Trump a Fascist for wanting to send in the National Guard to stop rioters from trying to burn down federal buildings. Now they claim he’s committed a high crime for hesitating to send in the National Guard because some people illegally crashed the Capitol Building. Should he have likewise sent in the NG when Democrat protestors stormed the Senate hearings and Senate offices during the Kavanaugh hearing?
Should Democrat governors and mayors be removed from office for refusing to accept the National Guard’s help when businesses and a police precinct were burning? No? Fascist to send them, criminal to not send them, resisting Fascism to refuse to accept the National Guard. I’m getting dizzy from my head spinning trying to keep up with all the double standards.
Can you write down an actual rule on the National Guard and federal buildings that would exonerate Kavanaugh protestors, BLM, and Antifa but condemn Trump supporters at the Capitol? Help me figure out why Democrats are laudible but conservatives deplorable by applying one single standard.
Perhaps Trump’s initial thought was that this was just going to be a disruptive event like at the Kavanaugh hearings. I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t charge anyone with a high crime until I knew the facts. But the trend is to charge, and then see how the evidence unfolds.
A slight delay in sending the NG is not a high crime. It can’t possibly be, considering Democrats refused the NG entirely.
No, Karen, I’m not “slithering away,” and I suggest that you act like a grown up and avoid the insults.
“Person A: ‘Peacefully protest! May your voices heard but be peaceful!’”
Except that isn’t all that Trump said, and Trump is responsible for his own actions, not just his words.
“Person B: people broke into the Capitol responding to Person A’s call.”
Interesting that you ignored my suggestion that Pence and Tuberville be called as witnesses. They didn’t break in. But for those who did break in, yes, it’s relevant to question them about why they interpreted Trump’s words as they did.
“Democrats refused the NG entirely.”
No, they didn’t.
As for your question about my memory, it’s fine, and apparently better than yours. You ask “Remember when Democrat governors and mayors refused to accept the national guard to quell Democrat violence and insurrection?” when the truth is that they accepted the Guard on federal property but rejected it from local property. How is YOUR memory?
Anon, so now your telling us what Pence, Senator Tuberville and some of the rioters would say. Anon, the great swami mind reader. In America the burden of proof is on the prosecution. As a citizen you are not required to prove your innocence. Anon says, Donald Trump, prove that in your mind you did not think malicious thoughts when you called for peaceful protests. Come on, we know you were thinking bad things.
“Anon, so now your telling us what Pence, Senator Tuberville and some of the rioters would say.”
BS. I said that they should be called as witnesses, and I commented on what some of the rioter have ALREADY said in their court documents responding to their charges.
Stop trolling, TiT.
The evidence is clear and voluminous enough without having to call Pence or Tesrs of D’Urbervilles.
Again Trump could have stood naked at the top of the Capitol steps with a trident and screamed: “KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!!!!” and then decapitated Pence with a rusty knife and the Republican still would not have convicted him.
Natacha, according to your standards no evidence is required at all. Why have a trial at all. Why not just impeach, remove, and prohibit from holding future office. I’ll have to pass on your recommendations Commissar.
The Constitution did not provide any standards. Neither does the US Code, nor the Rules of the Senate. The Senate decides the facts and the law, and there are no specific evidentiary or procedural rules that must be followed.
What is becoming clear is that since Trump and the Republicans cannot come up with any facts to counter the House Manager’s evidence, they are trying to resort to arguments about some nonexistent rules of procedure or constitutional argument, which has already been rejected. An old adage is: If the facts are against you, argue the law, if the law is against you, argue the facts, if the facts and law are both against you…lie.
INNUENDO one of the favored tactics of Democrats. EMOTION rather than fact or logic is another favored tactic. I won’t bother with CORRUPT Democrats, Democrats that engage in LYING and Democrats that are VIOLENT or incite VIOLENCE.
Allan, you resort to emotional responses ALL THE TIME.
Anonymous the Stupid why do you act so Stupid and make things up.
I know you want to appear smart but all you are doing is appearing dumber and dumber.
This is called “storming the capitol building” ?!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1347596278583197698
If only the Germans had been so cooperative at Omaha Beach.
You’re looking at the wrong videos. Try this one –
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/video-shows-officer-being-crushed-by-violent-pro-trump-mob-in-deadly-capitol-riot-99210309545
Jonathan: Apparently, you and I are watching two different impeachment trials. In the one I am watched the House managers made a compelling case that Trump knew exactly what he was doing on Jan. 6. He knew that only a violent insurrection would stop the certification of the Electoral College voter. That’s why he called his violent supporters to the Capitol at precisely the exact moment VP Pence was presiding over the certification. Trump knew that just a “peaceful” demonstration behind the barricades in front of the Capitol would not stop the certification. Rep. Ted Lieu pointed out in his presentation: “President Donald J. Trump ran out of nonviolent options to maintain power”. Pence was in the cross hairs of the rioters and had they caught up to him is their any doubt what would have happened? That’s why they erected a gallows and noose outside the building.
It is quite apparent most Senate Republicans won’t be swayed by the FACTS–the overwhelming evidence. And you are not a detached academic. You are part of the Republican plan not to hold Trump accountable for inciting insurrection. Before the impeachment trial you wrote several columns arguing against a “snap” impeachment and that the Senate did not have jurisdiction to try a president no longer in office–a view you now take after years of saying just the opposite. You lost the latter argument. To press your point on impeachment you even met in secret with Senate Republicans before the trial to argue against conviction. I think this shows you are not just a constitutional scholar sitting on the sidelines arguing fine points of constitutional interpretation but just a political hack!
Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post (2/11), has put the problem for Senate Republicans succinctly: “Those who would acquit the former president after the voluminous, horrifying evidence of guilt are nothing more than apologists and enablers of a violent insurrection and the leader who incited it”. I think you are one of those “apologists” and “enablers”.
Jonathan: Apparently, you and I are seeing two different impeachment trials.
FIFY. The challenge is for you to have enough humility to get your eyesight checked.
Dennis, you sight Jenifer Rubin. The writer who said Republicans should be burned to the ground. So Trump says peacefully protest and Rubin says burn them to the ground. Which statement more readily lends itself to the definition of incitement. You surmise Trumps thinking but overlook the reality of the actual writing words of your source. I would be hard pressed to find a better example of Conformation Bias/Trump Derangement Syndrome if I occupied myself for many days in my pursuit.
Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post (2/11), has put the problem for Senate Republicans succinctly: “Those who would acquit the former president after the voluminous, horrifying evidence of guilt are nothing more than apologists and enablers of a violent insurrection and the leader who incited it”. I think you are one of those “apologists” and “enablers”.
You mean someone with a hostility to the President so madcap she’s been the subject of eviscerating critiques in NeverTrump outlets is someone you’d cite as an authority?
Not only did the Socialists … use the correct name…… tank the trial twice it appears the prosecutors and defense may still do exactly that. The key part they are both ignoring is the socialists refusal to give President Trump any credit for anything except lack of ability. The Stupid Party as usual did not read the Constitution just cherry picked then distorted. The key words are ‘to the best of my ability.’ With that in mind HOW are they going to prove anything when they have just wasted four years trying to prove exactly what that phrase states. Is there no one that save us from these Stupid Socialists and their RINO cohorts? They cannot prove otherwise Unless they confess to being more incompetent than their defendant but hat is no big new news.