Did The Democrats “Tank” The Second Trump Trial?

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

586 thoughts on “Did The Democrats “Tank” The Second Trump Trial?”

    1. Take note of all the lefties on the list including Anonymous the Stupid. They were arguing what a good job Cuomo did, how things weren’t his fault, how Florida was going to get theirs, and all the BS involving lockdowns. I can’t believe these turkeys. The truth smacks them in the face and they continue with their banter.

      1. Notice how Allan makes claims about what people have said on the blog, but he never links to their comments.

        1. TheNinny:

          “Notice how Allan makes claims about what people have said on the blog, but he never links to their comments.”
          Notice how people have a life outside the blog and don’t fancy to your pleas to do your work for you?

          1. Poor mespothelioma is so confused that he doesn’t understand that Allan is the one with the burden of proof for Allan’s own claims.

            1. ” Allan is the one with the burden of proof”

              Anonymous the Stupid, don’t be more Stupid than you already are. Many people have been reading the garbage you write so what I say about you is common knowledge. If suddenly you are overcome with embarrassment at your prior Stupidity you need not stick to your old Stupid ways. You can learn by opening your mind to daylight.

        2. I’m not the only one with a memory. Anonymous the Stupid you say things all the time that aren’t true. You have toed the leftist line.

          Question: When Cuomo got his Emmy did you applaud?

          Tell us what you said about Cuomo and NYS handling of Covid and how that compared to Texas and Florida.

          1. I’ll answer your question after you link to the comments you made claims in your February 12, 2021 at 8:33 PM comment, Allan.

            1. No need to do so. Many heard what you said then and what you say now about present issues that you will later deny.

              Anonymous the Stupid, why don’t you tell us what you said then? You won’t because if you did you would document what I am saying.

              1. As long as you refuse to link to the comments you made claims about in your February 12, 2021 at 8:33 PM comment, Allan, your claims remain unsubstantiated. Claiming that others heard it is just adding another unsubstantiated claim to your pile.

                “why don’t you tell us what you said then? ”

                Not my job to do your work, Allan. You’re the one who made the claim.

                Keep demonstrating that YOU can’t link to anything to back up YOUR claim.

                1. “Not my job to do your work, Allan. “

                  Anonymous the Stupid, it’s not my problem. We already know what you said and you know it too, but now you choose to lie about it.You thought Cuomo was great, NYS was great, and Florida was terrible regarding Covid. You argued with John Say morning to night and since then the facts have proven John say right and you wrong.

                  1. It’s your problem, Allan, even if you deny it. You can’t back up your claim with evidence. Instead, you simply insist you’re right, and you add more lies to your earlier ones, and you don’t back up your new lies either. You can’t.

                    Unsurprisingly, you continue to rely on empty accusations.

                    1. Allan can’t recognize empty accusations from credible ones. It’s hard enough just to keep track of the days written on his tidy whitey’s.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, we all know where you stood during the discussions of Covid.

                      In the wrong place.

                      No need to discuss ignorant and stupid arguments that you now run away from.

              1. Laughing like a hyena is probably your best response Anonymous the Stupid. That is all a Stupid person like you can do.

    1. Nothing less than life imprisonment will suffice. Thankfully I’m Catholic so I am against the death penalty but in Cuomo’s case, I can see why some family members of the deceased elderly in NY would be outraged by his hubris. And we thought Bill Clinton was the face of evil or as Dr Scott Peck called such individuals, the people of the lie.

      People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil Paperback

      “ In this absorbing and equally inspiring companion volume to his classic trilogy—The Road Less Traveled, Further Along the Road Less Traveled, and The Road Less Traveled and Beyond—Dr. M. Scott Peck brilliantly probes into the essence of human evil.

      People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these people of the lie work in the lives of those around them. He presents, from vivid incidents encountered in his psychiatric practice, examples of evil in everyday life.

      This book is by turns disturbing, fascinating, and altogether impossible to put down as it offers a strikingly original approach to the age-old problem of human evil.”

      1. Take your own advice, Estovir. For a Catholic, you don’t seem to take Christ’s teachings to heart.

          1. Speaking of evil and signaling, CS Lewis might have had someone like Andrew Cuomo in mind when he wrote the classic “Screwtape Letters”.

            Gov. Cuomo on Battling COVID-19: ‘We Brought the Number Down, God Did Not Do That’

            The number is down because we brought the number down. God did not do that, fate did not do that, destiny did not do that, a lot of pain and suffering did that.

            So much for that ending well.

            1. My favorite C S Lewis observation that rings true today:

              “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”

              1. Never read the book from which that quote is taken but I just downloaded it from here:


                The quote you cited is instructive especially its ending:

                It is, indeed, important to notice that my argument so far supposes no evil intentions on the part of the Humanitarian and considers only what is involved in the logic of his position. My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.

                Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

                (Estovir: here is the money shot)

                But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.

                And that my friend is what a Christian believes. It is us who stand before God, not God standing before us. May we practice humility to that end.

                Deo Gratias

                The ice storm is coming.


                1. Yes, I’m sure that the millions killed in the Holocaust preferred the Nazis to moral busybodies.

                  “But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.
                  “And that my friend is what a Christian believes”

                  I’m not Christian, but my impression is that Christ teaches a variety of beliefs, including things like “love thy neighbour as thyself”

                  Am I mistaken about that?

                  1. To which of the several alleged “Jewish holocausts” do you refer? Per the NYT and The Sun, holocausts apparently started in 1915 and continued through 1938.


                    An elderly man owned copies of the original newspapers. All he did was read the articles while showing them to viewers. YT censored it for hate speech.

                    I don’t expect you to answer. Just go ahead and trot out your ancient “anti-Semite” claim: James Sobran’s definition: “not someone who hates Jews but rather someone hated by certain Jews.”

                    1. His name was Joseph Sobran and he wasn’t hated by anyone, just disdained for trading in crank literature and publishing encomiums to cranks like Mark Weber.

                    2. I was referring to WWII, Princess, why do you ask?

                      I wonder whether you’ll answer, of if your “I don’t expect you to answer” was projection.

                    3. I don’t expect you to answer.

                      The left wing trolls never engage for the sake of intellectual discourse but only to insult. Their religion is one of divide and conquer just like the Marxists.

                      You will note that my Catholic comments drive me nuts. That is not my accident. You will also note I never respond to them nor anyone who cowardly hides under an anonymous avatar. All this is to say that evangelism works. They are impelled to read my comments but I skip over their comments. It appears Saul Alinsky erred in his rules for radicals. He did not address how to deal with evangelical Catholics.

                      “God does not require that we be successful only that we be faithful.”

                      ― Mother Teresa

                    4. don’t expect you to answer.

                      The left wing trolls never engage for the sake of intellectual discourse but only to insult. Their religion is one of divide and conquer just like the Marxists.

                      You will note that my Catholic comments drive them nuts. That is not by accident. You will also note I never respond to them nor anyone who cowardly hides under an anonymous avatar. All this is to say that evangelism works. They are impelled to read my comments but I skip over their comments. It appears Saul Alinsky erred in his rules for radicals. He did not address how to deal with evangelical Catholics.

                      “God does not require that we be successful only that we be faithful.”

                      ― Mother Teresa

                      NB: Darren, are you willing to concede you need to limit who can comment on these pages perhaps by assigning them an email account like Disqus?

                    5. Estovir,
                      “NB: Darren, are you willing to concede you need to limit who can comment on these pages perhaps by assigning them an email account like Disqus?”

                      I really don’t want there to email accounts. I like the setup as is. I feel like an account would invade my privacy. I don’t comment where an account has to be made.

                    6. I really don’t want there to email accounts. I like the setup as is. I feel like an account would invade my privacy. I don’t comment where an account has to be made.

                      I understand. I think Mespo and I are the only individuals on here who have disclosed our physical location, down to city, state and employment, though Mespo more so, and I can appreciate the risks we take. OTOH, Darren has our email addresses and IP, which means privacy is an illusion. He can track us down and Darren likely has used my email address to check my internet footprint which will confirm I am who I say I am on this blog. That said I’d just assume we go the route I suggested since it is a standard requirement in most forums where people choose to comment including medical science and physician forums. It would also reduce traffic by 50% which is likely something Turley knows. So it goes

                      Here’s a new COVID link for you that is free and intended towards physicians. I’m a member of ACP and it’s a good resource for people who access it. Chapter 4 is very good.



                    7. “Darren has our email addresses and IP, which means privacy is an illusion.”

                      Estovir, when a person posts anonymously no email address is required. The email address is used to create the Icon and doesn’t change with the name. The simplest best thing to do is to exclude all anonymous posting and make sure the email address is a functioning one.

                    8. Estovir,
                      “Darren has our email addresses and IP, which means privacy is an illusion”

                      My kids have diaries. They are in my house. Yet, privacy isn’t an illusion because even though I have access to them, I do not read them. My kids should be able to have private thoughts. Unless I have a parental ‘probable cause’, I’m not going to invade their privacy.

                      I trust Darren and Professor Turley. They would ask me before doing anything with my email. But, since I’m a nobody, I doubt there’s any reason for them to consider doing anything with my email anyway.

                    9. Estovir,
                      Thank you for the link. I haven’t completed all 31 chapters yet. I seems to me that there is a dearth of information about the role of nutrition and deficiencies in the prognosis of people infected with SARS-CoV-2. No mention of vitamin D or A, magnesium, B vitamins, or zinc.

                      They sure are against HCQ (zinc wasn’t even mentioned as an adjunct) and ivermectin. They did mention electrolyte abnormalities. Do they seek to correct not just the abnormalities but also the deficiencies?

                      I did note the effects it can have in some people’s lungs–that it can resemble pulmonary fibrosis. This is related to the proliferation of TGF-B.


                      TGF-b is triggered by excess H2O2. It can also be triggered by the UPR from overwhelmed ER. Zinc deficiency can trigger the UPR. Excess ROS can also stem from poorly functioning mitochondria, which are also targeted by SARS-CoV-2. Their ETC requires magnesium, so Mg deficiency would upset this system and contribute to greater ROS production.

                      The ROS can be somewhat addressed by supporting the production of GSH, which requires selenium, and by supplying antioxidants such as resveratrol and astaxanthin.

                2. Estovir, you claim “The left wing trolls never engage for the sake of intellectual discourse but only to insult” and also “I skip over their comments.”

                  If you skip over someone’s comments, you can’t know what they’ve said, and you have no basis for claiming that the person only posts insults.

                  I insult much less than some of your pals like Mespo.

                  Princess said “I don’t expect you to answer,” but I did answer. Which you’d know if you’d bothered to read my response instead of assuming.

  1. Turley’s pretence that this was a legitimate trial in which Trump Republican senators were ready to reach a verdict based on the evidence and arguments is an insult to our intelligence. Does he think we’ve forgotten he attended a meeting with them before the trial began to coach them in how to claim the whole thing was unconstitutional? They were never going to vote to convict their Leader no matter what the House managers did, and Turley gave them the means to avoid having to even defend Trump’s actions.

      1. Well the DNC people can relax a little and let their guard down, because Trump is out of office, the Democrats control the House and the Senate.

        The long national nightmare is over. Americans came to their senses after four years of embarrassing BS.

        IT’s a huge relief.

        Must be what VE and VJ Day felt like.

    1. You pathetic dweeb. Turley’s profession is to give legal advice you brain dead idiot. If you want to argue here about him, stick to the facts of the case fool.

  2. For the historic second time what should be a slam dunk conviction vote by the Senate is being perverted by the hyper partisan republicans. The GOP culture of corruption is alive and unwell….

    1. emily:

      In case you’re counting Trump is/will be 2-0 against the Dims and getting stronger politically. Behold the populist movement. Your frustration is palpable.

      1. Anyone hear from George Conway?

        Headlines top of the page at Fox News.

        Devastated anti-Trump group suffers another blow as co-founder Steve Schmidt says he’s ‘sorry,’ resigns

        Top advisers ditch anti-Trump Lincoln Project as implosion gains steam

        Lincoln Project’s political future in peril after controversies wound group

        MSNBC brought Lincoln Project reps on air 17 times before bringing up misconduct by co-founder: Kurtz

        Meghan McCain torches John Weaver, Steve Schmidt: ‘No McCain would spit on them if they were on fire’

        Lincoln Project’s Steve Schmidt bought million-dollar Utah house as operatives got rich

        Twitter OK with anti-Trump Lincoln Project publishing private messages of ex-member

        1. Whatever. Mission accomplished.

          Lincoln Project did astutely, funny, focused work and helped to topple Trump.

          If Lincoln Project implodes it will – like Black Water turning into Xe turning into Academi or whatever that was – appear in a new form.

          They’re too good and necessary to go away.

          But hopefully they vet their people a little better.

  3. The Senate trial was “tanked” by hyper partisan republicans who defied the bipartisan majority to convict. Once again Turley embarks on his own hyper partisan republican spin and twist of the second of two historic Impeachment trials against Trump.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are telling a lot of people to take their own advice, but what comes out of your mouth is junk. If it were possible I would advise you to grow a brain. Your brainstem is not sufficient..

          1. I don’t tell you to take your own advice, Allan.

            What I tell you is that your insults are all projection of your own weaknesses.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, you learned the word projection from another. Now it’s time to learn what it means.

  4. About 8 months ago I posted on this site that I thought that under New York law it appeared that Cuomo could be charged with manslaughter or another degree of unlawful homicide for sending China Virus infected patients into nursing homes. It appeared to be depraved and reckless indifference to others given that from Washington State it was known early on that nursing home patients needed to be protected from the China Virus.

    Now it has come out that he apparently hid the actual number of fatalities to avoid drawing unwelcome attention and others have joined the call for him to resign his post and face prosecution.


    During all this time the propaganda media has been praising Cuomo and his handling of the China Virus despite his having the highest death rate in the nation while attacking the governors of red states.

    Killer Cuomo’s actions appear to have led to the deaths of Janice Dean’s parents and she, too, is calling for prosecution.


    1. The Democrat Party has grown consistently pro-crime.

      Take deep blue CA, for instance. You can shoplift with ease as long as it’s under $950. Businesses just close when the theft is too much, taking jobs with them.

      No bail means greater ease in returning to the street, especially if you want to pound on the door of a woman you’ve been threatening.

      Homelessness and drug use is now a qualifier for most misdemeanor laws not to apply to you, including trespassing and theft, in SF and LA.

      Deportations are suspended, even if you are a rapist or murderer. You see, legal immigration laws, or ensuring the housing and jobs markets can withstand the numbers, is now racist and xenophobic, you see. (This attitude does not extend towards Scandinavian countries, which are strict on requiring immigrants have a permanent job offer in place and can financially contribute to society.)

      Democrats fight against the 2nd Amendment, to ensure citizens are more easy prey for the criminals they loose upon them.

      They won’t stop until we’re like Venezuela, fighting over toilet paper and rotting food in dumpsters, while there is a Leftist government ruling class.

      1. “No bail means greater ease in returning to the street”

        Yes. The point of bail isn’t to keep people off the street. It’s to get them to show up for trial. If you want someone off the street prior to trial, you don’t include bail as an option.

        Bail only punishes the poor, while the wealthy pay it and are on the street pending trial.

        Do you object to conservatives funding Kyle Rittenhouse’s bail so he can be free pending his murder trial?

  5. If I wanted to live in wonderland I could go to Disney Land, buy a Marvel Comic or read some of the Leftist posts below. What Hog wash, not a syllable of original thought.

    1. There are hundreds of quotes.

      When I’ve watched the mainstream news, strangely I don’t see this discussed. I wonder if they’ll get around to it, or if perhaps they already have and I’ve missed it. So interested to see how they will spin this.

      1. Karen — They will spin it into a black hole. They have become orifices of Progressive propaganda.

  6. Trump Knew Pence Was In Danger

    Yet He Attacked Pence In Tweets As Mobs Rampaged

    Evidence is mounting that Donald Trump knew Mike Pence was in grave danger from the mob rampaging into the Capitol when the then-president sent out a tweet blasting his vice president.

    During the Jan. 6 assault, Trump tweet-slammed Pence for lacking the “courage” to overturn the election, which further infuriated the insurrectionists. Trump essentially pointed the mob like a loaded gun at Pence — and newly unearthed facts suggest Trump may have understood what he was doing in exactly these terms.

    Trump’s tweet came at 2:24 p.m. that day — only 11 minutes after live television coverage showed Pence being hustled from the Senate floor because rioters were streaming into the building one floor below. The Senate then abruptly went into recess.

    Trump was watching news coverage of the session after he returned from his rally at the Ellipse, according to a person familiar with the events of the day who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe what was happening behind the scenes.

    Trump may have seen live TV footage showing that Pence had been pulled from the chamber (at 2:13 p.m.) and was in danger more than 10 minutes before he attacked Pence.

    Trump then tweeted that Pence “didn’t have the courage” to “protect our Country and our Constitution.” To the rioters, this meant Pence didn’t subvert the results (he couldn’t) to keep Trump in power, to the benefit of MAGA Nation. As the impeachment managers demonstrated, an insurrectionist read aloud the tweet from a bullhorn, and it galvanized rioters to go after Pence.

    We’re also learning that just after Pence was taken away, Trump called Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) for more help in subverting the results (showing what was foremost on Trump’s mind). Tuberville told him what had happened to Pence. It’s unclear whether this happened before Trump’s tweet, but it’s certainly possible.

    The Post also reports that Pence’s Secret Service detail typically informs the White House about any significant movements involving him.

    Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent, tells The Post there are several pathways by which Trump might have been informed of the level of danger Pence faced. Pence’s Secret Service detail might have communicated with Trump’s, or the military aides to both men might have been in touch. White House aides might know what Trump learned from this.

    Witnesses could also shed more light on what Trump was told by the lawmakers under siege inside the Capitol who were pleading with him by phone to call off the mob, and what Trump said as he refused. Heck, as Andy Kroll suggests, what about calling Pence himself?

    Remember, many of these damning facts about the chronology are new — they’ve been shaken loose by the investigative process. It would be entirely appropriate to call witnesses now that these facts have raised urgent new questions.

    It’s also possible trying to pin down more details might fail to produce a silver bullet. But that’s okay: The known facts are already comprehensively damning to Trump. And the mere fact that there are risks isn’t a reason to refrain from developing a full picture of something this important.

    We all know the vast majority of Republican senators won’t vote based on the evidence. This is all about creating a full reckoning into the most comprehensive effort to overturn U.S. democracy in modern times — including through deliberately cultivated mob intimidation and violence — not for Republicans, who are beyond reach, but for the American people, and for history.

    Edited from:  “Democrats Have One Big Weapon Left Against Trump.  Will They Use It?”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Anonymous sources claim to know what Trump was thinking at the time.

      You see a problem with that?

      1. Karen, if someone tells you X, then it’s reasonable to claim that you know X. Because you’ve been told.

        Reports say that Tuberville told Trump about Pence. There’s an easy way to find out: have Tuberville testify.

        1. “There’s an easy way to find out: have Tuberville testify.”

          Because the House did not interview Tuberville, it tells me the story false, like the rest of the Houses “evidence”

            1. You don’t have a clue.
              The House Impeachment Managers did not interview Tuberville. His experiences are NOT a part of the impeachment of President Trump.

              1. I didn’t claim that they interviewed Tuberville. I claimed that Tuberville made this statement on the record in an interview with reporters.

                And Tuberville’s phone conversation with Trump IS part of the impeachment trial, which you’d know if you’d been listening to the trial. So I suggest that you refrain from the baseless condescension in “you don’t have a clue.”

        2. Anonymous – I can’t tell if you’re being serious. What you describe is actually known as “hearsay.”

          So, what you’re saying is that unnamed sources told someone that Tuberville told Trump about Pence. What about Pence? That he was in danger?

          Sure, you can have anyone you want testify. In fact, wouldn’t it have been grand if the House had done so?

          So, if all it takes to make something a fact is to have someone tell you about it, then it’s a fact that Biden sold access to benefit himself and Hunter financially. I’ll do better than “unnamed” sources. Former business partner (named, not anonymous like you, Tony Bobulinski) reveled the pay to play. The Tech support with whom Hunter Biden abandoned the incriminating laptop is also named.

          So, Anonymous, you have been told that Hunter Biden sold access to his father, Joe Biden. Following your own rules, you must now accept this as fact. You don’t require an investigation or any proof other than testimony.

          Well, that was neat. Let’s lock up Joe Biden and move on to Kamala Harris. Again, using your own rules, Kamala Harris may clearly be impeached for inciting violence. “Beware”. These riots “will continue, and they should continue.” Great, so she’s now impeached. Nanci Pelosi would be next in line, and we can clearly remove her from office for mental deficiency, pending a medical examination.

          You’ve laid it all out quite nicely.

          Oh, and don’t forget all the statements that I’ve made to you which you must now accept as proven facts. I told you X. You can now reasonably claim to know X. In this case, it’s the fact that Democrats incited months of insurrection while Trump called for peaceful protest.

          Glad we’re on the same page now.

          1. No, Karen, it’s not hearsay. It’s a quote from Tuberville about what he told Trump. That’s an eye witness statement.

            “what you’re saying is that unnamed sources told someone that Tuberville told Trump about Pence.”

            Nope. Pay better attention. It’s what Tuberville himself said he told Trump about Pence.

            Stop trolling, Karen.

    2. Aninny:

      “Edited from: “Democrats Have One Big Weapon Left Against Trump. Will They Use It?”

      Today’s Washington Post”
      Personally, I like Rumpelstiltskin when I read fairy tales.

      “Today do I bake,
      tomorrow I brew,
      The day after that the queen’s child comes in;
      And oh! I am glad that nobody knew
      That the name I am called is Rumpelstiltskin!”

  7. There is no trial.

    There is no extant, actual sitting president being tried.

    There is no Chief Justice presiding.

    These are phantom proceedings.

    These proceedings constitute criminal acts, including malicious prosecution, by Congressional Managers and Senators who attend and who must, in turn, be impeached and convicted.

    The constitutional failure is that of the negligence, dereliction, abuse of power and usurpation of power by omission of and by the Supreme Court, which should have struck this farcical political

    event down immediately and with extreme prejudice.

    This is America, 2020, a nation diseased with terminal corruption, hysteria and incoherence.

    1. There’s a trial of the former President, which the Senate has determined is allowed by the Constitution, and which the Constitution gives them the power to determine in Article 1, Section 4.

      The Chief Justice isn’t presiding because he’s not required to preside except when the President is being tried. Trump isn’t the President. Biden is the President.

      1. And you are insane.

        You are a liar.

        You are anti-Constitutional.

        You are anti-American.

        You are anti-freedom.

        You are anti-free enterprise.

        You are a democrat.

        You are a communist.

        You are a parasite.

        You are a mortal enemy of the United States of America.

        Article 1, Section. 4.

        The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

        The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

        1. I meant Article I, Section 3: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”

          And your many insults make you a troll.

          1. First of all it’s “their” not “there.” It’s proper spelling and grammar that distinguish us from the Mongol races.

            And you think it’s the Democrats who are Constitution crushers?

            Trump used the Constitution as a doorstop and inciting the patRIOT that stormed the capitol and killed 5+ people was just the icing on the cake of four years of complete BS.

            If you are American, there is no excuse to be that gullible and stupid.

            You embarrass me. You embarrass yourself.


            1. BM:

              Grammar cop suits you. Having nothing but invective you stroke your tiny ego even more with some feeling of technical superiority when your intellect lets you down. I’m happy to compare accomplishments, intellect, bank accounts or whatever your little genitalia compels you to cite. You’re (Your, Ur, U) are a pathetic newbie here and if I might say with less insight than the doped up university kids who drop by for some trolling.

              1. I think “doped-up” requires a hyphen, no?

                Mongol races and all that.

                And you have no accomplishments.

                You’re just another sad prole online, talking tough.

                And a Trump supporter too? That’s proof positive you are a wanker.

                You just like him because you’re just like him: Vulgar, phony, old, lost.

            2. You embarrass me.

              Oh, don’t sell yourself short. While Mark is exceptionally competent at destroying debate opponents, you have proven to be equally competent at destroying any chance of being considered as a rational human being.

              Well done!

      2. “Trump isn’t the President.”

        Exactly. He’s a private citizen. So why are Democrats impeaching a private citizen? Why are those who have questioned election integrity, and called for violent uprisings impeaching Trump for questioning election integrity and calling for peaceful protests, repeatedly saying Republicans are the party of law and order?

        Shall we impeach Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, and Kamala Harris the next time a Republican president and Congress convene, long after they’ve left office?

        Heck, why not impeach past Democrat presidents who are long dead, so we can decommission their presidential libraries and tear down their statues and rename their schools?

        Is this what you want? Because Democrats are setting a precedent they may rue one day.

        1. “why are Democrats impeaching a private citizen? ”

          They aren’t, Karen. Trump was impeached by the House while he was in office. Perhaps you mean “why is the Senate trying a private citizen?” If so, they’re trying a private citizen because he’s the former President and he was impeached while he was in office for actions he took while in office.

          If Biden and/or Harris do something impeachment worthy while in office, I hope the House impeaches them, even if the Senate can’t try them until they’re out of office.

  8. The Democrats didn’t tank anything.

    They could have shown a selfie of Trump standing naked at the top of the Capitol steps shaking a trident and screaming “KILL THEM!!! KILL THEM ALL!!!!”

    And the Republicans still wouldn’t have impeached him.

    The Republicans aren’t going to admit they were wrong and supported a vulgar buffoon as everything he touched turned to $#!+.

    The Republicans stumbled into power and control when Trump – against all expectations – beat Hillary and everyone else and became president.

    He screwed it up as badly as everyone predicted but better tainted power than no power.

    The Democrats put up a compelling case.

    Trump is guilty as sin to anyone with an IQ over 120.

    1. Ben, lovely how you use a fantasy made up in your head to make your point. The Democrats pulled some heart strings. They have stated an intent they can not prove. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Donald Trump. Oh the Swalwell knows the Swalwell and Ben do. They didn’t care if they threw the game. Wait until later when they say the Republicans cheated. Keep your eyes open it won’t be long

      1. Trump is guilty as sin. He lies through his teeth and spent weeks and months trumpeting an election fraud conspiracy that is 100% untrue.

        And there’s enough dumb saps in this country to fall for it.

        Vulgar, old, fat, stupid: people just like him because they’re just like him.

        1. Ben, you just shamed the elderly, fat people and the cognitively impaired. If I were you I would delete your post as quickly as possible before your woke friends cancel you for your obvious discrimination.

            1. BM:
              “No I shamed the morally and intellectually impaired people who support Trump.”
              So favored to have your special kinda arrogance in our midst. The wise man knows he doesn’t know it all. Only the fool and his ego are certain of everything. Keep it coming. I like the chuckle.

              1. Oh I don’t claim to know everything but I know morally and intellectually bankrupt people when I see them.

                I’ve been hoping Trump is actually the antiChrist come to earth to collect souls wholesale using social media.

                His behavior is designed to expose the weak, money-grubbing, immoral, ass-kissing sycophants who put ambition and gain in front of anything else.

                And at some point Trump will expose his true self, wave his trident, blow his horn and take his followers down down down, where the flames leap higher.

                And the righteous shall inherit the earth.

                Hasn’t happened yet, but still hoping.

                1. BM:

                  “And the righteous shall inherit the earth.

                  Hasn’t happened yet, but still hoping.”
                  It’s the meek, genius, but malaprops are all the rage. Putting you out of the running though. God you need a standup routine.

                  1. I know it’s the meek but who wants the meek to inherit the earth?

                    The meek are the people who follow Trump because they’re suckers and saps and lost souls who don’t have the balls or the brains to stand up and recognize how crooked Trump is.

                    The righteous are more better. I hope that all comes true.

                    Trump as the AntiChrist. How else to explain his behavior, and his following?

                    1. BM:

                      Any more scrambling and you’ll qualify for the US Open. On second thought, maybe the LPGA. To paraphrase Churchill, you’re a man with a lot to be meek about.

                    2. Excellent sermon by Bishop Robert Barron, for last Sunday 2nd reading

                      Reading II

                      1 Cor 9:16-19, 22-23

                      Brothers and sisters:
                      If I preach the gospel, this is no reason for me to boast,
                      for an obligation has been imposed on me,
                      and woe to me if I do not preach it!
                      If I do so willingly, I have a recompense,
                      but if unwillingly, then I have been entrusted with a stewardship.
                      What then is my recompense?
                      That, when I preach,
                      I offer the gospel free of charge
                      so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

                      “What Our Lives Must Be About — Bishop Barron’s Sunday Sermon”

        2. Ben I bet you one of them wimpy punks with pencil-pants and black hoodies and blue hair that couldn’t fight your way out of a wet paper bag

          We’ll see how the cookie crumbles

          1. Naw. I’m a semiSemite: half-Jewish and half German but the German side is descended from Nazis.

            My great-uncle Emmanuel Schafer was the Butcher of Belgrade.

            A particularly nasty Nazi who murdered 7000 Jews in a Sauer gas van in Belgrade.

            So I get insulted like a Jew but respond like a German.

            I’ve been in lots of fights.

            I like fighting.

            I got fired from Surfer Magazine for slugging a guy. It was worth it.

            1. I’m not sure I like fighting, but my grandmother grew up in a brothel and my grandfather ‘ran things’ for the Providence mob and I”ve been told I kicked a guy in the face a few times who’d run out of the stands to jack me up during a brawl in a basketball game in college. I think i blacked out on it.

              Maybe we should hang.

              Elvis Bug

            2. Ben sound like a Trump supporter. Trump is a counter-puncher. What’s not to like?

        3. Ben:

          Unless you’ve been in a coma, you are well aware that Democrats claimed Trump was working for the Russians and stole the election.

          It all turned out to be untrue. In fact, the sub source for the Steele dossier even said that none of it was ever supposed to be submitted as factual.

          Yet Democrats had their investigations. Millions of taxpayer dollars.

          Meanwhile, Democrats got away with nation wide mail in ballots. They successfully got ballot harvesting. The only way to tell if they threw away votes they didn’t like, or filled them in, is their own honor code. Many whistleblowers have confirmed that signatures were not checked. Original ballots shredded. Dead people voted. Elderly with dementia voted. Ballots run through multiple times. Backdating. We know Republican poll workers were kicked out while Democrats allowed to stay while vote counters filled in ballots supposedly copying those who wouldn’t run through the machines. How do we know they were filled out accurately?

          If a ballot was backdated and counted, and then thrown on the pile, how in the world do you figure out which one? If original ballots are shredded, and all you have are electronic ballots, how do you untangle that?

          We also know that most lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing, not lack of evidence.

          Granted, I don’t know how much fraud occurred, or if it was enough to tip the election.

          There is also the fact that people who could care less about Biden, and how wouldn’t go 5 minutes out of their way to a polling place would check a box and mail in a ballot.

          In addition, Big Tech conspired with mainstream media and Hollywood to promote Democrats and harm Republicans. Google search engines prioritized stories that helped Dems, and buried stories that didn’t. Media across many channels claimed Republicans are Nazi Fascists. The education system from pre-K to grad school harass conservatives and promote Democrat ideology. They all have their thumb shoved hard on the scale. According to a poll, many Biden voters had no idea about the Hunter laptop story, or if they did, they thought it was Russian disinformation and not a real story.

          Since we won’t get a valid investigation, and much evidence has already been destroyed, we may never know how much the election was affected by Big Tech disinformation, and how much by outright fraud.

          But conservatives view the process as similar to a banana republic at this point.

          1. Big Tech turned their backs on Trump because he is a corrupt, pussy-grabbing, wife-cheating, student-defrauding, charity-stealing riot inciting fat old fart who is annoying and appalling to anyone with an IQ over 120.

            As for Russian Collusion. Did you read the Senate Intelligence Report sponsored by Marco Rubio?

            Trump’s people communicating in coded messages with members of Russian intelligence? ““At nearly 1,000 pages, Volume 5 stands as the most comprehensive examination of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign to date – 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections. I encourage all Americans to carefully review the documented evidence of the unprecedented and massive intervention campaign waged on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump by Russians and their operatives and to reach their own independent conclusions.”

            If you don’t think Trump’s people colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election I’d like to see you the Golden Gate Bridge.

            Trump is a fraud and a charlatan and a conman who couldn’t con his way out of a pandemic.

            The American people recognized his appalling lack of leadership and voted him out after one term.

            And now hopefully he will go to prison.

            If you are an American there is no excuse for being that naive and stupid.

            1. I’m new here, and I’ve been reading all of your rants. My IQ is well over 120, I have a graduate degree, and I’ve published in actual, academic journals. I would never cite my ancestry [which is infinitely more impressive than your own] as some sort of qualification for being able to discern the truth about any subject, my own intellect, education, and life experiences allow me to see your lack of substance. Your insufferable arrogance, patently absurd conclusions which cannot be supported by reality, insufficient knowledge of actual facts, extremely partisan view of President Trump and of those who support him, juvenile ad hominem attacks on all who disagree with you, and repetitive assertions of your shallow political talking points, while perhaps being consistent with someone who couldn’t even maintain employment with surfer magazines, do not lend credibility to your opinions or justify your wasting the time of honest readers of this or any other comment section. When faced with a rather detailed comment, such as that posted by Karen S., you don’t even attempt to refute the substance of what is said but instead resort to your same slate of assertions, as if they are sufficient for use in any political debate. Your little troll friends may be impressed with your comments and responses; I, and I suspect the majority of those with an IQ over 100, see you for the intellectually dishonest, self-important joke that you clearly are. Those who know the least always seem to talk the most, and you are no exception.

              1. dag: Nicely said. To which I would add only this: There is none so lacking in self-esteem as the boaster.

      2. Whatever. All right-thinking people are just glad Trump is out of office and the Democrats have control of government again.

        Republicans screw it up. Democrats clean it up.

        That was true for Obama after Bush43 trashed the place.

        Obama set the table and then Trump came in and $#I+ all over the table.

        I’m hoping Trump will have the same effect on the Republican party that Hitler had on the Nazi party.

        The long national nightmare is over, but it would be nice if the Democrats didn’t turn the other cheek and went Nuremberg on Trump and his cronies and enablers.

        As for you: If you’re American, there’s no excuse for being that gullible and dumb.

        You just like him because you’re just like hinm.

        1. Ben, even the NYT opined that Biden must get back to the TRUMP economy, and by the end of the year, such is the mess left by President Trump. (first growth of real income in more than 50 years)

          1. No he needs to get back to the Obama economy.

            Obama came in and faced a many-headed hydra of problems, set the table for Trump and Trump came in and took a $#!+ all over it and destroyed all that work in record time.

            Obama is most likely enjoying some Schadenfraud right now – accent on fraud.

            But they’ll fix it.

            Republicans screw it up. Democrats clean it up.

            1. But they’ll fix it.

              Republicans screw it up. Democrats clean it up.

              It all depends what your definition of it is.

              1. It = everything. As in everything the Republicans touched turns to $#1+

                Through my Hollywood friends I tried to persuade the South Park guys to do an episode where Trump comes to town to campaign but everything he touches turns to s***: Air Force One, the presidential limousine, Secret Service agents, babies, the mayor, the microphone.

                Until all the citizens run fleeing in terror and the only person that will hang out with Trump is Mr Hankey.

                Sad but true.

                Everything Trump touches turns to s***.

                1. LOL! Well, it stands to reason you would need to lean on your Hollywood friends to create your fantasy, as opposed to identifying real world evidence to justify your opinion.

                2. Hollywood is a cesspool. And now, much of Hollywood is owned by China. Our US president and his greedy, corrupt family are owned by China.

                  At least Trump was fighting to Make America Great Again. Biden is a sell out.

    2. Ben:

      You are clearly fantasizing about the evidence, which factually showed nothing of the kind.

      This isn’t about what you wish and hope Trump thought. This is about the facts.

      If you can be impeached for calling for peaceful protests, and demanding investigations into election integrity, then there wouldn’t be a Democrat left standing. Dems have openly called for uprisings.


      1. Did Hitler directly tell the German people to go out and slaughter Jews?

        Did the German people slaughter Jews?

        Did Hitler rile up anti-Jewish sentiment that lead to their slaughter?

        Did Trump rile up a bunch of financially and morally bankrupt, mullet-headed deplorables by repeatedly, endlessly lying about election fraud that didn’t exist?

        Did those financially and morally bankrupt, mullet-headed deplorables raid the capitol shrieking “Stop the steal!!!” and other slogans inspired by Trump’s endless lying about election fraud that didn’t exist?

        Would those financially and morally bankrupt, mullet-headed deplorables have raided the capitol and destroyed property and failed to kill Pence and/or Pelosi but did succeed in getting five others killed – including two capitol police – if Trump had never claimed election fraud?

        Trump is guilty as sin.

        You just like him because you’re just like him: Vulgar, dumb, sad.

        1. “In order to hide the killing operation as much as possible from the uninitiated, Hitler ordered that the killings not be spoken of directly in German documentation or in public statements.”


          I’m highly suspicious that there was indeed election fraud. But I’m not saying that because I wanted Trump re-elected (I didn’t vote for him). My fears: There have been enough shenanigans with the elections and the parties over the last few cycles that wouldn’t it just be great if the elections could be rigged so that only preferred candidates won and the people wouldn’t question the outcome? There’d never be an actual free and fair election ever again and the people wouldn’t be the wiser? We can just pit them against each other, make election fraud look like a conspiracy, no one will question it, and only certain people get to be in power. It’s perfect! Actually, it’s terrifying considering a constitutional republic is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

  9. The ultimate “fight” video

    Thunderlips vs. Italian Meatball…Run for your life…If I can’t break your sprit, then I’ll break your back. Daddy is having fun.

  10. The left doesn’t stop lying.

    Impeachment blunder: Author of tweet introduced at trial says it was falsified, misinterpreted

    Jennifer Lawrence says Rep. Swalwell never called her to check meaning and appears to have altered her tweet with a blue check mark. Pastor backs her up.


    1. They altered her tweet by adding a blue check mark. That’s dishonest and they shouldn’t have done it.
      Trump’s lawyer falsely stated that the House Managers didn’t provide the new footage to them before the trial. That’s dishonest and he shouldn’t have done it.

      Lawrence said “her statement ‘we are bringing the Calvary’ was a clear reference to a prayer vigil organized by churchgoers supporting Trump and not a call for military-like violence at the Capitol riot as portrayed by Rep. Eric Swalwell.”
      I dare you to give an example of any Christian saying “we are bringing the Calvary” as a reference to a prayer meeting in any other context. Just one.

      Also from your article, “The similarly spelled word calvary however, refers to an open air depiction of the crucifixion”
      She was telling Trump that she was bringing a depiction of the crucifixion?

      1. “They altered her tweet by adding a blue check mark. That’s dishonest and they shouldn’t have done it.”

        I think they altered more than that. Swalwell has been known to lie or couch statements in such a way that one can say he is a liar. I don’t know why Democrats don’t dump him. He’s a liar and informed a spy that the FBI was looking into her. She left town preventing an attempt to get information or turn her.

        First you have to document what Trump’s lawyers said. The documentation of Swalwell’s lie is a direct comparison between his evidence and the actual tweet.

        “I dare you to give an example of any Christian saying “we are bringing the Calvary” as a reference to a prayer meeting in any other context. Just one.”

        I have heard that sentiment many times from peaceful and religious people. When all else fails you make things up.

        “She was telling Trump that she was bringing a depiction of the crucifixion?”

        I don’t know what your point is and I wonder if you know. Take note of the quote from the article as to what adds to the confusion. The left likes to make things up.

        “Mixing up “Calvary” and “cavalry” is common, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.”

        1. “I think they altered more than that. ”

          So specify what else you think was altered.

          “First you have to document what Trump’s lawyers said.”

          Here you go –
          You can also watch him say it on C-Span, https://www.c-span.org/video/?508916-1/impeachment-trial

          “Mixing up “Calvary” and “cavalry” is common, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.”

          But she claims that she wasn’t mixing them up. She wrote “Calvary,” and she’s claiming that that’s what she meant, not cavalry.

  11. “If you’re going to kill the king, you better not miss.”

    In other words, if this is such an issue of national importance, then the House shouldn’t aim for the ground with their offense. Instead, they went with Ready, Fire, Aim. They played this game like they didn’t want to win.

    On a personal note, I am not sure that what then-President Trump did was an impeachable offense; I’ll leave that to proper legal scholars to address, of which I am not one. But if it were of such importance, I would suspect that the House leadership would have dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s,” of which it appears they did neither. They are trying to win this case on sentiment alone. And while possession may be 9/10’s of the law, I don’t believe sentiment even qualifies for 0.0001 of the balance.

    The political ramifications of this “strategy”? I don’t know. And really, I’d rather not care.

    1. On a personal note, I am not sure that what then-President Trump did was an impeachable offense; I’ll leave that to proper legal scholars to address

      This has nothing to do with legal acumen.

      The only people that had to be convinced were voters. Dems were attempting to separate 74 million voters from voting Republican.

  12. This is an example of cancel culture coming from the left. There was nothing wrong with what she said. It is true and it also has an important warning to all about the effects of hate. Lucas Films fell into the trap the Nazi’s created.

    Carano has been criticized on social media after she shared a post on Instagram—that has since been removed—comparing the persecution of Jews during Nazi Germany toward current hate toward people with different political views.

    “Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors … even by children,” the 38-year-old Texas native wrote.

    “Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews,” the post continues. “How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.”

    Carano’s post has since been deleted after receiving criticism, but the post was already widely spreading and the hashtag #FireGinaCarano became trending on Wednesday

    Actress Gina Carano Removed From ‘The Mandalorian’ Following Instagram Post


      1. Gina is hot. How is that cartoon anti-shemitic? Tell us the names of those global financiers and let us know one by one, eh?

      2. Lazy lazy lazy. If you had only scrolled down that twitter thread, you’d have known your post is false.

        1. Yet you didn’t tell anyone what was said below and why that makes her anti-Semitic. Despite your family situation I think you would be ripe for a Nazi any time, any place.

          1. The image that she tweeted is itself is anti-semitic. It’s a variation on this street mural –

            But she didn’t tweet that mural, she tweeted a variation. You can see how users have changed the image over time, by changing the men who are depicted, adding the text, adding gold bars and globe and skull, …, to the table, adding faint portraits to the pyramid, etc. You can find a more complete image on p. 19 of this document –

            1. Whether or not the original image is anti-Semitic hasn’t been established. Opinions vary. You do not know where her image came from or if she knew about any controversy. Once again you are using anti-semitism like some use racism to cancel another individual’s voice because you don’t like their political stand.

              Your action is similar to a woman who claims she was raped and wasn’t. You are making similar claims and creating a scenario where true claims of anti-Semitism are overlooked. That type of action can be taken for anti-Semitism as well.

              1. My claim wasn’t about the original mural, but about what she tweeted. I said “she has anti-Semitic content in her account.” That’s true.

                “Your action is similar to a woman who claims she was raped and wasn’t.”

                No it isn’t, Allan.

                1. What words did she tweet that were anti-Semitic?

                  One has to be very careful about accusing others of anti-Semitism.

                  1. My response to this didn’t post, perhaps a problem with one of the links, so I’ll post them separately to test that.

                    I said “she has anti-Semitic content in her account” and I already posted a link to it yesterday at 4:26 PM. “Content” isn’t a synonym for “words.”

                    Others have discussed that content as anti-Semitic when posted by others. Here’s an example –

                    1. Since you are unable to use words to describe what was anti-semitic, one has to conclude it wasn’t.

                      That you have to post what others have said doesn’t tell us what you think is anti-Semitic. Many leftist wish to cancel others so they frequently use terms accusing the other side of being white nationalists, racists and anti-Semitic when the truth is quite the opposite. In fact those are the people that use the agony of others killed, maimed and enslaved to push their narrative appealing to emotions that are phony.

                      It is nonsense like this that created your name, Anonymous the Stupid.

                    2. I’m not your nanny, Allan, and I’m not going to bottle feed you, especially while you’re continuing to troll via your go-to strategy of insults.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, were you fed on racism, anti-Semitism and Stupidity?

                      One has to wonder what was in that bottle of yours.

                    1. You will have to put your words in black and white so we know what you think is anti-Semitic. Just because the organization has the word Jewish in it doesn’t make the articles written competent to determine what is or is not anti-Semitic.

                      You are acting exactly like the name you have been given… Anonymous the Stupid.

                    2. Allan, you’re confusing at least two different anonymous respondents, and I retired over a decade ago. If you worked for me, I would fire you on the spot. You’re abusive, you’re arrogant, you frequently make mistakes and have difficulty learning from them, you wish to be bottle-fed, you lack integrity, … It’s unlikely that I would have hired you in the first place, and I imagine that these issues would have come out in your interview and references.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, you have a history of lying so nothing you say can be taken at face value. I would never work for you as you are too Stupid. I only worked for someone else when I was growing up. There was a matter of need, but I quickly learned I could do better on my own hiring the people I worked for.

                      You were never a hot shot, low on the totem pole and probably reached heights that were not deserved.

                    4. Maybe that’s because a boss would fire you, Allan.

                      I’ve worked with some brilliant people, including a MacArthur awardee and an Abel Prize winner. Unlike you, I have no need to feel smarter than the people I work with. I’ll trust their judgment over yours.

                    5. Anonymous the Stupid , Brilliant people frequently require all sorts of gophers.


                    6. I’ve never worked as a gopher, and if you think a number theorist needs a lot of gophers, you don’t know much about theoretical math. But that was obvious already.

                    7. “I’ve never worked as a gopher, and if you think a number theorist needs a lot of gophers, you don’t know much about theoretical math. “

                      Working for whomever you did at the time was the pinnacle of your success. From then on it was all downhill. Did your mentor use your head as an eraser?

                    8. I truly feel sorry for you and your family that you’re so frequently abusive, Allan.

                    9. “I truly feel sorry for you and your family that you’re so frequently abusive, “

                      Anonymous the Stupid, after whining about me following you around why did you add an extra unnecessary response? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid. My whole family is a loving family where everyone is provided for and though dying off many were immigrants, some minority immigrants blending into our diverse culture. Worry about yourself and your family because you don’t sound like you have the ability to reflect on your actions so you might not recognize the essentials in family life.

                    10. Posting more abuse, Allan, only underscores the reason I feel sorry for you and your family. You’re abusive, and I feel sorry for you that you are so inclined to be abusive and seem to take pleasure in it, and I feel sorry for your family that they have such an abusive person (you) in the family.

                    11. More whining from Anonymous the Stupid who hides from having to answer the question.

                      Are you still cheering for Cuomo’s Emmy?

                  2. OK, I’ve tried posting the other example a couple of times, but it’s not posting, so that must have been the problem. If you Google the title in quotation marks, “Council candidate sets personal Facebook page to private,” it will give you the link.

                    1. What? You are unable to put what they say in your own words so we know specifically what you think. This is more of Anonymous the Stupid posting links that he doesn’t understand. He thinks links are facts. Too Stupid for words.

      3. I couldn’t expand the cartoon to make it out clearly but from what I could see there was no anti-Semitism.

        You have to be careful with such accusations and spell it out. otherwise you can be considered an anti-Semite or a racist.

Comments are closed.