Mutual Destruction: How Trump’s Trial Became A Tale Of Constitutional Noir

Below is my column in the Hill on second Trump trial and how core values quickly became the extraneous to the purpose of this constitutional process.  The final chaos triggered by Rep. Jaime Raskin (D., Md) only highlighted the procedural and legal irregularities in a trial that seem increasingly detached from values like due process.

Here is the column:

In the 1946 movie “Gilda,” Rita Hayworth delivered perhaps the ultimate film noir line. Looking at her former lover, she declared, “I hate you so much that I would destroy myself to take you down with me.” Hayworth made self-destruction sound positively alluring. That line came to mind as I watched House impeachment managers and Democratic senators systematically discard basic values that once defined fair trials — and American values — under the Constitution.

When Donald Trump’s defense counsel objected that he was not afforded due process in the House, the managers shrugged and said due process was not required. When the defense objected that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was protected under the First Amendment, the House scoffed that free speech is not only inapplicable but “frivolous” in an impeachment. Nothing, it seems, is so sacred that it cannot be discarded in pursuit of Trump. Over and over, it was made clear that his trial is about the verdict, not about our constitutional values.

Even with acquittal all but ensured, there was no room for constitutional niceties like free speech or due process. There was only one issue — the same one that has driven our media and politics for four years: Trump. Through that time, some of us have objected that extreme legal interpretations and biased coverage destroy our legal and journalistic values. It was not done out of love for Trump: I voted against him in two elections and have regularly denounced his actions and rhetoric, including his Jan. 6 speech. However, I cherish our values more than I dislike him.

That is why the second Trump impeachment trial played out with a film noir flourish, featuring the same “lost innocence,” “hard-edged cynicism” and “desperate desire” of that movie genre — most obviously when House managers dismissed any due process in an impeachment proceeding. Indisputably, the House could have held at least a couple days of hearings and still impeached Trump before he left office. It knew the Senate would not hold a trial before the end of his term, so it had until Jan. 20 to impeach him. It did so on Jan. 13.

A hearing would have given Trump a formal opportunity to respond to the allegation against him; no one has ever been impeached without such an opportunity. It would have allowed witnesses to be called (including many who already were speaking publicly), to create even a minimal record for the trial. Yet the House refused, and then declined for more than four weeks to call a dozen witnesses with direct evidence to create a record even after its snap impeachment.

So the House could have afforded basic due process but chose not to do so simply because it does not have to. When confronted about this in the Senate, one House manager scoffed at the notion that Trump should be afforded more due process. Representative Ted Lieu said, “Trump is receiving any and all process that he is due.” A chilling answer, since Trump received none in the House. There was a time when denying due process would have been shocking. Even if you believe that due process is not required in an impeachment, it is expected. We do not afford due process to people simply because we have to.

It is like decency, civility and other values. They are not observed because they are mandatory but because they are right. It is a value that defines us and our actions. Moreover, this is a process dedicated to upholding the Constitution. To deny a basic constitutional value in its defense is akin to burning down a house in the name of fire safety. Yet, the House’s position is that a president can be impeached and tried without any record of a hearing, an investigation or witnesses.

Then came the matter of free speech. Trump’s defense argued that it is inherently wrong to impeach a president for speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The House managers cited a letter from law professors declaring the argument “frivolous” even though some of those professors believe Trump’s speech may indeed be protected under cases like Brandenburg versus Ohio.

Understanding how such language would be considered protected by the courts is relevant in whether it should be treated as a constitutional violation for the purpose of impeachment. Just as courts balance the value of criminal prosecution against the impact on free speech, the Senate can strike that same balance in an impeachment trial. Even if you believe the First Amendment does not apply in a case of incitement, you still must decide if this represented incitement or an exercise of free speech. Yet in a letter that spun with circular logic, the professors declared that “the First Amendment does not apply” to impeachment proceedings. At least not in a trial of Trump.

House managers were asked why they did not present a case with specific elements of incitement set forth by the Supreme Court. Lead manager Representative Jamie Raskin said blissfully this case and Trump are a one-time instance of “presidential incitement” with its own ill-defined elements. In other words, it doesn’t have to meet the definition of incitement. Under such logic, the House could have impeached Trump for Endangered Species Act violations and said it need not involve any endangered species.

This impeachment trial captures our age of rage. For four years, people claimed total impunity in discarding legal or journalistic standards. They claimed that attacks on free speech, due process, or media objectivity are noble in pursuit of Trump. You can be lionized for tossing aside such values in order to get him. A few years ago, a trial would have been viewed as wrong without direct evidence, due process, or clear standards. Yet this is a trial of Trump, and many have allowed Trump to define them more than their values. Like “Gilda,” they are willing to destroy their values to destroy him.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as a witness with the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and has also consulted Senate Republicans on the legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current trial. You can find him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

654 thoughts on “Mutual Destruction: How Trump’s Trial Became A Tale Of Constitutional Noir”

  1. “Vandals Spray Paint ‘Traitor’ at Home of Trump’s Impeachment Attorney”

    “The home of one of the lawyers who represented Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial was targeted by vandals who used red spray paint to write the word “TRAITOR” on the driveway with arrows pointing towards his house, several local news outlets reported. Philadelphia-area attorney Michael van der Veen’s Chester County property was graffitied on Friday, one day before the former president’s Senate impeachment trial ended with an acquittal—the second such acquittal. Detective Scott Pezick of the West Whiteland Township Police Department told the Associated Press that the crime was reported by van der Veen’s wife at approximately 8 p.m. on Friday evening. Pezick added that there had not been any arrests made in connection with the vandalism, but said the van der Veens had brought on private security and the department had been “showing a police presence to deter anything from happening.” Van der Veen was in Washington, D.C. preparing for the close of Trump’s trial at the time of the incident, but he spoke about it briefly during an appearance on Fox News on Saturday evening. “My home was attacked. I’d rather not go into that,” a clearly agitated van der Veen said. “My entire family, my business, my law firm are under siege right now.” Additionally, a group of protesters demonstrated outside of van der Veen’s law office over the weekend, calling the personal injury attorney a “fascist” and chanting, “When van der Veen lies, what do you do? Convict. Convict,” according to a report from the Philadelphia Inquirer. The incident occurred approximately one month after vandals similarly graffitied the homes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Those who targeted McConnell’s home wrote “Where’s my money,” and “Mitch Kills the Poor” on the home’s windows while those targeting Pelosi’s home also left behind fake blood and the decapitated head of a real pig. Van der Veen on Friday claimed that Trump had no idea Mike Pence was in any sort of danger several minutes into the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C. despite being told in real-time when Secret Service agents had evacuated the vice president from the Senate chambers for his safety. The attorney also drew laughter from the chamber on Saturday morning when he said that impeachment witness depositions should be done in his private law office in Phillydelphia.”

    – Law and Crime
    _____________

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun…”

    – Mao Tse-tung
    ____________

    The democrats adhere to the edicts and philosophies of their leaders.
    _______________________________________________________

    “Vandalism, property damage good.”

    – Democrat Knuckle-Draggers and Dirty Tricks Squad

    1. It is 10,000 times more illegitimate to vandalize the private property of a person whose position you do not agree with than to burn the entire US capital to the ground because of lack of trust in elections.

  2. The thing that always amazes me about you Professor Turley is that you continue to vote for a party that does so many things that you find unconstitutional. You vote for people who would deny due process, who don’t believe in the first amendment and who punish their political opponents simply because they can. And when it comes to hateful rhetoric you are quick to assert that it is similar on both sides. Yet conservatives haven’t been burning down cities or asking for police to be defunded or any of a dozen things that are abhorrent to constitutional values. Perhaps I assume you are voting democrat when you are actually voting for a third party, in which case I apologize for making assumptions. But if you are supporting democratic politics one has to wonder why.

    1. Paaaaaaaat!!!

      I always believed that Americans enjoy a secret ballot.

      Are you a Dominion Voting Machines agent or, otherwise, American Communist Deep Deep State (ACDDS) operative (acid heads, for those of you in Rio Linda)?

      You seem very well informed.

      1. Aahhh . . . Anonymouuuuuus! I’ve already confessed my ignorance in my original post. And whether or not he voted democrat doesn’t change the face that JT clearly supports that side of the political spectrum damn the consequences of unconstitutional power players.

    2. THAT is an interesting question…isn’t it?

      behold the human condition…imperfect and incomplete.

      why should turley be held to some impossible standard that no human has ever achieved.

      show me ANYONE over the age of 12 and I will show you someone who does not have a clear conscience.

      but it IS STILL an interesting question, isn’t it?

      I could also ask the same question the other way around too…why do so many republicans seemingly vote for a president in a conservative party and identify with national conservative politics…but oddly, do not have nearly the same views at the local and state level?

      it’s odd…

      how does one reconcile the differences?

      is it about the reality of power..that it does present differences at scale?

      or is it about the harsh reality that self interest might be a dynamic that is very complicated to predict. especially at the single person level.

      the one size fits all conundrum illustrates itself.

  3. ” Like “Gilda,” they are willing to destroy their values to destroy him.”

    Professor Turley has a belief that they share these values of journalistic integrity, free speech, or due process.

    They do not

    There is only will to power among them. And it is a narrow, feckless concept of power which is served only by paychecks from the billionaires.

    The group of billionaires, not any one of them but the group, are our enemy. We will either destroy them or they will destroy us

    Sal Sar

  4. OT – NEWSFLASH

    “Patriots Hold President’s Day Celebration for President Trump in West Palm Beach”

    “Trump supporters are holding a huge President Day celebration in West Palm Beach, Florida today for President Trump. A huge crowd of supporters of President Trump showed up today in West Palm Beach, Florida to celebrate President’s Day. This was nothing but a peaceful movement.

    “There are no celebrations for Joe Biden today. He and his gang stole the 2020 election. Nobody follows Joe Biden but the media wants the world to believe Biden’s the most popular President in US history. That’s a lie.”

    – Right Side Broadcasting

        1. Ahhhhrnold cheated on his wife, broke their family, violated his vows, caused untold harm and injury to their children and their mother, and had a son who will forever live with the fact he was created out of wedlock with a woman who will forever be shamed. Arnold is a true coward, not an alpha make at all

          1. LMAO. Trump cheated on all three of his wives, broke his family, violated his vows, caused untold harm and injury to his children and their motherS, and had a daughter who will forever live with the fact she was created out of wedlock.

            Melania was apparently so ticked off after learning that Trump had cheated on her with a porn star right after their son Barron was born that she used it to renegotiate her prenup before agreeing to move to DC and join Trump in the WH.

            Trump is a true coward, not an alpha make at all.

            If those things concern you for Arnold, they should also concern you for Trump.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid People have different life styles. When it comes to sex there are many different acceptable forms of behavior in cultures past and present. Some that might sound distasteful might have benefit to those involved. Who are you to decide what the morals of other people should be? Only those that are affected or need protection need have a voice.

              Your constant nagging about the sexual behavior of Trump doesn’t demonstrate intelligence or anything like intelligence. It mostly demonstrates partisanship and a Stupidity that goes along with it.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t want that but if that happened between two people that would be their business, not yours. You have difficulty understanding simple things of that nature. Do you know why? Because you are anonymous the Stupid.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, what is there to lie about? I guess you are acting Stupid again.

              1. Allan, you again demonstrate that you don’t read comments in context, since you are silent about nearly identical claims about Schwarzenneger that I was responding to. I was just pointing out the 3:43 PM Anonymous’s double standards.

                Your endless insults only reinforce that you’re an abusive person.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t know what you are taking about. You have to provide context or the responder has to respond to what he thinks you are talking about. Just like a name. If you don’t have one, one will be provided.

                  I don’t care what Arnold does and I don’t care what Trump does. Sexual mores have a lot to do with the culture of the people under discussion. You seem to have a lot of hang ups. You may also be very confused. I didn’t comment on Arnold or mention his name but I did respond to your Trumpy bear comment that made little sense.

                  1. Once again, you demonstrate that you don’t read comments in context. If you bothered to look on the page, you’d know that I was responding to a 3:43 PM comment from a different Anonymous that said “Ahhhhrnold cheated on his wife, broke their family, violated his vows, caused untold harm and injury to their children and their mother, and had a son who will forever live with the fact he was created out of wedlock with a woman who will forever be shamed. Arnold is a true coward, not an alpha make at all,” which is why I pointed out “If those things concern you for Arnold, they should also concern you for Trump.”

                    Don’t blame me for your choice not to read comments on the website in context.

                    1. You are Stupid. I get emails and they tell me who you are responding to. If you choose not to put the necessary information into your response you hold the blame if anyone doesn’t know who you are responding to. I am not the one that mentioned Arnold, That was someone else. Most of us don’t care to be linked or sent to other responses. You are not important and most of the time you are just being foolish.

                      I’m not concerned with the sexual habits of Arnold or Trump.You screwed up badly again Anonymous the Stupid.

                      Learn how to write.

                    2. And I am yet another person who posts anonymously. I think that this guy who posted at 7:48 and 9:26 is a bit off his rocker.

                      FWIW, I have not posted any comments in this sub-thread about AS.

                    3. Agreed. Allan is nuts and is probably just lashing out with what his own family says about him.

                    4. “Agreed. Allan is nuts “

                      3 responses in a row by Anonymous the Stupid that insult but say nothing. All come from Anonymous the Stupid. HE is calling in his pretend friends to demonstrate he has support. Facts could support what Anonymous the Stupid says, but he has no facts so he resorts to lies.

                      Keep it up Anonymous the Stupid and soon everyone will recognize the type of person you are… One that others should stay clear of.

                      Anonymous the Stupid should be cancelled but the cancel culture only comes from one side, the left, and that includes most Democrats.

            2. “LMAO. Trump cheated on all three of his wives, broke his family, violated his vows, caused untold harm and injury to his children and their motherS, and had a daughter who will forever live with the fact she was created out of wedlock.”

              All possibly true. All issues between Trump and his family. To the extent they are material to you – you can vote based on them.
              Though if this makes Trump unelectable it also makes Biden and Clinton unelectable.

              “Melania was apparently so ticked off after learning that Trump had cheated on her with a porn star right after their son Barron was born that she used it to renegotiate her prenup before agreeing to move to DC and join Trump in the WH.”

              I have no idea if that is true – nor do you. Nor is that my or your business.

              Not a Big Arnold fan either.

        2. The entity which appears above is T-800, a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Terminator.

          I have no idea of whom you speak.

  5. Below one party raised a question of Gun Control, I would recommend reading Federalist 45 which addresses the issue of Federal Tyranny. ——– Further Federalist 47 is apropos in todays environment and reads in part “…The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed , or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny…” We have reached the point where the executive and legislative branches are accumulatively controlled by a few, and a have weak judiciary that is easily swayed by the few. We also have bureaucratic, press and plutocracy elements that are in lock step with the few So sad that we have reached such a place in history, we are being pushed closer and closer to a tyrannical governing body.

    1. Manifest Despotism, Tyranny and Oppression

      Irrefutably and absolutely unconstitutional pure Marxism as affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, illegal immigration, student debt forgiveness, etc.
      _______________________________________________________

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,

      and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  6. As an academic statement I get what you’re saying, Turley.

    Then again, I can watch video like anyone else about what happened, physically, at the Capitol and can see Trump refusing to testify. Or see that the courts still have not settled getting Don McGahn to testify about his role within the Mueller report. Or the sheer hypocrisy of a senate leader saying he’s voting to acquit because it’s ‘unconstitutional’ to prosecute him after creating the condition personally that he maintains creates the unconstitutionality of said situation (pat yourself on the back for that gem, Jon) .

    And I can see a president impeached but not removed for lying about oral sex with an intern while one fully gets away with obstruction, extortion and incitement because his political party could not see fit to be open minded jurors while having control of the Senate.

    I think everything you point out in your post further drives home that the impeachment process is broken beyond repair, does not fit into modern reality, and despite the need for it within a healthy government, has become practically impossible to navigate within an extremely unhealthy government.

    I think the House Managers put on a stellar case. I see that 67 votes for impeachment is an impossibility in a government this polarized. I think McConnell’s tactics have made it such that the death of the filibuster and the electoral college are almost a necessity at this point.

    Elvis Bug

    1. Elvis bug, Clinton not only lied but he said that Monica was lying. Then the blue dress appeared. He not only lied but he and Hillary tried to destroy Monica’s life in order to maintain their power. The eventual outcome of their attempt to deceive was the election of Donald J. Trump. People did not forget. You continually try to minimize the actions of your buddies Bill and Hill. They are in great need of your assistance over at the Lincoln Project.

      1. Clinton and Trump have both engaged in sexual harassment / sexual abuse. Can you agree about that?

        Neither should ever be President again. Can you agree about that?

        AFAIK, Clinton has settled all of his related lawsuits about it, and Trump has at least two lawsuits pending about it.

        1. Just one difference in your comparison of sexual harassment by Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. A pesky little thing known as a blue dress with Bill’s DNA from his penis deposited on it. A young intern gave him his pleasure and he then called her a slut and a bimbo to save himself. So much for women’s rights.

          1. Maybe you should learn more about Carroll’s case. A judge has ordered Trump to provide a DNA sample to test against DNA on a black dress worn by E. Jean Carroll on the day she alleges Trump raped her.

            Trump denied ever having met her and said he had “no idea who she is” and that she was “totally lying.”

            He’s been fighting being deposed and giving the DNA sample.

            1. Ms. Carrol has spoken publicly – she has major credibility problems – as do you.
              Why am I to beleive the facts are as you claim ?

              So far Carrol has nothing to back up her claim. I do not know about this DNA and b lack dress.

              What I do know is that it would be unusual to order a DNA test based on the allegation you claim.

                1. “No one cares whether you think it unusual. ”
                  You speak for the world ?

                  ‘” judge ordered Trump to provide a DNA sample –
                  Trump has been trying to get out of it –”

                  And it will eventually get sorted out in the courts.

                  I would note this is not a rape case it is a .defamation case.
                  And the burden of proof is on Ms. Carroll.

                  1. “I do not know about this DNA and b lack dress.”

                    Now you do.

                    “this is not a rape case it is a .defamation case.”

                    Yep. I’ve said so previously, and so has Turley.

                    If it’s his DNA on her dress, that will help her prove her case. If you don’t understand why, you can read her court briefs.

                    1. ““I do not know about this DNA and b lack dress.”
                      Now you do.”

                      Nope, I just know that you beleive there is something important.

                      ““this is not a rape case it is a .defamation case.”
                      Yep. I’ve said so previously, and so has Turley.”
                      Standards are different.

                      “If it’s his DNA on her dress, that will help her prove her case.”
                      Again – it is not a rape case. The legal ability to get a DNA test will be different.
                      As YOU noted – Trump has appealed. the prerequisites to test DNA may not have been met.

                      ” If you don’t understand why, you can read her court briefs.”
                      Right!

                      I listened to her interviews. An unbiased Judge would need something of substance to preclude dismissing the case.

                      An allegation in a defamation case by the plantif is not enough to get a DNA test.

                      The burden of proof is on the plantiff – not just to prove defamation, but to prove that She and Trump were in the same place at the same time.

                      Plantiffs do not get to demand that defendants prove the plantifs case.

                  2. If you still don’t know, it’s by choice.

                    “Again – it is not a rape case. The legal ability to get a DNA test will be different.”

                    A judge already ordered it. You apparently haven’t even bothered to read the manner in which Trump was trying to get out of it it, which has also been ruled against. We’ll see where it goes from there.

                    “the prerequisites to test DNA may not have been met.”

                    That wasn’t the basis for the challenge.

                    “Plantiffs do not get to demand that defendants prove the plantifs case.”

                    True but irrelevant, since she isn’t doing that.

                    1. Wow! A judge has ordered it!

                      The US supreme Court also ordered Dred Scott back into slavery.

                      No I have not read a brief by one party in a lawsuit.

                      Based on the plantiff’s own public remarks – I see no reason Trump or anyone else should be required to provide her with DNA.

                      Providing your DNA to another person or to a court is a violation of their rights. That can only occur when the requirements of the fifth amendment have been met. I have not seen evidence that they have.
                      Perhaps the judge has, or perhaps he is wrong – that happens constantly.

                      Regardless, I have no problems with anyone – whether a criminal defendant, or civil party excercising every legal avenue available to them to resist forced DNA tests or blood tests or any other violations of their privacy.

                      And of course she is demanding that Trump prove her case. If she had enough evidence to be able to demand DNA – she would have sufficient proof that she would not need DNA – and the entire country would have heard of it.

                      One of the things we can absolutely trust from the left wing nut media – is that anything damaging to Trump – whether true or not, will be printed.

                    2. “Reading a single brief by a single party in a lawsuit and assuming that reflects the truth is the epitomy of illinformed.”

                      Which is why I pointed out that you can read ALL of the briefs by ALL of the parties, as well as the rulings by judges. You have chosen not to.

                      “The party making the claim bears the obligation to prove their claim.”

                      And as part of that, a judge ruled that Trump could be deposed and had to submit a DNA sample. Trump is getting help challenging that, and the issues will be settled by the courts.

                      “If she can prove her case then she does not need Trump’s DNA.”

                      Trump denies ever having met her. If it’s his DNA on her dress, that’s evidence that he lied about never having met her, which in turn makes his other claims about the encounter less reliable. Your personal opinion about whether she needs it is legally irrelevant.

                    3. Actually no you did not do that – you told me to read “the brief” not “the briefs”.
                      Judges BTW do not write briefs, they write opinions.

                      Regardless, the matter is being appealed. I am not a party to the lawsuit.
                      This is not the first such claim against Trump – though if it survived THAT would be a first.

                      I have listened to several interviews of Carroll that were her own attempts to present her case in a favorable light with favorable press and she failed miserably.

                      I will take interest in the goings in court when they reach finality.

                      You attempt to make significance of Trump challenging a court ruling that appears obviously wrong.
                      Trump would be free to challenge it even if it was obviously right.

                      This is likely years away from being a meaningful story – if ever.

                    4. If I claim that you sexually assaulted me, and you claim we never met, and I produce cloths from 20 years ago that i claim have your DNA on them – am I entitled to DNA test you ?

                      Of course not.
                      Before you can finger print, blood test, or DNA test someone – you need to establish some credible reason to suspect them.

                      I would not agree to provide my DNA to a random stranger – nor should you.

                      This is not about Trump.

                    5. “Actually no you did not do that – you told me to read “the brief” not “the briefs”. Judges BTW do not write briefs, they write opinions.”

                      I said “Not only can you read the brief by all parties involved, you can also read the rulings to date.” It was a typo that I left the “s” off of “briefs,” but should have been obvious that I was referring to a plural since I say “by all parties involved.” “Ruling” is another word for a judge’s “opinion.” Which is why I pointed out to you that “you can also read the rulings to date.”

                      “This is not the first such claim against Trump – though if it survived THAT would be a first.”

                      Correct, this is not the first defamation suit against Trump. Summer Zervos has also sued Trump for defamation. That suit has survived and is ongoing, so your conclusion is wrong.

                      “You attempt to make significance of Trump challenging a court ruling that appears obviously wrong.”

                      Actually, the only thing I find significant was the means by which he attempted to get it tossed. But of course, since you haven’t bothered to learn the details of the suit, you wouldn’t know about the unusual means.

                      “If I claim that you sexually assaulted me, and you claim we never met, and I produce cloths from 20 years ago that i claim have your DNA on them – am I entitled to DNA test you ?”

                      That’s not the question here, since she has already provided additional evidence, beyond what you describe. Evidence that you’re apparently not aware of because you’ve never bothered to read her brief and apparently also didn’t read the news reporting on it.

                    6. “I said “Not only can you read the brief by all parties involved, you can also read the rulings to date.” It was a typo that I left the “s” off of “briefs,”

                      Yes, you said that in your LAST post – not at the start of this.

                      Regardless, you have still not provided any reason for doing so.
                      I would pummel you over your typo – but I am not the anal pendantic idiot that you are.

                      There are times when it is important to be precise – such as when you are a prosecutor presenting evidence.
                      Something you still do not grasp.

                    7. “Actually, the only thing I find significant was the means by which he attempted to get it tossed. ”

                      You have bizzare criteria. Anyone having DNA demanded is entitled to make any argument they wish to thwart that.

                      You are never guilty for asserting your legal rights.

                    8. “That’s not the question here”
                      except that it is.

                      “since she has already provided additional evidence, beyond what you describe. Evidence that you’re apparently not aware of because you’ve never bothered to read her brief and apparently also didn’t read the news reporting on it.”

                      Then you would be able to cite that evidence yourself.

                      You do not seem to understand – you are not only posting as anonymous – which starts with little credibility.
                      But you have to the best anonymous can a reputation for error, misrepresentation and stupidity.

                      I am not going to beleive that something exists – merely because you claim it does.

                      I have yet to recall an instance where you linked to a news story or other source where it actually provided the evidence you claim it did.

                    9. “you have STILL not given me a reason to demand DNA from anyone.”

                      I’ve never made a claim about demanding DNA from random people. I pointed out that a judge ordered Trump to provide a DNA sample based on evidence presented in the case.

                      “Anyone having DNA demanded is entitled to make any argument they wish to thwart that.”

                      True, however, if you were informed about the case, you’d know that Trump’s personal lawyers weren’t making the most recent arguments.

                      “You are never guilty for asserting your legal rights.”

                      I haven’t suggested that anyone is.

                      “except that it is.”

                      No, it isn’t.

                      “you would be able to cite that evidence yourself.”

                      I can. I am choosing not to. Just like you often choose not to do things that are requested of YOU.

                      “I am not going to beleive that something exists – merely because you claim it does.”

                      I don’t expect you to. Likewise, I am not going to believe that something exists merely because YOU claim it does.

                      “I have yet to recall an instance where you linked to a news story or other source where it actually provided the evidence you claim it did.”

                      Then you have a bad memory, since I’ve done so more than once, including on this very page, for example, in the CNN article that provided evidence of my claim that Trump’s impeachment lawyers made false statements in the trial.

                      And since you’re growing increasingly insulting, and I find this exchange exceptionally boring at this point, I am unlikely to respond further.

                    10. If you do not want to be label ATS – do not make stupid arguments.

                      It is that simple.

                      I have been far more patient with you than others.

                      You have the absolute right to post anonymously.
                      You have the absolute right to post stupidly.

                      This is a different claim of misrepresentation by the Impeachment managers.

                      “It has been a bedrock principle of American due process for over half a century that if prosecutors are aware of evidence that would tend to show an allegation they made is false, inaccurate, or at least incapable of being proved, they have an obligation to disclose that fact to the accused.”
                      https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/02/what-happened-to-officer-sicknick/

                      But it is damning.

                    11. You do not seem to get it.

                      FIRST, I want YOUR argument.

                      I am not evaluating some link you offer out of the blue.

                      If i link to a page on ebay – it accurately reflects the current price of the object.

                      I can read or not read articles on CNN on my own.

                      I generally DO NOT use articles by media outlets – left or right – except where they argue AGAINST their own interests.

                      When FOX refutes something on the right, or CNN on the left they have credibility.

                      I am far more interested in specific sources that have a long history of accuracy and credibilty.

                      Glenn Greenwald has earned my respect, and trust. Andrew MacCarthy has. As have a number of others.

                      If you want my Trust – you will not offer random articles and rant – there is something of vague interest there.
                      If you do – which you do constantly – I am unlikely to read them.

                      If you want my Trust – you will say

                      X is True – and this article provides the following specific evidence of that.

                      I am tired of crap from you and others on the left of the form:

                      Trump or someone else lied – and here is an article to prove it.
                      Where the article either does not say that or if it does, it provides it as a naked assertion. not an actual quote.

                      This is actually worse than the Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax – which the House Managers once again inflicted on us.
                      As did Chris Wallace in the debates.

                      It is this kind of decepetion and lying that earns you and all those like you epitaphs such as STUPID.

                      I am tired of idiots making claims and then using as proof other people who make the same claims.

                      I do not need claims from another source. I want EVIDENCE. if you say someone lied – quote them in full, and in context.
                      And do not deceptively edit the quote.

                      Though even that would be an improvement over most of your evidence.

                    12. “If you do not want to be label ATS – do not make stupid arguments.”

                      Sure, John. Jump on that old bandwagon.

                    13. Is it a band wagon ? I had not noticed.

                      Regardless, avoiding accusations of stupidity by people who are not stupid is trivial.
                      Do not post stupid remarks.

                      This is not the 70’s. This is the internet era.

                      Real facts and real data are readily available.
                      You can know before post whether your claims are supported.

                  3. “No I have not read a brief by one party in a lawsuit.”

                    That helps explain why you’re ill-informed about the case. Not only can you read the brief by all parties involved, you can also read the rulings to date.

                    “of course she is demanding that Trump prove her case.”

                    No, she isn’t, though that doesn’t prevent you from falsely proclaiming she is.

                    1. Reading a single brief by a single party in a lawsuit and assuming that reflects the truth is the epitomy of illinformed.

                      It is like reading the Steele Dossier and presuming is the truth. briefs are not evidence – they are claims.

                      We establish the truth of claims by evidence. The party making the claim bears the obligation to prove their claim.

                    2. If she can prove her case then she does not need Trump’s DNA.

                      Further if she could prove her case you know damn well the media would have let all of us know in great detail – fabricated if need be.

                      Regardless, we see lots of allegations like Carrolls – whether against Trump or other wealthy people, or against high profile political figures.

                      And occasionally they even prove true.
                      But the NORM is they do not.

          2. Allan completely dates himself with a reference to “…gave him his pleasure.”

            Maybe Clinton hated himself for acting out on a sex addiction and he was miserable afterward.

              1. I think Anonymous the Stupid has cracked up. A bunch of his statements made no sense and this is not the first time he got confused with who he was talking to. It’s happened today more than once. The stress is getting to him.

                    1. You pretend, Allan/S. Meyer/Anonymous SM/Mark…and the alias list goes on…,

                      but the fact is — you can’t tell the various anonymous posters apart, as hard as you might be trying.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, you can hide but you can’t run away from who you are. We all know how you try to hide behind pretend friends and at times with an icon.

                    3. Correct – there is no certain means to tell one anonymous post from another.

                      There is no means for anyone posting anonymousely to estblish credibility, integrity, trust or intelligence.

                    4. Who cares about anonymous comments. No one is forcing anyone to read them. Read them or don’t read them — it’s up to you — but it’s certainly easy to simply ignore them.

                    5. “Who cares about anonymous comments.”

                      That response is correct and was perhaps made by Anonymous the Stupid himself. No one is forced to read anonymous comments and that is correct, but Anonymous the Stupid has a tendency to insult people involved in discussion through his behavior and actual insults.

                      The important thing to remember is that what preceded this comment was an excuse by Anonymous the Stupid that a lot of people post as anonymous. That might be true but as stated earlier “Yes, but only one anonymous is Anonymous the Stupid”.

                    6. “as stated earlier “Yes, but only one anonymous is Anonymous the Stupid”.”

                      “Anonymous the Stupid” is simply a name that Allan the Abusive uses in response to some anonymous comments. He uses it in response to more than one person. Allan the Abusive continues to pretend that he only uses it with one person, even though he’s been corrected more than once.

                    7. “Anonymous the Stupid” is simply a name…”

                      That is right, Anonymous the Stupid is named for a formerly anonymous individual known for being insulting and stupid. He posts mostly as anonymous but sometimes uses an icon and name. That is not enough for this pitiful soul so he has invented pretend friends that swarm over his “enemies” and pats Anonymous the Stupid on the back while calling themselves anonymous to hide their parent creature. That is good for his ego. His personality is not complete until one adds liar and ignorant.

                      It was necessary to cull this particular loser from the rest of the pack of anonymous dwellers. That is why I gave him a special name that fits. Even he recognizes the name and it sticks.

                    8. “Anonymous the Stupid is named for a formerly anonymous individual …”

                      No, Allan the Abusive, no matter how many times you lie about this, YOU use that name to address MORE THAN ONE person.

                      BTW, “formerly anonymous” means the person is no longer anonymous.

                      “He posts mostly as anonymous but sometimes uses an icon and name.”

                      What name and icon does he use, Allan?

                      “he has invented pretend friends”

                      You’re the one who does that, Allan. For example, you’ve posted as S. Meyer to compliment something you said as Mark N.

                      “His personality is not complete until one adds liar and ignorant.”

                      Once again you project your own behavior and weaknesses onto others.

                    9. Anonymous the Stupid, your name fits so wear it.

                      You complain about a bunch of aliases, but you don’t post under an alias, you post under Anonymous the Stupid. S. Meyer is distinguishable by his name and icon that is related to his address. Your’s blends in with others so one has to make a separation rather than deal in an amorphous sewer.

                      Surely you can understand that with so many responses between you and S. Meyer that names are almost a requirement for proper communication. You now have one. You don’t like it? Adopt your own alias and icon that is constant and not mixed with Anonymous the Stupid or other aliases. Stop hiding you miserable coward.

                      In the meantime, if you think S. Meyer is posting under another name you should present it loud and clear unless of course he does what you do and posts anonymously. At least with your name being Anonymous the Stupid one can separate you from the rest.

                    10. Allan the Abusive continues to respond with insults. Abusers shouldn’t be indulged as if they’re trying to engage in good faith.

                    11. Anonymous the Stupid, you are stuck. You can’t respond to any of the content and you are left holding the name Anonymous the Stupid that is not a random name. It represents your Stupidity that you wish to hide behind the simpler name, anonymous. Look at all the comments between the two of us and how little content you have added. Look at how much of that content was false.

                      If you did so blindly you would probably refer to yourself as Anonymous the Stupid.

        2. “Clinton and Trump have both engaged in sexual harassment / sexual abuse. Can you agree about that?”

          Clinton

          Proven allegations include Sexual Harrassment.
          Unproven credible allegations include Rape.

          Trump

          What has been proven is that he is a cad.
          And that he has been unfaithful.
          Most of the unproven allegations do not go much beyond he is a BIG Cad.

          Why did you omit Biden ?

          Biden
          Tara Reade is pretty credible and she alleges rape.
          There are signficantly more allegations of groping women regarding Biden than Trump
          There are allegations of Biden behaving inappropriately with children.

          If this is your criteria for judging politicians – none of these men should ever have been elected president.
          I did not vote for Any of them.

          My conscience is clear.

          As to other criteria – Trump has probably been the best president for foriegn policy since Nixon – possibly ever
          Certainly Clinton and Obama and Bush sucked

          Clinton beats Trump with respect to the Economy. With the exception of his effort to nationalize healthcare he was economically conservative.

          “Neither should ever be President again. Can you agree about that?”

          Nope. I would take Clinton or Trump over Bush, Obama or Biden.

          As to lawsuits – Trump is a Billionaire. He is going to have lawsuits all the time.
          that is meaningless.

        3. It is easy for a hypocrite to make that statement. Clinton can’t run again. Trump can. There is also a world of difference between accusations and accusations that were proven.

          If you were sincere and not a hypocrite you would be saying that Clinton should have been removed from office. But you don’t make that type of statement. Hypocritical of you.

          My answer (said long ago) is the neither should have been removed from office and neither impeached.

    2. “can see Trump refusing to testify”

      Defendants, including innocent ones, very often do not testify at trial. There is often little to gain. Especially when the prosecution is lacking any evidence to make their case for the charge. That’s why a defendant not speaking in their own defense cannot be counted against them at trial. Raskin lied to people by suggesting a negative inference could be properly drawn from Trump’s refusal to testify.

      “Or the sheer hypocrisy of a senate leader saying he’s voting to acquit because it’s ‘unconstitutional’ to prosecute him after creating the condition personally that he maintains creates the unconstitutionality of said situation”

      Huh? McConnell believes it’s unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for an official no longer in office. Many share that view. During the “trial”, the impeachment of Belknap was raised several times as evidence of such a late impeachment being constitutional. What they failed to mention is that after the Senate voted by simple majority that they had jurisdiction in the Belknap case, he was acquitted because more than 1/3 still believed they did NOT have jurisdiction. In a normal trial, it takes all 12 members of the jury to find someone Guilty. Any less and the person is considered Not Guilty. When it comes to impeachment, it requires 2/3 for any meaningful decision. The impeachment trial of Belknap ultimately ruled that the Senate did NOT have jurisdiction to try his impeachment after he was out of office.

      And in terms of prosecuting Trump after, that is almost certainly not going to happen because the House Managers made clear during their arguments that even though they were alleging a crime of “incitement to insurrection”, they were not using the normal legal definitions of either “incitement” or “insurrection”. In a legal context, the allegation would be dead on arrival. Trump’s speech was not legal incitement in any sense. Not even close.

      “And I can see a president impeached but not removed for lying about oral sex with an intern while one fully gets away with obstruction, extortion and incitement”

      Huh? Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and witness tampering/intimidation in connection with his sex scandal. His actions met the legal definitions of those charges and there was no dispute that he had committed them. But he was acquitted in his Senate trial because those crimes were not deemed sufficiently serious to remove a President. Trump was also impeached and also acquitted. The main difference is that the allegations against Trump were speculative, did not meet the legal definition of any crime, were disputed, and were not supported by any reliable evidence.

      “I think the House Managers put on a stellar case.”

      Huh? What “trial” were you watching? Here are some of the things the House Managers did to make their “stellar case”:

      – Appealed to emotion rather than logic and sound evidence

      – Accused Trump of a crime and then disregarded the legal definition of the crime and all of its constituent elements

      – Argued that a President being submitted to a constitutional process (impeachment) had no constitutional protections or rights

      – Lied by telling Senators that because a simple majority had decided the Senate had jurisdiction, a senator couldn’t vote to acquit based on not having jurisdiction

      – Relied on faulty and biased news reports rather than legitimate evidence that had been properly vetted

      – Doctored evidence

      – Misrepresented evidence

      – Misquoted Trump, changing his words and misrepresenting both their timing and context

      – Deceptively edited video footage by altering the timeline and location

      – Deceptively edited video footage of Trump’s speech, removing elements that explicitly showed the context was completely different from what the House Managers were claiming. (For example, Trump made comments about *members of congress* fighting by objecting to unlawfully slated electors and the House Managers made it appear as though he was telling *the crowd* to fight by attacking the Capitol. And Trump said that if the members of congress didn’t do what they should by objecting to unlawful electors, voters should support challengers in their next primaries, but the House Managers made it appear as though he was telling the crowd to respond with violence).

      – Claimed Trump didn’t care about the security of the Capitol while ignoring that he had pre-approved 10,000 National Guard troops to be present because of the expected size of the crowd but their support was refused by Capitol Police, possibly at the instruction of Pelosi, though that doesn’t seem certain at this point.

      – Downplayed the fact that the riot started while Trump was still on stage a 45 minute walk away from the Capitol Building and that those who attended his speech didn’t even arrive on the scene till an hour after the riot had started. (To this I’d add the side point that the people involved in the riot almost certainly didn’t even hear Trump’s speech because cell service was down in the area for hours surrounding the riot, both before and after, because cell networks were overwhelmed by the number of people present.)

      – Lied about the election fraud court cases. They pretended that every case brought was connected to the Trump campaign when the campaign was actually only connected to a few of them, most of which were connected to election laws being changed unconstitutionally. They also lied by claiming that all of the cases were dismissed because they lacked evidence. That’s untrue. The VAST majority of all of the election fraud cases were dismissed for procedural reasons (standing, laches, mootness), and not because there was no evidence. The courts largely just refused to adjudicate the issue and didn’t hold normal evidentiary hearings. Even the very few that addressed some evidentiary issues didn’t do so fully. They didn’t have oral arguments and only allowed a small sampling to be submitted for consideration. This doesn’t automatically mean there WAS sufficient fraud to change the outcome, but what it DOES mean is that the QUESTION of whether or not there was remains completely unsettled and the strongest, non-speculative evidence was never even addressed in court because the related cases were dismissed, again, for things like lack of standing.

      And those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. The only reason they got 57 guilty votes was because of the absurd circumstances of the trial, where the jury was made up of the victims themselves, and one of those victim jury members was also serving as the judge, who just so happened to have said the Defendant was guilty before the trial even started. No honest and objective person watching that trial and expecting even a modicum of fairness, due process or a requirement for legitimate evidence would have voted to convict. Personal hatred and emotion is the only thing that could get you to guilty.

      1. I agree with every single FACT you just posted.

        now lets ask the question…was it ONLY HATRED that drove this madness?

        it’s a serious question…Because we seem to want to give an easy answer to a question that should be very important enough to realize it’s unlikely to have such an easy answer..no?

        could it BE that one main driver of this impeachment was not merely to cause a removal of President Trump from any future elected office, but to send a strong signal to anyone they consider a threat ?

        isn’t that more plausible?

        President Trump yanked the curtains down…it was a series of actions. And these PEOPLE currently installed in congress all got exposed for the common corrupt self interested tools that they are. These people ALSO understood THIS EXPOSURE was far more likely to gain legitimate action from the citizens who cannot unsee the corruption. The meme is correct: “they aren’t after me (trump), I’m just in the way…they are ultimately after you!”. this is not some paranoid notion either. The people feel it because they are living it. They see President Trump having exposed the corruption ..something they have observed and been incapable of expressing in the democractic process. THat all changed when president Trump was elected. So we can’t dismiss this entire impeachment as just simple hatred. These corruptors are very nervous and they have all decided the best way to avoid any more exposure is to make an example out of President Trump..to shut it down…so they can continue the same corrupt acts without any serious push back and exposure.

        and I am talking about BOTH parties here to be clear….up and down…federal and state…corporate and media.
        a
        these corruptors hold great power and they have abused it at the expense of the American people.

        President Trump was not just an outsider…He threatened exposure …..at every level of corruption they spared no expense to prevent that from happening.

        everyone KNOWS this…we can dispense with this illusion that it did not happen.

        the election was a fraud for lots of reasons…
        one cannot in any sane world believe that Joe Biden, ambulatory, senile, demonstrably proven idiot and kamala harris WON an election. No one can believe that.

        the reality is that Trump was removed from office and the people were punished for selecting him TWICE…

        we know who our enemy is and it has a name: corruption…contained in a small group who have committed so many crimes with zero consequences and accountability, what is a little election fraud …?

      2. heks: That is an excellent summary and a devastating analysis. Thank you.

        “Personal hatred and emotion is the only thing that could get you to guilty.”

        Which, of course, was the whole point of their high-production, low-content video. It was designed to short-circuit the brain, and tug at emotions. It was a propaganda piece created by demagogues.

        1. Yeah, Sam, that actor they had pretending to be Trump was really bad. Nobody would follow a goon like that in real life.

      3. Tend to believe actual video and that the Senate should actually abide by consensus they’ve voted on previously. Dunno. Guess it’s just a little quirk I have.

        EB

      4. BTW, the doctoring video evidence deflection? Probably grounds for sanctioning trump’s lawyers for actively lying before the tribunal. Also love how you guys slither between high crimes and crimes depending on whichever bit of rhetoric you’re employing. I’m perversely impressed.

        EB

        1. I can cite how the house lawyers lied or committed fraud.

          The misrepresented a tweet, and they misrepresented an exchange between Trump and Sen. Lee.
          They are forged a tweet.

          These are all demonstable facts.

          Further prosecutors have a much higher duty to the truth. They represent the government.
          We expect defendants to lie. The world will not end if they do.
          But when govenrment lies – we have no lawful government.

          1. “The misrepresented a tweet, and they misrepresented an exchange between Trump and Sen. Lee. They are forged a tweet.”

            They added a blue check mark to a tweet.
            Lee alleged some unspecified false claim by Cicilline. Leea did not do so under oath, and he did not specify what he was referring to. You don’t know whether they actually misrepresented anything. All you know is that Lee alleged they did, but you don’t know if he was telling the truth. For all you know, he misheard whatever he had in mind. We don’t know, since he never specified what it was.

            “We expect defendants to lie.”

            We don’t expect their LAWYERS to lie. I don’t know if they were lying or only mistaken, but they made false statements. Some discussion here –
            https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/fact-check-trump-defense-impeachment-trial/index.html

            1. “They added a blue check mark to a tweet.”
              Yes, that is called tampering with evidence.
              BTW they also misrepresented the meaning of the Tweet.

              The author was the leader of a church group. Her “cavalry” was a prayer circle.
              The House managers would have known that had they bothered to do the least bit of inquiry.

              This is a near perfect reflection of the core problem of you, democrats, and the left.
              You insist on reading the meaning of everything in the way that suits your ideology – not the way that suits the facts.

              Kamala Harris urging violent protestors to “fight, fight fight” is not incitement – because YOU decided that she did not mean burn and loot and engage in violence. But when Trump asks protestors to carry on the fight peacefully – in your warped mind – that is dog whistles for burn the place down.

              I would note that contrary to Joe Scarborough – burning down a taco stand is far more serious than breaking down the doors to the capital

              Last – there is another obvious reason the house managers were lying about that Tweet – there was no “cavalry”.
              Not even the house manager’s intended us to beleive that Tweet meant that soldiers on horseback were coming.
              No one beleives the tweet was literally correct. Since cavalry can not be literally correct, the House managers were obligated to determine CORRECTLY what it meant figuratively. They are NOT free to “guess”.
              The author of the tweet claims it was a prayer circle. The house managers are free to differ – but if they want to introduce the tweet as actual evidence – either there must be a literal cavalry, or they must PROVE that calvary’s figurative meaning is dangerous.
              Say like a militia company with AR-15’s – so where is that militia company ?

              You can not claim – the tweet is not meant to be taken literally, but it MUST be taken as dangerous – absent establishing a danger that is REAL.

              It is a LIE to claim a non-literal meaning for something someone else says without proving that meaning correct.

              “Lee alleged”
              Still on this nonsense.

              This is simple – Lee knows what Trump said. Trump knows what Trump said.
              WaPo does NOT know what Trump said.
              Cecilline offered WaPo’s story – that is not even hearsay as evidence of what Trump said.

              That is knowingly offering as evidence information that you KNOW can not be known to be true.
              It is unethical. WaPo does not know what Trump said, and cecilline knows that.

              Both Ciciline and Lee are bound by the code of professsional responsibility. They both have a duty of candor to the court.
              One of them is lying – and the burden of proof in this instance is on Cicilline.
              When a lawyer offers evidence – it is their duty to be sure it is true. This is doubly true of prosecutors.

              “You don’t know whether they actually misrepresented anything.”
              Correct – I know that either Lee or WaPo is lying. AND I know that Cecilline can not know that WaPo is telling the truth,
              And that Cecilline is offering WaPo’s story is true. The burden of proof is on Cecilline and he can not possibly meet it.
              That is why the house managers withdrew the evidence never returned to it.

              “For all you know, he misheard whatever he had in mind.”
              Not relevant. Even if Lee misheard Trump – only Lee and Trump know what was said.
              WaPo does not – and Cecilline KNOWS that.

              “We don’t know, since he never specified what it was.”
              But we DO know that WaPo does not know what was said.

              “”We expect defendants to lie.”

              We don’t expect their LAWYERS to lie.”
              Correct, But lawyers are allowed to beleive their defendents version of events.
              Prosecutors are obligated to KNOW the Truth.

              I do not need CNN to try to explain legal ethics to me – especially given they are clueless about journalistic ethics.

              1. “they also misrepresented the meaning of the Tweet. Her “cavalry” was a prayer circle.”

                Once again, you show you don’t attend to relevant details. She actually said that when she wrote “Calvary” (not “cavalry”), it wasn’t a typo. The Calvary is not a prayer circle, it’s the hill where Christ was crucified. Let her testify about her tweet under oath. She can be questioned under oath about whether it was a typo (or even a malapropism where she has long misunderstood the phrase “we’re bringing the cavalry”), and if not, whether she was implying crucifixion of Trump’s opponents. After all, someone else constructed a gallows.

                “This is simple – Lee knows what Trump said. Trump knows what Trump said.”

                This is simple: Lee did not specify what the error was, and he was not under oath.

                “There is no such thing as an innocent alteration of evidence.”

                False. It’s definitely possible to alter something by mistake. The first thing is to determine who added it and question the person under oath. Fox News said that a senior aide said it was added by accident when they were creating the large image to display to the Senate in the trial.

                1. First – her group was a prayer circle – that is true independent of her tweet. This alone is evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers.

                  Next, you are clearly unfamiliar with evangelicals.

                  Calvary has myriads of meanings. It is a place, it is an event, it is a symbol, it is a transformation, it is a promise, it is a contract, it is a state of being and many other things.

                  Evangellicals constantly talk of visiting Calvary – RARELY they mean literally going to the place
                  in Israel where christ died. Most often they are talking of a coming to a personal realization.

                  Calvary frequently means “intervention” – similar to “calling in the cavalry” – but intervention by GOD not man.

                  Are you claiming that Congress can impeach Trump because his followers asked and expected GOD to intervene at the capital ?

                  Lets assume that Trump’s followers were channeling Joshuah at the battle of Jericho.
                  If the asked God to tear down the capital and God did not – is that impeachable ?
                  And what if God did ? Would that be impeachable ?

                  1. “First – her group was a prayer circle – that is true independent of her tweet. This alone is evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers.”

                    That’s your opinion. My opinion is that it isn’t evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers. My opinion is that they made a totally normal assumption that she misspelled “cavalry,” which is neither a failure nor a misrepresentation, especially since they literally showed a quote of her actual tweet to the Senate simultaneously.

                    As for all of your claims about evangelicals, notice that once again, you make a lot of claims without providing any evidence for them. You’re not a credible source, so until you provide evidence, it’s simply your opinion.

                    “Are you claiming …”

                    Some advice that should be obvious: if I have claimed it, then I’m not claiming it.

                    “First – there was no CAVALARY.”

                    Once again, I encourage you to learn and understand the idiomatic meaning of bringing the cavalry.

                    “Only an uninformed idiot would be so confused as to beleive that any christian – evangelical or not would use Calvary as a threat to crucify others. ”

                    That’s clearly false. As I already pointed out to you, Father James Martin, who is not just Christian but a priest, and who is not at all an “uninformed idiot” said “What would it mean for Twitter users to say they’re “bringing the Calvary”? Calvary, or Golgotha, was the hill on which Jesus was crucified. It makes no sense (unless they’re implying crucifixion of their opponents). No Christian I’ve ever met says, “We’re bringing the Calvary.””

                    1. ““First – her group was a prayer circle – that is true independent of her tweet. This alone is evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers.”

                      That’s your opinion.”

                      Not an oppinion – it is a FACT.
                      Her group was a prayer circle.
                      The house managers either knew that and lied by omission. Or failed to enquire and lied by false presumption.

                      They are acting as prosecutors. They are obligated to present FACTS – not assumptions.

                      “My opinion is that it isn’t evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers.”
                      And that opinion would be wrong.
                      You seem to think all opinions are equal – they are not. Most opinions are wrong.

                      “My opinion is that they made a totally normal assumption that she misspelled “cavalry,””
                      They are prosecutors, they are NOT entitled to make assumptions. When they present evidence it must be established FACT – not innuendo or assumption.

                      “which is neither a failure nor a misrepresentation,”
                      It is clearly one or the other or both.

                      “especially since they literally showed a quote of her actual tweet to the Senate simultaneously.”
                      No they presented altered evidence. Once they did that you can not trust anything they provide.

                      There is rarely an innocent explanation for presenting false evidence.
                      There is never an innocent explanation for presenting altered evidence.

                      “As for all of your claims about evangelicals, notice that once again, you make a lot of claims without providing any evidence for them. You’re not a credible source, so until you provide evidence, it’s simply your opinion.”
                      Actually I AM a credible source on evangelicals. I live in a place Jerry Falwell called the Buckle on the Bible Belt.
                      Regardless, this is NOT about my claims – it is about YOURS – as well as the impeachment managers.
                      There are many possible meanings of Calvary – including as a type for “Cavalry”.
                      There are no credible meanings that support the meaning that the house managers or more stupidly YOU try to impose.
                      It is irrelevant what my “opinion” of the meaning it. What is relevant is that the house managers meaning is facially false.
                      There was no “cavalry” – in the sense of organized armed dangerous men affilitated with Lawrence.
                      Any other meaning ov Cavalry or Calvery is not useful to impeach.

                      As to Your “oppinion” – it is so ludicrously stupid even the house managers did not go with it.
                      Crucifixion is an honor for evangelicals. They would NEVER crucify enemies.

                      But as is typical, you know nothing about the things you speak. You are poorly educated, and incapable of critical thinking.

                      ““First – there was no CAVALARY.”

                      Once again, I encourage you to learn and understand the idiomatic meaning of bringing the cavalry.”

                      Was Lawrence threatening to bring her group of armed dangerous organized people ? If so WHERE ARE THEY ?
                      In FACT there was no Lawrence cavalry – in any meaning that supports impeachment.

                      We are AFTER THE FACT. We are no longer free to argue what Lawrence MIGHT have meant.
                      We are limited to those things that are POSSIBLE based on actual facts.

                      ““Only an uninformed idiot would be so confused as to beleive that any christian – evangelical or not would use Calvary as a threat to crucify others. ””

                      Please read your quote from your priest. First is makes no sense. Next his argument is that Lawrence meant Cavalry.

                      Next, you are citing a catholic priest regarding evangelicals. Would you cite him as an expert on Martin Luther’s 95 theses ?

                      Calvary is a synonym for martydom. It also means an experience of intense suffering.

                      I’m very proud of ‘Calvary.’ It’s been doing well; it has legs. It’s no easy ride. It packs a punch, this one.
                      Brendan Gleeson

                      It’s a real blessing for me to tell you, sir, that calvary has arrived – Fox is here! Glenn Beck

                    2. “No, my claim is true and relevant.”
                      And the sun will not rise tomorow.

                      ““House managers introduced the WaPo story as evidence. It is not. PERIOD.”

                      I don’t think they said it was from the Post, and the Post isn’t the only outlet that wrote about it, and I also gave a link earlier to a Deseret News article that Cicilline seemed to be quoting from, so I’m not sure why you keep insisting it was the Post.”
                      Does not matter – news stories are not evidence.

                      “Regardless, Lee himself had already confirmed the contents of the story in text messages to reporter Bryann Schott.”
                      False, Lee provided the facts.

                      You do not seem to grasp that statements by Lee are evidence. News Stories are not.
                      Anything in the news beyond what Lee says. Is either false or speculation.

                      Further it is NOT Lee’s obligation to prove misrepresentation by the Media.

                      Lee is a primary source – evidence. The Media is not.

                      ” I pointed that out to you earlier as well. For a fact check”
                      Not EVER interested inn a fact check source from you.
                      Either you can refer to primary sources – in this case that is Leee and ONLY Lee,
                      or what you claim is garbage.

                      ““There are only two people who can confirm what Trump said to Lee – Lee and Trump.”

                      For the umpteenth time, Lee ALREADY confirmed it in text messages to reporter Bryan Schott.”
                      Nope. Lee did not CONFIRM anything.

                      You still get things BACKWARDS. Lee’s statements are EVIDENCE. News Stories are NOT.

                      The House managers are free to use the statments Lee made publicly – and ONLY that.
                      Not paraphrases, not analaysis, not embelishments,
                      Anything beyond the actual words of Lee is by definition MISREPRESENTATION.

                      And Again – Lee does not confirm news stories – He can not.
                      Lee is the PRIMARY SOURCE. Absent Trump speaking he is the ONLY source.

                      You are trying to go backwards down a one way street.

                      “How many times do I have to point this out to you?”
                      You can do so forever – it does not change the fact that you ware WRONG.

                      ““News stories are NOT evidence.”
                      “ALL OF IT was misrepresentation.”

                      False.”
                      Nope.
                      You can not get news stories admitted as evidence – because they are not.
                      You can admit the actual testimony of the source that a news story might use.

                      “”The house managers had or could have asked for the opportunity to elicit the actual conversation from Lee. They did not.”
                      False. They can absolutely be evidence”
                      Nope

                      “True but irrelevant, as Lee had already confirmed via text message what was reported.”
                      Still backwards. Still wrong.

                      ““”It’s definitely possible to alter something by mistake.” Really ?”

                      Really. If you work on your reading comprehension, you’ll know that “possible” does not imply that alterations are always by. mistake.”
                      Keep making stupid arguments.

                      Again you are deluded about Evidence.

                      Provide an example anytime anywhere that a prosecutor altered evidence by ADDING something that was just a simple mistake.

                      regardless, your argument is stupid. There is no innocent explanation for the alteration of evidence.

                  2. “Not an oppinion – it is a FACT.”

                    No, your statement that “This alone is evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers” is not a fact. It’s your opinion. It’s a fact that she had a prayer circle, but it’s not a fact that Swalwell interpreting “Calvary” as a typo for “cavalry” is evidence of misrepresentation. His is a totally normal interpretation, given the frequency with which people misspell “cavalry” and “bring in the Calvary” NOT being a standard Christian saying.

                    “Her group was a prayer circle. The house managers either knew that and lied by omission. Or failed to enquire and lied by false presumption.”

                    We still don’t know that it’s false. She hasn’t testified about it under oath. In addition, a false assumption is not a lie. A lie is a false statement made knowing that it’s false. If the person doesn’t know it’s false, it’s not a lie.

                    “”My opinion is that it isn’t evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers.” And that opinion would be wrong.”

                    Nope. Opinions aren’t factual claims. They aren’t T/F statements.

                    “You seem to think all opinions are equal”

                    No, I don’t. You once again present a faulty inference.

                    “Most opinions are wrong.”

                    No, they aren’t. Again: opinions aren’t factual claims.

                    “They are prosecutors, they are NOT entitled to make assumptions.”

                    You haven’t cited any law to back up your claim.

                    “”especially since they literally showed a quote of her actual tweet to the Senate simultaneously.” No they presented altered evidence. Once they did that you can not trust anything they provide.”

                    The only thing that was altered was the addition of a blue checkmark that shouldn’t have been there. I already condemned that. But that checkmark doesn’t change the verbal content of the tweet. I don’t care whether you trust them. The FACT remains that they literally showed a QUOTE of what she said as they were discussing it, and that QUOTE was accurate.

                    “Actually I AM a credible source on evangelicals.”

                    You’re not a credible source about anything. You make a lot of claims but you hardly ever present evidence to back up your claims, and too many of your purportedly factual claims are false, which makes you not credible.

                    “this is NOT about my claims”

                    That’s false.

                    “it is about YOURS – as well as the impeachment managers.”

                    It’s about yours, mine, the House Managers AND the defense lawyers. As long as YOU make claims, YOU have a burden of proof for your claims, just like everyone else does.

                    “the house managers meaning is facially false.”

                    No, it isn’t. It’s so common for someone to write one for the other that the Merriam Webster Dictionary has a discussion about it, which I linked to earlier.

                    “As to Your “oppinion” – it is so ludicrously stupid even the house managers did not go with it.”

                    It’s not mine. Jeez, even when I quote someone else, you can’t keep it straight. I’m not Father Martin.

                    “But as is typical, you know nothing about the things you speak. You are poorly educated, and incapable of critical thinking.”

                    Like Allan, you get off on insulting people, and your insults are often projection.

                    Once again, I encourage you to learn and understand the idiomatic meaning of “bringing the cavalry.”

                    “Please read your quote from your priest.”

                    I did.

                    “you are citing a catholic priest regarding evangelicals.”

                    No, I was citing a Catholic priest regarding his interpretation of the word “Calvary” used by Christians and whether in makes sense in the phrase “bring the Calvary.” He didn’t say anything about evangelicals, nor did I cite him about evangelicals.

                    “I’m very proud of ‘Calvary.’ It’s been doing well; it has legs. It’s no easy ride. It packs a punch, this one. Brendan Gleeson”

                    LMAO. Who knows if he actually said that, but if he did, he was presumably talking about the movie titled “Calvary” he starred in, in which he plays a Catholic priest. I refer you back to your projection “you know nothing about the things you speak”

                    “It’s a real blessing for me to tell you, sir, that calvary has arrived – Fox is here! Glenn Beck”

                    I have no reason to assume that that’s an actual quote from Glenn Beck, since none of the websites I looked at that attribute it to him provide any evidence of him having said it (they don’t give a date, they don’t link to an article, they don’t quote a longer excerpt, they don’t include video, …). But if you have a valid citation, I’d be happy to

                    1. “No, your statement that “This alone is evidence of the failure and misrepresentation of house managers” is not a fact. It’s your opinio”
                      Nope, it is a fact.

                      “It’s a fact that she had a prayer circle,”
                      Correct.

                      “but it’s not a fact that Swalwell interpreting “Calvary” as a typo for “cavalry” is evidence of misrepresentation.”
                      Not what I said. HOWEVER – it IS misrepresentation.

                      The house impeachment managers are PROSECUTORS. They are obligated to be SURE.
                      Any “interpretation” absent significant additional support is MISREPRESENTATION.
                      Again A FACT, not an opinion.

                      ” His is a totally normal interpretation”
                      False and irrelevant. The tweet was offered as Evidence – not a subjective interpretation.
                      This was offered as evidence in an impeachment trial. It was not offered in casual conversation over cocktails.
                      It was offered in a context in which misrepresentation is inherently not innocent, where there is a DUTY to be correct.

                      And as I noted even if you assume it means Cavalry – there was no cavalry – not literally, not semi-literally.
                      There were no squads of armed horsemen. There were no companies of armed militias. .

                      There was a prayer circle. Had house managers actually INVESTIGATED the tweet, they would not have had to “interpret” it,
                      Regardless, they KNEW there was no “Cavalry’ in any sense that made the tweet evidence.

                      ““bring in the Calvary” NOT being a standard Christian saying. and your evidence of this is a priest who thinks it means crucify your enemies something no evangelical would every do.

                      “We still don’t know that it’s false.”
                      Of course we do – There was no cavalry.

                      “She hasn’t testified about it under oath.”
                      Correct, she was not even interviewed by house managers.
                      They made obviously false assumptions and never bothered to check anything.
                      That is a textbook example of prosecutorial malfeasance and misrepresentation.

                      “In addition, a false assumption is not a lie.”
                      When offered as evidence it is.

                      “A lie is a false statement made knowing that it’s false.”
                      Incorrect. A false statement where there is a duty to be truthful is a lie.

                      “If the person doesn’t know it’s false, it’s not a lie.”
                      Offered as evidence in the prosecution of another it is either true or it is a lie.
                      The senate chamber during an impeachment is not cocktails at Ruby Tusdays’
                      There is a duty to present truthful evidence.

                      “Nope. Opinions aren’t factual claims. They aren’t T/F statements.”
                      Obviously false.

                      Try – in my opinion the sun will not rise tomorow.

                      That is an opinion, It is also false – or it will be tomorow morning.

                      Many things that are not factual claims are still false.

                      ““They are prosecutors, they are NOT entitled to make assumptions.”

                      You haven’t cited any law to back up your claim.”
                      Rules of professional conduct, Rule 3.3 Candor to a Tribunal.

                      “The only thing that was altered …”
                      Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

                      “You’re not a credible source about anything.”
                      I have spent thousands of hours with actual evangelicals.
                      I met Jerry Falwell, and Jimmy Swiegart in person.
                      I was part of an evangelical bible study for over a decade.
                      I have read the bible cover to cover and debated it with real evangelicals.

                      ATS it should be obvious by now that I do not say things that are not true.
                      I have earned credibility, integrity and trust.

                      That is not hard to do – it is surprising how few people do it.
                      All that is required is not to say things that are not True.

                      To not alter evidence and put blue checks where they are not.
                      To not concoct Cavalry’s from thin air.
                      To check facts when there is any doubt.

                      These are not hard things. But you do not do them. The house managers did not do them.

                      As such they are not entitled to trust about anything.

                      “It’s about yours, mine, the House Managers AND the defense lawyers. ”

                      Nope, I am not prosecuting anyone. You asked for the criteria for the house managers – I provided it.
                      You challenged my knowledge of evangelicals – I provided a basis.

                      You have still not supported much of anything.

                      “As long as YOU make claims, YOU have a burden of proof for your claims, just like everyone else does.”
                      incorrect. If I accuse you of lying – the burden of proof is on me and it is high. If I fail to provide proof, and I am accused of making a false accusation – the burden of proof is STILL on me.

                      “It’s so common for someone to write one for the other”
                      Irrelevant. We are dealing with prosecutorial evidence presented to a tribunal. A much higher standard applies.
                      Regardless, you clearly do not know what facially false means.
                      I would further note that had Lawrence written Cavalry – it would STILL be facially false.

                      There was literally – no Calvary.
                      There was Literally – no Cavalry
                      Further there was figuratively no cavalry or calvary.

                      All of this was known to the house managers at the time they presented the tweet as evidence.
                      There is no meaning consistent with malfeasance by Trump or his supporters that was true.

                      There was a prayer group.

                      Are you arguing that the impeachment managers are justified in demanding Trump’s impeachment for inpiring Lawrence to call in a prayer group ?

                      “It’s not mine. Jeez, even when I quote someone else, you can’t keep it straight. I’m not Father Martin.”
                      You offered it – you own it.

                      “Like Allan, you get off on insulting people”
                      No I do not. I would greatly prefer if you were capable of offering good arguments and critical thinking.
                      But you are what you are.

                      The truth does not care about your feelings.

                      “Once again, I encourage you to learn and understand the idiomatic meaning of “bringing the cavalry.””
                      There is not a meaning consistent with an impeachable offense that is supportable by the known facts with the benefit of hindsight as the impeachment managers had.

                      “No, I was citing a Catholic priest regarding his interpretation of the word “Calvary” used by Christians”
                      Evangelicals are a very distinct subset of christians – one which few catholic priests have a clue.
                      Calvary has special significance to evangelicals more so than most christians.

                      “He didn’t say anything about evangelicals, nor did I cite him about evangelicals.”
                      Which is why he and you are useless in this argument.

                      “Who knows if he actually said that”
                      Brainy quotes knows – as is a video on Youtube.

                      “but if he did, he was presumably talking about the movie titled “Calvary” he starred in, in which he plays a Catholic priest.”
                      Yes. Do you have a point ? While this particular use is not evangelical. it is completely inconsistent with your claims.
                      I would further note that it IS a reference to a movie title. But like “the sound and the fury” – it is ALSO a reference to suffering, martyrdom, and to Golgotha.

                      Put simply it means MANY things. There fore there is no automatically correct meaning.

                      “I refer you back to your projection “you know nothing about the things you speak””
                      No only have I spent thousands of hours with evangelicals. But I am also of Irish descent on both sides of my family and catholic.
                      So I have some understanding of Irish Catholics.

                      ““It’s a real blessing for me to tell you, sir, that calvary has arrived – Fox is here! Glenn Beck”

                      I have no reason to assume that that’s an actual quote from Glenn Beck,”
                      Try brainy quotes.

                      “since none of the websites I looked at that attribute it to him provide any evidence of him having said it (they don’t give a date, they don’t link to an article, they don’t quote a longer excerpt, they don’t include video, …). But if you have a valid citation, I’d be happy to”

                      So a quote is not a quote without a date, a link to an article, a longer excerpt and a video ?

                      Odd you will forgive house managers for “accidentally” inserting a blue checkmark,
                      But from the rest of us you want dates, times, and “hand” sizes.

                2. If they had wanted her under oath they had plenty of time to do so .
                  Clearly house managers did not even speak to her.
                  I doubt she would have had any problems doing so.

                  Regarldless – your argument is completely bat$hit.

                  First – there was no CAVALARY.

                  There is no possible meaning of her tweet that includes large numbers of organized and armed people.

                  Because no such group existed.

                  As to CALVARY – that is a story of redemption willing victimization.

                  Only an uninformed idiot would be so confused as to beleive that any christian – evangelical or not would use Calvary as a threat to crucify others. Evangelicals in particular identify strongly with being cruicified. Not with cruicifying people.

                  Put simply there is NO representation of the meaning of this tweet – whether a typo or not that supports any claim that Lawrence was preparing to bring a violent mob to the capital.

                3. Your claim regarding Lee is both false and irrelevant.

                  House managers introduced the WaPo story as evidence.
                  It is not. PERIOD.

                  There are only two people who can confirm what Trump said to Lee – Lee and Trump.

                  Not unnamed sources who did not hear the conversation that WaPo relied on.

                  BTW we have seen this garbage journalism throughout the Trump administration – the Media claiming that someone in the Whitehouse said something, or that someone in the FBI said something or that someone int he Mueller team said something or ….

                  Ultimately I do not think a single one of these unnamed hearsay sources has proven correct – and yet the media continues to use them.

                  While the standards for media sources are lower than those for testimony in courts – we expect that a source used by the media has been confirmed to be a real person, and that there is substantial evidence to confirm they did overhear what they claimed.
                  It used to be that the news would not run a story without TWO independent sources. But journalistic integrity is long gone.

                  Regardless, House managers interoduced a media story as evidence. News stories are NOT evidence.
                  Regardless, that story contains two components – hearsay claims from an unidentified source of the exchange between Trump and Lee.
                  That is inadmissible.
                  Argument by the reporter as to what that exchange means – that is NEVER admissible.

                  Witnesses present EVIDENCE, Not argument. The meaning of evidence is not the domain of witnesses.

                  You claim Lee was not specific – he did not need to be. Nothing the house managers were seeking to introduce was evidence, and ALL OF IT was misrepresentation.

                  The only admissible portion of the WaPo story was “Lee talked to Trump” – and even that would have to be admitted by a witness, not a newspaper story.

                  Regardless, it is not Lee’s job to do the house managers Job for them.
                  The house managers had or could have asked for the opportunity to elicit the actual conversation from Lee.
                  They did not. Instead they chose to use a news paper story from an unidentified source who did not hear the conversation, as well as a reporters oppinion as to the meaning of a conversation that the reporter had no actual knowledge of.

                  This is an effort to put a fraud upon the court.

                  1. “Your claim regarding Lee is both false and irrelevant.”

                    No, my claim is true and relevant.

                    “House managers introduced the WaPo story as evidence. It is not. PERIOD.”

                    I don’t think they said it was from the Post, and the Post isn’t the only outlet that wrote about it, and I also gave a link earlier to a Deseret News article that Cicilline seemed to be quoting from, so I’m not sure why you keep insisting it was the Post. Regardless, Lee himself had already confirmed the contents of the story in text messages to reporter Bryann Schott. I pointed that out to you earlier as well. For a fact check –
                    https://apnews.com/article/mike-lee-trump-misdialed-fact-check-3165726e16c990596218f61a88205304

                    “There are only two people who can confirm what Trump said to Lee – Lee and Trump.”

                    For the umpteenth time, Lee ALREADY confirmed it in text messages to reporter Bryan Schott. How many times do I have to point this out to you?

                    “News stories are NOT evidence.”

                    False. They can absolutely be evidence, depending on what they’re presented as evidence of, and what evidence the reporter has for the article.

                    “ALL OF IT was misrepresentation.”

                    False.

                    “The house managers had or could have asked for the opportunity to elicit the actual conversation from Lee. They did not.”

                    True but irrelevant, as Lee had already confirmed via text message what was reported.

                    “”It’s definitely possible to alter something by mistake.” Really ?”

                    Really. If you work on your reading comprehension, you’ll know that “possible” does not imply that alterations are always by. mistake.

                4. “False. It’s definitely possible to alter something by mistake. ”

                  Really ?

                  So if the police add shell casings to a crime scene – that is “just a mistake”.

                  Or if the prosecutor presents pictures of a crime victim where additional injuries are photo-shopped in – that is “just a mistake” ?

                  Presenting altered evidence in a court is ALWAYS wrong. It is a crime.
                  There is no possible innocent explanation for altering evidence.

                5. There is no “added by accident” – there is no “creating a large image”.

                  You do not “create” evidence – EVER

                6. I would suggest that you look up quotes by evangelicals using the term Calvary.

                  It is quite clear you are clueless. The term has many meanings – especially among evangelicals.

                  Regardless, Now you are misrepresenting me.
                  Do not make up my arguments. Stick to what I have actually said.

                  Neither I nor you nor the house managers know what Lawrence meant.

                  What I do know is that the house managers misrepresented the Tweet.

                  There was no literal “cavalry”. There was also no dangerous approximation to a Cavalry.

                  When you do not know what someone meant – claiming that you do is LYING.
                  Claiming that you do and that meaning is something that is clearly wrong is a BIG lie.

                  Separately – Evangelicals would NEVER talk about crucifying their opponents.
                  Crucifiction is SACRED. It is an act of self sacrifice that in christian theology saves all of us.

                  Early christians actively sought out Crucifixion. They did not crucify their enemies.
                  Evangelicals are very familiar with and strongly identify with early christians.

                  You are absolutely clueless about religion.

                1. It is not an opinion that the house managers altered evidence – it is a fact.

                  You keep trying to weasle your way to an innocent explanation – even if there was one – which there is not.
                  The alteration of evidence is a FACT. The misrepresentation of evidence LYING about it is a FACT.

                  Lawrence does not have a Twitter Verified blue check.
                  Whether “Calvary” was a typo for cavalry or was correct as written – it DID NOT mean anything nefarious.
                  There was no “cavalry” there was no armed organized force ready to do battle being mustered by a woman leading a prayer group.
                  And if she actually had the power to call on god to smite senators and representatives – imploring intervention by dieties is just not a crime.

                  A news story is not evidence. Hearsay is not evidence, Oppinion is not evidence.

                  I would further note in their montage the house managers reitterted the well known Hoax that Trump praised white supremecists at Charlottesville – once again using the deceptively edited “very fine people” quote.

                  Here is a comparison from CSPAN

                  https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4945677/user-clip-fine-people-sides

                  The house managers LIED. The press has LIED repeatedly about trump’s remarks about Charlottesville.

            2. I have to correct myself a bit on the Lawrence Tweet.

              Lawrence wrote “Calvary” – not “Cavalry”. Which only makes this WORSE for the house impeachment managers.

              We now have the impeachment managers presuming that an evangelical prayer group leader did not use a religious term “calvary” but instead just misspelled “cavalry” and that she did not mean her prayer group – but some fictitious militia that no one has seen.

              As to the blue check mark – please provide an innocent scenario in which TWO tweets without blue checkmarks suddenly get them.

              There is no such thing as an innocent alteration of evidence.
              While Klinesmith got a slap on the wrist for a serious crime – it was still a CRIME.
              .
              The alteration of TWO of Lawrences tweets and their use as evidence is a CRIME, and it should be prosecuted.

              Tbis further exposes another major flaw in Faux Impeachment Deux and general leftist logic

              The case against Trump presumes that you can treat otherwise innocent conduct as wrong because of YOUR assumptions of intent on the part of Trump.
              .
              While we are free to speculate on the intent of the impeachment managers – there are no assumptions necescary, there are no innocent acts that we must find a criminal intent in.
              Altering evidence is a crime. period. Whether we know WHY the evidence was altered,

              1. You should correct yourself more often.

                “We now have the impeachment managers presuming that an evangelical prayer group leader did not use a religious term “calvary” but instead just misspelled “cavalry” and that she did not mean her prayer group – but some fictitious militia that no one has seen.”

                Again, the Calvary isn’t a prayer group. The House managers assumed that she misspelled “cavalry” because “Calvary” makes no sense in that context, as many Christians will tell you, for example, Father James Martin –
                “What would it mean for Twitter users to say they’re “bringing the Calvary”? Calvary, or Golgotha, was the hill on which Jesus was crucified. It makes no sense (unless they’re implying crucifixion of their opponents). No Christian I’ve ever met says, “We’re bringing the Calvary.””

                In fact, confusing the two is so common that the dictionary notes it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cavalry-or-calvary

                You should also learn the idiomatic meaning of sending for, calling in, or bringing in the cavalry, or saying that the cavalry has arrived –
                https://englishlogica.com/spoken-vocab/call-send-in-the-cavalry-idiom-meaning-examples-k3r6ggcmvhc

                “Do you have evidence that Trump’s lawyers lied ?”

                I didn’t claim they did. I specifically said “I don’t know if they were lying or only mistaken, but they made false statements.” I already gave you evidence that they made false statements.

                1. “I didn’t claim they did. I specifically said “I don’t know if they were lying or only mistaken, but they made false statements.” I already gave you evidence that they made false statements.”

                  No you have NOT.

                  Identify a specific statement by Trump’s lawyers that you claim is FALSE.

                  Thus far you have offered naked assertions and inuendo, not actual statements that can be evaluated.

                  We have discussed several specific instances in which the house managers have knowingly presented inadmissible evidence, falsified evidence, deceptively manipulated evidence.

                  You have offered no example of Trump’s lawyers doing anything similar.

                  Even if you had – there is no balancing game here.
                  Prosecutors have a duty to the people and to justice. They are obligated to the absolute Truth, and only the truth.

                  Defense attorneys are entitled to the benefit of every doubt.

                  A prosecutor can not present evidence that he is not sure is true.
                  A defense attorney can present evidence that he is not sure is false.

                  1. “”I already gave you evidence that they made false statements.” No you have NOT.”

                    Yes, I have. I linked to the CNN fact check with evidence about it in my February 16, 9:22 PM comment. Maybe you never read that fact check, which quotes Trump’s lawyers making false statements and shows why the quoted statements are false.

                    “Identify a specific statement by Trump’s lawyers that you claim is FALSE.”

                    Daniel Dale already did that in the CNN fact check I linked to. You may want me to bottle feed you what he wrote, but I’m not going to.

                    “You have offered no example of Trump’s lawyers doing anything similar.”

                    I did. But apparently you didn’t read it.

                    1. ““”I already gave you evidence that they made false statements.” No you have NOT.”

                      Yes, I have. I linked to the CNN fact check with evidence about it in my February 16, 9:22 PM comment.”
                      Fact checks are STILL not evidence. They are opinions about facts.

                      “Maybe you never read that fact check”bad authority.
                      I rarely do. I am interested in FACTS, Fact checks are not facts, they are opinions,. Often biased.

                      “which quotes Trump’s lawyers”
                      Then you should be able to produce those quotes.
                      And each of US can judge for ourselves whether they are true or not.

                      Something is not true because a fact checker says it is.
                      It is not false because a fact checker says it is.
                      Those are just fallacious appeals to

                      ““Identify a specific statement by Trump’s lawyers that you claim is FALSE.”

                      “Daniel Dale already did that in the CNN fact check I linked to.”
                      Then you should be able to repeat the statement.

                      “You may want me to bottle feed you what he wrote, but I’m not going to.”I
                      I want YOU to make your own arguments. Using FACTS. ‘
                      If you can not do that – why should anyone listen to you ?

                      If you are unable to cite facts yourself, if you are unable to support claims you make yourself.
                      What value is there in anything you say ?

                      Regardless, if YOU make a claim – YOU are obligated to defend it.

                      YOU have defamed Trump’s lawyers.
                      The burden is on YOU to prove you are not a liar.

                      Finally – I am debating YOU – Mr. Dale is not here. I can not challenge him. I can not question him.
                      There is no means to assess the veracity of his claims. There is no means to examine with him the evidence he claims.

                      I would further note that given that many of your links DO NOT assert what you claim they do. There is no reason to follow them.

                      ““You have offered no example of Trump’s lawyers doing anything similar.”

                      I did. But apparently you didn’t read it.”

                      Of Course not. I rarely read the things you link to. They are generally worthless.
                      You seem to think that a fact check is something other than an opinion.

                      It is self evident from discussions with you that you have no idea what evidence is, what facts are, what the difference between a fact and an opinion is, and how to determine the difference between a valid opinion and one that is clearly garbage.

                      I am sorry but “Allan” is right.

                      Anonymous the Stupid

                      ATS

                      If you can not make your own argument using facts and reason – why should anyone trust you ?

        2. Do you have evidence that Trump’s lawyers lied ?
          If you do not have clear evidence – then retract your false moral claim.

          IF you can not provide evidence and you do not retract your claim – then YOU are the liar.
          and you are not entitled to the respect of honest people.

          And lets be clear – disagreement is not lying. Differences of oppinion are not lying.

          But forging tweets is lying. Misrepresenting what others have actually said – that is lying.

    3. Impeachment is a NECESSARY and IMPORTANT power, one we should never want to abandon.

      But THIS TRIAL and the one PRIOR is a mockery and an abomination.

      and THAT is FAR MORE TERRIBLE than the alleged crime.

      When you get the point where you are okay with refusing due process, allowing WITNESSES TO A ALLEGED CRIME to acts as rule makers, pro tempore, AND as juror, when you refuse to allow COURTS to interpret and rule on jurisdiction, when you conflate political rhetoric as unlawful incitement with ANY investigation, deposition of witnesses and cross examination, when you DOCTOR UP AND FORGE so-called innuendo and evidence as your “proof”, when you make the argument the defendant HAS the responsibility to prove their innocence, when you refuse to call witnesses, and deny defense counsel the rights to evidence….when you create such a frankenstein and even refuse to acknowledge the defects…when you CALL ON JURORS to rule on constitutionality? WTF!

      the defects and in particular the realized harm of going about it in this way, IS THE TRUE CRIME…It’s not just irregular and harmful…It is DANGEROUS.

      ask yourself this simple question: why didn’t Law enforcement arrest the former president and charge him with a crime? You do realize this is the option no? And then consider why this impeachment followed a very specific law annihilating path that NO COURT WOULD EVER ALLOW?

      the point here is that impeachment as a power isn’t broken…rather, it is obvious the defects are WITH THE PEOPLE IN CONGRESS WHO ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO USE IT..demonstrably so..

      this entire process was a heist of power..with all the abuses of a robbery…that’s not impeachment..that’s specific people who robbed the damned bank…and attempted the getaway.

      the American people took notice…twice NOW…congress is the problem..the people installed in it.

      that is where the problem exists..

      WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD IMPEACH THEM ALL…they have broken the most important principles of their OATHS.

      when you start to understand what they have done…you can never look at this again..no matter how you feel about orange man bad, or not.

      this kind of corruption has NO PLACE…these people have demonstrated they are unqualified to do the people’s work in accordance with the constitution.

      period.

  7. Turley: please stop trying to write about things you DEFINITELY know little about, which only makes you look like someone trying to appear sophisticated. You don’t even understand what the film “Gilda” is really about, nor much about film noir, as this post proves; hint: the real lovers were bisexual Ballin and Johnnie–Bombshell Gilda made Ballin appear powerful and was useful for keeping Johnnie around as he still carried a torch for her. Such relationships were forbidden to be openly depicted on film at the time so Johnnie and Gilda had to be together at the end. Did you miss the phallic symbolism of Ballin’s “little friend”–i.e., his cane with a spring-loaded stiletto tip? Why do you think a wealthy casino owner like Ballin was cruising the waterfront late at night with all of the sailors in town, accompanied by his “little friend”? Out of all the women in South America, how or why did Ballin find Gilda and why would he marry her after knowing her only one day? Why did Johnnie refuse to touch Gilda after they thought Ballin was dead, and why did he force her to be faithful after Ballin’s death? When it comes to film noir, you are a tourist, and no fan of Eddie Mueller (or Robert Mueller, apparently, for that matter). The factual underpinnings of your attempted analogy are just as lame as your lack of understanding of “Gilda”.

    I digress. Now, you’re actually trying to make the case that the fat slob you’re being paid to defend is somehow a victim–somehow denied a right to due process, that his impeachment trial violated American values and his alleged right of freedom of speech and that these “values” were discarded by evil Democrats. You keep trying to compare impeachment proceedings with criminal trials. Tell us, Turley, in a criminal trial, do the jurors decide whether the proceeding is constitutional, whether witnesses will be called, deposed or submit affidavits, do they meet with outside people like you to strategize on the excuse to give for their vote before voting, do jurors sit in judgment in a matter in which they could have been victims and in which they were, to one extent or another, witnesses? Could the Senate order Trump to serve in prison? Most importantly: is it necessary to prove the elements of any specific criminal statute in order to impeach a president? No to all of this, and you know it. Impeachments are not analogous to criminal trials, so stop trying to make the case that they are. This is just more red meat for the deplorables.

    You want to talk about American values and Trump? he cheated to get into office, refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, he was deferential to Putin, even refusing to address Putin pay bounties to kill American troops and constantly lied. He caged migrants and their children to punish them for seeking asylum. He praised White Supremacists after they murdered Heather Heyer. He destroyed Obama’s successful economy, lied about the pandemic, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths. After setting a record for low approval ratings and polls predicting he would lose, began strategizing on how to steal the election a second time, beginning with telling the faithful, even before Election Day, that the election would be stolen from them. He was so confident of his ability to cheat, bully or lie his way back into office that he took a victory lap before all of the votes were counted, and when the totals started coming in, ramped up the lying with “Stop the Steal” tours, filing over 60 frivolous lawsuits, trying to cajole, and then bully, state election officials, tried to bully Pence into rejecting certified votes, and as a last stand, organized a rally to get the faithful to intimidate or kill Senators unless they overrode the certified vote totals. The insurrection he plotted and fomented left 5 people dead. He let it go on for hours, knowing that Pence was in danger. He loved every minute of it because it proved he was powerful. It proved he was loved. The rest of the world is still shocked. Despite the carnage, multiple Republicans still went along with the plan to try to derail acceptance of the certified votes. And you want to talk about American values and how it’s the Democrats that are stomping on them?

    What were Democrats supposed to do, Turley–ignore all of this, write it off as acceptable behavior? Conduct an investigation–of what? Trump’s crimes are out in the open for everyone to see. Even after the Trump Insurrection, he kept on lying and expressed no remorse. Why didn’t McConnell speak out about Trump sooner? We all know why–keep those donations coming. Trump should have been immediately placed under arrest. This was no “snap impeachment”, either. Everyone know that the majority of the un-American and un-patriotic Republicans would never, under any circumstances, vote against Trump, no matter how many lies he told, no matter how many people died on the altar of his ego because they have been steadily losing voters every year. Despite a strong plurality of votes against him, your fat client is taking a victory lap. You are helping this, Turley. Maybe you ought to read up on film noir.

    1. Okay, for any of you ass clown right wingers that type stuff at me like ‘I see you in the same light as Natacha’ know that a) I see that as a compliment of the highest order, and b) only wish I had her level of insight and the ability to express it.

      So I guess there’s that.

      +10

      Elvis Bug

      1. NUTCHACHA is consumed by jealousy and hate-filled as an immutably inferior, dependent parasite created of generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, etc., rabidly predating the white man’s money.

      2. Elvis Bug. Google Gilda and see if Natacha’s movie review stands up and get back with us on your findings. Maybe you should do a little research before declaring her your soulmate.

          1. Anon, just point me to a source that verifies Natacha’s claims about the film Gilda. You tell us that my research is at fault but you point out no countervailing source that proves my research to be at fault. As usual, as with most things you just say it and because you say it it must be so. It’s obvious that you just automatically jump to her defense without doing any research of your own. An apt description would be, sold out to a narrative let the facts be damned.

        1. Here is a small excerpt of just one film scholar’s take on the homoerotic subtext of “Gilda”:

          “Charles Vidor’s Gilda showcases a strong queer relationship of two men and it is a major driving force of the movie. It is quite heavily implied that the sophisticated, illegal casino owner and gangster, Ballin Mundson (George Macready) has a very intimate bond with the younger, boyishly pretty gambler and later right-hand man, Johnny Farrell (Glenn Ford). Johnny is literally a “pickup” by Ballin at the docks, after rescuing him from an angry sailor Johnny cheated in a dice game. The scene is quite telling, as Ballin is represented as an older, wealthy, elegantly dressed man with a cane that hides a sharp blade inside, one that Ballin likes to whip around and point at Johnny. One cannot miss the phallic association, as the placement of the cane in Ballin’s hand is held at hip level, pointing it erectly forward. It is quite clear what a rich and stylish man is doing in the middle of the night in the dark alleys of a shady part of town. To use the homosexual slang for a casual pickup, Ballin is out there for a “rough trade” for the night. Film noir operated with symbolism and codes, and such a thing as a long cane disguised as a lethal weapon was a clear indicator of homosexuality. Ballin’s description of his beloved cane is a perfect example of the erotic displacement that the noir operated with, and it is clearly a code for his closeted sexuality, one that Johnny gets immediately and goes along with:

          B: It is a faithful and obedient friend, it is silent when I wish to be silent, it talks when I wish to talk.
          J: That’s your idea of a friend?
          B: That is my idea of a friend.
          J: You must lead a gay life.
          B: I lead a life I’d like to lead”

          This is one small quote from just one such review. There are numerous others. Oh, and one other point about the quote cited by Turley from Gilda’s dialogue: she didn’t really hate Johnny at all because they left together for America after Uncle Pio took care of Ballin using his “little friend”. Maybe she didn’t really understand the bisexual things going on or was jealous of Johnny’s attraction to Ballin. “Gilda” is far more sophisticated than the simple story line implies, so subtexts like homoerotic relationships had to be subtle to make it past the Hayes Office. Today’s audiences aren’t shocked by two men being in love.

          1. Today’s audiences that are majority heterosexual, may tire of endless fascinations that the homosexuals have about themselves and their own “stories.”

            We are constantly needled with such things in advertising as if half the consumers out there were homosexuals. I wonder why big corporations spend so much on such things. Yet another question mark about our socalled “capitalism” and its strange pursuit of “profits” that can’t be profitable and so must serve some other agenda. Hmmmm

              1. We hear from someone who has no problem with rich people trying to change our most intimate behavior and attitudes with big money advertising.
                My how strange the left has become, such sycophants of power.

          2. Natacha, So waving a knife and pointing a cane are phallic suggestions. I guess when he mistakenly dropped the knife and bent over to pick it up he was striking a suggestive pose. “You must have led a gay life”. In those days the word gay had not become a common lexicon as it is today. Her life was filled with gaiety must be code for her involvement in a gay lifestyle. Could it be that the film scholar that you did not name is gay. Surely this stretch can not expand any further.

            1. You obviously haven’t seen the movie. There’s a lot more homoerotic symbolism than just Ballin’s cane and the way he pointed it at Johnny. Read some of the scholarly articles about the movie. There are numerous ones available online. One of these pieces quoted Glenn Ford in an interview many years later, and he confirmed that he and George Macready, who played Ballin, fully understood that they were gay lovers but had to be subtle about it to get it past the Hayes Office.

        2. Not a super huge fan of movie reviews in general, TIT. Much more into actually watching a movie to see its sequences, its rolling metaphors, whether it’s built more around overt conflict, questions, or heart of darkness trauma.

          And I have to confess, I’m not super familiar with GILDA, although I am a huge Ben Hecht fan (credit on the screenplay). Granted the studio system mondo forced writers room collaborations to an extreme degree — so it’s not easy to see who is responsible for what percentage of the work. In fact, in screenwriting circles it was common for huge disagreements to break out about who wrote what scene or line at a premier.

          Watching GILDA tonight…, my interest is certainly piqued.

          Elvis Bug

          1. There is an excellent video intro by Eddie Muller that is available online. He explains why all of the characters in “Gilda” seem to hate each other, and he relates an interview with Evelyn Keyes, wife of Charles Vidor, the Director, in which she confirms that the Johnny/Ballin love affair was intended. If you aren’t familiar with Eddie and his work, this video will give you a taste of his insight into the cultural significance of film and his wonderful sense of humor He hosts “Noir Alley” on TCM. “Coke sipper” indeed!

    2. Since Natacha is not a provable human being but just the combined PCRap of the Socialist Party’s Collective NONE of whom have ever proven to be human the ending comment is for once TRUEly correct except it refers to Comrade In Ink only. Seig Us No Heils fabricated from a computer print out. The worth of your spilled ink is on a par with it’s total sum after it’s been on the floor of DNC HQ or the offices of Comrade Soros far too long. And you can’t prove differently. Ad Machina

    3. Natacha, it’s not about the jurist deciding anything. It’s about the rights given American citizens by the Constitution. You would have us believe that once an impeachment trial begins the rights given to us by the Constitution should be suspended. Every common dictator has used the very same tactic to achieve their desired result. Welcome to the club.

    4. “What were Democrats supposed to do,?”

      This is an easy answer.

      Use the power they have gained through the election to govern well

      That’s agreeable yes?

      And very simple. If they do well for most people, then they will be rewarded.

      instead it seems they wish to antagonize the losing side in the election. Obvious legislative priorities that we all could agree upon are being backseated to drama.

      Please look back on this time and remember that there were alternatives to the path that was chosen

      Sal Sar

      1. “Use the power they have gained through the election to govern well.”
        ______________________________________________________

        That’s the point, you ——- —–! The Constitution governs as it holds dominion. The entire American communist welfare state is unconstitutional. The judicial branch and Supreme Court have failed, treasonously, to support the clear English language of the Constitution, beginning in 1860 and burgeoning through the communist era of FDR, LBJ and Barry Soetoro (who was himself unconstitutional as an imposter in office as a “fake” imposter-in-chief). Please provide a constitutional basis for the welfare state – it does not exist, in fact, it is precluded definitively. You may have heard about limited enumerated powers to regulate, limited power to tax, and the absolute right to “…claim and exercise dominion over…” private property, which is not qualified, but simply provided in the Bill of Rights.

        Words mean things. Read them.

        1. George, is that you, calling me blankety blank?

          The constitution is not cast in stone. Like it or not there is truth in what the professors say, that it is a living constitution.

          I don’t need to justify what is imposed on us by organized force. it is what it is. If nobody in power agrees, then your contention is a dead letter. I thought the same myself for a long time, and I got over it. Government is what it is, and contrary to the lie of Locke, it is not based on the consent of the governed. In fact it ALWAYS operates without the consent of the governed– which is precisely what makes it what it is.

          Understand that and the following simple thing and you will get past your mental block on this. You may have heard the notion before:

          “politics is the art of the possible”

          Sal Sar

          1. I like the expression, Sal Sar. And I think now that the real work of trump’s accountability can be left to the states Biden’s sense of doing decent things for the constituency can do what it needs to do. We’ll see.

            Onward to what’s possible.

            EB

          2. The constitution is not cast in stone – nor are our laws.

            I oppose provisions of law and constitution all the time.

            But the law and constitution mean what they say – where it matters in the words as used by the writers.

            If we are unhappy with that – we can change the law and the constitution.

            We change laws by repealing them or writing new ones.
            We do not change them by warping the meaning of their words either by the executive or judiciary.

            When the meaning of law or constitution becomes subject to the whim of executives or courts we are both lawless and the problem can not be fixed.

            The only means of correcting a judicial mangling of the law or constitution is replacing the judges.

            It is better to have bad law interpreted as written, than for law to become subjective.

      2. FIRST they must actually secure the consent of the governed.

        That means LAWFULL and Trustworthy elections

        “The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.”

        It is absolutely imperative that we KNOW beyond a doubt that elections are decided by lawful votes.
        Not by government picking the winners.

    5. Natacha, Google is a wonderful thing. I researched the film Gilda on Google. No explanation or review informed me that the characters in the film were bisexual. Excuse me if I might detect a twisting of the plot to justify your actions. You inform us of your acumen as a movie critic. You must think that somehow we won’t be able to research your claims. Sometimes their are lies and sometimes there are damn lies.

          1. is gay a slur? I thought that is what gays wanted to be called. Gay, homosexual, LGBTQ, call them what you like, but I repeat: they see their issues habitually, where others do not.

      1. A review of a film is not the same as an analysis of the plot, its subtexts and historical significance. Try googling: “Gilda homoerotic subtexts” and see what you find.

    6. Natacha says:

      “You want to talk about American values and Trump? he cheated to get into office, refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, he was deferential to Putin, even refusing to address Putin pay bounties to kill American troops and constantly lied. He caged migrants and their children to punish them for seeking asylum. He praised White Supremacists after they murdered Heather Heyer. He destroyed Obama’s successful economy, lied about the pandemic, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths. After setting a record for low approval ratings and polls predicting he would lose, began strategizing on how to steal the election a second time, beginning with telling the faithful, even before Election Day, that the election would be stolen from them. He was so confident of his ability to cheat, bully or lie his way back into office that he took a victory lap before all of the votes were counted, and when the totals started coming in, ramped up the lying with “Stop the Steal” tours, filing over 60 frivolous lawsuits, trying to cajole, and then bully, state election officials, tried to bully Pence into rejecting certified votes, and as a last stand, organized a rally to get the faithful to intimidate or kill Senators unless they overrode the certified vote totals. The insurrection he plotted and fomented left 5 people dead. He let it go on for hours, knowing that Pence was in danger. He loved every minute of it because it proved he was powerful. It proved he was loved. The rest of the world is still shocked. Despite the carnage, multiple Republicans still went along with the plan to try to derail acceptance of the certified votes. And you want to talk about American values and how it’s the Democrats that are stomping on them?”

      LOL. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody cram so many fake and debunked media stories into one paragraph. The Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong with this one. You seriously need better sources. Going to the originals would be a good start. You clearly didn’t even watch the actual “trial” itself, since you clearly still believe the “fine people” hoax, the most debunked deceptive-editing media hoax in history. I’m not even a Trump supporter. I’m apolitical, but I’m critical of the media because they are the worst, which has led to me defending Trump from several media smears. Stop letting a ridiculously biased and deceptive media filter all of your information for you. Going to the original sources and watching them in full in their proper context will serve you much better.

  8. OT – NEWSFLASH

    “We have so much work ahead of us.“

    “Soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future.”

    “Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun. In the months ahead I have much to share with you, and I look forward to continuing our incredible journey

    together to achieve American greatness for all of our people. There has never been anything like it!”

    – President Donald J. Trump
    ______________________

    Trump Celebrates Acquittal, Hints At Political Future
    Feb 13, 2021

    President Trump thanked his lawyers “for their tireless work upholding justice and defending truth” in a statement released shortly after his acquittal in the U.S. Senate. He also thanked the U.S. Senators and Members of Congress” who stood proudly for the Constitution we all revere and for the sacred legal principles at the heart of our country,” by opposing his impeachment and supporting his acquittal.

    The acquittal was expected as it was seen as impossible that 17 Republicans would join with the Democrats, whose case for conviction was shattered by Trump’s defense team, which, amongst other things, presented video of Democrats using the same rhetoric Trump used in his January 6 speech, destroying the narrative that Trump incited the violence that occurred that day.

    Trump also lamented the “sad commentary on our times that one political party in America is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of law, defame law enforcement, cheer mobs, excuse rioters, and transform justice into a tool of political vengeance, and persecute, blacklist, cancel and suppress all people and viewpoints with whom or which they disagree.”

    Seven spineless Republicans joined with the Democrats in voting to convict.

    “I always have, and always will, be a champion for the unwavering rule of law, the heroes of law enforcement, and the right of Americans to peacefully and honorably debate the issues of the day without malice and without hate,” he continued. “This has been yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country. No president has ever gone through anything like it, and it continues because our opponents cannot forget the almost 75 million people, the highest number ever for a sitting president, who voted for us just a few short months ago.”

    President Trump also gave a hint regarding his future in politics. “Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun. In the months ahead I have much to share with you, and I look forward to continuing our incredible journey together to achieve American greatness for all of our people. There has never been anything like it!”

    This second impeachment by the Democrats was certainly motivated by the desire to prevent Trump from running for president again. Their failure to make the case for conviction leaves open the possibility that Trump could run for President again in 2024.

    “We have so much work ahead of us,” he added. “And soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future.”

    – Matt Margolis

  9. “WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.
    We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”
    Clauswitz

    As the left continuously escalates political conflict consideration should be given to where this inevitably leads.

    Regardless of how you view the riots this summer or the protests at the capital.

    We are inexorably headed to ever increasing violence.

    I do not know and it does not matter whether the left or the right strikes the next blow.
    .
    So long as we are willing to use force to punish disagreement violence is inevitable

    r

    1. RINO or DINO is there any difference between nothing? How’s y our turncoat traitor General Willy Milley getting along on whatever your party paid him.

    2. There is really no getting out from under the understanding that all politics operates according to principles of group competition, group enmity, and along a continuum of force

      The best thing you can do, is pick your team and win

      Sal Sar

  10. Jonathan: Talk about “frivolous” arguments. You have asserted them in spades. In this column you don’t argue any of the FACTS–the overwhelming evidence in the case. Instead, you say Trump’s “due process” and First Amendment rights were violated. On the issue of “due process” Trump got plenty. The House managers invited Trump to come and testify. This would have given Trump the opportunity to explain his intent when he spoke to supporters on Jan. 6 and his conduct during and after the insurrection. He refused on advice of counsel because they knew Trump is his own worst enemy and might jeopardize his own defense. Had Rep. Herrera Buetler been allowed to testify by deposition Trump’s attorneys would have been their to cross examine her. Trump’s counsel would no doubt call their own witnesses. In the end counsel for both parties agreed to enter Buetler’s statement into the record. How can this be a violation of Trump’s “due process” rights?

    On the question of Trump’s “free speech” rights you deliberately distort the position taken by the 140 lawyers and constitutional scholars who clearly said: “We ALL AGREE (emphasis added) that any First Amendment defense raised by President Trump’s attorneys does not apply in impeachment proceedings; because the president does not have a First Amendment right to incite a mob…”. But you bizarrely claim there were some among the 140 who agree with you. Who are they? After five days of careful deliberation and hearing the overwhelming evidence against Trump 57 Senators, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, voted to convict–the most bipartisan vote in impeachment history. They were apparently not persuaded by any arguments that Trump was denied his “due process” rights or that that he had a First Amendment right to incite an insurrection.

    In his statement after Trump’s acquittal Mitch McConnell doesn’t deserve any plaudits for charging Trump as “practically and morally” responsible for the insurrection on Jan. 6. After the House submitted the article of impeachment McConnell. had two weeks to call the Senate back from recess and try the president. McConnell refused so he could argue later that he voted to acquit Trump because, once out of office, a former president cannot be tried by the Senate. Duplicity? Absolutely! This issue was decided on Tuesday when the Senate unanimously decided, based on the Belknap case, that the Senate had jurisdiction to try a former president. Consistency is certainly not McConnell’s strong suit.

    In the end Trump is the first president to be impeached twice. Although acquitted by a gang of loyal supporters, ignoring the overwhelming evidence, Trump will go down in history as the most corrupt president and a threat to our Democracy. In this “age of rage”, to use your term, 58% of Americans say Trump should have been convicted and barred from ever holding public office again. That’s significant. A hundred years from now no one will remember that you didn’t vote for Trump in either election and “have regularly denounced his actions and rhetoric”. Your claims of being just a neutral constitutional scholar will fall on deaf ears. It will only be remembered that when it really mattered you sided with Trump –in both of his impeachments. That will be your sad legacy.

    1. Dennis, one can only hope that some day you will be tried for a crime and be forced to testify. Hopefully the prosecution will twist your words to get a conviction. Hopefully the prosecution will not allow any witnesses in your defense. Hopefully the prosecution, by forcing you to testify against yourself will see to it that you receive the maximum penalty. I can hear their question now. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party. I’ll have to pass on your recommendation.

        1. That’s funny. People are forced to testify against themselves regularly. The Fifth amendment protects less than you may believe.

          Sal

          1. Anonymous (sal), people are not forced do testify against themselves. The majority of the time they are tricked into testifying against themselves or are completely ignorant about their right to remain silent and incriminating themselves. It’s illegal to force anyone to testify against themselves.

            1. svez, you are perhaps unaware of the many exceptions in our legal system where people can be, do, and are forced to testify against themselves

              I have seen it done, and I have done it. but your cup is so full of arrogance you have no idea what I am talking about.

              In spite of your arrogance, I’ll do you a favor here, to dispel some of your ignorance, and give you two situations

              1. a person who has either been tried and convicted, or tried and convicted, can’t remain silent in a subsequent civil trial based on same facts. they may be compelled to testify, on pain of contempt of court (imprisonment) or more often, if they to cooperate in civil proceedings meaningfully, they can be sanctioned in discovery up to and including judgment.

              2. if a person has “immunity” against certain charges, then they may be forced to testify.

              Go ahead and look that up and expand your understanding. You just got a free lesson. You’re welcome.

              Sal

              1. Anonymous (sal), your poor examples are flawed. Being previously tried and convicted presumes the person already waived his right to remain silent or was tricked into waiving his right. After doing so can’t claim a 5th amendment right. IF it’s about the same case. That’s a no brainer. That isn’t about being forced to testify against oneself. That’s testifying after the fact that person already incriminated himself. Now of it was about a different case and different facts he still can’t be forced to testify against himself.

                Having immunity means the person already waived his right to remain silent. Having immunity means he wasn’t forced, he negotiated a deal willingly. He wasn’t forced to accept the deal. The person could still reject it.

                Both of your examples are irrelevant to your claim despite having “seen” it yourself. You either didn’t understand or have a serious misconception of what. “Being forced” means.

                1. “Being previously tried and convicted presumes the person already waived his right to remain silent or was tricked into waiving his right.”

                  Where do you get this nonsense ?

                  Plenty of people tried and convicted continue to maintain their innocence and they right to remain silent.
                  Some are even ultimately exonerated.

                  “Having immunity means the person already waived his right to remain silent.”
                  Immunity comes in many forms and is complex. It does not always waive your right to remain silent

                2. Yes he clearly didn’t understand what you said. Since what you said made little sense in the first place.

        2. Anon, The house managers set the rules. They said that no witnesses would be allowed. You have defended them at every turn. You say that Trump should testify. Now you tell us that the rules they set were wrong. When it comes to Trump he should testify. What part of NO as in no witnesses allowed in the rules set by the house managers do you not understand. Previously you didn’t say that Trump should have the option to testify. You said he should testify and if he doesn’t he must be guilty. I can’t help but wonder how generous you would be in your interpretation of his words if he did testify.

          1. “They said that no witnesses would be allowed.”

            No, they didn’t. It’s not up to them, it’s up to the Senate.

            “You said he should testify and if he doesn’t he must be guilty.”

            You’re a liar. I said no such thing. This is one of your favorite forms of trolling.

            1. So long as you post as anonymous – you can not be lied about.

              Because no one can know which anonymous is which.

      1. bingo..we have a winner.

        it’s not surprising those that favor a guilty verdict in this impeachment intentionally ignore the defects of the process.

        but what is truly remarkable, is the nieve and dangerously stupid notion that once implemented, it ends here.

        but it is ONLY a result of nieve’?

        there are far more important concerns about rule of law than are being presented in their arguments. they know this, but just don’t give a damn.

        or is it something else?

        I find many of these arguments to be flat out sinister and not just stupid…dangerous not just incompetent.

        these folks who argue the “case has been made” and lets just pretend the rules and the law don’t apply, do so willingly.

        one has to step back and reconcile what kind of agenda causes this.

        it certainly contains nothing good, I can tell you that.

        RIGHT NOW IS THE BEST TIME TO RIDICULE INSULT AND MOCK THESE PEOPLE>>>CALL THEM OUT AND IDENTIFY WHO THEY ARE>

        these are the most dangerous people…they would have us believe any means to an end.

        no…full stop…

    2. Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand the points Turley made discussing the application of respected values of free speech and due process? Turley isn’t a Trump supporter and is merely arguing the need for respect and application of the values we all should seek to have applied. As for incitement, if you’ve read Trump’s speech, any reasonable person would agree that it no more reaches the level of incitement than the rhetoric used by the democrats and other politicians in their political campaigns and when speaking to the media or groups they intend to inspire to savage the opposition.

  11. This is a ridiculous post. The impeachment followed all the requirements of the Constitution. Snap impeachments are allowed, and in some cases are necessary. In this case it was. The House Managers argued that Trump did fit the definition of incitement under SCOTUS precedent, and I agree that they proved their case, but others might disagree, but that in no way makes it unconstitutional. Trump could have been convicted solely on his call with the GA SoS. JT cries about how norms and his view of what he reads in between the lines of the Constitution are being violated, but ignores that Trump was actively trying to get Pence to violate the clear text of the constitution in the worst way.

    1. I am not offended by this impeachment.

      Democrats have set the standards – I am prepared to go with those standards.
      There is a long list of politicians and judges that we can impeach in 2023.

      Need I list the stupid things that democrats have said and done ?

      I am prepared to impeach Pelosi for both the riots this summer – and the violence at the capital protests.
      I have no problem impeaching all these judges who refused to uphold the law and constitution in the 2020 election

      While we are at it – Republicans in power can strip democrats of all house committee assignments
      .

      1. “I am prepared to impeach Pelosi for both the riots this summer – and the violence at the capital protests.”

        Go ahead, present your evidence.

        “I have no problem impeaching all these judges who refused to uphold the law and constitution in the 2020 election”

        Go ahead, present your evidence.

      2. The Rs have established that what Trump did was not impeachable, so it would be hypocritical of them to impeach Ds for doing less. But I don’t think that will stop them from trying.

        1. MollyG. Anon is not actually calling for the impeachment of Pelosi. She did incite more rioting when she said that she was surprised that there wasn’t more rioting. Not enough she declared. Anon is simply making a good for the goose good for the gander argument. Hypocrisy is so often defended in your posts.

          1. Many defend the hypocrisy because it serves their perspective and yet are willing advocates for attacking others when they suggest using the same logic or arguments for counterattacks.

          2. “Anon is not actually calling for the impeachment of Pelosi.”

            But John Say IS calling for it. He said “I am prepared to impeach Pelosi for both the riots this summer – and the violence at the capital protests.”

            1. Anon, he said it as means of contrast to make a point. He knows that he doesn’t have the power to impeach anyone. You interpret it as literal to shore up a weak argument. Better to have not said anything at all.

              1. I do not beleive that anyone should be impeached for political speech.

                The language “high crimes and misdemeanors” does NOT mean ANYTHING, it means only very serious things.

                In my view the Clinton impeachment was a close thing – it had nothing to do with acts as president.

                But perjury, eliciting perjury are just to serious to let slide because they did not deal with presidential powers.

                But democrats have completely tossed any meaningful application of “high crimes and misdemeanors”

                The only road back to constitutional impeachment is for democrats to be victimized by their own idiotic standards.

                If you have a better way to bring the democratic party to their senses – please share it.

              2. “He knows that he doesn’t have the power to impeach anyone.”

                But anyone who wants can CALL for it, which is what he did and all I claimed.

                “Better to have not said anything at all.”

                Take your own advice.

            2. Let me be clear – Trump should not EVER have been impeached.

              Clinton was impeached for lying under oath – twice, and for suborning perjury, and witness tampering.
              All legitimate basis for impeachment.

              That Said SCOTUS should have delayed the Jones Lawsuit until after Clinton left office.

              As to Pelosi etc. What I am specifically arguing is that I do not think the left is going to abandon lawlessness until they are the victims of their own lunatic standards.

              I am deeply offended by the worlds of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and myriads of other democrats.
              They should be voted out of office.

              But they should not be impeached for what they have said. Nor should Trump.

              But the only way I can see for those on the left to learn this – is by being the victims of their own farcical standards.

              I would hope that if a Republican House impeachs Pelosi or Schumer for speech, that SCOTUS might step in and say “this is unconstitutional horseshit, and a bill of attainder”. Or that people might get upset enough to demand a stop.

              I do not think we can get better without getting worse first.

              I would rather see Schumer impeached – Schumer comes closer meeting actual incitement than any other politician, than see another OKC bombing – which is where we are headed.

    2. This impeachment followed all the requirements of the Constitution as defined by the Democrats. Due process was defined as being what the Democrats say it is, Evidence supporting the gravitas of the charge was a video show, witnesses were non – existent, and if he democrats could have gotten away with it, they would have brought a guillotine into service just for Trump’s sake, with women knitting at the foot of it.

      1. CHall, the “video show” was sufficient evidence for any adult human not brain dead.

        He did it. I know. You know it. We all know it.

        The trial was not about his civil rights. It was about our country cutting out a cancer and that’s what impeachment are.

        He was found guilty – 57-43 – but not barred from future office because the GOP has mostly eunuchs in the Senate.

        1. CHall, the “video show” was sufficient evidence for any adult human not brain dead.

          Sufficient evidence is examining the transcript of Trump’s remarks. Which is something Ann Althouse did that you won’t do.

        2. Anon Joe Fish, I also saw a “video show”. A “video show” of Pelosi, Waters, and Harris inciting the riots of the summer. Nowhere in their incitement were the words “peacefully protest” to be found. I know, in your haste you innocently missed
          that “video show”. It was just the oversight of a person so pure of heart.

      2. “democrats … would have brought a guillotine into service just for Trump’s sake”

        Trump supporters are the ones who made the gallows for Pence –

    3. Molly sweetheart….we know you would think all that had Francis the talking mule had said what the House managers did so long as it bashed Trump.

      You plainly ignored reality.

      If slander, innuendo, and gossip is the standard you embrace as a means of convicting your enemies then you do not defend your own side or yourself from equal treat by your enemies.

    4. MollyG, it doesn’t take much to render your arguments mute. No witness allowed in a trial says it all. I would fight for witnesses to be allowed in your appearance before a magistrate because it is a basic right afforded to all Americans. Just doesn’t matter to you.

        1. Anons, modus operandi. Point out the misuse of a word instead of addressing the argument. A weak dodge at best.

        2. Anonymous the Stupid are you being nasty by playing hyper-partisan word games again. Not nice. Be noticed for saying something meaningful and intelligent instead of being noticed for acting Stupid.

    5. Turley isn’t arguing whether Trump was guilty or not guilty or should have been impeach or not impeached. If that’s your understanding then you missed his points altogether. If anything he concurs that impeachment itself was fine, but was done without due process, investigation, called witnesses, etc. Same for the Senate, they initially were going to call what a representative that could offer testimony that was damning for Trump, but Senator Schumer chose not to…reportedly because he believe it was fruitless and that he could never get 17 republicans to vote to convict. The outcome, a conviction in this case, should not be the motivator to prosecute when you have substantial witness. I’ve read numerous opinions by other attorneys who agree with Turley that the impeachment and trial did not follow the constitution, the U.S. Code or prior precedence and policy.

    6. H ung yourself with illiteracy. It followed the rules and lost and that’s an end to it.. By your opening ines the socialist party lost… AGAIN

        1. “problems.”

          lol

          if not being able to post a comment is “a problem”…well, what can we say…

          too funny

          it’s arty. he yanks people’s chains all the time. you guys just don’t like it when the tables are turned.

          “Anonymous the Stupid”???

          lol, again.

          yeah, you are.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, you don’t learn. You prefer to be nasty than actually discuss things. We note above how you got off on another person’s problems. You are not a very likable fellow.

  12. “Your Majesty, members of the jury, loyal subjects…and the king. The prisoner at the bar is charged with enticing Her Majesty, the Queen of Hearts, into a game of croquet, and thereby willfully and with malice aforethought, teasing, tormenting, and otherwise annoying our beloved…”

    “Never mind all that!” interrupted the Queen of Hearts. “Get to the part where I lose my temper.”

    The White Rabbit went through the paper when he came the bottom of it. “…thereby causing the queen to lose her temper.”

    “Now,” chuckled the Queen of Hearts. “Are you ready for your sentence?”

    “Sentence?” repeated Alice.

    “Uh, forgive me, Your Majesty.” said Alice. “But shouldn’t there be a verdict first?”

    “Sentence first!” barked the Queen of Hearts. “Verdict afterwards.”

    “But that just isn’t the way!” complained Alice.

    “All ways are…”

    “Your ways, Your Majesty.” concluded Alice.”

  13. “ I voted against him in two elections and have regularly denounced his actions and rhetoric, including his Jan. 6 speech. However, I cherish our values more than I dislike him.”

    Turley, your “denounciation” was feeble and often couched in the most vague if terms. You diluted it by hiding behind terms such as “many of us”, or “those of us” when directing criticism of Trump. Your criticisms often ring hollow when you proceed to parse semantics and split hairs on clear obvious transgressions by Trump’s rhetoric. Your own enabling of his behavior makes you just as culpable as Trump.

  14. I suspect much of the legislation fostered by this radical House will be as carefully thought through and crafted as their hasty shambles (times two) of impeachment.

    Sheila Jackson Lee gives an example with her clam that an AR 15 weighs ‘ten boxes’ and fires .50 caliber bullets.

    Maybe, too, we can get a WH EO directing Guam not to tip over.

    No stupidity, or even insanity, is too far for their reach.

    1. “Maybe, too, we can get a WH EO directing Guam not to tip over.”

      When that type of ignorance isn’t recognized by Democrats we know they will accept anything as long as it gives them one iota more of power.

      1. “they will accept anything as long as it gives them one iota more of power.”
        *****

        That’s the Ur-key to understanding them. Power.

        When the China Virus wanes I expect them to announce another crisis that ‘requires’ them to suspend judgment, decency, liberty and law to keep their strangling grip on all of us.

        1. they will “find” more “mutations” that cause the corona crisis to linger on indefinitely

          their concept of “power” is very weak and equivalent to a wage-slave feeling more empowered because he gets a 2% raise from a billionaire master

          if that’s power then it’s not all its cracked up to be. actually what they are doing is a recipe for long term enslavement to a rapidly strengthening global plutocracy. an enslavement that is capturing all of us in its net, including them. I suppose their ambition is to be like those folks … what were they called? Sonderkommandos — those who lead a slightly more privileged life as they sweep up all our ashes. but they too will suffer for it

          Sal Sar

  15. Another thoughtful, clear and concise argument for principle. However, in revealing that you voted for someone else, I think you reveal your own willingness to destroy America and yourself to destroy Trump. Whether or not you voted for Biden matters not at all; in our two-party power system a vote for anyone else was a vote for Biden. These people who you complain about were enabled by you and others like you, They are the same ones who fomented a rebellion against an American President, duly elected I might add, through a completely bogus prior impeachment attempt. Exactly what else did you believe this group would do? They had no respect for truth from the beginning and cared not the least how they accomplished their goal of destroying Trump.. So, check your outrage at the door that you helped open.

    1. “Another thoughtful, clear and concise argument for principle. “

      Turley and Dershowitz live in a similar world. Reviled by their own Democrat friends for holding beliefs they have held for their entire lives they seem to hold onto the Democratic Party as if it contains principle and truth. They cannot see that for decades Democrats have been slipping towards disbelieving the civil liberties Turley and Dershowitz have always believed in.

      1. “for decades Democrats have been slipping towards disbelieving the civil liberties Turley and Dershowitz have always believed in.”

        ***

        Not disbelieving so much as despising.

        1. I would not assume that self-loathing is predominant. There are certain things in many cultures that point to group action and some take that group action too far while others are afraid of being considered outcasts. There are many emotions involved in the process and of course one cannot forget ignorance.

            1. Self-loathing explains the motivations of very few. It can explain the lack of motivation of depressives, but that’s not a characteristic of woke-tard politics.

          1. I agree with Meyer. I think that was well said.

            Except one thing. You can forgive whatever you like. but they will not forgive you, if you are on the wrong side of them. They’re about as interested in forgiving, as Lamech was

            Sal Sar

Leave a Reply