It's all good.

TBH, I was surprised at NOS4A2's response. I stupidly assumed everyone would agree that girl deserved to go to prison.

The man killed himself, committed suicide, but the girlfriend goes to jail for manslaughter. How do you square that circle?

The Dems have presented doctored videos, photoshopped tweets, and even outright lied about another senator while he sat there in the room. The reason they are impeaching him for this nonsensical crime and not taking him to criminal court is because a real court would toss this nonsense to the wind the second the prosecutors started speaking.

But no, in this trial a democrat can preside over the case, be a witness, and sit on the jury at the same time.

Some proof of those claims would be nice.

If you were watching any of the impeachment trial you would see that proof.

If you are listening to both democrats and the republicans which are saying different things how do you reconcile what they are saying? Is one side lying in the other side telling the truth? How do you know which one is lying in which one is telling the truth - that they have a D or an R next to their name? Are they both lying?

If you look at the evidence without being politically swayed by one side or the other, it is obvious that the accusers are hypocrites and trial is a farce.

The only evidence needed is Trump's speech on January 6th. Specifically, what part of it was inciting violence?

Photoshopped tweet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6377&v=6uBSR_BiHeE&feature=youtu.be

Lies about Sen. Mike Lee:

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/10/966638864/much-ado-about-nothing-house-managers-strike-claim-about-gop-senator-from-record

Video with all exculpatory evidence removed:



Unconstitutional judge:

Article 1 section 3 of the constitution:

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

Who is presiding?

Trifecta of Roles for Leahy: Witness, Juror and Judge in Trump’s Trial

Looks like the the Lincoln Project grifters are finally getting their comeuppance after milking anti-Trumpers for millions. I love when they eat their own.

The Lincoln Project, Facing Multiple Scandals, is Accused by its Own Co-Founder of Likely Criminality

GOP Senate jurors caught helping Trump impeachment lawyers plot their legal strategy. Sens. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee huddled with Trump’s lawyers to share thoughts about their arguments

Totally normal.

The fact that the Republicans are likely to acquit is almost more disgusting than Trump’s behaviour. Although I suppose you have to make allowances for the fact that their brains have been eaten.

New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters

In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.

McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details have been previously reported and discussed publicly by McCarthy.

The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty.

"He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them," a Republican member of Congress said. "On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does."

Speaking to the President from inside the besieged Capitol, McCarthy pressed Trump to call off his supporters and engaged in a heated disagreement about who comprised the crowd. Trump's comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.

"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."

"We should never stand for that, for any reason, under any party flag," she added, voicing her extreme frustration: "I'm trying really hard not to say the F-word."

"I think it speaks to the former President's mindset," said Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican who voted to impeach Trump last month. "He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country."

But it's totally just a Democrat hoax or whatever...

The point is that in Trumpworld, facts don’t matter. The fact that Trump is obviously guilty has no bearing on the outcome of the trial. Nothing that could be said or done or proved will make any difference to the verdict. This is the extent to which Trump has degraded American politics.

//although I have to keep reminding myself the vote hasn’t been taken yet, but I’m expecting an acquittal.//

The only evidence needed is Trump's speech on January 6th. Specifically, what part of it was inciting violence? — Harry Hindu

That's not true at all. All of Trump's actions following the election, especially his incessant claims that the election was "stolen", ought to be considered as evidence. The event of January 6th was planned long in advance, so it is not just a matter of looking at what happened on that particular date.

If the election wasn't really stolen from him, then the inciting of his followers to protest, is a matter of fraudulent behaviour. And wherever there is fraud there is the intent of wrongful gain. Therefore we need to ask what did Trump intend to gain by inciting his followers to protest at that particular place, on that particular date.

The facts of January 6 are clear. There are even the bodies. The question at the impeachment trial is did Trump incite the mob. The defense's approach is to deconstruct the facts, even the words, until they no longer have any meaning. He (Trump) said "fight." Well, he did not mean fight; they weren't fighting, and what they were fighting for was right! He said "find." Well, he did not mean find, he meant examine signatures and find thousands of forgeries. Oh, and did we say he did not mean fight or find? Silly us, we meant he could not possibly have meant fight or find. And so forth.

But the facts! And what was Trump's responsibility in relation to the facts? That answer is clear. He incited the actions that led to them; he was part of them.

Further, it is an ignorant confusion to think of the impeachment trial in terms of an ordinary criminal or even civil trial; civil and criminal standards do not apply. Do not apply! This trial is about standards of conduct that a president should meet. Trump has never met those standards, nor knows nor would comprehend them. He could have/should have been impeached on day one or two of his administration, or any day thereafter for reasons new each day. Conduct and responsibility. Almost every four-year-old on the planet learns these are serious and important. Even pets understand this in their own way. But not Trump and his.

To be sure, the barrier is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Was there even a day when Trump did not violate this limit?

There is apparently a good chance Senate Republicans will "acquit" him. To the extent any of their names are remembered, it will be collectively as Brutus stabbing America, except devoid of any honor whatsoever. Them vile men.

And what can be said of people here who defend Trump? Simply that they are stupid, vile, even vicious themselves. And that is the verdict of the facts.

The specific article of impeachment is “incitement to insurrection”. The problem is, as far as I’m aware, no one has been charged with insurrection. So the question is, how can someone be charged with inciting a crime when that crime has never occurred?

The specific article of impeachment is “incitement to insurrection”. The problem is, as far as I’m aware, no one has been charged with insurrection. So the question is, how can someone be charged with inciting a crime when that crime has never occurred? — NOS4A2

Many times I have asked you directly simple questions that you ignored. I have not enough respect for you to answer now.. To your sophistic, stupid point, the absence of a charge does not mean that the thing charged did not occur. Back to kennel, cur!

Come on NOS, I can incite someone to commit a crime, and if the police arrest, and therefore prevent that person from carrying out the crime, it doesn't mean that I am any less guilty.

I think you'd have a better chance arguing that inciting is not a crime.

But can you incite someone to commit a crime while explicitly telling them to do the opposite? That’s the magical power Trump has.

But yes you are less guilty. “ Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

But can you incite someone to commit a crime while explicitly telling them to do the opposite? That’s the magical power Trump has. — NOS4A2

That magical power is called contradiction. It's not hard to tell someone to do one thing one minute, and the opposite thing the next minute. Choose to hear what you want to hear.

Do you believe it is possible that when a man says “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women”, he means this and not mean insurrection?

Do you believe it is possible that when a man says “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, this is what he intends and expects, and not insurrection?

Not only is it impossible, it takes a sheer act of deceit and self-deception to believe otherwise.

This is why Trump’s opponents and the press refuse to play these quotes in their sound bites, because it cannot be twisted to mean something else. An uncharitable interpretation of someone’s words is evidence of fallacy and personal animus, not of intention or incitement.

Do you believe it is possible that when a man says “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women”, he means this and not mean insurrection? — NOS4A2

I believe it is possible for a man to mean that, as you are suggesting. But what is possible for "a man" to mean with those words is not the question here. The question is what that man meant in that particular context.

So when we put Mr. Trump's speech in context we can see very clearly that it isn't possible that he meant what you are suggesting he may have meant. It isn't possible, because that man had been speaking for months to those very same people, about a very obvious landslide election win he, and they had, which had been stolen from them, through fraud. And now he says they have to fight like hell to get their country back.

See, he was in a fight for two months to battle the publicized outcome of the election, and he intentionally brought those supporters into that battle with him. How can you possibly believe that he meant anything other than insurrection? He didn't tell them to show up at the court houses to help with the legal fight. Yet he was fighting against the outcome of the election, and getting his supporters to join the battle with him. What other option could he have been thinking of, when he was inviting those people to join his battle against the thieves who stole the election, other than insurrection?

with regards to the tweet, did or did she not tweet what she tweeted? The little blue verification badge doesn't change content. But yes, let's get hung up on what something looks like instead of what it is. Just a silly diversion which, in light of all the other evidence, we can simply ignore.

There were no lies told. On the basis of the available reporting something was stated about Lee. Lee objected and it was stricken. Whether it's true or false is still entirely unclear. CNN hasn't adjusted its reporting and Lee claims it's false. I don't have the information to tell who's wrong. The real point there is whether Trump called, or tried to call, senators to delay the vote during the riot. Did he?

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

Who is presiding? — NOS4A2

Who is President now?

So, you have nothing. Meanwhile, check out Michael's posts.

What I find underwhelming about the whole process is that even when a majority has already voted the impeachment was constitutional this is still going to influence the vote on his guilt, while these two things are entirely separate questions.

Edit: meaning the acquittal is certain.

It is a kangaroo court in that respect because almost nobody in politics is committed to principles, only to outcomes.

Swallwell, who has been compromised by Chinese spies, read her tweet as cavalry, not Calvary. They photoshopped her tweet. But no, let’s not get hung up on the house manager’s lies.

Lee, who should know what he said, said it was false. They tried to submit circumstantial CNN reports as evidence instead of witnesses. This is what we get: lies.

Judge, jury and witness. I get to watch as a self-described lawyer dismisses that as if it happens everyday.

You have nothing.

New York Governor Cuomo hid coronavirus deaths from Trump. They undercounted nursing homes deaths by as much as 50%.

This after his murderous nursing home policy.

“Cuomo issued an order that required nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients being discharged from hospitals, as long as they were "medically stable," in order to help free up hospital beds for the sickest patients. Under the policy, nursing homes receiving the patients were barred from testing the patients to see if they might still be contagious.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/cuomos-office-hid-nursing-home-covid-19-data/story?id=75853764

This is anti-Trumpism at its worst.

For "bring the calvary" to be a thing, you would expect some use. The only use we've seen is when people meant cavalry. It's not a thing among right wing Christians either and since it refers to crucifixation, it doesn't help either way. But sure, kid yourself to continue to believe in the fantasy. She's not Snoop Dogg to get away with making shit up, fo sizzle.

Lee, who should know what he said, said it was false. They tried to submit circumstantial CNN reports as evidence instead of witnesses. This is what we get: lies. — NOS4A2

And you know Lee isn't lying because? The statements were stricken from the records because the issue isn't relevant. Again, did Trump call during the riot to ask senators to delay the vote?

Judge, jury and witness. I get to watch as a self-described lawyer dismisses that as if it happens everyday. — NOS4A2

You claimed it was unconstitutional, it isn't. This is just whining that the rules aren't the way you want them to be. There's no judge in any case, there's someone who will preside over the trial.

New York Governor Cuomo hid coronavirus deaths from Trump. They undercounted nursing homes deaths by as much as 50%. — NOS4A2

Yea, that doesn't even make sense. He also screwed up NY's vaccination drive by handing responsibility for it to large hospitals instead of local health departments. He's like Trump Jr.

How is Canada handling vaccination?

Sorry, I disagree.



It makes you wonder why he didn’t us the USS Comfort and Javits center field hospital to house those patients. I am almost certain he did it because he didn’t want to give Trump credit.

Vaccine rollout in Canada is probably the worst in the developed world. The healthcare system and government is also one of the most overrated.

Trump’s impeachment trial extended after 55-45 Senate vote for witnesses

Subpoena Trump. It would be crazy to not require the defendant to testify.

It makes you wonder why he didn’t us the USS Comfort and Javits center field hospital to house those patients. I am almost certain he did it because he didn’t want to give Trump credit. — NOS4A2

Probably. Politics is more important than people's lives, though Cuomo says he won't run in 2024.

Vaccine rollout in Canada is probably the worst in the developed world. The healthcare system and government is also one of the most overrated. — NOS4A2

Really? I wouldn't have thought so. But you're probably closer to Russia than to Montreal, right? :razz:

Who is President now?

So, you have nothing. — Benkei

That's a nifty princple!

If a person does something that would normally be prosecuted, but they do it close to the end of their term, in a time-window too short for the legal proceedings of prosecution to take place, then said person must be allowed to get away with what they've done.

Yay!