• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Trump Impeachment 2

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
14,191
Likes
29,629
#41
Wonder if this is the hunters become the hunted?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-congressman-answers-national-guard-remaining-around-capitol

GOP congressman: 'We still don't have answers' to why National Guard remaining around Capitol
Cost of keeping National Guard in nation's capital nearing $500 million

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are still waiting for an explanation of why National Guardsman are still on duty around the Capitol Hill complex more than one month after the deadly riot there on Jan. 6, Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., told "The Story" Monday.

"We still have National Guardsmen out there, away from their families, away from their jobs, supplementing the police," Waltz told host Martha MacCallum, "and yet we can't get a briefing on what is this dire threat that requires so many people. We still don't have answers."

Waltz also discussed accusations of hypocrisy against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., over violating her own Capitol security measures by ignoring metal detectors, as well as his FoxNews.com op-ed calling on Republicans to look to Florida as a roadmap for the party's national success.

KEEPING NATIONAL GUARD IN DC HAS COST AN ESTIMATED $438 MILLION

REP. MICHAEL WALTZ, R-FLA.: At 18 years old in the Army, you learn a very basic leadership principle, and that's to lead by example ... This is just time after time, whether it's Pelosi or other leading Democrats, where they don't feel like they need to do that. Whether it's with this and the magnetometers, whether it's her going back to California and getting her hair done when so many other small businesses and hair salons were completely shut down ...

From a security standpoint, there are Capitol police officers at these magnetometers, frisking us down ... rather than being out there, securing the Capitol grounds, from, by the way, threats that we can't get briefings on. We still have National Guardsmen out there, away from their families, away from their jobs, supplementing the police, and yet we can't get a briefing on what is this dire threat that requires so many people ...

Why do we have more troops in the Capitol than we have in Iraq and Afghanistan combined? We still don't have answers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

We turned out the Republican base [in Florida in 2020]. We turned out President Trump's base, and we grew the tent among Black, Hispanic ... and Jewish voters, and really, we focused on the issues, whether it was school choice, that resonated with Black women ... At the end of the day, we tripled his [Trump's] margin [of victory] from 2016 from 1% to 3% ... The party really operated in concert, from the national level to the state level to the local level, toward those goals.
 

oldgaranddad

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,495
Likes
13,692
Location
On the top shelf.
#42
And it just keeps getting better. Wonder if they have any idea how close they are all to being canceled?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article249077830.html

Democrats have a back-up plan in case the Senate doesn’t convict Trump on impeachment
BY MICHAEL WILNER
FEBRUARY 08, 2021 02:38 PM,
UPDATED FEBRUARY 08, 2021 11:32 PM
Play Video
Duration 2:57

A timeline: The insurrection at the Capitol


On Jan. 6, 2021 the U.S Capitol was breached for the first time since 1812. Here are the most pivotal moments of one of the darkest days in American history. BY TREVIN SMITH


WASHINGTON
House and Senate Democrats may push ahead this week with a censure resolution to bar former President Donald Trump from holding future office over his role in the U.S. Capitol riot, anticipating acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial, several sources familiar with the matter told McClatchy.

The effort to draft the resolution that would invoke a provision of the 14th Amendment began quietly in January and gained momentum over the weekend, as Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine gauge whether the measure could attract bipartisan support.

The reception has been lukewarm so far from Democrats, who would prefer to see the former president convicted in the impeachment trial, and from Republicans, who fear political consequences in barring Trump from office.


But a group of Democratic lawmakers may still proceed with the censure resolution this week, hoping to build public support and political momentum for the alternative as the trial proceeds, two sources said.

Some Democratic lawyers warn the strategy could backfire if taken to court and provide Trump with a rallying cry to run again for president in 2024, while others see it as the last, best chance to hold him accountable for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential results and disrupt Congress’ certification of his loss.



Ten Republican congressmen joined House Democrats last month to impeach Trump for a second time over “incitement of insurrection” on Jan. 6, when a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building and interrupted Congress’ certification procedure.

Trump’s impeachment trial begins on Tuesday in the Senate, where he is widely expected to be acquitted because conviction would require 17 Republican senators to join all Democrats.

As the likelihood of Trump’s acquittal has grown, so too have calls within the Democratic caucus for an alternative path to prevent Trump from holding office again.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida first raised the idea of a dual-track process that would reserve a second constitutional pathway. Kaine then began exploring the idea on the Senate side.

Their attention has focused on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a rarely cited Civil War-era provision which allows Congress to bar individuals from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection.” A resolution to censure Trump would require a simple majority vote to pass in the House and Senate.



Constitutional scholars including Michael Gerhardt, Lawrence Tribe, Bruce Ackerman and Erwin Chemerinsky have advised lawmakers on the plan.

Ackerman, a professor of constitutional law and political science at Yale University, told McClatchy that President Joe Biden would not be required to sign the resolution — but that nothing would stop him from voluntarily endorsing the effort, “vindicating the Constitution’s continuing importance.”

“The decisive precedent was established by Congress in 1869 when it implemented Section 3 through a Joint Resolution to disqualify all Confederate officials from service,” Ackerman said.

The three conservative justices appointed to the Supreme Court by Trump would likely read this statute as it was originally intended and support that the Congress is on sound legal footing, Ackerman said.

Some of the scholars, including Ackerman, have helped draft the resolution, engaging in late-night calls with congressional staff from the offices of Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Kaine, as well as Reps. Steve Cohen of Tennessee and Wasserman Schultz, among others.


“I’ve been working on it independently for a long time — we’ve done research, we’ve talked to some scholars on how it could be used,” Cohen said.

Cohen said he was not aware whether the proposal has the support of either of the top congressional Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a prerequisite for the process to move forward.

Durbin, the second highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate and chair of the Judiciary Committee, suggested in late January that a resolution of some kind could follow an acquittal.

“I hope enough Republicans join us to impeach this president,” Durbin said on Jan. 27. “If they don’t, perhaps we’ll consider some alternatives.”

But some Democratic lawyers have raised concerns that the strategy could come back to haunt the party.


The Constitution does not allow Congress to punish an individual over a crime without due process or a trial — a process referred to in the founding document as a “bill of attainder.” Democratic lawyers have warned members of Congress that any move to bar Trump from holding office without conviction at an impeachment trial could provide him with a strong constitutional argument in any future court challenge.

“I know there was some concern about it being a bill of attainder, but I’m not concerned about that,” said Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, “because what he did was the most horrific thing that a president of the United States has ever done to this country.”

The debate among members of Congress is now whether to push for the resolution early this week — as the impeachment trial is first starting — or towards the end, once evidence against the former president has been presented and acquittal is still assured.

Speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill last week, Kaine said his censure proposal was still on the table despite the resistance he and Collins have faced from their colleagues in both parties.

“We’re not going to file it unless we see a path to success. So we’ll get into the trial,” Kaine said. “The idea is out on the table. They understand it. They understand what it will do. Right now there’s not enough support on either side.”
So basically the Democrats are adding double jeopardy to their list of things in the constitution they’re going to ignore.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#43
Their attention has focused on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a rarely cited Civil War-era provision which allows Congress to bar individuals from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection.” A resolution to censure Trump would require a simple majority vote to pass in the House and Senate.
Being discussed on Radio Talk shows. Most being interviewed say that any future House and Senate can eliminate that censure vote removing the censure from the record and Trump would be free to run for POTUS again.
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#44
Let them tear it all apart. Show the people, right? Are we scared yet?
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#45
Being discussed on Radio Talk shows. Most being interviewed say that any future House and Senate can eliminate that censure vote removing the censure from the record and Trump would be free to run for POTUS again.
Once it's there it will be impossible to remove

C'mon man!
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#46
Wonder if this is the hunters become the hunted?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-congressman-answers-national-guard-remaining-around-capitol

GOP congressman: 'We still don't have answers' to why National Guard remaining around Capitol
Cost of keeping National Guard in nation's capital nearing $500 million
.....KEEPING NATIONAL GUARD IN DC HAS COST AN ESTIMATED $438 MILLION....

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

....
Who the hell wants FOX NEWS APP ? Foc has reassigned Maria Bartoroma to an evening ensemble cast ( Punishment for supporting Trump) and Lou Dobbs FIRED for the same reason ( and Dominion is suing Fox and Dobbs over the machinery Dominion makes being hack able reports).
Others are suppose to disappear too.
"DROP FOX"
 
Last edited:

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
14,191
Likes
29,629
#47
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/08/democrats-threaten-to-punish-trump-for-not-testifying-at-impeachment-trial/

Democrats Threaten to Punish Trump for Not Testifying at Impeachment Trial
24,010
Melina Mara / Pool / Getty
JOEL B. POLLAK8 Feb 202113,644
3:59
Democrats reiterated Monday a threat to punish former President Donald Trump for not testifying at the impeachment trial in the Senate, which begins Tuesday.
In a short filing responding to Trump’s lawyer’s 75-page trial memorandum, submitted Monday, the House impeachment managers — all Democrats hand-picked by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — wrote:
[T]he House has invited President Trump to voluntarily testify under oath, yet President Trump immediately rejected that opportunity to tell his story. The House will establish at trial that this decision to avoid testifying supports a strong adverse inference regarding President Trump’s actions (and inaction) on January 6.​
The Democrats were responding to Trump’s lawyers’ claim that Democrats’ rushed impeachment, which defied all previous procedural conventions governing impeachment in the House, denied the president the constitutional due process of law.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The impeachment trial is not a criminal case; however, many constitutional scholars argue that the same principles ought to apply — there, above all.
When Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote to Trump’s lawyers last week, inviting Trump to testify, he made a similar threat: “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights [sic], including the right [sic] to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley observed, Raskin — a former law professor — is threatening to overturn centuries of progress, and jurisprudence, establishing that a defendant has the right not to testify against himself or herself, and that the exertion of that right does not create a negative inference about his or her guilt.
Turley wrote:
[T]he statement of House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., this week was breathtaking. A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing.

The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.

Central to this right is the added protection that the silence of an accused cannot be used against him in the way suggested by Raskin. There was a time when members of Congress not only respected this rule but fought to amplify it.

The Supreme Court has been adamant that the type of inference sought by Raskin is abhorrent and abusive in courts of law.​
The trial will start Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. ET, and will reportedly begin with four hours of arguments about the constitutionality of the trial, followed by a vote. Thereafter, each side will have 16 hours for opening arguments.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
 

oldgaranddad

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,495
Likes
13,692
Location
On the top shelf.
#48
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/08/democrats-threaten-to-punish-trump-for-not-testifying-at-impeachment-trial/

Democrats Threaten to Punish Trump for Not Testifying at Impeachment Trial
24,010
Melina Mara / Pool / Getty
JOEL B. POLLAK8 Feb 202113,644
3:59
Democrats reiterated Monday a threat to punish former President Donald Trump for not testifying at the impeachment trial in the Senate, which begins Tuesday.
In a short filing responding to Trump’s lawyer’s 75-page trial memorandum, submitted Monday, the House impeachment managers — all Democrats hand-picked by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — wrote:
[T]he House has invited President Trump to voluntarily testify under oath, yet President Trump immediately rejected that opportunity to tell his story. The House will establish at trial that this decision to avoid testifying supports a strong adverse inference regarding President Trump’s actions (and inaction) on January 6.​
The Democrats were responding to Trump’s lawyers’ claim that Democrats’ rushed impeachment, which defied all previous procedural conventions governing impeachment in the House, denied the president the constitutional due process of law.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The impeachment trial is not a criminal case; however, many constitutional scholars argue that the same principles ought to apply — there, above all.
When Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote to Trump’s lawyers last week, inviting Trump to testify, he made a similar threat: “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights [sic], including the right [sic] to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley observed, Raskin — a former law professor — is threatening to overturn centuries of progress, and jurisprudence, establishing that a defendant has the right not to testify against himself or herself, and that the exertion of that right does not create a negative inference about his or her guilt.
Turley wrote:
[T]he statement of House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., this week was breathtaking. A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing.

The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.

Central to this right is the added protection that the silence of an accused cannot be used against him in the way suggested by Raskin. There was a time when members of Congress not only respected this rule but fought to amplify it.

The Supreme Court has been adamant that the type of inference sought by Raskin is abhorrent and abusive in courts of law.​
The trial will start Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. ET, and will reportedly begin with four hours of arguments about the constitutionality of the trial, followed by a vote. Thereafter, each side will have 16 hours for opening arguments.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Are they going to punish the Chief Justice for not participating in their farce too?
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#49
Once it's there it will be impossible to remove

C'mon man!
I should have written GOP Controlled House and Senate since it only takes a majority vote in both houses. Not a 2/3s Senate Vote.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#50
Are they going to punish the Chief Justice for not participating in their farce too?
The Dems sure are quite about Roberts turning down the request. 1). Declined over a phone call between Cuck and Roberts. As a written request would have become part of the record. 2). A documented decline could be used as evidence supporting Trump.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
14,191
Likes
29,629
#51
So basically the Democrats are adding double jeopardy to their list of things in the constitution they’re going to ignore.
Seems to me they are exposing themselves on record of supporting unconstitutional things. Too bad we don't have a law enforcement to punish them. OH YEA! THAT"S US!
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#52
Are they going to punish the Chief Justice for not participating in their farce too?
The game is rigged. It has been for about as long as us old timers suspected it's been.
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#53
Seems to me they are exposing themselves on record of supporting unconstitutional things. Too bad we don't have a law enforcement to punish them. OH YEA! THAT"S US!
The game continues and the beat goes on!
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
14,191
Likes
29,629
#54
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
14,191
Likes
29,629
#55
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#56
1612989283048.png
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
13,833
Likes
76,759
Location
third cove on the right
#57
@AwakenedOutlaw 9h ·
The only explanation is that the Dems in Congress were aware of the plan to assault their own building the day before it happened.

Now, ask yourself HOW they knew about it.



 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,184
Likes
9,320
#58
The art of the False Flag Terror just continues to improve over the years.
 

Tbonz

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,764
Likes
1,359
Location
Land of the Free
#59
ANY one of the RINO'S in the Senate that votes to IMPEACH Trump may as well get ready to be Premièred and hammered by Trump supporters.

Conservatives, not RINO's have a huge issue they need to weed out the BS on the right and replace it with people that are loyal to the CONSTITUTION.
 

historyrepete

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
2,670
Likes
4,293
Location
driving thru flyover
#60
ANY one of the RINO'S in the Senate that votes to IMPEACH Trump may as well get ready to be Premièred and hammered by Trump supporters.

Conservatives, not RINO's have a huge issue they need to weed out the BS on the right and replace it with people that are loyal to the CONSTITUTION.
Primaried in an election? Who believes in this shit after November 3 2020.
It's over minus a war
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
3,393
Likes
5,122
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#61
Primaried in an election? Who believes in this shit after November 3 2020.
It's over minus a war
State Secession.

Declarations of Independence by states, if you like. But exiting the reach of Imperial Washington, is the only way left to preserve freedom - and be allowed to prosper, to have and create wealth.
 

historyrepete

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
2,670
Likes
4,293
Location
driving thru flyover
#62
State Secession.

Declarations of Independence by states, if you like. But exiting the reach of Imperial Washington, is the only way left to preserve freedom - and be allowed to prosper, to have and create wealth.
Ok but they ain't letting America regroup or get back to her feet without a war. People are gonna die
 

Silver

Midas Board Mmbr
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,017
Likes
14,238
#63
State Secession.

Declarations of Independence by states, if you like. But exiting the reach of Imperial Washington, is the only way left to preserve freedom - and be allowed to prosper, to have and create wealth.
DC is getting ready to send hundreds of billions to states, cities, and counties from the 2 trillion spending they are in the process of passing. They're buying off everyone. States won't do anything but take the money.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
3,393
Likes
5,122
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
#64
DC is getting ready to send hundreds of billions to states, cities, and counties from the 2 trillion spending they are in the process of passing. They're buying off everyone. States won't do anything but take the money.
States are different.

Many will...although that's a sucker's game; the money will run out. Or, more accurately, its value will evaporate with all this looney-toons nonstop CTL+P.

Other states will consider the cost of the Endless Lockdown, the Face-Diaper Fascists, and the Gun-Grabber Squads, coming to a city near YOU!...and say, no things. Molon Labe! We're goin' our own way...
 

AurumAg

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,692
Likes
18,318
Location
State of Jefferson
#65
What is a Bogus Banner?

The art of the False Flag Terror just continues to improve over the years.
Trump impeachment Part 1 was a distraction, and from what exactly were we distracted?

China virus comes to mind.

With that in mind, what is the genuinely deceptive purpose of impeachment part 2?
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,085
Likes
5,641
Location
Taxachusetts
#66
With that in mind, what is the genuinely deceptive purpose of impeachment part 2?
Agreed, Pelosi was passing out impeachment pens while the virus was spreading all over the country without a peep from the MSM. Something is up...
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#67
ANY one of the RINO'S in the Senate that votes to IMPEACH Trump may as well get ready to be Premièred and hammered by Trump supporters.

Conservatives, not RINO's have a huge issue they need to weed out the BS on the right and replace it with people that are loyal to the CONSTITUTION.
How are we going to do that? By voting?
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
9,384
Likes
19,735
Location
North Carolina
#68
These clowns don’t even have 2 wheels left on the car

Leaky Leahey, the Senate Pro Tem, leading the process is slurring his words, not understand the points of order and is being spoon fed what to say (there’s a girl speaking, that we can here that he’s essentially repeating her words at times)

At this point, lee asks for comments they said he made be removed from the record because he never said them. Leaky, can’t understand the issue, can’t make a coherent ruling despite 3 tries and proceeds to a vote

Schumer actually had to step in to get the railroading back on track. They all go off camera into a huddle

Then “came back into action and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)–the House Democrats’ lead impeachment manager–admitted that Cicilline’s characterization of Lee as it related to the Trump-Tuberville phone call, while based on news reports, was inaccurate, and then he withdrew the matter from the record himself without a Senate vote.” (-Breitbart in quotes)

 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#69
With that in mind, what is the genuinely deceptive purpose of impeachment part 2?
An attempt to prevent Trump from running for POTUS again. That plain and simple.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#71
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/08/democrats-threaten-to-punish-trump-for-not-testifying-at-impeachment-trial/

Democrats Threaten to Punish Trump for Not Testifying at Impeachment Trial
24,010
Melina Mara / Pool / Getty
JOEL B. POLLAK8 Feb 202113,644
3:59
Democrats reiterated Monday a threat to punish former President Donald Trump for not testifying at the impeachment trial in the Senate, which begins Tuesday.
In a short filing responding to Trump’s lawyer’s 75-page trial memorandum, submitted Monday, the House impeachment managers — all Democrats hand-picked by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — wrote:
[T]he House has invited President Trump to voluntarily testify under oath, yet President Trump immediately rejected that opportunity to tell his story. The House will establish at trial that this decision to avoid testifying supports a strong adverse inference regarding President Trump’s actions (and inaction) on January 6.​
The Democrats were responding to Trump’s lawyers’ claim that Democrats’ rushed impeachment, which defied all previous procedural conventions governing impeachment in the House, denied the president the constitutional due process of law.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The impeachment trial is not a criminal case; however, many constitutional scholars argue that the same principles ought to apply — there, above all.
When Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote to Trump’s lawyers last week, inviting Trump to testify, he made a similar threat: “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights [sic], including the right [sic] to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley observed, Raskin — a former law professor — is threatening to overturn centuries of progress, and jurisprudence, establishing that a defendant has the right not to testify against himself or herself, and that the exertion of that right does not create a negative inference about his or her guilt.
Turley wrote:
[T]he statement of House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., this week was breathtaking. A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing.​
…​
The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.​
…​
Central to this right is the added protection that the silence of an accused cannot be used against him in the way suggested by Raskin. There was a time when members of Congress not only respected this rule but fought to amplify it.​
…​
The Supreme Court has been adamant that the type of inference sought by Raskin is abhorrent and abusive in courts of law.​
The trial will start Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. ET, and will reportedly begin with four hours of arguments about the constitutionality of the trial, followed by a vote. Thereafter, each side will have 16 hours for opening arguments.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Testifying would only give the appearance of a legitimate trial instead of the Kangaroo Court it actually is.
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#72
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/08/democrats-threaten-to-punish-trump-for-not-testifying-at-impeachment-trial/

Democrats Threaten to Punish Trump for Not Testifying at Impeachment Trial
24,010
Melina Mara / Pool / Getty
JOEL B. POLLAK8 Feb 202113,644
3:59
Democrats reiterated Monday a threat to punish former President Donald Trump for not testifying at the impeachment trial in the Senate, which begins Tuesday.
In a short filing responding to Trump’s lawyer’s 75-page trial memorandum, submitted Monday, the House impeachment managers — all Democrats hand-picked by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — wrote:
[T]he House has invited President Trump to voluntarily testify under oath, yet President Trump immediately rejected that opportunity to tell his story. The House will establish at trial that this decision to avoid testifying supports a strong adverse inference regarding President Trump’s actions (and inaction) on January 6.​
The Democrats were responding to Trump’s lawyers’ claim that Democrats’ rushed impeachment, which defied all previous procedural conventions governing impeachment in the House, denied the president the constitutional due process of law.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The impeachment trial is not a criminal case; however, many constitutional scholars argue that the same principles ought to apply — there, above all.
When Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote to Trump’s lawyers last week, inviting Trump to testify, he made a similar threat: “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights [sic], including the right [sic] to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley observed, Raskin — a former law professor — is threatening to overturn centuries of progress, and jurisprudence, establishing that a defendant has the right not to testify against himself or herself, and that the exertion of that right does not create a negative inference about his or her guilt.
Turley wrote:
[T]he statement of House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., this week was breathtaking. A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing.​
…​
The statement conflicts with one of the most precious and revered principles in American law that a refusal to testify should not be used against an accused party.​
…​
Central to this right is the added protection that the silence of an accused cannot be used against him in the way suggested by Raskin. There was a time when members of Congress not only respected this rule but fought to amplify it.​
…​
The Supreme Court has been adamant that the type of inference sought by Raskin is abhorrent and abusive in courts of law.​
The trial will start Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. ET, and will reportedly begin with four hours of arguments about the constitutionality of the trial, followed by a vote. Thereafter, each side will have 16 hours for opening arguments.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
How much more can they punish him. That group is like a bunch of 10 year olds. They should be removed
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#73
These clowns don’t even have 2 wheels left on the car

Leaky Leahey, the Senate Pro Tem, leading the process is slurring his words, not understand the points of order and is being spoon fed what to say (there’s a girl speaking, that we can here that he’s essentially repeating her words at times)

At this point, lee asks for comments they said he made be removed from the record because he never said them. Leaky, can’t understand the issue, can’t make a coherent ruling despite 3 tries and proceeds to a vote

Schumer actually had to step in to get the railroading back on track. They all go off camera into a huddle

Then “came back into action and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)–the House Democrats’ lead impeachment manager–admitted that Cicilline’s characterization of Lee as it related to the Trump-Tuberville phone call, while based on news reports, was inaccurate, and then he withdrew the matter from the record himself without a Senate vote.” (-Breitbart in quotes)

What an ungodly mess
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,854
Likes
4,123
#74
Granted I have only seen snippets of the "trial", if this was held in a regular court even with the most corrupt judge presiding, he would have cleared the courthouse about 4,894,948,321 times and dismissed the "case", citing sheer stupidity on the left and a complete lack of testicular fortitude on the right.
 

the_shootist

I identify as vaccinated bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,558
Likes
109,205
Location
Earth
#76
It's time to stop this charade! It's time to begin the change
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,278
Likes
14,096
#77
I caught a second of it in passing.

“On January 6, President Trump left everyone in this Capitol for dead,” Castro said."


What a load of propaganda.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#78
Your response NOT his drivel.
 

Silver

Midas Board Mmbr
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,017
Likes
14,238
#79
That Castro character is La Raza, he was born and raised on it. La Raza are commies.
 

Silver

Midas Board Mmbr
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,017
Likes
14,238
#80
The Capital 'insurrection' was a made for impeachment reenactment exercise with paid crisis actors and paid Antifa and BLM. The big Trumps crowds were used as props for their fake exercise to make it look legit for the movie making pros who are presenting clips for the trial. This is surreal deception of the highest order. And the leading roles on both sides are kosher.