• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

Stacyhs said:
Cancel the 75 million Americans who voted for him?

What the hell did Trump try to do to the 80 million Americans who voted for Biden?!
Click to expand...

Not to mention that they voted for him before he tried to overturn th result of a legitimate election and incited an insurrection. So there's no relevance at all.
 
Are we really shocked they have nothing but "kettle defense?"

Do everything possible to avoid talking about Jan 6th seems to be the point.
 
I cannot believe the irony of Trump's lawyer arguing about the hate the Dem managers have for Trump when a hallmark of the Trump administration has been hate, hate, and more hatred.
 
Irony: Showing the Senators' Oath of Office to the Assembly, knowing full well that nearly half of them are going to breach that oath very shortly.
 
"Robust" speech is protected by the 1A. Incitement to riot is not under the "imminent lawless action" standard.

ETA: Now he claims he's being threatened and playing the victim roll? Who does he think he is? Trump?
 
Last edited:
Most of the senators are lawyers. They know this guy's argument about the 1A is bogus BS.

ETA: The Impeachment Managers don't want Trump to have lawyers? WTF?
 
Last edited:
This guy is arguing a case that the Managers have not charged Trump with. He's charged with incitement to insurrection. Incitement is not protected by the 1A.
 
Last edited:
It's true, I think, that T****'s "fine people on both sides" statement was mistakenly identified as meaning support for white supremacist militias, when what he really meant was support for the white supremacist legacy of slavery.

Just as we know that Henry II did not actually say "Kill Becket,"' we can say without lying that T**** did not actually say "trash the Capitol and kill cops," so it's all just fine. If you slice the baloney thin enough it's fat free.
 
van der Veen's argument now seems to be that not accepting his arguments about Trump's innocence is an attack on his reputation.
 
Do they have a "whatabout" for the two months before Jan 6 Trump spent undermining the integrity of the electoral process for no other reason than that it resulted in his loss? Because the article of impeachment I read wasn't limited to that one speech, it was about the totality of his actions culminating in the speech. So they'd need to show how Hilary, in 2016, spent a couple of months telling her supporters to "fight!" against her loss, calling election officials in different states to get them to "find" the votes she needed, and then speaking at a rally on the day Congress counted the votes, telling her supporters to march down there and talk some sense into those folks, "peacefully," of course.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
I heard something on TV in the break room about the "vast majority" of capitol protestors being "peaceful" and Trump's rallies never before featuring any kind of violence, "law and order" and I left the room before my blood pressure started spiking.
Click to expand...

Remember all the times Trump told supporters to rough up protesters at his rallies?
 
The gop has already made up its mind to acquit Donald so this guy can **** up the defence and it will not make a difference to the outcome.
 
alfaniner said:
I think we need a rematch. Show the "FIGHT" video again!
Click to expand...

Oh. They are. But this time it's every occurrence of Trump saying it in his speech.

(eta) Jesus Christ! They're showing another one! Or is it the same one again?

I have now heard the word "fight" more times in one day than any other word or phrase in the English language. And that includes "Head-On! Apply directly to your forehead!"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom