• 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

Some of these questions, hell...most of them...from the GOP are just a self-serving waste of time. They aren't questions at all; they're just political grandstanding and shouldn't be allowed.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
RON JOHNSON: "I think the president’s lawyers blew the House manager case out of the water. They legally eviscerated them. … And they certainly proved that the First Amendment applies to political speech probably more than anything."
Click to expand...
The only explanation I can come up with for comments like this is that Trump's sphincter must have a delectable flavor and complex palate unequaled if not unsurpassed by even the greatest efforts of the world's most skilled culinary artisans.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ooo, what did Trump know about the riot, when, what did he do about it, be specific? Per Collins and Murkowski.

Trump defense answer: deflect, dodge, simply don't answer.
Click to expand...

If the defense won't answer it, the Managers will: as soon as it happened and he did nothing.
 
Stacyhs said:
If the defense won't answer it, the Managers will: as soon as it happened and he did nothing.
Click to expand...

Now defense is claiming what Trump did to respond to the riot is not included in the charges. He also claimed Trump's response was to tell the rioters to stay peaceful and go home. Pretty sure that isn't what happened.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Now defense is claiming what Trump did to respond to the riot is not included in the charges. He also claimed Trump's response was to tell the rioters to stay peaceful and go home. Pretty sure that isn't what happened.
Click to expand...

What a load of crap that Trump didn't know that Pence was in danger! Trump was watching it live like everyone else was. He knew damn well. And TRump got updates from the SS unlike the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
I am not, and was not, defending Trump.

"He's had years to clarify what he said and correct people's understanding of what he meant and of course he hasn't, and he won't."

He did just a few days later and that's all I'm going to say on this.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/
Click to expand...

According to a transcript from the White House, the Trump quote in question was in response to a reporter who asked, "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"

Trump responded: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
Click to expand...

You've said that is all you are going to say, and that's fine. You've already argued your point and don't wish to do so anymore.

I'll respond though since it's important to understand that exchange with reporters in light of what is going on this week and the events of January 6th.

Nowhere in that article does the former President offer any kind of clarification or explanation, he simply has his staff respond with a full transcript of what was said. Even reading the full quote it's hard to argue that what he said was misrepresented. The reporter's question established the two sides: alt-left and white supremacists. The relevant part of his response is clear "there were very fine people, on both sides". Like it or not, and whether Trump was aware of it or not, he said both the alt-left and white supremacist groups have fine people contained within them. Maybe that was his intent, maybe it wasn't, but he never even bothered to say what people want to hear, even if he doesn't believe it: "I didn't mean to say white supremacists are fine people". Because that's what he said.

Later, he says:

After further questioning from the reporter, and responses from Trump about people who were at the Charlottesville rally to support keeping the Lee statue, the president said, "You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists."
Click to expand...

So while I agree with you that what he said was exploited by his political opponents, it does not appear to be misrepresented...if anything he appears to have not really listened to the question or just doesn't feel like answering it honestly. Given his history of outright hostility to the press it's no wonder his entire presidency was filled with incidents like that. You gotta own what you say though, and Trump doesn't and never will.

What we're seeing from his defense today is along the same lines: Trump didn't really mean what he said to be taken that way....they had already made up their own minds and what he said is not what swayed them. Of course this ignores that their minds were made up because of what he said to them, and it wasn't just on that day. He had every opportunity that day and since then to come right out and say that what happened is not what he wanted and simply condemn it. He never has, and he never will. If he had simply done that, even just this one time, I don't think the impeachment trial ever happens.
 
Some guy on Twitter said that in undergraduate law class the last chance saloon submission when you are struggling in mooting (debate), is to appeal to the 'People of the United States' and that is what Van der Veen is doing. Pure hammed-up theatrics. Feigning contempt and disgust at the professed 'dishonesty' of the other side and flouncing off. Probably has argued this in numerous cases when in a corner.
 
Last edited:
Defense can't admit Trump lost. Tries to ask a different question. Aaaand throw in some false equivalence and straw for good measure
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but I can't watch the reactions from the Senators to van der Veen without thinking of Blazing Saddles...

Harumph! Harumph!

I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!
 
alfaniner said:
I had to rewind it. Yes. Yes, he did.

I've been fairly amused in the last week or so because I've heard different newscasters misspeak "incitement to erection" at least four times. But they immediately corrected themselves.
Click to expand...

I assume they correct it by saying "excitement to erection". Those are hard words to keep straight.
 
Mumbles said:
Look at y'all two, actually trusting Moscow Mitch McConnell. That's so...adorable.

It's very simple, Mitch does what's best for his own pockets and his own power.
Click to expand...

It not that I trusted Mitch. I thought the would use this opportunity to get rid of Trump for his own evil selfish reasons. Get rid of the competition, you see. Take back the party where he is in control. But it looks like he is going to continue to allow himself to be bullied by Trump.
 
Trump's words had ZERO to do with those rioters being there on Jan. 6 and what they did.

Except for what dozens of those rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6 have said.
 
Last edited:
Because this has come up several times:

Human Rights Watch

Capitol police planned to deploy a routine daily force, around 1,400 officers, on January 6, the Washington Post reported. They requested DC National Guard support, but the 340 troops deployed were unarmed and mostly assigned to traffic and crowd control. The head of the Capitol Police said he asked for more national guard forces from House and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms, who had the authority to make such a request, but both refused, Roll Call reported. Further, the Pentagon removed the authority to rapidly mobilize troops from the DC National Guard commander, delaying their response.
Once the attack was underway, officials, including DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, the Capitol Police, and the DC Metropolitan Police, requested national guard back-up, requiring approval from the US Defense Department. The additional troops did not arrive to establish a secure perimeter around the Capitol until three hours later. Maryland’s Republican governor, Larry Hogan, said that federal officials repeatedly denied authorization when he offered to deploy his state’s national guard. Media reports indicate that officials responsible for House and Senate security, as well as Defense Department officials, delayed deployment. Defense Department officials said that Vice President Pence, not Trump, gave the order to deploy the DC National Guard. Some reports indicate that Trump refused to issue the order.

On January 26, acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman stated that by January 4, the Defense Department “knew that militia groups and white supremacist organizations would be attending,” that “there was a strong potential for violence and that Congress was the target,” and that the department “should have been more prepared for this attack.”
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
What a load of crap that Trump didn't know that Pence was in danger! Trump was watching it live like everyone else was. He knew damn well. And TRump got updates from the SS unlike the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Can't remember which official has stated he was on the phone with Trump and audibly remarked "they just rushed Pence out of here" on the call.

Trump can claim ignorance, but the facts say he knew instantly.
 
Ooo, Cruzy has a question. Bet it will be a zinger. :rolleyes:

:popcorn1

Brings up Kamala Harris and BLM in one.


ETA: and it turned out to be a falsehood that was already debunked online.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ooo, what did Trump know about the riot, when, what did he do about it, be specific? Per Collins and Murkowski.

Trump defense answer: deflect, dodge, simply don't answer.
Click to expand...

I think the prosecution missed several opportunities.

When asked exactly when Trump knew this or that, the defense focused on the lack of an investigation. The prosecution rather weakly said roughly, “He must have known because everybody knew”. I think they missed saying, “We could know exactly when he learned of each and every aspect of the attack and what he did or didn’t do - BY ASKING HIM! Don’t pretend we didn’t give him the opportunity to tell his side of the story, and then blame us for lack of information.”
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ooo, Cruzy has a question. Bet it will be a zinger. :rolleyes:

:popcorn1

Brings up Kamala Harris and BLM in one.
Click to expand...

Right. A lot of those people arrested as "BLM rioters" later had their
charges dropped.

Van der Veen is your stereotypical slimy lawyer...the kind that give lawyers a bad name.

That Kamala Harris video that van der Veen played and accused Raskin of not seeing because they played three times was taken out of context. Talk about misrepresenting and manipulating videos!
This is a movement, I’m telling you,” Harris said in the interview. “They’re not going to stop. And everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be — everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.”
A Facebook post viewed more than 90,000 times this week superimposed part of that quote on a picture of burning cars, making it look like Harris was referencing riots and violence, rather than peaceful protests.

“Kamala Harris encourages the rioters that are destroying American cities,” the post’s caption read. “In these same riots, innocent citizens are dying and having their livelihoods destroyed. She will continue to fail law enforcement and the American people.”

The post lacked the full context of the interview. Harris and Colbert spoke about protest movements but never mentioned riots in the six-minute clip.

After the August police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Harris reiterated her support for peaceful protests and condemned violent agitators during an address in Washington.
Click to expand...
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9579800331
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom