Democrat Clown Car Unloads At Senate

[dilbert firestorm]

thats a very good analysis of the Times article.

[WTF]

Winning the election is good campaign strategy.

Trumps election strategy of contesting the election AFTER THE ELECTION...was dumb AF. Especially his outlandish claim of mass voter fraud and voting machine manipulation.

But nothing compares to the stupidity of him pressuring Georgia GOP officials after three recounts!

Hopefully he will go on trial in Georgia for that

[reddog1951]

"Their evidence is footage of the event", true and accurate. If the same evidence was presented to an impartial jury, Trump would be convicted. Thing is, the jury in this case is not impartial. He'll get off and it doesn't matter much, other than the example made to our kids. O. J. got off as well, then screwed up again. Same thing likely to happen here, He'll make the Boys Proud and cripple the Republicans.

[oeb11]

Trump hatred and delusion, and OJ deflection - on display
carry mao's litle red book next to One's hearts - DPST/ccpers?

[Jacuzzme]

If their evidence is footage of the event, they have no evidence at all. There is footage of concentration camps all over Europe, that doesn’t mean President Trump ran them.

If the same evidence was presented to an impartial jury, Trump would be convicted.

Maybe if his lawyer slept through the trial. Any first year law student would crush a case where their evidence was footage of the event.

At least today that retarded house “manager” finally admitted that their entire motivation is so President Trump can’t run again. Good luck with that. He’s not going to be convicted and if he chooses to run again he’ll get the nomination easily.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Stolen Election. We will not forget! 2022 will be a reckoning!

More Flat Earth Bullshit.

[reddog1951]

"Trump hatred and delusion, and OJ deflection - on display
carry mao's litle red book next to One's hearts - DPST/ccpers?"

Incoherent babble

[reddog1951]

"There is footage of concentration camps all over Europe, that doesn’t mean President Trump ran them."

Never said Trump ran concentration camps during WWII. Hitler was ultimately responsible for that atrocity....care to carry that analogy out to its ultimate conclusiin?

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

There was fraud, it was just not the massive fraud that Guiliani and Powell said they had no different than Schiff telling us he had evidence of a Trump/ Russia collusion which he never had either.

]

‘But the Democrats’

You gotta get better man. Throwing that whining in proved nor addressed anything in what you were trying to convey except to whine. Whataboutism at its worst.

I hold out hope for the you still. Just a little less every time.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

While I agree in general with what you said, I think there were a few trials where the judge did look at what was presented and decided that coming into court with 100 examples of fraud in an election decided by 80,000 votes was not worth having. In all most all cases, I believe, I could be wrong, judges looked at some evidence and decided there wasn't enough to overturn the vote.

That is not to say there wasn't evidence of dead people voting and more absentee ballots coming back that were never sent out but that in not one case did the evidence prove that the number for Biden could be whittled down to a win for Trump.

I believe there was fraud but at no time did Trump's lawyers go into court with the proof they needed to over turn even one state election.

Now was that because the evidence was well hidden or that Democrats prevented access to such evidence? I do not know but what I am sure of is that Trump's attorneys failed to make the case for "massive voter fraud" that would have altered the election in Trump's favor.

Maybe they cheated maybe they didn't but under our judicial system, you either have the evidence or you don't and saying "they wouldn't allow me to get the evidence I needed" will never be sufficient without the proof that they did so.


I said from day one that I supported Trump's right to challenge every single state if he wanted to and he tried 62 times, losing 61 cases. When the SC failed to review for reasons I didn't like, I was done with the election. There was no where else to go and I had to accept, reluctantly, that the contest was over and Trump continuing to say he won and he had proof, was a lie. It may have existed somewhere, but he didn't have it. End of story.


It was pointed out today that a better case for the prosecution, rather than Trump incited the violence which is loaded with reasonable doubt IMHO, there is no doubt what soever that after seeing the first rioters breaking in, he could have told them to stop, he didn't. So while he might reasonably argue he didn't tell them to start the riot, he didn't in a timely manner, tell them to stop and I have to find fault in that.

I still think it is un-Constitutional to try a private citizen and I would love to see the DOJ try and prosecute Trump on a federal charge of inciting an insurrection and see how the courts would handle it.

I also believe that Trump might very well lose a court fight in Georgia of trying to interfere in a federal election. I think they have all the evidence they need to find him guilty of that charge.

You guys might just get your pound of flesh one way or the other.

I happen to agree with your statements. Was there fraud? No evidence was brought forward at any level that could be substantiated. Did Trump at anytime tell the protesters to go and illegally enter the Capitol building and threaten several people (Pence and Pelosi to name two). No. But there was every reason to see what was going to happen and, as you said, Trump did nothing to stop it.

I also agree that Trump is in deep shit regarding his phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The amazing thing? Despite their massive, year-long multi-thronged assault, it still took trucks pulling up in the middle of the night to dump hundreds of thousands of ballots into the Zuckerberg-funded and staffed election tabulation centers to defeat Trump. On Election Day

Let me translate...Biden held a huge lead in early voting. No suprise. His voters were less inclined to be jammed into voting lines on voting day. So yes his ballots came in later , except in states like FLORIDA which had counted most of the preelection votes.

Trump also called into question early voting so many of his voters stayed away from it.

Bottom line , there was no mass voter fraud.

Trump's handling of the pandemic probably cost him the election.

All this nonsense HF just posted is sour grapes.

Someone please quote me so HF can see what nonsense he is reposting. He sounds like a loyal QAnon parrot.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Interesting theory...any evidence whatsoever to support it?

From Bloomberg:


Another reason for good lawyers remaining on the sidelines is the pressure being applied to law firms by interest groups such as the Lincoln Project, said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional-law professor at George Washington University Law School. Just days after the election was called for Biden, elite law firms such as Jones Day were being publicly berated for filing election challenges on behalf of Trump.

“The harassment and doxing of lawyers has been unprecedented,” Turley said. “What’s most concerning is that groups like the Lincoln Project have been funded heavily by lawyers who have supported the targeting of bar members for representing the president. It will be difficult for the president to assemble the legal team because of that intimidating environment.”

There are other similar news stories out there..

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

From Bloomberg:

Another reason for good lawyers remaining on the sidelines is the pressure being applied to law firms by interest groups such as the Lincoln Project, said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional-law professor at George Washington University Law School. Just days after the election was called for Biden, elite law firms such as Jones Day were being publicly berated for filing election challenges on behalf of Trump.

“The harassment and doxing of lawyers has been unprecedented,” Turley said. “What’s most concerning is that groups like the Lincoln Project have been funded heavily by lawyers who have supported the targeting of bar members for representing the president. It will be difficult for the president to assemble the legal team because of that intimidating environment.”

There are other similar news stories out there..

Interesting. I'm not surprised that lawyers would denigrate lawyers representing trump. Everybody has a viewpoint. Any evidence of threats of disbarment? Any evidence of harassment? (not public berating - which is perfectly legal).

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I happen to agree with your statements. Was there fraud? No evidence was brought forward at any level that could be substantiated. Did Trump at anytime tell the protesters to go and illegally enter the Capitol building and threaten several people (Pence and Pelosi to name two). No. But there was every reason to see what was going to happen and, as you said, Trump did nothing to stop it.

I also agree that Trump is in deep shit regarding his phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State.

I believe there was substantiated fraud, just not enough to move forward in a trial because the outcome being sought was not validated by the evidence. In other words, "you don't have enough evidence to make a difference". The wording was always the same.

Barr said federal prosecutors and the FBI had reviewed specific complaints, but they have uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP, even as Trump continued to pursue legal challenges to an election he has yet to concede to President-elect Joe Biden.

That is not the same as "we found no examples of fraud". Why would a judge move forward when the preliminary evidence, even if proven, wouldn't change the election?


I admit it is a fine line I'm arguing but it is important, in that it could/might be evidence that some changes need to be made to eliminate the amount of fraud that was found even if it wouldn't change the election. It does no good to ignore fraud just because it wasn't on a scale to change an election.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

"Their evidence is footage of the event", true and accurate. If the same evidence was presented to an impartial jury, Trump would be convicted. Thing is, the jury in this case is not impartial. He'll get off and it doesn't matter much, other than the example made to our kids. O. J. got off as well, then screwed up again. Same thing likely to happen here, He'll make the Boys Proud and cripple the Republicans.

I've heard more than a few former federal prosecutors say that most of the "evidence" presented by the House Managers would never be allowed in a regular court of law. It strayed to far from the central and only accusation, that Trump incited an insurrection. Any "evidence" of previous "bad acts" would not be allowed and that is what 99% of what House Managers are presenting as evidence. "This is what Trump said 2 years ago" wouldn't be allowed because the "inciting" statute demands a degree of immediacy, but this is not a court of law and no definition is necessary.



Impeachment is not a judicial process, we keep hearing, it is a political process. In an impeachment trial, you can get away with saying things and presenting evidence that would never be allowed in a court of law. Who is going to stop the Democrats, the Democrat in charge of the proceeding? Nothing impartial there, huh?



Did you hear the "presiding judge", a Democrat who also happens to be a member of the jury, something else that could never happen in a real court of law, say that if you find the defendant guilty, it must be beyond reasonable doubt"? No such admonishment exists in an impeachment trial. Here is an article that talks about how in a court of law, what it would take to find one guilty of incitement to insurrection.


https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection



Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.

The First Amendment: Brandenburg v. Ohio

Court decisions stress that democracy cannot stand if speech or conduct disagreeing with the government is criminalized—even when that speech advocates unpopular beliefs, condones racism, or suggests the use of force.

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must

intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action

, and the speaker’s words or conduct must

be likely to produce such action

. These requirements are known as the

Brandenburg

test.

You will not hear the presiding judge say those words.

This is were it would get tricky if Trump were in a real court of law. What did Trump say, that caused an imminent lawless action? That would seem to me, a non attorney, to limit the prosecutions argument to a time just before the riot took place meaning he would have to use Trump's speech and no other "evidence" to prove he provoked a riot and one of the biggest problems in proving that was the fact that Trump asked for a "peaceful" demonstration. The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew it wouldn't be peaceful, that the crowd would not heed his words but act indifferent to his words.


But none of that legalize is necessary in an impeachment. It's funny how those against Trump always bring up the idea that Republicans have already made up their mind as to his non- guilt before the trial but some how never seem to see that Democrats were voting for Trump's impeachment, the day and every day since he was elected. They didn't need a reason, they just wanted him out and any reason would do regardless of evidence or no evidence and it sure as hell didn't matter if there was "reasonable doubt".


No, it is not so clear that if this was a trial in a court of law, that Trump would be found guilty if the jury was non partisan and following the judges orders to have "no reasonable doubt" if they were going to convict and that one sentence "demonstrate peacefully" would be enough to have reasonable doubt unless the prosecution had other evidence like communicating directly with a member, a leader of the riot, to "go". No such evidence will be presented because they don't have evidence of direct communication.



I've already addressed that one of the central arguments of the Democrats is the term Trump used "fight like hell" as meaning, commit violence. When all Trump's defense team would have to do is find each and every Democrat that ever used the word "fight"and they didn't mean use violence. It was merely acceptable, political speech and even the Chief House Manager uses the word "fight" for Progressive ideas, on his website. Can you imagine Trump's lawyers calling lead House Manager Raskin's to the stand to explain what he meant when he used the word "fight"? Did you mean for your supporters to riot Mr. Raskin?


In another example of accusation against Trump, House Managers showed a clip of Trump telling people at a rally that if they hit somebody that was protesting against Trump, he would pay their legal bills. This is evidence against his character which probably couldn't be used in a court of law to prove he incited an insurrection on a day and time.



Then Trump's lawyers will present evidence that our new Vice President as well as other members of Congress, provided bail money for those accused of rioting last summer, essentially "paying their legal bills".


This is an example of what you probably couldn't do in a court of law but can do in an impeachment. It doesn't prove Trump didn't use the speech he used, but it would prove the hypocrisy of the Democrats because they have used the same speech, offered to pay legal bills of violent offenders, just like Trump did with no calls for impeachment or asking their supporters to stop doing what they were doing. Oh, yes, the 1blackman1's on the jury will whine about "whataboutism" being used but there is nothing to prevent it in impeachment proceedings but probably would be prevented in a court of law. Proving that the accusing side engaged in the exact same behavior and speech that they are accusing Trump of and never trying to prevent violence ( hell, they encouraged it ) just might make a fair minded person say, that's not honest and it's not fair and I refuse to hold one person or party guilty of something when the other person or party did the same thing without consequences.



No, there is no certainty that a jury would find Trump guilty in a court room and no matter what the Democrats use as evidence, none of it matters if some have already decided that the trial, is un-Constitutional which is their right to do. Until the SC says it is Constitutional to try an ex President out of office for a procedure meant to remove a President in office, it is merely an opinion of each and every Senator.


Since we know that Trump will not be found guilty, can he be prevented from running again, disqualification? I don't think we know the answer to that yet but we do know he will be acquitted so what was the purpose of this? Other than "whining"?