I got a question for the lawyers representing ‘djt’ in his (2nd, no less) impeachment trial –

If the Senate Impeachment Trial is a “…brazen political act…” by Democrats (as the ‘djt’ lawyers say), then, what would they call what the 147 Republicans were attempting on January 6, 2021, by trying to change the results of the actual election which had already been confirmed by the individual states?

Were those Republican lawmakers NOT seeking their very own “…brazen political act…” ? Can a ‘political act’ get much bigger than taking an election away from a winner and giving it to the loser? I don’t think so.

I mean, really?! And, if that attack on our country’s Capitol outside was not to commit the most ‘brazen’-in-your-face’ takeover of America’s seat of Democracy, just what was it?

This all went together: ‘djt’s months long lies about Democrats ‘stealing’ his eventual imagined win, the 147 GOP Congress members determined to overturn the election already confirmed, AT THE VERY SAME TIME ‘djt’s’ domestic terrorists were trying to destroy the Capitol and trying to hunt down Congressional Democrats. By the way, am I the only one who thinks all that activity coming together at the same time was just a tad too coincidental? Think about it – ‘djt’ is a TV guy – he does love his drama.

We all saw what we saw, and heard what we heard from ‘djt’ and his followers. He deserves more than a slap on his little hand, actually. He deserves serious time in a Federal slammer.

14 thoughts on “I got a question for the lawyers representing ‘djt’ in his (2nd, no less) impeachment trial –

  1. The sycophant and cowardly GOP (hereafter known as the Party of QAnon) will continue to reject both truth and Democracy until the mid-terms. Their political calculations failed to consider the fact that most Americans are NOT batshit crazy or stupid.

    Tic, Tic, Tic….

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I just read portions of their “brief” and most of it was debunked or given lie to by others.

    This particular opinion piece from The Hill seems to provide and prove the argument that T**** should be found guilty of incitement.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/537765-here-is-the-smoking-gun-evidence-to-back-impeachment-of-donald-trump

    The Constitutionality argument is bogus in that the Constitution articles in question do state that impeachment can be conducted after an individual has left the office and be prevented from ever serving again.

    Jamie Raskin, as lead manager this time around, is a solid Constitutional scholar. If he believes that the Constitution says the case can proceed, I believe he has a couple of very strong legs to stand on.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Where in the constitution does it say that? It appears to be missing from my copy.

      Mine does say though that in the impeachment of the President, the Chief Justice shall preside, but Roberts has already refused, there being no legitimate proceeding requiring his attention.

      Like

      1. Like I said, I’ll take the word of someone who is actually a Constitutional scholar and truly understands what has been said (and done – Does the name Belknap mean anything to you?) over someone who dallies in a hobby.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. A fact check from Newsweek puts your statement to rest.

        https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial-1564300

        The Chief Justice need only sit for an incumbent President. As a former president, he is no longer afforded that piece.

        “Newsweek found no evidence that Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any legal obligation to do so.
        The chief justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.”

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Trump was trying to produce a show. Political theater on a grand scale.

    He gathered the more fervent followers and told them that the key to keeping him in office lay in the Capitol. Pence was the go to man and he needed nudging by the mob. If that did not work, then Giuliani had “trial by combat” as a viable option. “Take back the country” and march to the Capitol.

    Then he rode home to watch the debacle on TV. Watched as his gangs did the bidding he told them to “stand by” for months earlier. 60 judges (at least), innumerable evidentiary hearings, and both state and national Supreme Court rulings were not good enough even though many were his own appointees.

    So if working through the legal apparatus that all of us have to abide by was not good enough for the man, then violence was the next option. So he rallied the “troops”, and combined with delayed reinforcements when the poop hit the fan, we had January 6th.

    This is why he is on trial in the Senate. For now, it seems as if many Senators are so self-serving and morally deficient that they pander for Trump supporters at the cost of domestic tranquility.

    And that is the whole case in a nutshell. A traitor v. the American people.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It is becoming increasingly/painfully apparent to most Americans what the “meaning of is, is” and each GOP Senator that votes against having a Democracy (vice an Autocracy) will be as guilty of insurrection as the MAGA mob they endorsed.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. If former President Trump’s words rise to the level of inciting riot, will you apply the same standard to Democratic members of Congress?

      And don’t forget that video recording does exist.

      Like

      1. SMH on this push back.

        However I twice made it clear that I was referencing “most Americans” .

        Your, frankly pitiful, attempts to keep creating some level of equivalency boarders on the pathological.

        Liked by 3 people

  4. Centuries ago, Galileo was challenged by the Church as to his findings that the solar system was heliocentric.

    “I do not wish to approve of claims about which I do not have any knowledge, and about things which I have not seen … and then to observe through those glasses gives me a headache. Enough! I do not want to hear anything more about this.”

    Cesare Cremonini, University of Padua around 1600 AD.

    This is the philosophy of the Trump supporter who cannot accept reality.

    Today, they say the same as Cremonini, but in English it translates to sticking fingers in ears and yelling “La, La, La…”.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s