Impeachment Heroes

Trump’s defense lawyers are American heroes. They aren’t defending Trump; they’re defending language and rational thought. Their presentation today is an indictment of Democrats and the media–everyone who is blinded by hate.

92 thoughts on “Impeachment Heroes

  1. Free speech seemed to elude the president AFTER the attack. No matter what one may ascribe to political speech under the First Amendment, keeping quiet and watching the violence is inexcusable on its own merits.

    He scheduled the rally and told attendees to be “wild” and “trial by combat”.

    Pretty clear the efforts were to overturn, really overthrow, the new administration. Otherwise why hold the rally? And tell people to go to the Capitol and “take back your country”.

    But his actions afterwards sealed the deal for most folks.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Wow, after seeing today how dishonest the House Democrats were in the editing of video and falsifying of tweets, I would have thought you would at least be ashamed a little.

      You are basing your opinion on lies you just want to believe.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The video was RAW, not altered. Not like the “fight” video which used the technique of back and forth editing to sound patently ridiculous. Whataboutism, a technique for the ignoranti and weak minded, was the primary defense. Nothing about Trump himself.

        But aside from that, what lies are you talking about?

        And, my point was simple: what Trump did while the insurrection was going on. And the defense lie that Trump hadn’t a clue that Pence was threatened.

        How can you stomach such behavior from our president?

        What should I be ashamed of. You are supporting the traitor, not me.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Yeah. Fact checkers who back up their assertions are divorced from reality.

            Sorry, Don. But it is you and the rest of the T****licans who have been divorced from reality for over 4 years.


          2. What did the video editing hide. 100’s of hours of video needs trimming.

            The case against Trump had tens of millions of witnesses.

            But, again, your hero killed someone (literally this time) not on Fifth Ave., but at the Capitol, and you enablers are thrilled.


            Liked by 2 people

          3. “The fact check was an editorial. The writers opinions do not constitute facts.”


            This NYT fact check was based on evidence – evidence that was clearly cited with respect to each Trump lawyer lie or exaggeration addressed.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. OK, Item by item

            “False. In his speech on Jan. 6 and before, Mr. Trump repeatedly urged former Vice President Mike Pence …”

            That was an opinion on the legality of Trump’s request of Pence, but not an obstruction of the process. I think Pence was right to reject the request, but making the request was lawful.

            “This is exaggerated. Mr. Trump used the phrase “peacefully and patriotically” once in his speech, compared with 20 uses of the word “fight.””

            Again, an opinion on Trumps meaning, the Defense extensively demonstrated the rhetorical use of the word “fight” as opposed to a call to violence, using scores of examples of Democrats using the term.

            “This is misleading. It is true that the Capitol was first breached before Mr. Trump had concluded his remarks, but this does not rule out the possibility that some rioters were inspired by his speech. In fact, several have said that they were.”

            So, the NYT’s fact checkers argue that rioters were inspired by Trump’s speech before he made it.

            I could go on but item by item, they are expressions of opinion on words and deeds that have alternate interpretations.

            It was an editorial.


          5. You do not get to turn a statement of fact into a mere opinion. There is no bona fide legal theory anywhere that says Mike Pence had the Constitutional power to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes. Congress might have such power IF there had been a competing slate of votes from a state. There were no such slates.

            You can pretend all you want that one CYA admonition in an hour long speech full of lies and incitements changes the nature of it. It does not. The defense showed Senator Warren using that word “fight” repeatedly in front of 1 million protesters in Washington back in 2017. Funny thing, the Capitol was not stormed nor any policemen assaulted as a result. Context matters. Trump’s crowd was summoned to DC on a special date explicitly to “stop the steal.” There is no Constitutionally valid way for a crowd to do that.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Uh, I expressed one FACT. It is a FACT. Not my opinion.

            “There is no bona fide legal theory anywhere that says Mike Pence had the Constitutional power to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes.”

            Liked by 1 person

          7. The First Amendment does not protect the solicitation of an illegal act. It would have been illegal for Vice President Pence to simply refuse to accept Electoral votes. It also would be illegal for Pence to participate in a seditious conspiracy or to suggest that he should.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. So, people are free to speak when they agree with you.

            Trump certainly believed it was within Pence’s discretion to reject an improperly certified set of electors.

            I think he is wrong, and so did Pence, but being wrong is protected by the first Amendment.


          9. “. . . . being wrong is protected by the first Amendment.”

            uh, no. It depends on what you are saying.

            You have a very naive understanding of language and the law. Things are quite a bit more complicated than you seem to think. You may be free to SAY most anything (with limits such as inciting insurrection or participating in a seditious conspiracy or soliciting a criminal act) but you are not free to ASK anything (imperative) or suggest anything or demand anything. If that thing is illegal.

            And, do not forget the aphorism . . . “Ignorance is no excuse for the law.” If Trump ordered Mike Pence to throw out votes he cannot defend himself by saying, “Gee Your honor, I thought the President could demand anything.” Similarly, when Trump is prosecuted for interfering in the Georgia election he cannot say “My asking the Secretary of State” to change the results is protected free speech under the First Amendment.” Uh, no. It is not.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. If Trump had ordered a general, as Commander in Chief, to take some action, then I would agree, but Trump actually has no authority over Pence. He can’t order him to do anything.

            So, yes he is protected under the first amendment in asking Pence to interpret the Constitution in a favorable way, but so long as he cannot order it, it is free speech.


          11. Nice try, but nope.

            The First Amendment does not protect criminal speech. It is criminal speech to solicit a criminal act. Soliciting a criminal act does require that one have the power to compel compliance. Solicitation of a criminal act can be in the form of a suggestion, request or encouragement.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. First, you have to prove the act is criminal, and was known to be criminal when the request was made, and it would have to be specifically criminal and possible for the person solicited to accomplish.

            There is no way such a conviction could be obtained in a real court.


          13. “I stand with Rand”

            If the subject were merely “political speech” then sure. But Trump’s behavior goes far beyond mere political speech in two important ways.

            1. He spent months gaslighting egregious falsehoods which – if believed – would “incite riot” and justify violence. That is an unlawful abuse of free speech. His lies of a stolen election were in the realm of “fighting words” and as such are not protected by the First Amendment. That they WERE fighting words leading to a breach of the peace is evidenced by the behavior that resulted.

            2. He summoned a mob of tens of thousands of his “tough” supporters explicitly to stop the lawful processes of the Constitution.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. No, I will have to disagree.

            Trump’s inciteful lies and the summoning of a mob to intimidate Congress were part and parcel of the Article of Impeachment – Inciting Insurrection.

            The President has a sacred duty to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Under our Constitution the President is chosen by the votes of the people. The outcome of the election was decisive. The President’s DUTY was to accept it. Trump should have done so immediately, or when the recounts were done or when all of his court challenges had failed. Had he done so at any of these junctures, the insurrection would not have happened. If he had not summoned supporters to intimidate Congress on January 6th, the insurrection would not have happened. Guilty as charged. Guilty as Hell.

            Don’t believe me? Believe Mitch McConnell. If your theory that the Impeachment was nothing but Democratic hatred is accurate, how can you explain his scathing declaration of Trump’s guilt?

            Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m surprised at the elation over the disjointed and embarrassing defense by the trump clowns. I guess they are going to pretend another loss (certainly so in the court of public opinion) is another “win”.

          The insurrection caucus will put their names on the Sedition List today and will be removed at their next election….

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Conclusion?

            Trump diehards don’t care about America, they only care about Trump. The “messiah”.

            Jim Jones would be delighted.

            Liked by 3 people

  2. You have got all of that just about backwards.

    Beyond that, their entire presentation was amateurish – just what you would expect from the dregs of the legal profession after Trump fired more competent lawyers who were unwilling to sacrifice their integrity by mounting a defense based on lies.

    If Trump had been removed after his first Impeachment – as he should have been – and Pence had become the President then (a) He might well have won the 2020 election and (b) if he had lost he would not have incited an insurrection as Trump did. Instead he would have graciously accepted the decision of the voters (and of SCOTUS) and none of this would have happened.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. And yet those amateurs managed to pick apart the best deceptive editing Hollywood had to offer and expose the blatant dishonesty of the Impeachment Managers.

      Did they think no one bothered to keep an undoctored copy? Or did they think that the MSM could provide them cover for this grand a fraud?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I will stipulate that out of the 1000s of hours of video recordings to work with that the prosecutors selected the bits that were the most sickening and compelling. They only had 16 hours to make their case. However, selecting videos is not the same as doctoring them. So, as usual, you are either lying or uncritically repeating a lie that you are eager to believe.

        Whatever videos that were selected to be shown, is there any doubt that a mob waving Trump flags and wearing Trump hats stormed and occupied the Capitol stealing and destroying property, assaulting police and killing people all for the purpose of stopping the legal functioning of the government? Is there any doubt that this mob was summoned by Trump and worked into a frenzy by his months of inflammatory lies and incitements on the day? Is there any doubt that Trump did nothing to end the siege for hours after it had breached the Capitol?

        The answer to all these questions is . . . No!

        So, carry on with your dishonest whining about the prosecutor’s presentation. Do it until you turn blue. It will not change the answers to those questions.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Demolished it?


            They did not even address the case.

            Gaslighting for Trump has never been easy and always demands the sacrifice of integrity and dignity, but this is a “bridge too far,” even for you.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. The fact that you believe anything was “demolished” highlights the damage that trump has done to the psyche of way too many Americans who choose to believe the alternative reality he has created, regardless of the lies they must buy into and tell themselves.

            In trump’s case the group is largely composed of white males terrified of losing their “privilege” and as such it is both sad and disgusting.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Have you watched the full defense video?

            You could stop at 3.5 hours as the questions posed by the Democrats after that are beyond stupid,

            (As a matter of style, the defense overdid the background drumbeat to the videos)

            But the defense answers the relevant charges fully. And the examples of the very Democrats accusing Trump doing much worse themselves is entertaining.


          4. Leaving aside your characterization of questions asked by the Democrats, I note that Republican senators asked some highly relevant questions which Trump lawyers totally dodged. For example, this one by Senator Romney . . .

            “When did President Trump first learn that the Capitol was breached and what specific actions did he personally take to defend the Capitol, Vice President Pence, and the others inside? ”

            Easy questions to answer except that truthful answers (Immediately as it happened, Nothing) are damning. So the question was dodged and the prosecutors accused of not doing a proper investigation so the answers could be known. Laughable, of course, since Trump was invited to testify to these very matters but declined to do so.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Trump was slow to see the seriousness of the break in, and thus took an hour and 13 minutes from the time his speech ended and he sent out a tweet asking supporters to remain peaceful, how would that apply to the article of impeachment claiming that Trump incited the riot? Aside from which, the Capitol Police report to Nancy Pelosi, not Trump.

            Here;s something to think about, any time Senate Democrats think they have pulled something over on the Turtle, they are playing Wylie Coyote


          6. @Paul: What Trump did during and after the riot is outside the scope of the charges. Since you can’t convict him for inciting a riot, you’ll go after him for anything that will stick, right?


          7. Once the door to witnesses is opened, the GOP will be able to call them too, starting with Nancy Pelosi who had warnings of planned attacks and did not act on them.


          8. “What Trump did during and after the riot is outside the scope of the charges. ”

            I think these matters go to the question of intent. If Trump really and truly intended this to be a peaceful demonstration he could have, would have and should have acted sooner and more decisively to end it.

            As for calling of witnesses, I believe they will be confirming what the Senators already know but for the historical record. And that is that when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was literally begging Trump to stop the insurrection Trump said to him . . . “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” Further confirmation that what occurred was precisely what was intended.


            Liked by 1 person

          9. Trump’s slowness to respond to the assault on the Capitol and his cavalier response to the pleadings of Kevin McCarthy are evidence of his intent. And that intent was to stop the legal processes of the Senate – “Stop the steal.” Stopping, hindering or delaying the legal processes of the government is one of the crimes associated with seditious conspiracy in U.S. Code.


            And while we are at it, let’s get the facts straight. Insurrectionists began their assault on the Capitol DURING Trump’s speech. They did not wait for it to end. The first criminal breach of Capitol security occurred at 12:53 pm. Trump stopped speaking at 1:10pm. Trump’s first tweet was NOT – as his lawyers lied – a call for restraint. It was at 2:24pm and was another attack on Mike Pence who was then the target of people intending to harm him. Trump’s “stay peaceful” tweet was at 2:38pm – 1 hour and 45 minutes after the first crimes were committed and long after the mob was rampaging through the building. Far too little and far too late. And, it is reported, done reluctantly under pressure from staff and family.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “That does nothing to establish intent”
            It is harder and harder to take your views seriously.

            Of course it does. What I actually said and what is actually true is that his slowness to respond is EVIDENCE of his intent. And when you combine this documented slowness, the reporting that his “stay peaceful” tweets were made reluctantly under pressure and his cavalier remarks to McCarthy it is very STRONG EVIDENCE that these “wild” events were unfolding as he intended all along.

            This violent response to the Trump loss has been cooking for quite some time. I well remember his “predictions” of what his “tough” followers were capable of. I suppose you have managed to forget. here let me remind you . . .


            Since he knows how “tough” his followers are it was impeachably reckless to summon them to DC to “stop the steal” and to speak to them as he did on the day. Obviously.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Cognitive dissonance?

            I suggest you learn what that means before throwing it out as a lame attempt to justify dismissing the fact that Trump’s tardy response IS evidence of what was in his mind.

            Here, let me help . . . “The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People tend to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict causes feelings of unease or discomfort.”

            In my case, my disdain for Trump does not conflict with any values I hold dear.

            A much, much better exemplar of that condition would be your own good self. For example your expressed disdain for authoritarianism combined with your uncritical support of Donald Trump could be a textbook example. Or your professed love of science and evidence combined with that same support.

            In short, Whiffff!

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Just as Trump was unwilling to accept any amount of evidence of having lost his office, you are unwilling to see that your positions do not align with reality.


          13. LOL!

            Even after I give you the meaning you STILL cannot apply the term correctly. And, obvious to all but yourself, you are the sufferer. Or, you should be because reality does NOT match well at all with your Trump world view.

            Unlike you I do not have to search high and low for evidence to support my beliefs about Trump. Unlike you I do not have to ignore or denigrate masses of compelling evidence that runs counter to my views. Unlike you I do not have to cling to alternative facts to support my beliefs.

            Here is an example. Where I see insurrectionists storming the Capitol, you see over-excited “trespassers.” One of these perceptions is much closer to reality than the other. And doubly so with at least 138 injured police officers.

            And now this. I state an obvious fact – Trump’s dangerously slow response to the violence is evidence of his intent that “stop the steal” be effective “whatever it takes.” You have no answer to this reality so you are left with simply denying that obvious fact and hurling poorly understood accusations in response.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “is there any doubt that a mob waving Trump flags and wearing Trump hats stormed and occupied the Capitol stealing and destroying property, assaulting police and killing people”

          Yes, there is (doubt). Of the five deaths related to the Capitol riot, one was of a protester shot by police, one was a police officer that occurred the next day with no apparent connection to riot violence, and three were of protesters suffering geriatric health conditions.


          1. LOL!

            So, you object to the phrase “killing people?” Alright, even though at least five people are dead who would be alive except for the insurrection, I will rephrase and say “trying to kill people.” Better?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Well, Mr. Stupider, at least 138 police officers were injured, 15 were hospitalized, many concussed, one lost an eye, another part of his hand. One officer was caught on video being dragged out of the building and pummeled as he lay helpless on the ground. I think “trying to kill people” is a very generous way of phrasing of what this mob was doing. And, I have not even gotten into their self-professed intentions to “execute” Pelosi, AOC and Vice President Pence.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “I think ‘trying to kill people’ is a very generous way of phrasing of what this mob was doing.”

            There is no accounting for taste, as in believing dubious things.


    2. So you have nothing to offer as far as YOUR left wing defense of blantantly manipulated Democrat lies against Trump but you didnt like the truth? Wow…


  3. RE: Trump’s defense lawyers are American heroes. They aren’t defending Trump; they’re defending language and rational thought.”

    Well put.Violent metaphors — war symbolism — are commonplace in political rhetoric. Joe Biden himself spoke of wanting to beat the hell out of Donald Trump. No one accused Biden of inciting violence. Many other Democratic Party examples can be cited.

    So, Yes, Trump’s defense lawyers are American heroes today.


    1. I’ll post it again in case you missed it the first time.

      They aren’t “heroes”; they’re lawyers doing their level best to defend someone who has done the indefensible.


      1. Those attorneys had no case and they knew it. But fees, paid in advance unless they are terminally ignorant, are probably big enough to entice 2nd and 3rd tier legal assistance.

        They lied, lied and lied some more.

        But, here is what they did have as strategy: too few Republican Senators with integrity.

        Simple as that.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Weak beer. The “fact checks” in NYT’s piece are replete with logical fallacies. Here’s an example:

        “What Was Said

        “‘Far from promoting insurrection of the United States, the president’s remarks explicitly encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically.’ — Mr. van der Veen

        This is exaggerated. Mr. Trump used the phrase ‘peacefully and patriotically’ once in his speech, compared with 20 uses of the word ‘fight.'”

        Here’s the fallacy:

        • It is a fact that Trump used the phrase “peacefully and patriotically” to describe what he wanted the crowd to do. It is not an “exaggeration” that he did so.
        • The word, “fight” does not imply violence. There are many ways to “fight” peacefully, as in debating an opponent, or supporting a legislative action.

        • It doesn’t matter how many times a word is used if it’s common meaning is neutral.

        It should be obvious that no one can incite insurrection by calling for peaceful action


        1. In citing that ONE CYA expression in that barn burner speech, Trump’s lawyers left out the “wink, wink, nudge, nudge.”

          If this was supposed to be peaceful and patriotic then why did Trump NOT walk with the mob to the Capitol as he said he would? Bone spurs acting up again?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “In citing that ONE CYA expression in that barn burner speech, Trump’s lawyers left out the wink, wink, nudge, nudge.'”

            So what? The NYT piece is riddled with fallacies.


          2. You once again throw a word salad out there because you know deep down in your T**** infested soul that they are right.

            Even McConnell said T**** was guilty but he voted against conviction based on the Constitutionality argument.

            By the way, if I recall correctly, the Senate voted 55-45 that the trial WAS constitutional. That makes any Senator voting against conviction based on that, guilty of violating the rules of the Senate. THey made a ruling, based on their own rules, and then ignored it. So rule breaking is the way of the GOP in the Senate.

            Liked by 3 people

        2. Logical fallacies?

          More semantics which tells me you know they are right but you are doing your unlevel best to deny the truth.

          Denial, as proven by Magic Mitch, is not just an Middle Eastern river.


    2. Why the lie about election fraud for 2 months? Even his lawyers repeated the phony GA claims long ago refuted by GA officials.
      Why the command to go to the Capitol…and then do what?
      Would there have been an attack on the Capitol without Trump scheduling the “wild” rally on the 6th.

      Is this what we want presidents to do whenever they lose? Especially losing big. The “finger” for 81 million Americans?

      All the posturing and outrage acted out by the defense is just that.

      “If the facts nor the law are not on your side, pound the table and yell.”

      Liked by 2 people

        1. It just occurred to me that you don’t believe the assault on the Capitol took place, do you?

          If you believe the election was stolen, then you will believe anything Trump says.

          And it doesn’t seem to make any difference that congressmen, including McCarthy, begged Trump to call off his gangs. Or that Trump did nothing but watch. Or even try to contact or protect his own VP. A VP who was as loyal as anyone ever to Trump.

          The time stamps are irrefutable evidence of Trump’s criminal intent to force an over turning of the election.

          Honestly, I believe that a president should not be allowed to overthrow an elected government.

          But that is just me, obviously.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I think it’s akin to the concept of so-called “gateway drugs”.

            You start with believing the election was stolen, progress to Antifa stormed the Capital, then to, there was no incitement to riot..

            Can Jewish space Lasers be far behind???

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Don, Since you keep asking about watching: FWIW I watched the entire proceeding, while I did my taxes (finally got Fed under 200k, yay me) and think you’re only seeing what you want/need to in order to support your preconceived beliefs.

            It kinda renders further discussions moot.

            Liked by 3 people

      1. RE: “Why the lie about election fraud for 2 months?”

        Who says its a lie?

        I get it that you think it is, but it is not objectively so. Besides, lying is protected speech in most cases. You, for example, are allowed to call election fraud a lie — as if it were factually true — even though you can’t prove it objectively.

        Politicians are entitled to claim their elections were stolen. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams make exactly that claim all the time without being accused of trying to overthrow the government.


        1. Thanks, I had read some related stories on some of what they covered but this piece really pulled it all together. I had not known about Podhorzer“s role and influence which seemed to be a big factor.

          The fears were real, and the actions probably needed…

          Liked by 1 person

        2. This makes the case that politics around a full and fair election was a better option than trying to takeover the government on Jan 6 with the help of murderous gangs.


          Liked by 1 person

        3. Interesting article, jimroberts2008.

          That is, one can draw opposite conclusions from it. Either the Democratic operatives “saved” the election, or they “coerced/coopted” it. If you favor political censorship in social media, for example, “saved” would be your narrative of choice. If you don’t, “coerced/coopted” would be.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s