GOV/MIL Main "Second Impeachment" Thread

[marsh]

SCGOP passes resolution to censure Rep. Rice over impeachment vote

The South Carolina GOP has formally censured U.S. Rep. Tom Rice over his impeachment vote.

www.wistv.com

SCGOP passes resolution to censure Rep. Rice over impeachment vote

By WMBF News Staff and Katherine Phillips | January 30, 2021 at 1:09 PM EST - Updated January 30 at 8:08 PM

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WMBF) – The South Carolina GOP has formally censured U.S. Rep. Tom Rice over his impeachment vote.

About two weeks ago, Rice was one of 10 Republicans to vote in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump who is accused of inciting a deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol.

After that vote, a letter and potential resolution to censure the congressman at the grassroots level started forming in South Carolina 7th Congressional District. That resolution made it all the way to the State Executive Committee for a vote.

At a quarterly meeting on Saturday, the SCGOP State Executive Committee passed the resolution to formally censure Rice. A censure is a formal statement of disapproval.

While the censure is a symbolic measure, it is rare for the party to invoke one on a sitting Congressman.

“We made our disappointment clear the night of the impeachment vote. Trying to impeach a president, with a week left in his term, is never legitimate and is nothing more than a political kick on the way out the door,” said SCGOP Chairman Drew McKissick. “Congressman Rice’s vote unfortunately played right into the Democrats’ game, and the people in his district, and ultimately our State Executive Committee, wanted him to know they wholeheartedly disagree with his decision.”

Rice has faced harsh backlash from the GOP but he has stated multiple times that he doesn’t regret his vote to impeach.

“I did the right thing, I know I did the right thing,” Rice told WMBF News on Saturday following the vote from the SCGOP. “It’s interesting to me that folks are so willing to let this guy put all these people in danger, get six people killed, just watch the Capitol police get beaten, one to death, while he watches it on TV and does nothing to stop it. I’m not that much of a team player just because I run as a Republican.”

Rice added that he’s been on the fence about how he should vote many times throughout his time in Congress, but added, this wasn’t one of those votes.

“It would have been so easy, it would have been really easy for me to press ‘No’ on that impeachment article like most every other Republican did, and nobody would have said a word. But I know that was the wrong thing,” Rice added.

Rice said ahead of the meeting from the SCGOP, he tried to contact the state party. He said no one notified him of the meeting, and he heard about it through the news. Rice said the party did not return his call.

Rice added that he’s supported the former president heavily, and said his record shows it. He said he understood a vote to impeach Trump would be controversial to many in District 7.

South Carolina State Rep. William Bailey who represents District 104 in Horry County called the censure of Rice a historic one.

“Today the South Carolina Republican Party took an historic vote, to censure Republican Congressman Tom Rice. Never before has this unprecedented action been taken against a congressman with all but two Executive Committee members voting for censure. When Congressman Tom Rice joined only nine other Congressman to impeach President Donald Trump, he showed the people of his district and South Carolinians across the state that he no longer represents their interests,” Bailey said in a statement.

Bailey announced a few days ago that he is forming an exploratory committee to possibly go up against Rice and take his seat. The Horry County representative said he has received hundreds of calls, emails and text messages encouraging him to run against Rice.

Horry County School Board Chairman Ken Richardson, former Myrtle Beach Mayor Mark McBride are also looking into the possibility of running against Rice.

Rep. Tom Rice’s full statement on the censure:

I have been a strong and loyal supporter of the South Carolina Republican Party for more than a decade. I have stood with them, campaigned with them, provided their candidates resources, and been in their corner through thick and thin. Since being elected to Congress, I’ve contributed more than $2 million to our national Party to help Republican candidates for Congress.

In Washington, I fought together with President Trump to cut taxes on small businesses, invest in new infrastructure, adopt an America First Trade policy, build our border wall, stop new restrictions on guns, and pass the historic 2018 Farm Bill.
Together, and because of President Trump’s leadership, America has seen historic economic growth and we have experienced countless other historic achievements.

To accuse me of not supporting President Trump is to ignore my 94% pro-Trump voting record.

My vote to impeach President Trump was no reflection on his policies, his effectiveness, his accomplishments, nor my conservative values and voting record.

It was a vote to honor my oath of office. That oath was not to Chairman McKissick, nor to the S.C. Republican Party, nor to President Trump. That oath, sworn to on the Bible, was to protect and defend our Constitution.

I personally witnessed an insurrection in the Capitol on Jan. 6. I saw the rioters who were demanding to hang Vice President Pence. I heard the gunshots and smelled the tear gas. I was on Capitol Hill when the Capitol Police were overrun and Officer Sicknick gave his life, at the hands of this mob, to honor the oath he took to defend our Constitution. I saw, as we all did, the President’s lack of leadership in not stopping the mob, his callous actions saying Mike Pence had no courage, and his comments, in the middle of riot, that “These are the things that happen when victory is viciously stripped from these great patriots…remember this day forever.”

To President Trump: those weren’t “patriots” who killed Officer Sicknick. And threatening to hang our Vice President on makeshift gallows on the Capitol lawn is not something that just “happens”. You could have swiftly and forcefully intervened to stop the deadly siege on the United States Capitol and you did not.

To my friends in the S.C. Republican Party: I will not stand idly by, and ignore the oath I took before God, when the evidence is so clear. President Trump bears much of the responsibility for that attack. I cannot ignore this blatant violation of our constitution, regardless of whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, or regardless of his name being Donald Trump. It seems my friends at the South Carolina Republican Party have fogotten their very own creed which states, “I will never cower before any master, save my God.”

I was provided no notice of the meeting today. To Chairman McKissick and numerous other members of your State Executive Committee, had you returned my call, I would have told you that I have no ill-will towards the S.C. Republican Party and will continue to advance our shared values, to create opportunity for all.

 

[Dobbin]

At a quarterly meeting on Saturday, the SCGOP State Executive Committee passed the resolution to formally censure Rice. A censure is a formal statement of disapproval.

So does this mean he won't be able to golf at the country club with the rest of his legislative buddies?

I thought not.

Dobbin

 

[marsh]

Payback: Republicans who backed Trump impeachment face rising rebuke, including censure

South Carolina GOP votes to censure Rep. Tom Rice after he voted for impeachment; others feel similar pressure.

justthenews.com

Payback: Republicans who backed Trump impeachment face rising rebuke, including censure

South Carolina GOP votes to censure Rep. Tom Rice after he voted for impeachment; others feel similar pressure.
Image

Rep. Tom Rice, R-S.C., walks up Capitol steps in 2018.
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

By John Solomon
Updated: January 31, 2021 - 1:57pm

Republicans who have supported Donald Trump's impeachment from South Dakota to South Carolina are getting a painful reminder of just how powerful the former president remains within the Republican Party ranks.

Rep. Tom Rice was the latest to feel the wrath of Trump supporters when the South Carolina state GOP voted to censure him this weekend for his vote two weeks ago supporting the House Democrats impeachment article.

"Trying to impeach a president, with a week left in his term, is never legitimate and is nothing more than a political kick on the way out the door," state GOP Chairman Drew McKissick said after Saturday's vote. "Congressman Rice's vote unfortunately played right into the Democrats' game, and the people in his district, and ultimately our State Executive Committee, wanted him to know they wholeheartedly disagree with his decision."

Rice has said he knows his vote could cost him the seat he has held since 2013, but was unbowed after Saturday's vote, saying he "will never cower before any master, save my God."

I cannot ignore this blatant violation of our constitution, regardless of whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, or regardless of his name being Donald Trump. It seems my friends at the South Carolina Republican Party have fogotten their very own creed which— Tom Rice for Congress (@TomRiceSC7) January 30, 2021

Rice is hardly alone. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., traveled all the way to Wyoming last week to rally against Rep. Liz Cheney, the No. 3 House Republican, after she was the highest ranking Republican to vote for Trump's impeachment.

"Defeat Liz Cheney in this upcoming election,” Gaetz argued, “and Wyoming will bring Washington to its knees."

Anthony Bouchard, a Wyoming state senator who is launching a primary challenge to Cheney, said he's been inundated with support. "I believe that her impeachment vote revealed who she has allegiance to, and I don't think the voters will forget it any time soon," Bouchard told CNN.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., another of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, said Sunday he has been shunned by family and friends and told he was "possessed by the devil” since his vote.

“Look it’s really difficult. I mean, all of a sudden imagine everybody that supported you, or so it seems that way, your friends, your family, has turned against you. They think you're selling out,” the Illinois congressman told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Even Republicans who haven't voted for Trump's impeachment but have challenged his assertion there was widespread voter fraud last November are feeling the wrath.

A private Facebook group called “Primary John Thune in 2022” has attracted over 3,000 members, according to The Associated Press.

 

[marsh]

Why Hasn't The House Held Hearings To Establish "Incitement To Insurrection"? | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Why Hasn't The House Held Hearings To Establish "Incitement To Insurrection"?

SUNDAY, JAN 31, 2021 - 17:50
Authored by Jonathan Turley,
We recently discussed how the Senate will have to decide whether to call witnesses in the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.

The use of a snap impeachment raises a basis for some senators to oppose such witnesses on institutional or prudential grounds. Democrats opposed any witnesses in the Clinton impeachment and there were no witnesses in the first Trump impeachment trial. Not surprisingly, the House is demanding witnesses.

The initial vote in the trial shows that it is substantially short of the number of senators needed to convict and Trump could be acquitted on a virtual 50-50 vote. So here is my question: why has the House not used the last few weeks to call these witnesses and build the needed case to show intent to incite an insurrection? Weeks have gone by with key witnesses speaking to the press but not to the House. Why?


I raised this possibility weeks ago since such House hearings could influence the Senate trial. Even if the transcripts were barred by the Senate, senators would be aware of the evidence and testimony. There has been limited testimony on the response to the riot but most key witnesses have not been called to public hearings on evidence related to Trump’s conduct or intent. Many are clearly willing to testify since they are speaking openly with the media.

I have no idea if such evidence exists but I, like most Americans, would like to know if it does. I was critical of Trump’s speech while he was giving it. I also opposed the challenge to the electoral votes and criticized the President’s false statements about the authority of Vice President Mike Pence to “send back” these votes. However, I have also said that, without evidence of intent, this case of incitement would fail in the Senate. Indeed, while many legal experts have claimed that this is a strong case for criminal incitement, I believe it would ultimately collapse in the federal courts on free speech grounds.

The House can show intent directly and circumstantial from evidence of the President’s conduct and statements before and after the speech. The National Guard deployment is clearly a place to start. Did Trump delay or obstruct deployment? We still do not know despite this being one of the easier questions to answer. Those questions will not be answered by calling the “Shaman” on whether he felt that Trump wanted him to riot or engage in insurrection. Such testimony will show how Trump’s words were received (which is relevant) but not what he intended.

There is a tendency in Congress to follow the litigation rule not to ask witnesses questions that you do not know the answer to in advance. However, the absence of hearings on Trump’s role is glaring as the House managers claim that many in the Senate do not want to hear the truth. There are two houses of Congress and the Democrats are in total control of the House.

There has clearly been inquiries and limited testimony but very little information has been made publicly, including information that is clearly in the possession or available to the House. Instead reports indicate that the House is building what was described as an “emotionally charged” case before the Senate with cellphone calls and witness testimony rather than evidence focusing on the intent element. I admit that I have the bias of a criminal defense attorney but that is not a case for conviction. It is a case of public appeal.

This question is even more striking given the public statements of key witnesses like former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller and his two closest aides, Kashyap “Kash” Patel and Ezra Cohen. Miller says that Trump told him the day before the riot that “You’re going to need 10,000 people.” Miller added “No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” He said Trump responded “You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do. You’re going to need 10,000.’”

That account shows Trump knew that there might be problems with the rally the next day. Many voiced the same concern. However, it also shows Trump warning that troops would be needed. The question is whether he did anything to prepare for such a deployment or interfere or delay with deployment. Witnesses like Miller would know. Yet, they are giving interviews but not public testimony under oath.

The House has held hearings on the riot but those hearings seem weirdly tailored to avoid core issues related to the trial. For example, U.S. Capitol Police chief Yogananda D. Pittman testified but did so in a closed session. She reportedly apologized to Congress “and the American people” for the obvious securing failures on Jan. 6th. She also said that they were aware of the danger of a riot in advance but failed to take adequate steps” “Let me be clear: the Department should have been more prepared for this attack.”

Maj. Gen. William Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, has also given interviews and said that deployment of his troops were delayed by over an hour because he needed approval from the Pentagon. He said that he usually has authority to deploy without approval. If that is true, why was he not called for testimony in the House to explain the timeline and whether the authority was removed specifically for that day?

There is a great deal of information in the hands of Congress on the requests for deployment and interaction with the Trump Administration. There are records and other non-witness sources of evidence that could also be used to create a record. Yet, the House has been comparatively passive in calling those witnesses that it wants to hear from in the Senate. Again, why?

This is the same pattern with the first Trump impeachment when the House waited weeks demanding witnesses that it could have called or subpoenaed before the House Judiciary Committee. It did nothing and then denounced the lack of testimony on key issues. Both trials turned on intent and the House could not expect to prevail without such evidence.

It was like a case of planned obsolescence in building a case to collapse.

There are by my count at least ten key witnesses who have already spoken publicly or would be easily attainable including Miller, Walker, Pittman, Patel, Cohen and others. Yet, there is nothing but crickets from the House.

 

[marsh]

Five of Trump's Impeachment Lawyers Leave Defense Team 9 Days Before Senate Trial | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Five of Trump’s lawyers have left the impeachment defense team with just over a week to go before the senate trial.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Five of Trump’s Impeachment Lawyers Leave Defense Team 9 Days Before Senate Trial

By Cristina Laila
Published January 30, 2021 at 9:25pm

Five of Trump’s lawyers have left the impeachment defense team with just over a week to go before the senate trial.

According to CNN, two lead lawyers and three other attorneys left Trump’s defense team over a disagreement on legal strategy.

“The Democrats’ efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional and so bad for our country. In fact, 45 Senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional. We have done much work, but have not made a final decision on our legal team, which will be made shortly,” former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller told CNN.
Jason Miller is correct.

No where in the Constitution or any other documents written by our framers does it mention anything about impeaching and convicting a former president.

CNN reported:

Five of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team attorneys have stepped aside a little more than a week before his Senate trial is set to begin, according to people familiar with the case, amid a disagreement over his legal strategy.

Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are no longer on the team. A source familiar with the changes said it was a mutual decision for both to leave the legal team. As the lead attorney, Bowers assembled the team.

Josh Howard, a North Carolina attorney who was recently added to the team, has also left, according to another source familiar with the changes. Johnny Gasser and Greg Harris, also from South Carolina, are no longer involved with the case, either.

A person familiar with the departures told CNN that Trump wanted the attorneys to argue there was mass election fraud and that the election was stolen from him rather than focus on the legality of convicting a president after he’s left office.

 

[marsh]

Trump announces new lawyers to lead impeachment defense team

The House of Representatives voted in favor of impeaching Trump earlier this month during the waning days of his term in office.

justthenews.com

Trump announces new lawyers to lead impeachment defense team
The House of Representatives voted in favor of impeaching Trump earlier this month during the waning days of his term in office.
Image

President Trump in 2017
(Zach Gibson - Pool/Getty Images)

By Alex Nitzberg
Updated: January 31, 2021 - 8:05pm

Lawyers David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor Jr. will lead former President Trump's impeachment trial defense team, according to an announcement on Sunday from the Office of Donald J. Trump.

The announcement notes that the two attorneys consider the impeachment unconstitutional and that Schoen had already been working with Trump and other advisors to get ready for the approaching Senate trial.

"It is an honor to represent the 45th President, Donald J. Trump, and the United States Constitution," Schoen said in a statement included in the announcement.

"I consider it a privilege to represent the 45th President," Castor said. "The strength of our Constitution is about to be tested like never before in our history. It is strong and resilient. A document written for the ages, and it will triumph over partisanship yet again, and always."

The House of Representatives voted in favor of impeaching Trump earlier this month during the waning days of his term in office.

 

[marsh]

CORTES: Trump Can Turn the Impeachment on the Insiders and Put Congress on 'Trial'. - The National Pulse

As former President Trump faces the second sham impeachment effort of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in just over a year, opportunity arises, both for him and for the America First movement. Within this shameful political charade, the overreaching Democrats included accusations that allow for Team Trump...

thenationalpulse.com

CORTES: Trump Can Turn The Impeachment On The Insiders And Put Congress On ‘Trial’.
Jan 27, 2021 Steve Cortes

As former President Trump faces the second sham impeachment effort of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in just over a year, opportunity arises, both for him and for the America First movement. Within this shameful political charade, the overreaching Democrats included accusations that allow for Team Trump to make a robust case before the nation about the material problems that mar the November 3rd presidential vote, in a forum of unparalleled prominence and reach.

If Trump dives headlong into this challenge with courage, imagination, and the charisma that only he can command, then he will transcend the absurdity of this tribunal, crystallize his own political viability, and propel the populist nationalist cause forward into 2022 and beyond.

Repelling the illogical and unfounded incitement charge will prove relatively easy, given the then-president’s own clear exhortation to his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” before the Congress.

But Pelosi’s snap-impeachment also includes the scurrilous accusation that President Trump “repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.”

Clearly, this allegation by the impeachment resolution opens the trial proceedings to a full adjudication of whether Trump’s post-election assertions were, in fact, “false statements.”

In a perverse sense, Pelosi and her minions unwittingly did the country a service.

At last, our deeply divided nation is afforded a trial setting to fully weigh the countervailing arguments about the validity of the 2020 presidential vote in the highly contested states. After all, recent polling reveals severe skepticism about the official results among tens of millions of voters.

A November 23rd CNBC survey found that a scant 3 percent of Trump voters believe Biden won legitimately.

Even after constant efforts of corporate media to affix blame for rioting to Trump, varied polling shows his supporters remain solidly supportive of the 45th President. For example, in battleground states, McLaughlin & Associates polling found that fully 76 percent of Republican voters reported that they are less likely to support any member of Congress who supports this second impeachment.

The proper way to bridge this wide chasm regarding the November 3rd vote involves a serious presentation of evidence before massive national broadcast audience.

Media charlatans constantly claim that Trump lost dozens of court cases contesting results. In reality, most of these cited lawsuits were brought by non-campaign plaintiffs, and almost all went unheard on procedural grounds.

The most serious courtroom deliberations, that aired a detailed vetting of official campaign objections, unfolded in Wisconsin.

That state’s Supreme Court decided by a narrow 4-3 ruling against Trump. In a blistering dissent, Wisconsin Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote that a “significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020 presidential election was fairly conducted… four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the [state] statutes require.”

As such, this open wound upon our democracy festers.

Our country’s best hope to coalesce and form some consensus lies in a vigorous presentation of arguments to the nation.

For Trump and his defense team, this exposition should center on the three verticals of election irregularities.

First, convey the stunning confluence of statistical anomalies in the swing states that make the likelihood of a Biden win so improbable as to be impossible.

Second, provide the immense evidence of demonstrable frauds perpetrated across the six most controversial states. Finally, explain the grave Constitutional violations that invalidate the election procedures in these states which used the cover of the COVID virus to subvert constitutional protections of process. In particular, the defense team must fully elucidate the swing states’ evisceration of 14th Amendment guarantees against creating de-facto different classes of voters.

As Donald Trump methodically lays out this case before the American voter, he can essentially turn legal guns around and effectively put the Congress itself on trial. Such a tactic would illuminate the true battle lines of this political struggle, which is not so much Republican vs. Democrat, but rather outsider vs. insider.

Trump should resist the temptation to pursue a narrow, technical “not guilty” verdict and instead charge toward a broader exoneration. Such a triumph would prove his own indispensability to the America First cause and catalyze the movement’s momentum toward retaking Congressional majorities in 2022.

In addition, once Trump educates the public on the myriad abuses present in the 2020 vote, the task of election reforms among state legislatures clarifies.

This impeachment represents a farce, an unprecedented, and vindictive witch hunt. But it also presents irreplaceable opportunity, with just the kind of stage on which Donald J. Trump can shine.

 

[marsh]

JUST IN: Trump Says Lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will Lead Impeachment Defense Team | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A spokesperson for Donald Trump on Sunday announced lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will lead his impeachment defense team.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

JUST IN: Trump Says Lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will Lead Impeachment Defense Team

By Cristina Laila
Published January 31, 2021 at 6:15pm

A spokesperson for Donald Trump on Sunday announced lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will lead his impeachment defense team.

Trump praised Schoen and Castor for having “significant trial experience in high profile cases.”

Saturday night it was reported that five of Trump’s lawyers have left the impeachment defense team with just over a week to go before the senate trial.
According to CNN, two lead lawyers and three other attorneys left Trump’s defense team over a disagreement on legal strategy.

David Schoen represented Roger Stone and Bruce Castor served as the DA for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Trump’s new impeachment lawyer David Schoen also represented Roger Stone in Stone’s sentencing and appeal.
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) January 31, 2021

“I consider it a privilege to represent the 45th President,” Castor wrote. “The strength of our Constitution is about to be tested like never before in our history. It is strong and resilient. A document written for the ages, and it will triumph over partisanship yet again, and always.”

 

[marsh]

FASCIST THUGS: Democrats Are Already Threatening to Destroy President Trump's New Impeachment Attorneys | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

On Saturday night The Gateway Pundit reportedthat five of Trump’s lawyers had left his impeachment defense team with just over a week to go before the Democrat trial in the US Senate.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

FASCIST THUGS: Democrats Are Already Threatening to Destroy President Trump’s New Impeachment Attorneys

By Jim Hoft
Published January 31, 2021 at 9:22pm

President Trump speaks at campaign rally in Butler, PA, October 31, photo by Kristinn Taylor.

On Saturday night The Gateway Pundit reported that five of Trump’s lawyers had left his impeachment defense team with just over a week to go before the Democrat trial in the US Senate.

According to CNN, two lead lawyers and three other attorneys left Trump’s defense team over a disagreement on legal strategy.

On Sunday a spokesperson for Donald Trump announced lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will lead his impeachment defense team.

Trump praised Schoen and Castor for having “significant trial experience in high profile cases.”

Already the fascist left is threatening to destroy the two Trump attorneys.
It should be clear to every American at this point that the modern-day left is no better than the Marxist tyrants of the past.

Via Pro-Trump News and Alexander Muse:

2/ As a result, it is reported that Boston College Law School, Columbia University Law School, Washington & Lee University are already facing calls from wealthy Democratic alumni to withdraw Schoen and Castor’s law degrees.
— Alexander Muse (@amuse) January 31, 2021

4/ The Scottish Rite is also under pressure to expel Castor, a 33rd Degree Mason, from their ranks. Even his church, Abington Presbyterian Church, is being asked to ex-communicate the lawyer.
— Alexander Muse (@amuse) January 31, 2021

6/ Every American deserves a vigorous and robust defense. The effort by Democrats and the disgraced Lincoln Project is an assault on our Democracy.
— Alexander Muse (@amuse) January 31, 2021

 

[marsh]

WOW! Liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz BLASTS Fake News CNN, PBS and MSNBC for their Dishonest Editing of President Trump's Words | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Author and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz joined John Bachman on Newsmax TV on Monday.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

WOW! Liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz BLASTS Fake News CNN, PBS and MSNBC for their Dishonest Editing of President Trump’s Words

By Jim Hoft
Published February 1, 2021 at 12:55pm

Author and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz joined John Bachman on Newsmax TV on Monday.

During their discussion on the upcoming Democrat “impeachment” trial of President Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz went off on the fake news media.
This was brutal!

Professor Alan Dershowitz: The President never said “peaceful” and “patriotic” because I know that. I watch CNN and PBS. And if you watch PBS and CNN and you watch MSNBC, the president never said peaceful protests. Because that’s the way we learn our history. We learn it from channels that now doctor tapes and edit things out. And so I know and you know the President said peaceful and patriotic but many Americans don’t know he used those words. Many Americans don’t know that when the president said, “There are good people on both sides. And I may exclude Nazis and white nationalists.” People don’t know that because much of the media simply picks and chooses which words to show the American public.

Via Newsmax TV:

View: https://youtu.be/ty13o-PcL1g
3:46 min

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Senate Is Playing A Dangerous Game With The 14th Amendment

MONDAY, FEB 01, 2021 - 14:40
Authored by Jonathan Turley,
Below is my column in the Hill on the new push to bar former President Donald Trump under the 14th Amendment in a censure resolution. Various commentators and groups have called for dozens of Republican politicians to be barred from office in the same way, including a “how to guide” for “disqualifying insurrectionists and rebels” under the 14th Amendment. Some have even added a call to put the entire Republican Party on a Domestic Terror list. Rage again has overwhelmed reason. The suggested use of the 14th Amendment raises serious constitutional concerns and could present a compelling basis for a court challenge if actually passed. Indeed, Trump could prevail in court shortly before the 2024 presidential race.


Here is the column:

After a vote suggesting that about half of the Senate has constitutional or prudential concerns over the trial of former President Trump, members are discussing censure as an alternative. I previously supported a censure resolution, but this is censure with a twist. Senator Tim Kaine would add yet another controversy to an array of constitutional issues by electorally barring Trump under the 14th Amendment. With the snap impeachment and a retroactive Senate trial, the country needs another constitutional controversy like Wall Street needs another Reddit stock tip.

Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution because it is a resolution with the view of Congress. Such a statement could allow for bipartisan condemnation. It is also now seen as a type of shadow impeachment. A Senate trial could work to the advantage of Trump if it ends in acquittal. For the first time ever, the House used a snap impeachment and sent the Senate no record to support its article. As before, the Senate can refuse to call witnesses and vote on the record or lack thereof, meaning a brief trial and about half of the Senate rejecting the case. It has led some members back to censure as the effective substitute for conviction.

Part of the controversy of this snap impeachment is using a trial solely for electoral disbarment. The Constitution refers to the trial as to decide on whether to remove “the president” and so that leads some of us to doubt any retroactive trial, while disbarment is an optional punishment for after removal. The Constitution limits the power of the Senate in impeachment trials to “removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”

Retroactive trials remain a close issue even for most scholars who have reached conclusions on either side. Now Kaine and others suggest the Senate can avoid the need for the trial but achieve the same result by a majority vote on censure. At issue is the 14th Amendment section that bars people from holding office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

According to Kaine, his censure resolution would make two findings “that it was an insurrection and that President Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists.” While this would be a workaround of an unattainable impeachment conviction, it would be defended as part of the authority of Congress over any citizen under the 14th Amendment.

This has never been used to disqualify a former president, and it is not clear Congress has carte blanche authority to bar a citizen from office by majority vote. The Constitution refers to individuals determined to have engaged in treasonous acts. Under this theory, it would be relatively easy to disqualify someone from office and declare him a traitor, but difficult to lift their electoral disbarment. Further, it would also flip the burden of the supermajority vote from a protection for the accused in impeachment trials into a barrier for those disenfranchised by Congress.

Kaine is open about his motivation for “an alternative that would impose, in my view, a similar consequence” without a trial and supermajority vote. But that is why this tactic is so dangerous. The party in control could bar dozens of its opponents from running for federal office. Some Democrats are now demanding such action against Republicans who challenged the election of Joe Biden. This is common in authoritarian countries such as Iran, where leaders often bar their opponents from office.

Kaine could be making a case for Trump in claiming the 14th Amendment as an alternative to conviction at trial. Academics have echoed this view, and some insist Congress clearly has authority to bar Trump from office. Columbia University professor Eric Foner says the 14th Amendment “is very applicable” and “would only require a majority vote in Congress.” Such statements leave little doubt that the motivation is to achieve the penalty of impeachment without the burden of a conviction.

It would be a first impression for a court, but Trump would have a credible case.

If he were to prevail, he could cite the decision as vindication and perhaps enhance his claims of being an establishment target. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, it was easy to see its applicability to those who swore allegiance to the confederacy or fought for it. A court today would face the issue of whether Congress has total discretion to make such a finding or if, as I believe, it is subject to judicial review.

The Framers, with their ban on bills of attainder, had opposed individual punishment meted out by Congress. Such bills were used in Great Britain to punish individuals through Parliament rather than the courts. Years ago I had litigated one of the few successful bills of attainder cases in striking down the Elizabeth Morgan Act, which punished my client with stripping him of parental rights. This proposed censure resolution would achieve the same purpose to mete out punishment by popular vote.

Using the 14th Amendment is too clever by half. Our raging politics blinds many to what could be a dangerous precedent of barring opponents from office. When many people call for blacklists and retaliation against anyone “complicit” with Trump in the last four years, such a power would be ripe for abuse. There is an alternative, which is a censure resolution that can garner overwhelming support as a bipartisan condemnation rather than a circumvention of impeachment. We can then leave the Constitution alone, and leave the future of Trump to voters and to history.

 

[packyderms_wife]

I'm seeing more and more people on facespy say that congress cannot impeach a citizen and are now questioning whether Trump is still actually president.

 

[marsh]

"The Senate is Utterly Without Jurisdiction to Try Donald Trump" - Former Independent Counsel Ken Starr Explains Why Democrats Can't Try Trump (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

No where in the Constitution or any other documents written by our framers does it mention anything about impeaching and convicting a former president.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

“The Senate is Utterly Without Jurisdiction to Try Donald Trump” – Former Independent Counsel Ken Starr Explains Why Democrats Can’t Try Trump (VIDEO)
By Cristina Laila
Published February 1, 2021 at 3:36pm

No where in the Constitution or any other documents written by our framers does it mention anything about impeaching and convicting a former president.

Former US Solicitor General and Independent Counsel Ken Starr said the senate is without jurisdiction to try private citizen Donald Trump.

The House of Representatives impeached President Trump with a 232-197 vote on January 13 for ‘inciting an insurrection’ at the Capitol.

Speaker Pelosi held onto the articles of impeachment and didn’t deliver articles to the senate until after Trump left office.

Chief Justice Roberts isn’t even presiding over the senate trial – Senate Pro Temp Leahy (D-VT) is instead, which is another violation of the law.

Furthermore, 45 senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional so the trial in DOA.

Judge Starr outlined in detail why “the Senate is utterly without jurisdiction to try Donald Trump” during an appearance with “Life, Liberty & Levin” Sunday evening.

WATCH:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356266471509417990

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1356266471509417990
6:41 min

 

[marsh]

WATCH: Trump's Lead Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen Joins Sean Hannity For Interview | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A spokesperson for Donald Trump on Sunday announced lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will lead his impeachment defense team.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

WATCH: Trump’s Lead Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen Joins Sean Hannity For Interview

By Cristina Laila
Published February 1, 2021 at 8:54pm

A spokesperson for Donald Trump on Sunday announced lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will lead his impeachment defense team.

Trump praised Schoen and Castor for having “significant trial experience in high profile cases.”

David Schoen previously represented Roger Stone and Bruce Castor served as the DA for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

David Schoen joined Fox News host Sean Hannity Monday evening for an interview one week before the senate trial.

WATCH:

View: https://youtu.be/VT9mOeorazs
7:59 min

The House of Representatives impeached President Trump with a 232-197 vote on January 13 for ‘inciting an insurrection’ at the Capitol.

Speaker Pelosi held onto the articles of impeachment and didn’t deliver articles to the senate until after Trump left office.

No where in the Constitution or any other documents written by our framers does it mention anything about impeaching and convicting a former president.
45 senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional so the trial in DOA.

 

[marsh]

NEW: Trump Officially Responds to Articles of Impeachment, Calls Process "Unconstitutional" | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Donald Trump on Tuesday officially responded to the articles of impeachment filed by rabid House Democrats last month.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

NEW: Trump Officially Responds to Articles of Impeachment, Calls Process “Unconstitutional”

By Cristina Laila
Published February 2, 2021 at 1:34pm

Donald Trump on Tuesday officially responded to the articles of impeachment filed by rabid House Democrats last month.

The House of Representatives impeached President Trump with a 232-197 vote on January 13 for ‘inciting an insurrection’ at the Capitol.

45 senators have already voted that the impeachment is unconstitutional so the trial in DOA.

Trump called the process “unconstitutional” since he is no longer in office and cannot be removed if convicted.

“The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached,” Trump said in his response. “Since the 45th President of the United States is no longer “President.” the clause ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for the Senate to accomplish…”



Trump denied he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.



Trump said he always fully and faithfully executed his duties as President of the United States, and at all times acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, while never engaging in high Crimes or Misdemeanors.



“Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First Amendment.”



President Trump argued it is his 1st Amendment right to question the election results during his speech at the Capitol ellipse in DC on January 6.



In closing, Trump requested the members of the senate dismiss Article I: Incitement of Insurrection against him as “moot” and requested the senate acquit him on the “merits of the allegations raised in the article of impeachment.”


Click here to watch President Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer David Schoen’s interview with Sean Hannity. WATCH: Trump's Lead Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen Joins Sean Hannity For Interview

 

[marsh]

BREAKING: House Impeachment Managers File Brief Ahead Of Trial, Claim Trump ‘Singularly Responsible’ For Capitol Riot | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

BREAKING: House Impeachment Managers File Brief Ahead Of Trial, Claim Trump ‘Singularly Responsible’ For Capitol Riot

By Tim Pearce
Feb 2, 2021 DailyWire.com

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

House members picked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to prosecute the impeachment case against former President Donald Trump intend to argue that Trump is “singularly responsible” for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The team of House impeachment managers filed an 80-page brief on Tuesday laying out their case to convince the Senate to convict Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 riot. The House impeached Trump last month with all Democrats in favor and all but 10 Republicans against.

“President Trump may assert that this impeachment reflects ‘cancel culture’ or some supposed intolerance of his right to voice objections to the election results.

That would be a red herring. President Trump endangered the very constitutional system that protects all other rights, including freedom of expression,” the brief says. “It would be perverse to suggest that our shared commitment to free speech requires the Senate to ignore the obvious: that President Trump is singularly responsible for the violence and destruction that unfolded in our seat of government on January 6.”

Dozens of Republicans in the Senate have signaled that they will resist convicting Trump on the grounds that they believe the impeachment trial against him is unconstitutional because he is no longer a “sitting president.” The House managers plan to argue that the Senate has jurisdiction in the case because Trump was impeached while in office.

“President Trump is personally responsible for inciting an armed attack on our seat of government that imperiled the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress and our families, and those who staff and serve the Legislative Branch,” the brief says. “If the Senate does not try President Trump (and convict him) it risks declaring to all future Presidents that there will be no consequences, no accountability, indeed no Congressional response at all if they violate their Oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’ in their final weeks — and instead provoke lethal violence in a lawless effort to retain power.”

The managers go on to argue that, while Trump cannot be removed from office, his conviction is necessary to bar him from ever holding public office in the future.

“President Trump’s incitement of insurrection requires his conviction and disqualification from future federal officeholding,” the brief says. “This is not a case where elections alone are a sufficient safeguard against future abuse; it is the electoral process itself that President Trump attacked and that must be protected from him and anyone else who would seek to mimic his behavior.”

Trump gave a speech before a crowd of supporters prior to the riot at the Capitol in which he urged protesters to “peacefully” march to the Capitol.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump said at the time.

“Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections.”

 

[marsh]

Lindsey Graham threatens Democrats: If you call even one witness for impeachment trial, we’ll open up 'Pandora's box' | Blaze Media

He threatened to call the FBI to testify

www.theblaze.com

Lindsey Graham threatens Democrats: If you call even one witness for impeachment trial, we’ll open up 'Pandora's box'

He threatened to call the FBI to testify
PHIL SHIVER
February 02, 2021

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) warned Democratic colleagues Monday night that if they decide to call even one witness in the Senate's upcoming impeachment trial against former President Trump, they'll be opening up "Pandora's Box."

Last month, the Democrat-controlled House voted to impeach Trump a second time for "incitement of insurrection" after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 while Congress was in session. The process has now moved to the Senate, where a trial is set to begin next week.

Graham, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed that he looks forward to a speedy trial and acquittal of Trump. But he noted that should Democrats choose to turn it into a "political commercial" and prolong the business for "weeks and months" by calling witnesses, Republicans are prepared to play ball by calling the FBI to testify about security failures at the U.S. Capitol.

"If you open up that can of worms [by calling witnesses], we'll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people actually pre-planned these attacks and what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol," Graham said.

"You open up Pandora's box if you call one witness," he continued. "I hope we don't call any and we vote and get this trial over next week when it starts."

With the trial's Feb. 9 start date looming, Reuters reported Monday that the House Democrats in charge of impeachment proceedings in the Senate are expected to announce whether or not they will call witnesses by as early as Tuesday.

Democrats are expected to face an uphill climb toward a conviction, especially after 45 of the GOP's 50 senators voted in a procedural motion to object to impeachment proceedings last week, leading Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to call the prospect "dead on arrival." Democrats would need at least 17 GOP senators to declare Trump guilty in order to garner the two-thirds vote required to convict.

Nevertheless, Trump, for his part, is currently assembling a legal defense and preparing a formal response to the charges. A conviction in the Senate will mean rather little, politically, since Trump has already exited office. However, a vote to impeach could open the potential for a vote to bar him from seeking public office in the future.

 

[marsh]

Lindsay Graham Offers Support for Liz Cheney and Then Warns the Trump Team About Attempting to Present Evidence of Election Fraud In Front of the Senate | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

Lindsey Graham is back to being himself. After sucking up to President Trump to help him win an election, he attempts to intimidate the President while supporting bitter war monger Liz Cheney who voted to impeach the most popular President in US history.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Lindsay Graham Offers Support for Liz Cheney and Then Warns the Trump Team About Attempting to Present Evidence of Election Fraud In Front of the Senate
By Joe Hoft
Published February 2, 2021 at 6:12pm

Lindsey Graham is back to being himself. After sucking up to President Trump to help him win an election, he attempts to intimidate the President while supporting bitter war monger Liz Cheney who voted to impeach the most popular President in US history.

Lindsey Graham is the friend nobody wants. He’ll smile at your face while stabbing you in the back.

Earlier today Senator Graham let Liz Cheney know he supported her. Cheney recently voted to impeach President Trump. Most Americans, the majority that voted for President Trump, vehemently disagreed with Cheney’s actions.



Graham and his good friend in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, are on the same side of Cheney, which is not on the side of the American people and President Trump. This is why millions of Americans and Republicans are done with the Republican party. These politicians believe Americans voted for them in spite of President Trump and not because of President Trump.

Graham wasn’t done. He then threatened the President by reportedly stating the President should not talk about the (obvious) election fraud in the 2020 election. Americans know the election is a joke, but the bitter politicians in DC don’t:


If this is true, Graham has some soul searching to do and the Republican Party may as well start digging their grave. Someone needs to tell Graham about how many votes President Trump really won in the election and how many believe this election was stolen. Not one person you talk to who voted for Trump believe he lost to Joe Biden. The only people that believe this are Graham, Cheney, McConnell, the Democrats and their Big Media and Big Tech tools.

Graham is truly a politician, like most in DC, who no one trusts.

[COMMENT: Graham and the establishment fail to realize that a large portion of the 75-80 million people who voted for Trump still view the election as stolen, they also feel that their rights to present grievance and seek redress were thwarted at every level of administrative, legislative or judicial institution. They almost universally failed to get a fair hearing, thorough examination and remedy. They are even rebuked by the media. Yet, their concerns remain unresolved to their satisfaction.

This trial is also a trial about election fairness, (the consent of the governed,) and our government institutions' responsiveness to the people, (government of the people, by the people and for the people.) At the heart of this whole matter are the 75-80 million people and whether they are still a sovereign people. By shutting down Trump, Graham shuts down all of our voices and gives us the answer. No, we are no longer a sovereign, self-governing people.]

 

[marsh]

Lindsey Graham issues warning…

Lindsey Graham dares Democrats to call witnesses “We’ll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people pre-planned this attack and what happened with the security footprin…

citizenfreepress.com

View: https://youtu.be/zllPVaA0vPU
1:39 min

Lindsey Graham dares Democrats to call witnesses

“We’ll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people pre-planned this attack and what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol. You open up Pandora’s Box if you call one witness.”

 

[marsh]

READ: The Full Legal Brief Against President Trump. - The National Pulse+

The Democrats have just released their full legal brief against President Donald J. Trump. You can read the full document below: The document falsely claims that no election result has been contested in U.S. history. The document also makes clear Democrats are using the power of the state to try...

thenationalpulse.com

READ: The Full Legal Brief Against President Trump.

• FEBRUARY 2, 2021
• STAFF WRITER

The Democrats have just released their full legal brief against President Donald J. Trump. You can read the full document below:

The document falsely claims that no election result has been contested in U.S. history.

The document also makes clear Democrats are using the power of the state to try to ban President Trump from holding public office ever again – moves similar to those made by tyrants across the globe against political opponents.

Read:
scribd document embedded on website:

READ: The Full Legal Brief Against President Trump. - The National Pulse+

The Democrats have just released their full legal brief against President Donald J. Trump. You can read the full document below: The document falsely claims that no election result has been contested in U.S. history. The document also makes clear Democrats are using the power of the state to try...

thenationalpulse.com

 

[marsh]

BREAKING: Democrat Brief Claims U.S. Election Results Never Rejected Before – That's A MASSIVE Lie. - The National Pulse+

The Democrats have released their legal brief for the upcoming impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, falsely claiming that “No president had ever refused to accept an election result or defied the lawful processes for resolving electoral disputes. Until President Trump.” But their...

thenationalpulse.com

BREAKING: Democrat Brief Claims U.S. Election Results Never Rejected Before – That’s A MASSIVE Lie.

• FEBRUARY 2, 2021
• RAHEEM KASSAM

The Democrats have released their legal brief for the upcoming impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, falsely claiming that “No president had ever refused to accept an election result or defied the lawful processes for resolving electoral disputes. Until President Trump.” But their candidates sure have.

In fact, almost every Republican victory at recent Presidential elections have seen the results challenged… by Democrats. And plenty of historical U.S. elections have been privy to challenges, too.

In recent history Democrats have exclusively been the ones to challenge election victories for their political opponents.

In 1969, in 2011, in 2005, and in 2017, Democrats objected.

Now, their own legal brief claims: “Since the dawn of the republic, no enemy — foreign or domestic — had ever obstructed Congress’s counting of the votes… No president had ever refused to accept an election result or defied the lawful processes for resolving electoral disputes. Until President Trump.”

You can read the full brief here. READ: The Full Legal Brief Against President Trump. - The National Pulse

The willingness of Democrat lawyers and impeachment managers to be so brazenly two-faced in their own legal brief will no doubt create an effective platform for President Trump and his lawyers to respond.

The claim will also be stunning given that Hillary Clinton publicly advised Joe Biden to reject the election results – under any circumstances – if he did not “win”.

The National Pulse will cover the full brief on our new daily podcast
The National Pulse Podcast with Raheem Kassam 1:01:34 min

 

[marsh]

BREAKING: Trump Legal Brief Response Blasts Democrat Efforts as 'Moot' and 'In Violation of the Constitution' - The National Pulse+

President Donald J. Trump and his legal team have responded to the legal brief issued by the Democrats in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial which alleges President Trump holds responsibility for the January 6th riot inside the U.S. Capitol. The President’s team has called the moves by...

thenationalpulse.com

BREAKING: Trump Legal Brief Response Blasts Democrat Efforts As ‘Moot’ And ‘In Violation Of The Constitution’

• FEBRUARY 2, 2021
• STAFF WRITER

President Donald J. Trump and his legal team have responded to the legal brief issued by the Democrats in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial which alleges President Trump holds responsibility for the January 6th riot inside the U.S. Capitol.

The President’s team has called the moves by Democrats “moot” and blasted them as “unconstitutional.”

You can read the full brief below.
Read:
Scribd doc embedded on website BREAKING: Trump Legal Brief Response Blasts Democrat Efforts as 'Moot' and 'In Violation of the Constitution' - The National Pulse

 

[marsh]

404 | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Trump Lawyer: Impeachment Is "Political Weaponization" Of A Constitutional Process

TUESDAY, FEB 02, 2021 - 10:01
Authored by Janita Kan via The Epoch Times,
David Schoen, one of former President Donald Trump’s newly appointed impeachment defense attorneys, said he believes that Democrats are using the impeachment process as a “weapon” to go after Trump in an attempt to bar him from running for office again.

“This is the political weaponization of the impeachment process,” Schoen told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday.

“I think it’s also the most ill-advised legislative action that I’ve seen in my lifetime. It is tearing the country apart at a time when we don’t need anything like that.”

Democrat lawmakers have been calling for Trump’s impeachment since the beginning of his term, Schoen said, and the upcoming trial is their latest attempt to target him, as well as to carry out their agenda of preventing him from ever running for president again.

“That’s about as undemocratic as you can get,” Schoen said.
“Can you imagine the slap in the face that is to the 75 million or more voters?”

“Fair-minded people don’t support using the impeachment process to then try to bar someone from running for office again,” he added.

The Democrat-controlled House on Jan. 13 voted 232–197 to impeach Trump on a single article of impeachment, alleging that the president incited an “insurrection” that caused the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6.

The impeachment, which was completed in a single seven-hour session, has been criticized by Republicans for its expediency and lack of due process.

Meanwhile, the question of whether the Senate trial, which will begin on the week of Feb. 8, is constitutional has prompted a heated public debate among legal scholars and lawmakers.

Scholars who are arguing that the trial is unconstitutional are relying on an interpretation of Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

According to their reading of the text, these scholars say impeachment is for current officeholders, and since Trump had already left office, the Senate’s jurisdiction—or authority—to hold an impeachment trial expired on Jan. 20, when his term came to a close.

On the other hand, scholars who are arguing that the upcoming trial is constitutional say that the impeachment power and the Senate’s jurisdiction needs to be read in conjunction with Article I, Section 3, which states, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

These scholars also contend that the argument for impeachment is supported by historical precedents.

Schoen also signaled that he and attorney Bruce Castor Jr. will also argue that Trump’s speech at the rally on Jan. 6 is protected by the First Amendment.

“This is a very, very dangerous road to take with respect to the First Amendment, putting at risk any passionate political speaker,” Schoen said.

The media, lawmakers, former officials, and other critics have put the blame on Trump for the Jan. 6 Capitol breach and have been calling for his impeachment.

Hours earlier, the president addressed a crowd in Washington D.C. where he reiterated allegations about election irregularities and potential fraud, and his dissatisfaction with the media and several lawmakers. Before calling on his supporters to “fight like hell” to be well-represented in Congress, Trump urged supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” at the U.S. Capitol.

The breach at the U.S. Capitol began before Trump had finished his speech at the rally, according to a timeline compiled by The Epoch Times. As the incident escalated, Trump continued his urge for peace and respect for law enforcement throughout the afternoon.

Following the incident, Trump condemned the “violence, lawlessness, and mayhem,” saying that those who “infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy.”

The Justice Department and FBI have also announced that they have charged protesters who had conspired to breach the U.S. Capitol days before the incident, a detail that challenges the argument put forward by the media that Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 was the impetus for the violence.

“President Trump has condemned the violence at all times. Read the words of his speech. [He] calls for peacefulness. This has nothing to do with President Trump,” Schoen said.

 

[marsh]

The Navarro Report - PETER NAVARRO

Download the full Navarro Report

The Navarro Report Vol I, II, III Feb. 2, 2021.pdf

drive.google.com

_______________________________________

The Amistad Project: The Legitimacy and Effect of Private Funding on Federal and State Electoral Processes DocumentCloud

Sidney Powell: https://wpcdn.zenger.news/wp-conten...-23-Sidney-Powell-Team-Binder-ZENGER-NEWS.pdf

Lott Report: A Simple Test for the Extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data A Simple Test for the Extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data by John R. Lott :: SSRN

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer: Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee testimony

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PpyoYlGqBg
; (shortened)

View: https://youtu.be/tyVRlaWHSeM
; the technology

View: https://youtu.be/UgeqGmvQXKs


Got Freedom: Evidence of voter, ballot, and election irregularities and lawlessness in the presidential election of November 3, 2020 Evidence of voter, ballot, and election irregularities and lawlessness in the presidential election of November 3, 2020

Vote Dumps Report: 2020 Election Startling Vote Spikes (rev1/3/21) https://www.scribd.com/document/489695105/Vote-Dumps-Report#from_embed

Bobby Piton Letter to AZ Legislature: 12112020 AZ Legislature Letter | Electoral Fraud | Voting

Michigan: Allied Security Operations Group Antrim Michigan Forensics Report [Election Machines] Antrim Michigan Forensics Report [121320] v2 [REDACTED] | Usb Flash Drive | Computers

Georgia: The Chairman's Report of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Standing Senate Judiciary Committee https://creativedestructionmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/THE_FINAL-REPORT-1.pdf

Pennsylvania: Trump v Boockvar Petition to the US Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari Trump v Boockvar Petition | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Article Two Of The United States Constitution

Arizona: The State Senate of Arizona has issued a subpoena to the County of Maricopa to surrender its ballot-counting machines, software, security logs, and more than 2 million ballots so senators could perform their own forensic audit. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is fighting the subpoena in court.
A Close Look At The Data - Arizona A CLOSE LOOK AT THE DATA - ARIZONA

Wisconsin: On Monday, Dec. 14 the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that roughly 200,000 votes were cast in violation of state law and cannot be counted. ( Voters seeking to vote absentee without presentation of an ID had to qualify by being confined to their homes because of age, illness, or infirmity. COVID 19 avoidance was not allowable.) The Trump Team is in the process of checking status on these voters. (This would not prove that they all voted for Biden, but it could draw a question into the certifiability of the results.) https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283 Supreme Court of Wisconsin Case NO.: 2020AP557-OA COMPLETE TITLE: Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, Petitioners, v. Dane County, Wisconsin and Scott McDonell in his official capacity as Dane County Clerk

Mass: Dr. Shiva Ayyanduri Federal lawsuit has overcome chllenges and will be heard. This is a claim that computer algorithms were used to steal votes in his US Senate election violating the "one man, one vote" rule. (Case 1:20-cv-12080-MLW). Judge D. J. Wolf
I believe Ayyanduri's Nov. 3, 2020 election result analysis is a part of Sidney Powell's Kracken Case, which has been docketed with the Supreme Court but will not be reviewed further until mid-January

 

[marsh]

Whether through writ of quo warranto or Senate trial, Trump MUST focus on voter fraud evidence

President Trump will not be convicted in the Senate impeachment trial. If he doesn't show up to defend himself, he

noqreport.com

Whether through writ of quo warranto or Senate trial, Trump MUST focus on voter fraud evidence

There really is no need for private citizen Donald Trump to defend himself against impeachment because it's ludicrous prima facie. But he should use his time on the stage to present as much evidence as possible of massive voter fraud.
by JD Rucker
February 2, 2021

President Trump will not be convicted in the Senate impeachment trial. If he doesn’t show up to defend himself, he will not be convicted. There isn’t enough evidence to convict him of anything and only partisan hackery (plus a handful of NeverTrump “Republicans”) will mean any votes at all. This will not be based on evidence. Those who vote to convict will be doing so out of hatred.

President Trump will not be convicted in the Senate impeachment trial. If he doesn’t show up to defend himself, he will not be convicted. There isn’t enough evidence to convict him of anything and only partisan hackery (plus a handful of NeverTrump “Republicans”) will mean any votes at all. This will not be based on evidence. Those who vote to convict will be doing so out of hatred.

But that doesn’t mean he should skip the trial. It’s a forum through which to present evidence of voter fraud, something he wasn’t given in the weeks between the election and Joe Biden’s inauguration. Now, he gets his day, even if not in court. But he can have another day as well, and it doesn’t have to happen before the Senate trial. Through a writ of quo warranto, the President’s team can present all of the evidence.

There are many reasons he should do this, which I discussed in-depth on today’s episode of NOQ Report. First and foremost, it will give whatever authorities still exist out there an opportunity to do the right thing and correct the fraudulent election. It’s a longshot at this late stage, but whether through military intervention or Supreme Court primacy, there’s an ever so slight chance we can truly evict Joe Biden from the Oval Office before 2025.

Second, he needs to let his supporters know he’s still fighting. This is important for his future plans, whether that means a 2024 run, TrumpTV, a SuperPAC, or anything else in politics.

Third, we need those who oppose him and/or support Joe Biden to know what we already know, that the “occupant of the White House” is there illegitimately. This is important in order to take away whatever mandate he feels he has as he pushes forth a radical agenda.

There are more reasons that I discuss in this episode, but these three are enough. Heck, any one of them are enough of a reason when we consider the lack of necessity to present evidence in his defense against the sham impeachment trial.

The people need to hear the truth that mainstream media, Democrats, many Republicans, Big Tech, and the judiciary refused to let them hear. And they need to hear it from Trump and his team.

Brighteon 40:38 min

 

[marsh]

"The Entire Proceeding Is a Legal Nullity" - Trump Attorney Bruce Castor Discusses Upcoming Sham Impeachment Trial by Democrat Senators (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Bruce Castor, the attorney leading former President Trump’s defense in his upcoming impeachment trial, joined KYW Newsradio in Philadelphia to discuss the upcoming trial next week in the US Senate.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

“The Entire Proceeding Is a Legal Nullity” – Trump Attorney Bruce Castor Discusses Upcoming Sham Impeachment Trial by Democrat Senators (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft
Published February 3, 2021 at 9:10am

Bruce Castor, the attorney leading former President Trump’s defense in his upcoming impeachment trial, joined KYW Newsradio in Philadelphia to discuss the upcoming trial next week in the US Senate.

Castor told KYW that the entire impeachment proceeding against private citizen Donald Trump is illegitimate, a “legal nullity.”

“The Senate doesn’t have jurisdiction over a private citizen in an impeachment because the Constitution says the only remedy for impeaching a person is removal from office, and if that’s the only remedy, and President Trump no longer holds office, then the entire proceeding is a legal nullity because it can’t happen, it would be almost the equivalent of the President having died – they can’t remove him from office because he simply is unable to be removed because he’s not there.”

“At some point in this country we have to recognize that people are responsible for their own actions, and the President deplores the violence at the Capitol, and those people should be punished, aggressively as I would have done as if I was the DA and they did it at the Montgomery County courthouse. But just because somebody gave a speech and people got excited, it doesn’t mean it’s the speechmaker’s fault, it’s the people who got excited and did what they know is wrong.”

Here is the full audio from the interview with Bruce Castor:

Audio on website 14:12 min

 

[marsh]

Rep. Matt Gaetz: We Have the Votes to Remove Anti-Trumper Liz Cheney from GOP House Leadership | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

It should not have taken this long.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Rep. Matt Gaetz: We Have the Votes to Remove Anti-Trumper Liz Cheney from GOP House Leadership

By Jim Hoft
Published February 3, 2021 at 10:30am

It should not have taken this long. It should have been immediate.
And it shows how disrespectful and tone-deaf the Republican Party is to their voters.

Trump-hater Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, serves as the Republican House Conference Chair – the third-highest Republican position in the US House of Representatives.

Two weeks ago Liz Cheney voted to impeach President Trump, without due process, on bogus charges, based on lies that he started a riot at the Capitol on January 6th. Liz announced her decision on House Conference Chair stationary.

By the following Wednesday Liz Cheney already had two primary opponents in her 2022 race.

Yet, despite President Trump’s record successes and popularity with the Republican base the House GOP leadership refuses to remove Liz Cheney as the Conference Chair.

But things are looking really bad for Liz Cheney. According to a new poll only 13% of Wyoming voters would currently vote to reelect the outspoken Trump critic.

On Wednesday morning Rep. Matt Gaetz told the Bannon War Room that Republicans in the House have the votes to remove Liz Cheney from leadership.

It shouldn’t have taken this long.

 

[marsh]

Trump Eviscerates Democrats' Impeachment Charges

pjmedia.com

NEWS & POLITICS
BREAKING: Trump Eviscerates Democrats' Impeachment Charges

BY TYLER O'NEIL FEB 02, 2021 3:11 PM ET

AP Photo/Julio Cortez
On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump’s lawyers Bruce L. Castor Jr., and David Schoen released Trump’s answer to the Democrats’ article of impeachment accusing him of “incitement of insurrection.” Trump’s response breaks the Democrats’ impeachment article into eight separate allegations and responds to each claim. In a nutshell, the former president argues that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to remove a president when he has already left office and that he is innocent of the Democrats’ charges.

Trump asks the Senate to “dismiss Article I: Incitement of Insurrection against him as moot, and thus in violation of the Constitution, because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to remove from office a man who does not hold office. In the alternative, the 45th President respectfully requests the Senate acquit him on the merits of the allegations raised in the article of impeachment.”

The Senate already voted to take up the impeachment, with five Republican senators joining 50 Democratic senators in holding the matter constitutional. However, 45 Republican senators voted not to hold the trial, given constitutional concerns. This vote signified that the Senate is not likely to convict Trump.

The former president makes a few extremely salient arguments against the Democrats’ impeachment article. In addition to the claim that the Senate cannot convict a former president on impeachment, Trump argues that the Democrats violated his free speech and due process rights in rushing to impeach him and that the article of impeachment is deceptively drafted in an unfair manner. Trump also claims that disqualifying him from office would constitute a “bill of attainder,” which has been broadly interpreted to mean a legislative act against a class of people that inflicts punishment on them without a judicial trial.

Trump argues the article of impeachment is “facially and substantively flawed, and otherwise unconstitutional, and must be dismissed with prejudice.”

The president’s responses
Trump splits the article of impeachment into eight claims, providing a response to each one.

His first response claims that the impeachment power does not apply to him because he is no longer president. “The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold office to be impeached. Since the 45th President is no longer ‘President,’ the clause ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for the Senate to accomplish, and thus the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language of the Constitution.”

Trump also argues that the Constitution does not allow the Senate to disqualify a president from future office unless that president has first been removed from office due to impeachment. “Since removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent which must occur before, and jointly with, ‘disqualification’ to hold future office, the fact that the Senate presently is unable to remove from office the 45th President whose term has expired, means that Averment 1 is therefore irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.”

Importantly, Trump denies ever having “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.” He also denies ever having “engaged in a violation of his oath of office.”

While the article of impeachment condemns Trump’s statements challenging the 2020 election results as “false,” Trump defends those statements. He claims he exercised his First Amendment right “to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic ‘safeguards’ states election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures.”

“Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th President’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false,” Trump argues. “Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First Amendment. …. the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from government retaliation.” [Emphasis added]

Trump acknowledged that he spoke at the Ellipse on January 6 before the Capitol riot, but he insisted that Democrats twisted his words in claiming that he had incited an insurrection.

“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior. It is denied that the phrase ‘if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore’ had anything to do with the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election security in general, as evidenced by the recording of the speech,” the legal defense reads.

Trump claims that he did not intend to interfere with the counting of Electoral College votes. He notes that Democrats in Congress challenged Electoral College votes in 2017 and that Republicans did so in 2021, in each case to no avail. He argues that Congress’s duty “was not just to certify the presidential election” but also “to first determine whether certification of the presidential election vote was warranted.”

Trump does not mention the fact that he encouraged Vice President Mike Pence to overstep his constitutional bounds in rejecting Electoral College votes, a move that undermines his claim that he did not intend to interfere.

Trump also denies having made “any effort to subvert” the 2020 election in asking Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R-Ga.) to “find” votes. Trump claims that the word “find” was appropriate in context because he was expressing his opinion that an accurate count would “find” the votes required to put Trump over the top.

Finally, Trump denied having “ever endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government.” He denied having “threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch Government.”

Trump’s defenses
After addressing the article of impeachment, Trump presents arguments in his defense.

He claims the Senate lacks jurisdiction to try a removed president for impeachment “because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under our Constitution.”

He argues that if the Senate acts on this impeachment, “it will have passed a Bill of Attainder in violation of Article 1, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.”

He argues that the article of impeachment violates his right to free speech under the First Amendment and that the House deprived him of the due process of law “in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachment by ignoring it own procedures and precedents going back to the mid-19th century.”

“The lack of due process included, but was not limited to, [the House’s] failure to conduct any meaningful committee review or other investigation, engage in any full and fair consideration of evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to conduct any full and fair discussion by allowing the 45th President’s positions to be heard in the House Chamber.”

Trump warns that if the Senate does not rule in his favor, it would set a precedent that “such persons as the 45th President similarly situated no longer enjoy the rights of all American citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”

“There was no exigency [requiring a fast impeachment], as evidenced by the fact that the House waited until after the end of the President’s term to even send the articles over and there was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did,” Trump argues. “Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in America, especially in the Congress of the United States.”

Trump also claims that “by charging multiple alleged wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it impossible to guarantee compliance with the Constitutional mandate in Article 1, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 that permits a conviction only by at least two-thirds of the members.”

By “interweaving different allegations rather than breaking them into counts of alleged individual instances of misconduct,” the article of impeachment muddies the waters in debate. If the Senate votes to convict Trump, “it would be impossible to know if two-thirds of the members agreed on the entire article, or just on parts, as the basis for vote to convict.”

Finally, Trump notes that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has announced that he would not to preside over the impeachment trial, and Democrats picked Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to preside. “Once the 45th President’s term expired, and the House chose to allow jurisdiction to lapse on the Article of Impeachment, the constitutional mandate for the Chief Justice to preside at all impeachments involving the President evidently disappeared, and he was replaced by a partisan Senator who will purportedly also act as a juror while ruling on certain issues,” Trump argues.

The former president presents a very strong case in his defense. Not only does he make salient arguments for his innocence of the specific charge of “incitement of insurrection,” but he also warns against the dangerous precedent this impeachment would set for free speech and for due process.

The impeachment trial is scheduled to begin next Monday, February 8.

 

[marsh]

Sen. Tim Kaine Ends Censure of Trump for Lack of Support

The pursuit of a bipartisan effort to censure former President Donald Trump has ended due to lack of support, according to Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

www.newsmax.com

Sen. Tim Kaine Ends Censure of Trump for Lack of Support

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
By Charlie McCarthy | Tuesday, 02 February 2021 04:19 PM

The pursuit of a bipartisan effort to censure former President Donald Trump has ended due to lack of support, according to Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

Kaine and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, drafted a proposal to formally chastise Trump after it became unlikely of gaining a conviction in his second impeachment trial.

Collins was one of five Republican senators who voted not to dismiss the impeachment trial last week. That meant Democrats were 12 votes short of getting a conviction.

Kaine said Tuesday the censure effort did not have enough support from Republicans or Democrats, per Newsweek.

"We don't have enough support on the Republican side because they don't want to bar Trump from running from office," Kaine said.

"I don't have enough support on the Democratic side because for most of my colleagues, it's impeachment or nothing."

Some of Kaine's fellow Democrats indicated they only would consider joining a bipartisan proposal if at least 10 Republican senators publicly supported the motion. That would assure the 60-vote margin required to pass the legislation in the Senate.

"I'm very worried about going through this trial and having the punch line at the end being Trump acquitted again," Kaine said. "That's why we put this alternative on the table. We think it has meaningful consequences, but where it is right now, we're not going to file it until we see a path to success.

"We'll get into the trial. My hope is, maybe Republicans will see some evidence in the trial where they'll say, 'Even if I'm not voting to convict, this is repulsive.' Maybe some Democrats will say, 'Boy, we're not going to get the votes to convict. We need to come up with something else.' So, the idea's on the table."

After last week's vote on a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Collins said, "I think it's pretty obvious from the vote today, that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted. Just do the math."

The resolution Kaine and Collins were considering would have declared the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol as an insurrection against the Constitution. It would have said Trump "gave aid and comfort" to the rioters by "repeatedly lying about the election, slandering election officials, pressuring others to come to Washington for a wild event and encouraging them to come up to Congress."

Kaine last week said censuring Trump and finding he violated the 14th Amendment could have barred the former president from holding office again.

"This is an alternative that would impose, in my view, a similar consequence but it does not require a trial and it does not require a two-thirds vote," Kaine said.
Republicans who have claimed the impeachment trial is unconstitutional could not have used that argument regarding a censure.

It also would have been the first time a president had been censured after leaving office.

 

[marsh]

EP 702- Pandemic: Prairie Populism (w/ Matt Gaetz) 48:48 min
War Room Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz talk about Gaetz willingness to step down from his House seat in order to represent the President in the Impeachment trial (if requested) on the basis of the evidence of substantial (non-machine related) irregularities in the election

 

[marsh]

Pelosi Bullies Senators Ahead of Trump Impeachment Trial: 'We'll See if it's Going to be a Senate of Courage or Cowardice' (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday bullied senators ahead of Trump’s impeachment trial.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Pelosi Bullies Senators Ahead of Trump Impeachment Trial: ‘We’ll See if it’s Going to be a Senate of Courage or Cowardice’ (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published February 4, 2021 at 11:19am

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday bullied senators ahead of Trump’s impeachment trial.

The Senate will hold a trial for Donald Trump on February 8th after the House impeached him for ‘inciting an insurrection.’

No where in the Constitution or any other documents written by our framers does it mention anything about impeaching and convicting a former president.

45 senators have already voted that the impeachment is unconstitutional so the trial in DOA.

When confronted about this, Pelosi snapped at the reporter and bullied senators.

“The House Managers are walking into a trial where all signs point to acquittal -” a reporter said to Pelosi.

Pelosi interrupted the reporter, “They don’t know that! They haven’t heard the case…We’ll see if it’s gonna be a senate of courage or cowardice!”

WATCH:

Speaker Pelosi says the impeachment trial will test whether the Senate is a body of “courage” or “cowardice.”pic.twitter.com/aF8GJPjN5w
— The Recount (@therecount) February 4, 2021

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1357367966308966403

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1357367966308966403
.38 min

 

[marsh]

VIDEO: Maxine Waters Wants President Trump Charged with Premeditated Murder | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Far-left Democrat Maxine Waters is famous for inspiring supporters to attack and assault Trump supporters in public.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

VIDEO: Maxine Waters Wants President Trump Charged with Premeditated Murder

By Jim Hoft
Published February 4, 2021 at 11:30am

Far-left Democrat Maxine Waters is famous for inspiring supporters to attack and assault Trump supporters in public.

Rep. Maxine Waters declared war on Republicans during a speech to a fired-up Democrat mob in June 2018.

Two months later a Trump-hating thug tried to stab to death a Republican candidate at a fall festival.

On Tuesday Maxine Waters told MSNBC she wants President Trump charged with premeditated murder over the Capitol Hill riots.

The only one murdered that day was Ashli Babbit who was shot dead in cold blood by a Capitol Hill police officer.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1357332976082837504

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1357332976082837504
1:04 min

Even after her continued promotion of violence and lies Maxine Waters still has her social media accounts.

This tells you everything.

 

[marsh]

House Impeachment Managers Call on Former President Trump to Provide Testimony Next Week ⋆ Politicrossing

How can these people be fair judges when they have already decided that he is guilty?

politicrossing.com

NEWS
House Impeachment Managers Call on Former President Trump to Provide Testimony Next Week

How in the world can these people be fair judges when they have already decided that he is guilty? As you can see here, House Democrats are demanding that Donald Trump testify in his own defense, because they’ve already decided that he did it. Check out this tweet from Catherine Herridge of CBS.

Attached is a letter from Congresswoman Jamie Raskin, 8th District of Maryland. Raskin is the “Lead Impeachment Manager.” Here is the letter that was sent:

Personally, we don’t think Trump should testify. This is never going to pass the Senate and Trump should not dignify this atrocity in any way by playing along.

 

[marsh]

Why Democrats Will Never Stop Talking About ‘Insurrection’

The false branding of the GOP as the party of sedition will, if it succeeds, be a 21st century ‘bloody shirt’ that will determine the future of America.

thefederalist.com

Why Democrats Will Never Stop Talking About ‘Insurrection’
The false narrative branding the GOP as the party of sedition will, if it succeeds, be a 21st century ‘bloody shirt’ that will determine the future of American politics.

By Jonathan S. Tobin
FEBRUARY 3, 2021

The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump will begin next week. But there’s more at stake in the proceedings than Trump’s legacy.

The overwhelming majority of Republicans are determined to resist impeachment regardless of their personal feelings about Trump. Perhaps some still think a conviction would be worth it if it would definitively end his political career. But even they may understand that it would be political malpractice and a breach of faith with their voters to join with the Democrats seeking Trump’s scalp.

But Trump’s future is not what is really at stake in the debate about the events of Jan. 6. As disgraceful and criminal as the behavior of the mob was that day and as troubling as Trump’s mistakes were, the point of impeachment isn’t about punishing him or even whether it would be legally possible for him to run again for president in 2024. It is the future of the entire Republican Party that is currently up for grabs.

As their choice of language, the broad scope of their accusations, and the measures beyond impeachment that they are considering as a response indicate, Democrats have more ambitious goals than further shaming or disqualifying Trump from a future presidential run. The rhetorical inflation of a dangerous riot by a mob to a full-blown “insurrection” is more than political hyperbole.

By retroactively transforming the riot at the Capitol into an armed rebellion conducted by white supremacists and then linking it to not just Trump but to everyone who attended his Jan. 6 rally, supported his questioning of the 2020 election results or even those who voted for him, the goal to the exercise is more far-reaching than most GOP officeholders still seem to understand.

What Trump’s opponents have done is to launch a campaign that seeks to treat the “insurrection” as not just the fitting culmination of the Trump administration but the prism through which to view the Republican Party as disloyal, authoritarian, and violent. By this means, all those members of the House and the Senate who voted to challenge the Electoral College results can be labeled as accessories to insurrection. By painting with such a broad brush, the same can also be retroactively applied to those who raised questions about the election results even if they opposed the Jan. 6 challenge in Congress.

The conservative focus on Big Tech censorship and mainstream media bias in the wake of Jan. 6 is at least in part a recognition of the stakes involved in the current debate. The silencing of Trump and others on the right by Twitter, the deplatforming of Parler, and the increasing calls for “deprogramming” of Republicans as well as for driving Fox News off the air are all ominous. So too are Democratic attempts to use the riot to justify a vast expansion of efforts to spy on American citizens, which seems aimed at discrediting dissent with a broad brush of domestic terrorism.

Inflating the events of Jan. 6 into an insurrection involves transforming the few hundred rioters into a full-fledged domestic terrorism conspiracy even if there’s little evidence to back up that charge. Hence, the effort to claim, as The New York Times recently asserted, that Trump and the Republicans wrongly focused attention on the threat from Antifa and the violence committed in the name of the Black Lives Matter movement rather than on the supposedly more serious white supremacist threat.

Given the far greater toll of injuries and damage done during hundreds of BLM riots when compared to the one impulsive charge at the Capitol, this allegation falls flat. Yet by associating Republicans with terrorism, the claim still does the needed damage to Democrats’ opponents.

But what many are missing is that if the defining issue of American politics becomes a defense of democracy against Trumpist insurrection, that, rather than fears about demography or even Internet censorship, may be the factor that will lock Republicans into a permanent minority position that will determine the outcome in 2024 and beyond.

Democrats know they can’t count on running against Trump or COVID (with a candidate in hiding and thus protected from gaffes) in the future. But the transformation of the riot into an “insurrection” and skeptics about the election results into seditious rebels would allow them to do just that.

Seen in that light, the impeachment trial isn’t just an act of revenge. It is a vehicle for making the culture war about Trump a permanent feature of American politics.

The riot provided Trump’s opponents something that could justify the hysterical rhetoric they had been employing for four years. Democrats had been claiming that Trump’s administration was the first step toward tyranny since before he was elected.

That their rights were intact throughout his time in office never stopped them from employing outrageous claims about him being a Nazi and an authoritarian.

But it was not until the Capitol riot that they had anything that could make it appear as if their fears were based in anything but hyper-partisanship. That is why the effort to milk genuine public outrage about the riot into a national trauma on the level of the 9/11 attacks is so crucial to the future of American politics.

Running against an insurrection is the sort of opportunity that doesn’t come along very often. Republicans did it throughout the second half of the 19th century as their efforts to weaponize continued resentment against Democrats who had either supported the Confederacy or opposed the Union war effort and reconstruction. The specter of the “bloody shirt” of the cost of that actual insurrection kept the GOP in power for 44 out of 52 years until the Republican schism between Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft elected Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

In the month since the riot, the false narrative of an “insurrection” has become the Democrats’ “bloody shirt” for the 21st century. What matters now is how Republicans respond to the challenge it poses for their future.

That is why it is imperative that the response to impeachment not be merely a procedural argument about wrongly punishing a president with removal after he leaves office. Nor can Republicans hope to evade this problem by joining with Democrats to convict Trump, even if they believe his conduct is worthy of censure. Not only will that not work, the divisions it will promote within the GOP will be just as fatal to their future electoral hopes.

Instead, the only possible response to the Democrats’ attack is to refute the charge that what happened on Jan. 6 was anything like an insurrection or sedition. Even if the challenge to the Electoral College result was poorly reasoned and constitutionally impossible, the pro-Trump protest that the president addressed was neither illegal nor a threat to democracy, however misguided or intemperate his remarks might have been.

The minority of those who came to support Trump who violated the law—as opposed to merely exercising their right to protest, like those who took part in “mostly peaceful” BLM protests that turned into riots and looting—deserve severe punishment. But their conduct cannot be treated as something that can discredit everyone who applauded Trump that day or wished for a different outcome last November.

One needn’t think well of Trump’s post-election conduct or condone all the exaggerated claims of fraud he promoted to understand that transforming a protest, no matter how ill considered, into a rebellion is an act of political mischief aimed at discrediting legitimate opposition, not a defense of the Constitution. If Republicans fail to refute these false charges, they will be paying the political price for handing the Democrats a “bloody shirt” with which to assail them for many election cycles to come.

 

[marsh]

BREAKING: Trump Rejects Dems’ Attempt To Make Him Testify In Senate, Calls It ‘Public Relations Stunt’

Trump legal team slams Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin in new statement

nationalfile.com

BREAKING: Trump Rejects Dems’ Attempt To Make Him Testify In Senate, Calls It ‘Public Relations Stunt’

Trump legal team slams Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin in new statement
by GABRIEL KEANE
February 4, 2021



President Donald Trump’s legal minced no words in their response to congressional Democrats’ failed attempt to force President Trump to testify at a bizarre impeachment hearing months after he has left office, slamming the request as a “public relations stunt.”

“The use of our Constitution to bring a purported impeachment proceeding is much too serious to try to play these games,” President Trump’s attorneys Bruce Castor and David Schoen wrote in their response to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

“Dear Congressman Raskin: We are in receipt of your latest public relations stunt. As you certainly know, there is no such thing as a negative inference in this unconstitutional proceeding,” the legal team stated in response to claims that President Trump’s refusal to appear would be seen as a “negative inference” towards supposed unspecified offenses.

The statement added, “Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: You cannot prove your allegations against the 45th president of the United States, who is now a private citizen.”

JUST IN – Trump will not testify at the impeachment trial. pic.twitter.com/a1KyNYrK7s

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) February 4, 2021

Raskin had previously claimed that “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”

President Trump’s legal team has previously condemned Democrats’ dubious and unprecedented impeachment attempt, as reported by National File:

President Donald J. Trump, through his legal team, has officially responded to the Democrats’ partisan impeachment attempt, which represents a historic first as the Democrat-controlled Senate, with at least partial backing from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, attempts to convict a private citizen in a presidential impeachment trial.

Noting that the U.S. Constitution only applies impeachment as a potential punishment for a sitting President of the United States, the statement firmly states that President Trump engaged in no attempt to incite an “insurrection” on January 6.

“It is denied that the 45th President engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States,” the statement explains. “The 45th President believes and therefore avers that as a private citizen, the Senate has no jurisdiction over his ability to hold office and for the Senate to take action on this averment would” be unconstitutional.

45 Republicans senators voted that the impeachment attempt violated the Constitution in January.

 

[marsh]

‘The Navarro Report’ should be the cornerstone of the Trump impeachment defense

On Nov. 3, 2020, countless Trump supporters cheered on early election night returns that appeared to make President Trump a lock for reelection.

www.washingtontimes.com

'The Navarro Report' should be the cornerstone of the Trump defense


In this Friday, March 27, 2020, file photo, White House adviser Peter Navarro speaks about the coronavirus in the James Brady Press Briefing Room in Washington, as President Donald Trump listens. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) more >

By Steve Cortes - - Wednesday, February 3, 2021

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
On Nov. 3, 2020, countless Trump supporters cheered on early election night returns that appeared to make President Trump a lock for reelection. Florida came in as the new Big Easy, Ohio looked equally strong, and Democrat hopes were quickly dashed that the Lone Star State might tilt blue.

However, as Tuesday night rolled into Wednesday morning, key battleground states inexplicably suspended vote counting. When these tabulations resumed, implausibly Democrat-heavy vote spikes produced razor-thin apparent Biden victories. In Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia alone, the total combined Biden differential was a mere 42,703 votes, or 0.003% of the 11.5 million total votes cast.

As I studied these bizarre returns at Trump campaign headquarters, and after decades building statistical trading models for the largest banks and hedge funds in the world, my mind fixated on the utter improbability of the results. My intuitive suspicions soon found numerical validation.

For example, Mr. Trump won 18 of the 19 “bellwether” counties in America. For the past 10 elections straight, these counties amassed a perfect record of predicting the national winner.

Among key Hispanic voters, Mr. Trump showed remarkable gains. He earned 50% of the Hispanic vote in Florida and rallied double digits on margin to 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. Moreover, in the 100 majority-Hispanic counties in America, Mr. Trump rose from a mere 8% to an astonishing 44% of the total vote.
In the harsh light of the statistical day, President Biden outperformed ONLY in the places he needed to — despite material shifts demographically and geographically for Mr. Trump nationwide. This was tantamount to Mr. Biden throwing four perfect games in a row for a World Series sweep.

As I have parsed and pondered this statistical impossibility over the last 60 days, my most valuable resource has been the three volumes of the Navarro Report published by the former White House assistant to the president and Harvard PhD economist.

Mr. Navarro’s reports are highly sourced with hundreds of citations from thousands of documents, including court filings, county election results, and sworn affidavits. He demonstrates unequivocally that election irregularities across six dimensions in the six most contested battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — resulted in what he describes as election theft “by a thousand cuts.”

Mr. Navarro has now consolidated his three reports into one easily digestible volume. This consolidated report should be required reading for every member of Congress AND for every state legislator in the battleground states. The Navarro Report should also be required reading for every American citizen concerned about the integrity of our elections and who are readying to watch the upcoming impeachment trial.

Many Americans intuitively grasp the massive problems that contaminate the official returns. A post-election CNBC survey showed that only 3% of Trump voters view Mr. Biden as a legitimate winner. A Jan. 14 CNN poll found that, despite three months of constant media maligning of skeptics, only 19% of Trump voters see Mr. Biden as a valid victor. No wonder Axios polling reveals and astounding 92% want Mr. Trump to be the 2024 Republican nominee.

Despite the strong, data-driven matrix of malfeasance documented in the Navarro Report, as well as widespread skepticism among regular citizens, America’s corporate media and Big Tech have aggressively and punitively suppressed even a discussion of possible election irregularities. To fight back, Donald Trump must aggressively embrace his Impeachment Trial opportunity to prosecute his case that the election was indeed stolen.

By basing the impeachment on the question of election theft, Nancy Pelosi and her partisan cadres have unwittingly done the country a great service by providing Mr. Trump a clear opportunity to emphatically address the “election irregularities” elephant in the American living room.

The Navarro Report, with its meticulous accounting of the theft, should be the cornerstone for the Trump defense. By embracing the granularity and statistical “receipts” of the Navarro Report, Mr. Trump can stand boldly in the well of the Senate and methodically and emphatically make the case that there was nothing false about his statements. Therefore, he must be found not guilty.

If the former president dives headlong into this challenge with courage, imagination and the charisma that only he can command — and if he resists the temptation to pursue a narrow “Lindsey Graham” due process defense – he will transcend the absurdity of this tainted tribunal, crystallize his own political potency, and propel the populist nationalist cause forward into 2022 and beyond.

 

[marsh]

Bannon, Kerik, Gaetz Outline President Trump's Best Defense 8:51 min Rumble video

Bernie Kerik, Matt Gaetz, and Stephen K. Bannon explain why exposing election fraud is paramount and must be part of the senate impeachment trial. It also would be a much-needed spectacle — “something out of the Roman republic”– to counter the Democrats’ television script of an impeachment brief.

 

[marsh]

BREAKING: House Democrats Ask President Trump to Testify Under Oath at Senate Impeachment Trial | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

45 senators have already voted that the impeachment is unconstitutional so the trial in DOA.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

BREAKING: House Democrats Ask President Trump to Testify Under Oath at Senate Impeachment Trial

By Cristina Laila
Published February 4, 2021 at 12:41pm

45 senators have already voted that the impeachment is unconstitutional so the trial in DOA.

So now it looks like the Democrats are trying to set up a perjury trap since they don’t have a case.

House Democrats are requesting Donald Trump testify under oath, which would include cross-examination at the senate impeachment trial.

Rep Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, sent a letter to Trump and his counsel on Thursday asking him to answer questions about his January 6 speech.

CBS reported:

The House Democrats who will present the case against former President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial are requesting the former president testify under oath during proceedings next week.

Raskin suggested Mr. Trump provide his testimony, which would include cross-examination, as early as Monday, February 8, and no later than Thursday, February 11.

“Presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton both provided testimony while in office — and the Supreme Court held just last year that you were not immune from legal process while serving as president — so there is no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings,” Raskin wrote.

“Indeed, whereas a sitting president might raise concerns about distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify.”

Trump should decline the Democrats’ request of sworn testimony because their plan is to catch Trump in a perjury trap.

 

[marsh]

"Public Relations Stunt" - Trump's Lawyers Respond to Democrat Raskin's Request For Trump to Testify Under Oath at Impeachment Trial | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Trump’s lead impeachment lawyers: David Schoen (L), Bruce Castor (R) House Democrats are requesting Donald Trump testify under oath, which would include cross-examination at the senate impeachment trial.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

“Public Relations Stunt” – Trump’s Lawyers Respond to Democrat Raskin’s Request For Trump to Testify Under Oath at Impeachment Trial

By Cristina Laila
Published February 4, 2021 at 3:20pm

Trump’s lead impeachment lawyers: David Schoen (L), Bruce Castor (R)

House Democrats are requesting Donald Trump testify under oath, which would include cross-examination at the senate impeachment trial.

Democrat Rep Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, sent a letter to Trump and his counsel on Thursday asking him to answer questions about his January 6 speech.

The Democrats don’t have a case so they are trying to set up a perjury trap.
President Trump’s lead impeachment lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor responded to Rep. Raskin with FIRE.

“We are in receipt of your latest public relations stunt,” Schoen and Castor said.

“As you certainly know, there is no such thing as a negative interference in this unconstitutional proceeding.”

They continued, “Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: you cannot prove your allegations against the 45th President of the United States, who is now a private citizen.”

“The use or our Constitution to bring a purported impeachment proceeding is much too serious to try to play these games.”

Sorry Dems, Donald Trump will not be testifying under oath.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

McMaken: Incitement Is Not A Real Crime

THURSDAY, FEB 04, 2021 - 20:00
Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
Former president Donald Trump has been impeached for “incitement to insurrection.” The House Democrats’ claim is that Trump made an inflammatory speech which - a week later - led to the Capitol riot of January 6.
The Senate is now considering whether or not to convict Trump of this “crime.”

I put “crime” in scare quotes for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the impeachment proceedings aren’t a criminal trial, so even conviction wouldn’t establish guilt the way an actual criminal court might. Contrary to what the public thinks—with its third grade–level understanding of American politics—and what the media is happy to imply, impeachment is strictly a political process that does nothing more than remove a person from office. The Democrats’ new interpretation that impeachment can be used to bar someone from holding office in the future is a rather novel approach.

Moreover, it’s already clear that if Trump were being tried in an actual criminal court, it is extremely unlikely a prosecutor could get a conviction. Trump’s alleged incitement doesn’t meet the legal requirements for such a charge as set out by the US Supreme Court back in 1969. An incitement conviction would require prosecutors to show there was an imminent threat of violence from the inflammatory remarks. Clearly, the Capitol riot, occurring a week later, was not “imminent,” and in a criminal case, it would be nearly impossible to prove this was directly connected to a political speech made days earlier.

The second reason “crime” needs to be in scare quotes is because incitement isn’t a real crime at all. It assumes that the person committing the “incitement” is simply passing down orders to blank-slate automatons who then turn around and do whatever their “leader” says.

In fact, the only people guilty of rioting are the rioters.

Rothbard spelled this out several times.

For instance, in an essay written for a small newspaper in the late 1960s, Rothbard explains the problem with claiming incitement is a real crime:

Suppose that Mr. A tells Mr. B: “Go out and shoot the mayor.” Suppose, then, that Mr. B, pondering this suggestion, decides it’s a darn good idea and goes out and shoots the mayor. Now obviously B is responsible for the shooting. But in what sense can A be held responsible? A did not do the shooting, and didn’t take part, we will assume, in any of the planning or executing of the act itself. The very fact that he made that suggestion cannot really mean that A should be held responsible. For does not B have free will? Is he not a free agent?

And if he is, then B and B alone is responsible for the shooting.

If we attribute any responsibility at all to A, we have fallen into the trap of determinism. We are then assuming that B has no will of his own, that he is then only a tool in some way manipulated by A.

Now, if Person A participated in the planning of a riot or a murder, then Person A is guilty of conspiracy, not incitement. But Person A is not guilty of anything for have merely suggested to Person B that he shoot the mayor. Person B, after all, is responsible for his own actions.

Rothbard continues:

if the will is free, then no man is determined by another; then just because somebody shouts “burn, baby, burn,” no one hearing this advice is thereby compelled or determined to go and carry the suggestion out. Anybody who does carry out the advice is responsible for his own actions, and solely responsible. Therefore, the “inciter” cannot be held in any way responsible. In the nature of man and morality, there is no such crime as “incitement to riot,” and therefore the very concept of such a “crime” should be stricken from the statute books.

Finally, Rothbard notes that incitement laws are also damaging because they are a direct attack on the natural right to free speech:

Cracking down on “incitement to riot,” then, is simply and purely cracking down on one’s natural and crucial right to freedom of speech. Speech is not a crime. And hence the injustice, not only of the crime of incitement, but also of such other “crimes” as “criminal sedition” (sharp criticism of the government), or “conspiracy to advocate overthrow of the government”—in other words, planning someday to exercise one’s basic and natural right to freedom of speech and advocacy.

A decade later, Rothbard emphasized the importance of rejecting the notion of incitement as a crime in his book For a New Liberty. Under the section titled “Freedom of Speech,” he writes:

What, for example, of “incitement to riot,” in which the speaker is held guilty of a crime for whipping up a mob, which then riots and commits various actions and crimes against person and property? In our view, “incitement” can only be considered a crime if we deny every man’s freedom of will and of choice, and assume that if A tells B and C: “You and him go ahead and riot!” that somehow B and C are then helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act. But the libertarian, who believes in freedom of the will, must insist that while it might be immoral or unfortunate for A to advocate a riot, that this is strictly in the realm of advocacy and should not be subject to legal penalty.

Later, in his book The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard again makes very similar remarks:

Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: “Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!” and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. “Inciting to riot,” therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime. On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others—more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut—there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not, properly, to be charged simply with “incitement.”

This problem is related to a similar problem: making noncrimes like slander (i.e., defamation) into prosecutable offenses. A “slanderer” can say all sorts of things. And, indeed, a respect for freedom of speech dictates that we allow him to do so. After all, the people who hear what he has to say remain completely free to come to their own conclusions about what to do with that information.

Just because some person says “your sister is a whore,” doesn't mean we are required to believe him or act on those words in any particular way.

In practice, laws against incitement and defamation are very dangerous to basic human rights, and both place nonviolent people in legal jeopardy merely for the “crime” of expressing opinions. These laws are direct attacks on the right to free speech. In the case of Trump and “incitement,” he expressed an opinion about the election and encouraged people to “fight like hell” in a vague, nonspecific way. If this sort of thing is “criminal” then anyone who expresses an opinion that people should “resist” or “fight” against the regime—or even suggest that the regime is illegitimate or worthy of contempt—is likely to find himself on trial any time one of his social media “friends” decides to deface a government building or throw a rock at a cop.