Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Trump Impeachment defense showed several series of videos illustrating the distortions and hypocrisy of what used to be known as the “Democratic” Party. They include the Dems’ many challenges of electoral votes; their frequent use of the word “fight” in political speeches, as well as the apparent condoning of violence and violent rhetoric by Dem politicians, mainstream media, and entertainment personalities. While Trump’s lawyer says it is protected speech, some of this Dem rhetoric seems to cross the threshold. It’s their rhetoric which is really out of control. The series of video clips make watching the defense presentations very worthwhile, though the Dems have used “fight” and “fight like hell” so much that it may give you a headache or nightmares: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508916-1/impeachment-trial-day-4-complete#

Trump speech excerpt, Jan 6th: “We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections…https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/09/dems-play-trumps-remarks-at-impeachment-trial-but-leave-out-call-to-peacefully-and-patriotically-make-your-voices-heard/

Opening Defense by Trump Attorney Michael Van Der Veen:
GOOD AFTERNOON, SENATORS. MR. PRESIDENT. THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT NOW BEFORE THE SENATE IS AN UNJUST AND BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF POLITICAL VENGEANCE. THIS APPALLING ABUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION ONLY FURTHER DIVIDES OUR NATION WHEN WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO COME TOGETHER AROUND SHARED PRIORITIES. LIKE EVERY OTHER POLITICALLY MOTIVATED WITCHHUNT THE LEFT HAS ENGAGED IN OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS, THIS IMPEACHMENT IS COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM THE FACTS, THE EVIDENCE, AND INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE SENATE SHOULD PROMPTLY AND DECISIVELY VOTE TO REJECT IT.

NO THINKING PERSON COULD SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S JANUARY 6 SPEECH ON THE ELLIPSE WAS IN ANY WAY AN INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE OR INSURRECTION. THE SUGGESTION IS PATENTLY ABSURD ON ITS FACE. NOTHING IN THE TEXT COULD EVER BE CONSTRUED AS ENCOURAGING, CONDONING, OR ENTICING UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OF ANY KIND.

FAR FROM PROMOTING INSURRECTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS EXPLICITLY ENCOURAGED THOSE IN ATTENDANCE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS PEACEFULLY AND PATRIOTICALLY.

PEACEFUL AND PATRIOTIC PROTESTS IS THE VERY ANTITHESIS OF A VIOLENT ASSAULT ON THE NATION’S CAPITOL.

THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE SLANDEROUSLY ALLEGES THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED FOR THE CROWD AT THE ELLIPSE TO, QUOTE, INTERFERE WITH A JOINT SESSION SOLEMN CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CERTIFY THE RESULTS OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THIS IS MANIFESTLY DISPROVEN BY THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE REMARKS. THE PRESIDENT DEVOTED NEARLY HIS ENTIRE SPEECH TO AN EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF HOW LEGISLATORS SHOULD VOTE ON THE QUESTION AT HAND.

INSTEAD OF EXPRESSING A DESIRE THAT THE JOINT SESSION BE PREVENTED FROM CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS, THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF HIS REMARKS WAS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WOULD AND SHOULD PLAY OUT ACCORDING TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW, INCLUDING BOTH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ELECTORAL COUNT ACT.

IN THE CONCLUSION OF HIS REMARKS HE THEN LAID OUT A SERIES OF LEGISLATIVE STEPS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY GOING FORWARD, SUCH AS PASSING UNIVERSAL VOTER ID LEGISLATION, BANNING BALLOT HARVESTING, REQUIRING PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO VOTE, AND TURNING OUT STRONG IN THE NEXT PRIMARIES. NOT ONLY PRESIDENTS,

THESE ARE NOT THE WORDS OF SOMEONE IN SIDING OF VIOLENT INSURRECTION. NOT ONLY PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SPEECH ON JANUARY 6 BUT INDEED HIS ENTIRE CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION RESULT WAS SQUARELY FOCUSED ON HOW THE PROPER CIVIC PROCESS COULD ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS TO THE ESTABLISHED LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.

THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT HIS CASE BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, THE STATE LEGISLATURES, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, AND ULTIMATELY THE U.S. CONGRESS. IN THE PAST, NUMEROUS OTHER CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT HAVE USED MANY OF THE SAME PROCESSES TO PURSUE THEIR OWN ELECTION CHALLENGES.

AS RECENTLY AS 2016, THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN BROUGHT MULTIPLE POSTELECTION COURT CASES, DEMANDED RECOUNTS, AND RIDICULOUSLY DECLARED THE ELECTION STOLEN BY RUSSIA.

MANY DEMOCRATS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO PERSUADE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DELEGATES TO OVERTURN THE 2016 RESULTS. HOUSE MANAGER RASKIN OBJECTED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S VICTORY FOUR YEARS AGO, ALONG WITH MANY OF HIS COLLEAGUES. YOU WILL REMEMBER IT WAS JOE BIDEN WHO HAD TO GAVEL HIM DOWN“. See this and the rest here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508916-1/impeachment-trial-day-4-complete#