Starring the Hang Mike Pence crowd
Video montage of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol presented during the Senate impeachment trial of former President Trump. Does encouraging a failed insurrection get a pass?
Blaska Policy Werkes
David Blaska, going out of his way to provoke progressives in Madison WI to make America safe for democracy!
Blaska Policy Werkes 
65 responses to “13 ½ minutes of damning video”
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,”
I noticed they cut that part out.
The video is damning for the rioters, not for Trump
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s like the old SNL parodies of Nixon after planning the Watergate break-in adding “… but it would be illegal.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
David wrote, “It’s like the old SNL parodies of Nixon after planning the Watergate break-in adding “… but it would be illegal.”
This bring up a point that there are actually significant differences between this and what Nixon did.
1. There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump planned the riot at the Capital building.
2. Nixon actually directed people to execute an illegal act, Trump did not.
3. Trump’s speech is literally and legally protected free speech under the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme Court of the United States says so and it will be shown as a fact in the trial. This is the second time that the House has put forth an unconstitutional impeachment.
4. Blaming President Trump for the riot at the capital building is literally unethical consequentialism, President Trump did not incite riot or insurrection or whatever people want to call it.
My opinion: If the Senate convicts Donald Trump on this impeachment it will erupt into a constitutional crisis and will head to SCOTUS. There is already signs that a constitutional crisis is currently under way, the Senate voted 56-44 that the Senate has the authority to try a private citizen, this is unquestionably unconstitutional and there are 56 Senators that voted to bastardize the constitution in an effort to “get” Donald Trump and only 44 that voted to uphold the Constitution.
We are heading for a very dark place in the USA.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sorry Steve, but THIS chronological VID, (And prior articles around the globe), pretty much detail & make manifest Trumps’ miss-spoken & inciting words. Aside from Trump’s barely forgivable tortured syntax, grammar and rhetoric, he sure appears in the forefront of this tonypandering incident. No matter how misaligned he was during his presidency by the MSM, his speech (& just showing up…) that day was NOT going to placate the idiots. As an afterthought (as folks grew restive and headed off) his call-to-arms was “Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. Too little, way too late. What CHAOS, what a sickening disgrace.
LikeLike
President Trump’s speech was Constitutionally protected speech, period.
Congress is in the process of trying to literally criminalize Constitutionally protected speech which is an unconstitutional action of the government of the United States of America. If they accomplish their goal to convict Donald Trump it will go to SCOTUS and Congress will overrule Congress and declare the entire proceeding unconstitutional.
The trial never should have gotten past the vote yesterday about the constitutionality of the trial, 56-44 vote on the constitutionality of the trial is signature significant that there is way too many people in the Senate that either don’t understand the Constitution or they don’t have any respect for the Constitution. The vote against continuing the trial based on the constitutionality of the trial should have been a vote well above 90-10, in fact is should have been 100-0. The trial is a bastardization of the Constitution of the United States of America.
LikeLike
An impeachment trial is not a criminal court; the bar is much lower. Further, it is settled law that there is no right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Trump’s speech on January 6 was that of a head coach giving a pep talk before the big game. That head coach has been preparing his team for that big game for months.
LikeLike
David Blaska wrote, “An impeachment trial is not a criminal court; the bar is much lower.”
Congress must, I repeat MUST follow the Constitution that they swore to uphold, they are literally bastardizing the Constitution by trying a private citizen and impeaching a President for constitutionally protected free speech.
David Blaska wrote, “Further, it is settled law that there is no right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Trump’s speech on January 6 was that of a head coach giving a pep talk before the big game. That head coach has been preparing his team for that big game for months.”
In my opinion you’re contradicting yourself in this part. First you imply that Trump’s speech was equivalent to yelling fire in a crowed theater and then you say that Trump’s speech was a pep talk which is NOT equivalent to yelling fire in a crowed theater.
We’re not likely to agree on this but please watch the videos I shared below from a real Constitutional scholar and a Liberal, they explain how protected speech is not equivalent to yelling fire in a crowed theater – the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this type of issue and Alan Dershowitz references the SCOTUS decision multiple times.
LikeLike
O.K., different analogy. Trump’s January 6 speech was the insurrectionist leader’s final exhortation to his gang before he sent them to the crime scene. To aver, as you do Steve (my friend), that the January 6 speech was a one-off ignores six months of mendacity. Why say, for instance, that Mike Pence should overturn the election when the Constitution gives no such authority? “Fight Like Hell (but be peaceful).” In any event, even Trump’s own attorney said Tuesday 02-09-21 that Trump lost the election. So what was January 6 all about?
LikeLike
David Blaska asked, “So what was January 6 all about?”
It was about using the exact same kind of protesting intimidation that social justice and leftist protesters have been using for the last 10 years or so and it turned into a unethical and immoral riot by criminal inciters imbedded with the protesters just like the social justice and leftist protests have been doing.
Maybe the Capital and DC police should have taken the offers of placing 10,000 National Guard troops and other Federal officers around the Capital area to protect federal property and citizens. It was incompetent leadership of the Capitol and DC Police to ignore the recent violent history of massive protests in Washington DC. Was it the fault of the Police, hell no but their lack of preplanning is utter incompetence and what happened likely could not have happened if they had effectively preplanned and placed more Federal officers and National Guard troops in place. There is no excuse for this kind of blatantly obvious incompetence when it is literally their job to do these kinds of things.
It’s clear that we’re not going to agree on Constitutionally protected free speech so let’s just end that part of our discussion.
LikeLike
“Criminal inciters” like Ashli Babbitt? Better guess is that she believed Trump’s lies. Not comparable to Devonere Johnson — a man with a criminal history — who enriched himself off the unrest of BLM.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David Blaska wrote, ” ‘Criminal inciters’ like Ashli Babbitt?”
I’ve seen no video of her inciting riot but there is video of her participating in the riot; however, I have seen video of the BLM activist John Sullivan inciting riot, the idiot videoed himself and shared it with the world, he thought it was funny that he was inciting others to be violent.
I’m sure there’s plenty of video of the ones in the protest that were physically inciting riot, I hope they all get plenty of jail time and huge fines.
P.S. I heard the officer that shot the unarmed Ashli Babbitt as she was climbing through the window is not going to be charged. Personally I think this is a travesty of justice since Babbitt was not directly threatening the officer in any way.
LikeLike
Because I did not engage the fire department to spray my house with water because you keep lighting matches does not exonerate your arson.
LikeLike
David Blaska wrote, “Because I did not engage the fire department to spray my house with water because you keep lighting matches does not exonerate your arson.”
I didn’t imply anything of the sort and I think you know deep down that I don’t want anyone who violated the law in the January 6th riot to skirt justice.
LikeLike
We are talking about more than violating the law. We are talking about violating an oath to uphold the Constitution when he encouraged rioters to demand the Vice President do what the Constitution does not allow: unilaterally overturn an election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave wrote, “We are talking about violating an oath to uphold the Constitution when he encouraged rioters to demand the Vice President do what the Constitution does not allow: unilaterally overturn an election.”
This argument is thin on facts.
Literally speaking; President Trump did not ask Vice President Pence to violate the Constitution and unilaterally overturn an election, what President Trump asked VP Pence to do is to send electoral votes back to the states for correction/recertify and even anti-Trump fact checkers agree that they didn’t know whether VP Pence could do that or not. As far as I know the jury is still out on that point because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and it has not been addressed in a court of law.
So at this point in time, I don’t think that what President Trump asked Vice President Pence to do was unconstitutional and certainly at the time he asked it it was not believed to be unconstitutional.
LikeLike
Show me where the vice president sends electoral votes back to the states.
LikeLike
David Blaska wrote, “Show me where the vice president sends electoral votes back to the states.”
Can you reword that a little, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking me to show you.
LikeLike
In the Constitution!
LikeLike
David wrote, “In the Constitution!”
I already wrote in the comment above that…
So if I’m now understand your question correctly, I answered your question before you asked it.
LikeLike
The Constitution specifies the Senate will have the sole power to try all impeachments. (Article 1, Section 3). “When the President of the Untied Staes is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” Trump is now an ex-president. “The party convicted shall nevertheless be liable to and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.” I.E., he remains subject to criminal prosecution. (not “persecution.”)
LikeLike
David Blaska wrote, “I.E., he [Donald Trump] remains subject to criminal prosecution.”
You wrote that but you don’t seem to full understand the ramifications of what you wrote.
Yes, the X-President of the United States can be subject to criminal prosecution no one is denying that; however, the Senate does not have the authority to criminally prosecute anyone. The only institution that has the authority to criminally prosecute is the Justice system. What the Senate is doing right now is literally unconstitutional. Did you watch the Dershowitz videos, he explains it.
If Donald Trump illegally incited a riot or insurrection or whatever they choose to call it then the burden of proof is on the ones making the accusations and they need to actually prosecute him using the Justice system not persecute, yes persecute (see provided definitions below) him using the anti-Trump media and an unconstitutional impeachment by the United States Congress.
This impeachment is unconstitutional political theater.
LikeLike
Dershowitz does not have a vote in the Senate. He is in the minority of legal opinions. Trump is accused of violating his oath of office. Conviction by the Senate does not preclude criminal prosecution although doubt we will see that. However a Georgia D.A. is investigating.
LikeLike
P.S. Personally, I’m glad VP Pence didn’t do what President Trump asked him to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said. Steve.
LikeLike
Define “consequentialism”. Is there a philosophy or ideology from which it sprang? I’d say the consequences of voting for Trump are obvious. He is a symptom of the mindless rot that infects an element of the U.S. I don’t blame him for the Jan. 06 Capitol Hill riot.
LikeLike
A Voice in the Wilderness wrote, “Define “consequentialism”.”
Consequentialism: the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.
LikeLike
“He is a symptom of the mindless rot that infects an element of the U.S.”
Funny, we say that about Biden voters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Looks like they left this tidbit out in that vid.
But hey, don’t let facts get in the way. Montages are NARRATIVES, bits and pieces chosen by the ones creating the narrative.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-offered-to-deploy-10000-national-guard-troops-in-dc-ahead-of-jan-6-mark-meadows_3690294.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liberty wrote, “Montages are NARRATIVES, bits and pieces chosen by the ones creating the narrative.”
This is absolutely true.
Video montage narratives literally become propaganda.
LikeLike
” it is settled law that there is no right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater.”
Actually there is…provided the theatre is ON FIRE.
The Gotch
LikeLiked by 2 people
Liberty: When I referred to “the mindless rot that infects an element of the U.S.” I was thinking of the mob that stormed the Capitol. Obviously all 70 million Trump voters are not like that. Neither are Biden voters. We know that. “Element” would imply a small fraction.
BTW Lib, on the “Liz Cheney Is A Real Republican” platform you were asking why people were turned off by Trump, so I gave a brief summary of my thoughts on the matter. No snark. I actually agreed with much of your post, especially your opinion of the Bush/Cheney wars.
LikeLike
David Blaska
Further, it is settled law that there is no right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
If you really believe this, it should be easy for you to cite the law or the US Supreme Court decision so ruling. Please do so.
Mr. Blaska, is it Constitutional to hand out anti-war, pacifist pamphlets to people right outside of a US Army recruiting office?
Let’s just find out what you actually know about Constitutional law.
LikeLike
Schenck v. United States in 1919
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not so simple, Steve, RE: The 1st Amendment:
Legal analysis from the BBC article by Professor Garrett Epps of the University of Baltimore
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437
“What is incitement under the law?
Incitement is not a crime under the First Amendment unless it meets certain criteria.
First of all, it has to be intended to cause violence . It also has to be likely to cause violence. The speech has to be likely to cause – and this is very important – imminent violent action. He willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged – and foreseeably resulted in – lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”.
If this was a court of law, does Trump cross the line?
It’s quite rare that somebody can be convicted of incitement. In applying that to the president’s speech at the rally, it’s an agonizingly close case. BUT, It’s pretty goddamn imminent because he’s telling people to march to the Capitol and ‘I will march with you’. There wouldn’t be any time for better counsels to prevail because you’re just going to leave the Ellipse and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
He said we have to fight and show strength, but he also said we’re very peacefully and patriotically going to ask, so he’s covering himself. In the end, I think it’s a jury question.”
RE: Excerpts from Trumps speech:
‘We won this election, and we won it by a landslide’
‘We will stop the steal’
‘We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen’
‘If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore’
LikeLike
Spoons,
I wish I shared your belief that if President Trump were convicted by the Senate’s kangaroo court, (God forbid), that SCOTUS would hear it.
Chief Justice Roberts’ AWOL says a lot about this extra-Constitutional farce of a “trial”. Dems aren’t even calling any “Trump made me do it” witnesses. Steny Hoyer should also recuse himself, because he’s publicly stated President Trump is already guilty. He’s pre-prejudiced. Since he cannot get an honest hearing, could Trump’s lawyers ask for a change of venue? He’s get a fairer hearing from Judge Judy.
It’s too much to hope that Mr. Trump’s attorneys would show their utter disgrace of this “trial” by declaring “this is just a charade, having nothing to do with jurisprudence nor with political fair play, and we will not participate further.” GOP senators should do their duty to the Constitution, to our legacy of liberty, and act in solidarity to put an end to this attempt at Soviet-style justice. If they don’t All Americans will be living in a very dark place indeed.
What kind of “fair play” is it to enter, as the lying Dems did, Mr. Trump’s remarks of Jan. 6 in the record in a craftily-edited 131/2 minute Hollyweird production omitting his call for a peaceful demonstration? Despicable Democrats entered a twisted, political lynching, prejudicial version of the events at the Capitol that day, to leave the impression that the former president had any responsibility or prior knowledge of the tumult.
It’s why you don’t want to dance the Limbo with a Lying Lefty, …
they can go lower than the belly of a snake in a sago wheel rut.
GDHM
LikeLike
Good Dog, Happy Man wrote, “What kind of “fair play” is it to enter, as the lying Dems did, Mr. Trump’s remarks of Jan. 6 in the record in a craftily-edited 131/2 minute Hollyweird production omitting his call for a peaceful demonstration?”
Whether we like it or not, these are essentially prosecutors and it’s literally not their job to present or agree with information that will defend the position of the one they are prosecuting, that’s the job of the defense team. The prosecutors job is to define their narrative of guilt and present the things that they think will prove their narrative and to counter arguments that the defense team present that support the innocence of the defendant.
The blatantly open hypocrisy of the House Managers and Democrats saying President Trump’s Constitutionally protected free speech was incitement when their own words over the years have been just as bad or worse is signature significant. The Democrats are basing this entire unconstitutional impeachment on unethical consequentialism. The Democrats double standards and ongoing open persecution against Donald Trump and Republicans is in full view right now.
Donald Trump is a citizen of the United States of America and no matter how much people hate the unethical loose cannon mouthed asshole man that he is, he still has the exact same individual civil rights as everyone else and his individual civil rights are being trampled upon by the United States Congress.
LikeLike
Sorry, Steve. The President of the United States is actually held to a higher standard than the average citizen, which means the bar for his conviction is, therefore, lower. The President has sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Most Americans make no such oath. Impeachment is a political exercise defined by the Articles detailing the duties of the elected Congress, not the Judiciary.
LikeLike
I know and agree with all that; however, I don’t understand how you’re using that argument here?
The President of the United States is still a citizen of the United States and has the same rights as everyone else does and an X President of the United States is no longer the President they are private citizen the moment they are no longer President.
Constitutionally protected free speech is the same for everyone, including Presidents. We cannot go down the unethical slippery slope of selectively applying free speech rights, free speech for me and not for thee is immoral persecution.
PERSECUTE
Merriam-Webster:
To harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief.
Cambridge
To treat someone unfairly or cruelly over a long period of time because of their race, religion, or political beliefs, or to annoy someone by refusing to leave them alone.
Oxford
Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
MacMillion
To treat someone extremely badly, or to refuse them equal rights, especially because of their race, religion, or political beliefs.
LikeLike
Prosecuted, not persecuted, for actions as President. Attempt a coup to retain power in the last weeks of your presidency. Succedd, and you are president for life. Fail, and you escape accountability because you are no longer President? How does that work? There is no statute of limitations for impeachment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave wrote, “Attempt a coup to retain power in the last weeks of your presidency.”
There was no attempted coup by President Trump. No has come even close to proving such an obvious rhetorical exaggeration.
Dave wrote, “Succeed, and you are president for life.”
False. We have a Constitution that says otherwise.
Dave wrote, “Fail, and you escape accountability because you are no longer President?”
This is a false flag. The President of the United States doesn’t escape accountability because he is no longer President, is is open to criminal prosecution since is is an X President and now a private citizen.
Dave wrote, “There is no statute of limitations for impeachment.”
False. Please go through the Dershowitz videos that I provided a link to, this is explained.
In Conclusion:
Do you want to know why the Democrat’s are pursuing this political theater in the Senate and not pursuing a real prosecution of Donald Trump for inciting riot or insurrection in criminal court; it’s because in a Senate impeachment trial they think they can get away with bastardizing the Constitution of the United States of America with impunity so they can put on a virtue signaling show for the court of public opinion but they know full well that pursuing such a case in criminal court would be laughed out of court based on the First Amendment.
I’m going to bow out now, you can have the last word.
LikeLike
What words did he utter Squire?
LikeLike
“The Capital Police and the WHOLE WORLD knew about the Jan 6th rally for WEEKS in advance. They knew there was going to be thousands of people there. AND The Capital Police turned down 2 offers from Federal Agencies to help provide security. The Pentagon was one of those agencies that offered help. The Maryland National Guard was the other one. The Capital Police turned down BOTH OFFERS!!! What does that tell us? So WE are expected to believe that the Capital just happened to NOT HAVE massive security there not only for the rally but also for Con-gress that was deciding the most important election in modern history?”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-offered-to-deploy-10000-national-guard-troops-in-dc-ahead-of-jan-6-mark-meadows_3690294.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-02-09-1
LikeLiked by 1 person
Batman,
Batman,
Herr Blaska is merely displaying his visual support for Cheney and the Rino’s. I wasn’t impressed as Blaska reified the ghost of Leni Riefenstahl to honor the Dimbocrats. Nothing is more affirmative of ‘democracy’ as a corpse hanging at the end of a noose. Justice need not tarry until all the salient facts are exposed. Snap judgments, as Cheney has shown, and as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution has taught us, elevate immediacy and displace the primacy of detached, dispassionate analysis. Immediacy and the imperative of “Guilty as Charged,” alone, are sufficient.
Who validated the ‘reality’ of Jussie Smollett? “Who” killed Michael Brown? Why did George Floyd take a lethal dose of narcotics? Irrelevant questions to the Righteous Rino’s.
In light of this evidence, it is impossible for anyone to claim that President Trump was in any way wrong in stoutly raising the question of election fraud and irregularities in the weeks following the November 3 election and in calling for his supporters to PEACEFULLY protest. Indeed, for the president not to rise to defend the integrity of the ballot box would have been a betrayal of the 74 million Americans who voted for the president thinking they were participating in what may well not have been a free and fair election. In light of this evidence, it is also irresponsible – in the extreme – for the Democrat Party and its leadership, or journalists in the mainstream media, or RINO Republicans to claim there is no evidence of election irregularities. That’s absurd on its face. As this report shows, there is an abundance of evidence – a virtual cornucopia of potentially poisonous election irregularities. *Source – Vol.III, NavarroReport.com, page 11, though far less evocative of an emotional response than Herr Blaska’s video.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would that “corpse hanging at the end of a noose” be Mike Pence?
LikeLike
No, and to infer that the thousands who gathered to support Trump, wanted Pence hanged is gross dishonesty. The lynching victim is “The Truth” about the election processes in (at least) the four swing states. Again, I refer you to the 3 parts of the NavarroReport.com .
LikeLike
You’re blaming police for the Trump insurrection?
LikeLike
I presume you are asking Batman if he blames the police. Ahh no, but I do blame those in charge of throwing the (few in numbers) Capital police to the mob.
Dave says:
“Trump’s January 6 speech was the insurrectionist leader’s final exhortation to his gang… the January 6 speech was a one-off ignores six months of mendacity.”
Implies much time for those responsible for protecting the Capital/Congress to foresee a probable threat and prepare accordingly. Jan. 6 was just another instance of standing down and those responsible for that strategy need to be held accountable especially because people died. Where is the call for an investigation? Why Dave, are you not asking that question?
“Why say, for instance, that Mike Pence should overturn the election when the Constitution gives no such authority?”
So what. Doesn’t sound like a call to arms now does it.
“Fight Like Hell (but be peaceful).”
Let’s exhume the venerable Vince Lombardi and put him on trial or the millions of other politicians/Presidents who said the same.
“In any event, even Trump’s own attorney said Tuesday 02-09-21 that Trump lost the election.”
Ooooh, now that really IS damning testimony! When someone cheats at cards and wins, the other players have “lost” the card game.
So what was January 6 all about?
Just spit-balling here but the non-audit of a clearly rigged election because no court wants to be the match that lights massive lefty riots is one reasonable possibility.
Jan. 6 was foreseeable even for the dimwitted so why was it allowed to happen when less than 5000 Guard troops could have prevented it?
Mueller? Mueller? Anyone?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because I did not engage the fire department to spray my house with water because you keep lighting matches does not exonerate your arson.
LikeLike
https://rumble.com/embed/va3p8v/?pub=d46ep
LikeLike
LikeLike
You can find other videos specifically about the topic of the Senate trial and constitutionally protected free speech from the Liberal Constitutional Scholar Alan Dershowitz at the following link…
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDershowWithAlanDershowitz
There is a LOT of valuable information in these videos regarding impeachment trial authority of the Senate and Constitutionally protected free speech, this impeachment comes down to the Government of the United States criminalizing Constitutionally protected free speech, this is a terribly slippery slope.
LikeLike
Steve Witherspoon, Sentient7, really well said.
As a relative newbie here, I can’t figure out if Dave is a clickbaiter, or voicing an honest opinion.
LikeLike
Tom PITA wrote, “I can’t figure out if Dave is a clickbaiter, or voicing an honest opinion.”
Dave is a great guy and of course he is voicing his honest opinion and we are free to respectfully disagree with his opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump does not get a pass for encouraging a failed insurrection, as Mr. Blaska puts it. Nor should the Democrats receive a pass for encouraging a successful one. But now that we have landed here, with the evidence of the destruction to our Constitution as plain as the graffiti and broken glass on State Street, what shall we do about preserving and defending this nation?
Impeachment is too good for the consequences Trump ought to face for his actions. However, there is no suitable consequence for him personally that does justice to his errors in judgment. …
I didn’t cast a vote for President in 2016. The man by my reckoning was clearly and obviously lacking in the ability to build teams and coalitions, even in his own administration and with the Senate and House majorities he was favored with during his first two years. It was his way or the highway. But that doesn’t cast him into the pits reserved for the worst criminal leaders of the 20th century. Far from it. Surprisingly, he won a very close election in 2016. And for that, the opposition in this country would make him pay dearly.
He succeeded in reversing many of the anti-American policies regarding jobs, energy, and the environment that for the past 40 years at least have been destroying this country. For this he deserves credit. He even found modest success in the Mid-East for which he received no credit, something no prior President since Carter achieved and a huge contrast to Obama and G. W. Bush.
During his four years in office, he was the subject of insurrection by the main stream media and the opposition party. He was subject to a FISA investigation based upon false evidence provided by dissident members of the Justice department which led to the Mueller investigation that produced no evidence to support the allegations against him. Mr. Biden bragged while campaigning in 2018 that he had the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for trying to investigate a Ukrainian company that had financial dealings with his son. Trump was impeached for foreign interference because he wanted the Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden to continue. How can you investigate Trump for the claim of interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs yet turn a blind eye to the actions of Joe Biden who actually and unequivocally did interfere in their internal affairs as Vice President on behalf of his son, Hunter.
I voted for Trump in 2020. The alternative was unthinkable. The Democrats have no internal guard rails to prevent them from embracing totalitarian policies, irrational energy, economic, education, housing, tax and social policies. There has been approval by silence of the insurrections in Portland, Minneapolis, Madison, New York, and many other places. Their policies for education, housing, jobs and families have destroyed much of the social fabric of our largest cities. Yet somehow the Democrats face no accountability for their abject failure in each and every category.
I watched election returns till 4 am on November 11th. It looked like his lead of 108,000 votes in Wisconsin would hold. By 8 am, the tide had turned against Trump after the mail in ballots from Milwaukee county were tabulated. … I saw no major irregularities in the tabulations for Milwaukee county. Nor did I see any other closely contested state that merited further review, once the responsible election commissions performed their due diligence and affirmed the votes for their electoral college voters.
It would turn out the same in Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Mail-in ballots turned a Trump lead into a narrow Biden victory and put him over the top in the electoral college votes.
I will say this about our voter registration process. It is as porous as our national borders. Both are in serious need of reform if our American constitution and American way of life are to prevail.
It also turns out that, as Time magazine recently reported, there was an organized and concerted effort to help ensure that Trump did not repeat his 2016 victory. Perhaps that was an insurrection as well, depending on how it was carried out. Or it could just be hardball take-no-prisoners campaigning.
Trump’s conduct post-election was so bad that words fail me in trying to express my disgust and dismay. His actions destroyed any of the gains he may have made during his administration against the progressive and globalist tide that is overwhelming this and every other Western nation. Even worse, his words and the actions of the Capitol rioters have made it nearly impossible to express credible opposition to the current policies and practices in the new administration, across our cities, our schools and colleges and now the workplace and even our own homes.
Constitutionally, I am of the opinion shared by many that Trump cannot be impeached now that he is no longer in office. If he could, then Justice Roberts must preside over the trial in the Senate. But Roberts has declined to preside. So in my opinion, this impeachment is unconstitutional.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is relevant to Arthur’s comment…
Strong Leaders Are Needed To Inspire Nationwide Grass Roots Movements To Support The Constitution & Confront Totalitarianism
LikeLike
He turned me into a newt!
LikeLike
Don’t know is simpy encouraging an inurrection alone might be enough for a pass, bu how about
encouraging the murder or the Vice President??? I am referring, of course to the chant of “Hang
Mike Pewce” that swept through the crowd. i’m guessing that Mr. Pence and his wife were not
amused nor willing to give that a passl
LikeLike
Did Trump utter those insane words?
Since politicians apparently are now personally responsible for the utterings of anyone who supports them, shall we hold every Democrat responsible for all the 5 years of social media posts by libs wishing death on President Trump including the avalanche of Dems eagerly rooting for him, the First Lady, and their teenage son to die of COVID last year?
How about the current VP who was physically present at protests at the White House last June that nearly turned into a breach of the executive residence?
“Despicable lefties!” as Gotch would say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We should hold them responsible, yes.
LikeLike
Should we hold the citizens who are freely exercising their God-given 1st Amendment Constitutional right to ” peacefully assemble” and seek a redress of their grievances from their government?
Short answer, … NO. Long answer, … HELL NO.
There’s a difference between speech and behavior.
If you had your druthers, we’d still be speaking the king’s English.
Do you perchance have any Tory blood in your family’s heritage?
Oy gevalt!!!
LikeLike
Good Dog,Happy Man wrote, “If you had your druthers, we’d still be speaking the king’s English.”
Since your reply appears to be in reply to Dave, I think this is an unfair characterization of our blog host. Don’t stoop to lefty tactics, we’re better than this.
LikeLike
Trump never said hang Mike Pence.
Trump unraveled post rigged election and that is most regrettable for a variety of reasons but evil proglibots and rinos are making him a martyr now, spitting on the Constitution, and further dividing the country unnecessarily and dangerously.
After four years of what Trump was subject to by immoral power mad proglibots, it isn’t surprising he would finally snap after the rigged election was allowed to stand without a thorough investigation.
#illegitimatepresidente
LikeLike
AIEEEEE! A pep talk. An analogy! Free speech. Burn him!
LikeLike
Sorry. My bad, it’s not Steny Hoyer who is presiding over the Impeachment Follies , it’s far-left Senator Patrick Leahy is acting as witness, juror and judge in this sham proceeding.
LikeLike
So glad I didn’t vote for “mittens” in 2012 as well!
LikeLike