Posted on 02/04/2021 6:37:01 AM PST by Salohcin
The House impeachment managers on Tuesday released a written brief of their case against former president Trump. The main charge the Democrats have against Trump in next week’s Stalinist show trial is that his use of inflammatory language is tantamount to a call for violence. It is beyond ironic and hypocritical then that in its brief that the House managers used extremely inflammatory language (highlights added) in its own arguments:
"The only honorable path at that point was for President Trump to accept the results and concede his electoral defeat. Instead, he summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue."
The only honorable path: the house prosecutors would have us believe that publicly stating one’s honest beliefs is now dishonorable. They actually have the audacity to state that even if Trump’s belief that he won the election was true, it would not be a defense:
"His belief that he won the election—regardless of its truth or falsity (though it is assuredly false)—is no defense at all for his abuse of office."
Summoned a mob … exhorted them into a frenzy … aimed them like a loaded canon: these terms are blatant appeals to emotion, not sober legal arguments. Using the House managers’ own logic as applied to Trump’s speech, these statements could be interpreted as incitement to violence.
This passage is only one of many in the brief that makes an emotional appeal. For example, the House managers would also have us believe that asking Congress to use its constitutional authority to examine the legality of the selection of electors is equivalent to advocating for overthrowing the government:
"No one would seriously suggest that a President should be immunized from impeachment if he publicly championed the adoption of totalitarian government, swore an oath of eternal loyalty to a foreign power, or advocated that states secede from and overthrow the Union."
In the brief, the House managers spend many pages discussing the rhetoric that Trump used in his speech on the Ellipse on January 6 and try to connect this to the actions of the mob that swarmed the Capitol. This despite the fact that actions at the Capital occurred 20 minutes before Trump had finished his speech.
The brief tries to deal with problem by saying the riot was started by an “early wave” who left the speech before it ended. But the Ellipse is some 1.5 miles away from the Capitol, a 30-40 minute walk. Thus the attack on the Capitol would have been made by protesters who left Trump’s speech at least an hour before its end.
This timeline shows that Trump’s speech could not possibly have been the trigger of the assault on the Capitol, which begs the question of how can the House managers plausibly claim it was Trump’s exhortations created the frenzy in the crowd that led to breech of the Capitol?
The answer is that they can not logically make that connection.
The brief also uses the terms “insurrection” and “armed mob” numerous times. Calling the assault on the Capitol an “insurrection” is a gross overstatement of what occurred. However unruly it was, there has been no evidence presented that the rioters at the Capitol intended to overthrow the government.
As for “armed mob,” this assertion is an outright lie. The House managers do not cite a single example of anyone at either the speech on the Ellipse or the mob at the Capitol being armed.
So why is the House managers’ brief laden with so much inflammatory language of the type that they themselves condemn? It is because it is designed to appeal to the emotions of Senators and the American public rather than to present a logical case. They need to obscure the fact that there is no basis to the claim that Trump incited an insurrection against the government of the United States.
He’s not President any more.
So, (and I’ve been waiting for a chance to say this about a Dem legal initiative), “They don’t have standing.”
Democrats Want a ‘Return to Civility’; When Did They Practice It? Part 2
Well neither facts or law are on their side so they are banging away at the table hoping the noise is loud enough that the senators just cover their ears and nod their heads.
THIS is how you know that Liberals have absolutely NO comprehension of history.
If they DID, they would cringe at how closely they mimic (almost word for word) the widely documented language and conduct of all Fascists!!
They epitomize what happens when people abandon all objectivity!
How is this news?
Schiff lied and entered a bogus “transcript” into the earlier impeachment of Donald Trump.
It’s all a sham and a disgrace.
All of this just plays into Trump’s plan. These people are vicious and crazed but not that smart.
When these people are so into their hatred that they cannot use any reason and it shows.
I read the other day that the President’s lawyers do not intend to raise the question of election fraud in their defense of the President. Given the inflammatory language of the Democrats brief, this decision makes little sense. While I agree that the Impeachment is not constitutional, this does not mean the President simply must avoid an explanation for why the rally occurred on January 6. Without that explanation, it will be seen by the Democrats as a concession that there was no fraud. Likewise, if the President relies solely on the constitutional defense that a private citizen cannot be impeached, the Democrats will claim the President acknowledges he was responsible for the so-called insurrection.
The only honorable path at that point was for President Trump to accept the results and concede his electoral defeat.
Strange they left out the rigged data facts part.
I think they are wise not to raise the question of fraud. Not because it did not exist, clearly it did. But because it would be used to show that it was consistent and constant “allegations” of fraud that so agitated those who came to D.C. that further mention of this became the inflammatory rhetoric that lead to the capitol being occupied.
**He’s not President any more.
So, (and I’ve been waiting for a chance to say this about a Dem legal initiative), “They don’t have standing.”**
True, but think about it. Impeachment means removing some official from office. Trump is not in office. Therefore this trial tries Trump in absentia. As such, a conviction would be a bill of attainder. The Constitution specifically outlaws bills of attainder.
The last I checked Italy tries and convicts people in absentia. Italian convicts are scattered through other countries. This morass is why the U.S. Constitution outlaws it.
True, but think about it. Impeachment means removing some official from office. Trump is not in office.
= = = = = = = = =
Why aren’t the R ‘leaders’ pointing this out then casually mention that they must think PDJT is really Prez?
If nothing else will f with their alleged minds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.