Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: All
The impeachment resolution on the House floor passed 232-197, consists of an article citing "incitement of insurrection."

The resolution states: "President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government.
He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled
a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

32 posted on 02/01/2021 5:23:55 PM PST by Liz (Our side has 8 trillion bullets; the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: All

The fact remains Trump has some 78 million Americans on his side who will accept all of his arguments.

I doubt the species on the left can be convinced by anything Trump might argue.

Ergo, Trump has to decide which arguments are in HIS best interests. Period.


37 posted on 02/01/2021 5:33:37 PM PST by Liz (Our side has 8 trillion bullets; the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Liz
From the articles of impeachment:
In the months preceding the Joint Session, 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. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that 'we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.'

Since this has been asserted as a fact, Trump's lawyers have the right to contest it. They should also make reference to the testimony of Arturo D'Elia in the Italian court in Naples. It rebuts the false claim that no court has determined that there was election fraud. If I were Trump's attorney, I would ask why a court in Italy is more concerned with election fraud in the U.S. than Chief Justice Roberts, who has also refused to schedule cases before SCOTUS promptly. I would hammer Roberts for that and not presiding over the trial. I would argue that Roberts should be impeached for his nonfeasance of his oath of office. I would also state that I intended to take the testimony of Stefano Serafini, the U.S. State Dept. official D'Elia names as running the vote swapping in Rome.
39 posted on 02/01/2021 5:35:07 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson