Posted on 02/04/2021 11:24:39 AM PST by knighthawk
By testifying President Trump only legitimizes the phony unconstitutional trial.
Keep digging democrats, keep digging...............
So they want to give Trump a microphone.
After he explains quite clearly that he had no role in the uprising,perhaps he might turn the public’s attention to the huge folder before him,full of proof that the election was stolen.
That might set the Internet on fire. And certainly give the talking heads something to actually talk about, instead of showing footage of a Sleepy Joe wearing a mask while signing yet another EO.
Like I have said all along. Send a video with two statements. Y’all can go and reproduce asexually, and do you miss me yet?
Done.
5.56mm
Right? What they are doing is setting him up with the MSM (since they know they are on the losing side of this impeachment deal. But suggesting that he should show up and testify under oath, gives them the chance to say that he had “every chance to clear his name...” but declined to do so, ERGO, he must be guilty. This is what they are trying for.
Animal House! Great scene!
His response should be that he is the lawfully elected president and compelling his testimony violates separation of powers. No president has ever testified in a Senate impeachment trial. So, this is contrary to precedent. If they can’t make the argument through other witnesses, the case should be tossed out. The Senate should have better things to do, but it doesn’t.
Notice how he signed this letter
https://mobile.twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1357415620321693701/photo/1
That’s our guy
That was no riot; it was a “mostly peaceful” rally!
“The whole proceeding is unconstitutional.
Why should he even have his lawyers show up to legitimize it, let alone himself?”
Agree 100%. I don’t even think he should send ANY lawyers. It would not be a legitimate trial. Hopefully there is at least one senator who will make a motion to dismiss before they even attempt to start this fiasco. Their desperation is palpable and revolting.
“Raskin wrote that if Trump refuses to testify, his refusal will be used against him in the trial “
So President Trump is no afforded the right not to be forced to be a witness against himself? Can you say unconstitutional?
He’s a private citizen so good luck with that . Dems are going to have to find a new way to get likes on twitter now without Trump.
"a living, breathing document"
or
"beating a dead horse" (he's apparently out of office)
Two words? Lets see: How about “Never Mind” or “What Trial?”
Since the Dims won't even allow any discussion about the very cause of the rally (Vote Fraud) and illegal change of various State election rules only days before the election,
the Dims should be told to "Go pound sand !", and Trump should not even bother to show up for an illegal, kangaroo court with a rigged jury and judge.
Notice that the Dims don't even want to go into what prompted the rally, nor investigate why State Legislatures were intentionally overlooked in election rules changes,
despite the fact that Federal election rules call for only changes to be made by Legislatures (that is: legis = lawful).
Therefore the election is unlawful.
Therefore the kangaroo court is unlawful, and a violation of Constitutional law for impeachment since the SCOTUS chief judge isn't participating,
and the "impartial Judge" has already voted to impeach Trump previously.
President Trump, don't participate since there is nothing to be accomplished or gained there !
Trumps rally, the one he attended, was peaceful.
The FBI warned of planned violence January 1st regarding the possible incident at the Capitol; the fact that Capital police, nor Washington police took no preparatory action
means that despite six (6) calls for police reinforcements went unanswered by the now resigned Capitol police chief.
This is a 'set-up; it is a 'false flag' incident, similar to Charllotsville ,where police were instructed to :" STAND DOWN" by local leadership.
The question that should be answered is : who rejected these requests for assistance prior to January 6th (?); that's your 'perp', not Trump !
That is, unless the Senate actually tries to compel Trump's attendance against his will by arrest or attachment, in which case I have a hard time seeing why Trump doesn't have the right to petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus.
They intend to aggressively prosecute the former president.
Have you ever had a Russian salad in the last 30 years?.
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.