As for the upcoming

[eagle7-31]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

 

[Pogo]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

 

[eagle7-31]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

What insurrection? Oh I keep forgetting only liberals are allowed to protest and the left wing loons can burn cities, storm the USSC etc etc.

 

[Concerned American]

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence.

 

[Moonglow]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

What insurrection? Oh I keep forgetting only liberals are allowed to protest and the left wing loons can burn cities, storm the USSC etc etc.

No they can't, but you keep on using it to justify you trying to let those you want let off of their crimes.

 

[MisterBeale]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

I remember once in a Big Ten debate tournament. . . one of our other teams brought evidence. . .from, of all places, Hugh Heff's Playboy.

It brought scorn and laughter from the opposing team, I forget now who it was. Probably Eastern or UofM. But they never even bothered addressing the evidence. They just attacked the source.

Which, you may or may not know, is a Ad hom fallacy, attacking the source. The journalist had, in fact, done their due diligence, and uncovered some real statistical research on the topic, and since, by the rules of case evidence, the negative team only need to win one plank . . . well, that was it. The judge ruled against the affirmatives, not on their plan, but on the need for it in the first place, on prima facie evidence alone.



My point here is, there really is no affirmative case that this is, indeed linked to Trump, or the administration's doing. Ignore the facts are your peril. Gas-light all you want.

Or? You could address the arguments instead of throwing up fallacies.

 

[Pogo]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

I remember once in a Big Ten debate tournament. . . one of our other teams brought evidence. . .from, of all places, Hugh Heff's Playboy.

It brought scorn and laughter from the opposing team, I forget now who it was. Probably Eastern or UofM. But they never even bothered addressing the evidence. They just attacked the source.

Which, you may or may not know, is a Ad hom fallacy, attacking the source. The journalist had, in fact, done their due diligence, and uncovered some real statistical research on the topic, and since, by the rules of case evidence, the negative team only need to win one plank . . . well, that was it. The judge ruled against the affirmatives, not on their plan, but on the need for it in the first place, on prima facie evidence alone.



My point here is, there really is no affirmative case that this is, indeed linked to Trump, or the administration's doing. Ignore the facts are your peril. Gas-light all you want.

Or? You could address the arguments instead of throwing up fallacies.

Correction: what you've described would be a Poisoning the Well fallacy. Ad Hom would refer to a person.

That is of no consequence here, as all I posted was a quick sum-up of what the article is and what it's there to do. You'll notice that of the one line posted, 80% of it is describing ACTION, not people or sources. I left it at the pithy point simply because the piece is SO bad it wasn't worth the time to dissect.

However since you bring it up let's look under the hood. The first thing we notice is "the perfect troll tactic" in the headline. Even before we start on the article itself, the source has sent its credibility on a one-way all-expenses-paid trip to Singapore. "Trolling" is not, can not be, and will never be, a legal tactic. It is in fact itself a fallacy.

Now if, enticed by the abject mindlessness of the title we pursue the thrust of the article, here's where we go. First paragraph:

>> One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020. <<​

Take your pick of fallacies here. False Equivalence for a start. Tu Quoque applies as does Red Herring. Obviously the subject "Democrats" has no name because "Democrats" is not a person, and as a non-person cannot be impeached anyway. Add to that that such "troll tactic" would need to show this unnamed "Democrats" inciting a mob to sack the Capitol, which we're pretty sure does not exist even if "Democrats" WERE a person.

In just one paragraph the entire piece has shot itself in the back forty-seven times, pausing only once to reload.

So obviously the blog page "American Thinker" only qualifies for half of its own name. Thus it gets the derision it deserves.

 

[B. Kidd]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

Shampeachment 2.0 and failing!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

........sensing another epic boomerang spectacle

 

[B. Kidd]

........sensing another epic boomerang spectacle

Fer' sure!!

 

[Pogo]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

Shampeachment 2.0 and failing!

Oh that already happened. January 13.

I like the appellation "2.0" though, It implies there'll be a "2.1", a "2.2" and so on. I guess those will be the criminal and civil cases. Place yer bets on which one goes to gavel first --- tax fraud? Election tampering? Rape? Defamation? The possibilities are endless.

 

[B. Kidd]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

Shampeachment 2.0 and failing!

Oh that already happened. January 13.

I like the appellation "2.0" though, It implies there'll be a "2.1", a "2.2" and so on. I guess those will be the criminal and civil cases. Place yer bets on which one goes to gavel first --- tax fraud? Election tampering? Rape? Defamation? The possibilities are endless.

Only in your false wet dreams, boyo.

 

[Pogo]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

Shampeachment 2.0 and failing!

Oh that already happened. January 13.

I like the appellation "2.0" though, It implies there'll be a "2.1", a "2.2" and so on. I guess those will be the criminal and civil cases. Place yer bets on which one goes to gavel first --- tax fraud? Election tampering? Rape? Defamation? The possibilities are endless.

Only in your false wet dreams, boyo.

Oh no no no, in reality. The House did that vote January 13. You could look it up.

I have to say, my wet dreams don't involve Nancy Pelosi. If that's what you're confined to you have my sympathy.

 

[B. Kidd]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

Shampeachment 2.0 and failing!

Oh that already happened. January 13.

I like the appellation "2.0" though, It implies there'll be a "2.1", a "2.2" and so on. I guess those will be the criminal and civil cases. Place yer bets on which one goes to gavel first --- tax fraud? Election tampering? Rape? Defamation? The possibilities are endless.

Only in your false wet dreams, boyo.

Oh no no no, in reality. The House did that vote January 13. You could look it up.

I have to say, my wet dreams don't involve Nancy Pelosi. If that's what you're confined to you have my sympathy.

You've reached total nonsensical status!
Congratulations!!

 

[Pogo]

Trump’s attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment - American Thinker

phony impeachment trial the sequel.


Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen. Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump’s attorneys are going to fight hard. One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.

The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence. The evidence against Trump isn’t just slim, it’s non-existent. The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6. The planning did not involve Trump. There’s also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

Uncontroverted evidence shows that Trump was still speaking when events began to play out at the Capitol. At that point, Trump had not yet asked his supporters at the vast Stop the Steal rally to peaceably go to the Capitol and cheer on Republican senators who were trying to get a hearing for election fraud claims. Frankly, Biden’s presidency would be a lot more stable, and Democrats a lot less paranoid, if they’d had that hearing and proven that there was no basis for the many fraud claims.

We also know now that Antifa was involved in the event and may even have been handing out weapons. Indeed, there were multiple non-Trump-supporters at the Capitol. This lends more credence to the theory that the whole rally was intended as a false flag operation to discredit Trump and his supporters.


It also appears that it’s fake news that protesters beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The police officer, may he rest in peace, certainly died, but it appears that he didn’t die at Trump supporters’ hands.

While there’s no evidence that Trump ever incited violence, there’s a great deal of evidence that Democrats have routinely incited violence. Tom Elliott has collected several examples:

A Murkin Stinker, trying desperately to find excuses for insurrection. And failing.

Shampeachment 2.0 and failing!

Oh that already happened. January 13.

I like the appellation "2.0" though, It implies there'll be a "2.1", a "2.2" and so on. I guess those will be the criminal and civil cases. Place yer bets on which one goes to gavel first --- tax fraud? Election tampering? Rape? Defamation? The possibilities are endless.

Only in your false wet dreams, boyo.

Oh no no no, in reality. The House did that vote January 13. You could look it up.

I have to say, my wet dreams don't involve Nancy Pelosi. If that's what you're confined to you have my sympathy.

You've reached total nonsensical status!
Congratulations!!

I do know the dates of events, Rumpbot.