I read the House memo supporting impeachment

[bendog]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

 

[Oddball]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

Thank you, Mika.

 

[SC Patriot]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

lol.

Do you actually read what you write?

Its like...."I know what he was thinking, I know what he wanted. I know what his intentions were"...

Yet, you don't even know what you had for breakfast this morning....other than some Vaseline, tissue paper and mummy's basement.

 

[bendog]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.

I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.

But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

lol.

Do you actually read what you write?

Its like...."I know what he was thinking, I know what he wanted. I know what his intentions were"...

Yet, you don't even know what you had for breakfast this morning....other than some Vaseline, tissue paper and mummy's basement.

There you go again. Have not lived with parents since age of 18. Now 66. My own kids are grown and do not live with us, either. If that is common in you family, you should have had better role models.

 

[toobfreak]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

WHAT A BOMB. The first case it alleges against Trump is that he alleges the election was a fraud and does believe the outcome! So what? WHAT A JOKE. Trump isn't REQUIRED to believe, he can believe anything he wants, especially if he thinks he has the proof! HEY MOTHERF*#$KERS, its a FREE COUNTRY to think and say what you want. The only amazing thing here is that these nimrods actually managed to milk EIGHTY empty pages of garbage out of one baseless charge.

Democrats are in for an historic SMACKDOWN.

 

[BluesLegend]

The so called impeachment is DOA in the Senate. A complete waste of time.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

Dementia riddled Joe was so far behind in the key swing states by midnight they had to all stop counting for "maintenance".
Hahahaha what a fool you are.

 

[SC Patriot]

Curious....saying the police acted stupidly (Obama per the Harvard professor) could not have incited violence? If it did, and many accusation like that do, would Obama be held responsible with impeachment?
Just an FYI.......basic community protection....if you get a call about a potential break in and you knock on the door and the person who answers claims to be the owner but refuses to prove it...it is acting stupidly if you dont insist on proof. Why? Becuase for all those two officers knew was the real owner was tied up in a chair being pistol whipped or worse. And if THAT was the case? Then the police would have acted stupidly for NOT insisting on proof of residency.

 

[SC Patriot]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

lol.

Do you actually read what you write?

Its like...."I know what he was thinking, I know what he wanted. I know what his intentions were"...

Yet, you don't even know what you had for breakfast this morning....other than some Vaseline, tissue paper and mummy's basement.

There you go again. Have not lived with parents since age of 18. Now 66. My own kids are grown and do not live with us, either. If that is common in you family, you should have had better role models.

its the ones who deny on an anonymous message board who are actually are what they claim not to be.

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.

I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.

But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.

To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.

 

[bendog]

The so called impeachment is DOA in the Senate. A complete waste of time.

I dunno about a waste. Trump has been impeached (again) for inciting a riot and storming of the capital. But impeachment is just something political. It doesn't have any consequence outside being a statement of political disapproval.

A conviction would prohibit him from running or any office.

And the gop never would have even supported a censure. McConnell's tougher on Myanmar than Trump. But we all need to put Trump in the rear view mirror. (And drop the tranny in reverse and punch the mother (-

 

[BluesLegend]

The so called impeachment is DOA in the Senate. A complete waste of time.

I dunno about a waste. Trump has been impeached (again) for inciting a riot and storming of the capital. But impeachment is just something political. It doesn't have any consequence outside being a statement of political disapproval.

A conviction would prohibit him from running or any office.

And the gop never would have even supported a censure. McConnell's tougher on Myanmar than Trump. But we all need to put Trump in the rear view mirror. (And drop the tranny in reverse and punch the mother (-

Dems overreach again and again, it's frequently their downfall.

 

[SC Patriot]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.

I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.

But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.

To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.

Calm down skippy.

We watched elected officials on the left claim to have definitive proof of Russian collusion for 3 years; absolute proof of quid pro quo, dozens of unnamed sources of serious Trump wrongdoing; a woman claiming to go to weekly parties of Cavanaugh and her friends where her friends were drugged and train raped (but never exactly explained why she kept going back to those parties)...Melania is a lesbian who hates her Husband, Ivanka had sex with her father...he is a homophobe, a xenophobe, a mysgonist and a racist.....he only paid 750 in taxes...he is a cheater, a liar and a thief....

for four years he was referred to by our elected officials as "not my president" a fraud. a charlatan and illegitimate.

For four years, his 2016 opponent gave lectures, interviews and wrote books about how he should not be president.

And you whine about 2 months?

Really?

 

[bendog]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.

I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.

But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.

To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.

The DoJ is going to ruin the lives of many of those dip shit felonious insurgents. And they and their supporters will always know the Coward of Queens deserted them to save his own creepy orange skin.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There was no inciting of some so called 'insurrection'. Its laughable. But go ahead dems and keep digging.

 

[IM2]

You guys wouldn't see a connection if trump would have broken into the capital himself. trump incited an insurrection and republicans will let him off the hook.

 

[DGS49]

A "bald assertion" in legal lingo is a statement of a conclusion with no connection to the facts or legal arguments that might support it. It is a polite, legal-sounding expression meaning, "bullshit."

Just thought I'd mention that.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You guys wouldn't see a connection if trump would have broken into the capital himself. trump incited an insurrection and republicans will let him off the hook.

There is no connection because your fantasy is just that..............fantasy, and you're being called out for your propaganda and lies.