- Jun 6, 2007
- 852
- 483
- 910
Watching preparations for the impeachment trial unfold Americans interested in the rule of law and goodness prevailing should be worried. Although Donald Trump was unfit to be President from a character standpoint this abomination of an impeachment trial should never have taken place, there was not the evidence to substantiate the charge against President Trump of incitement to insurrection and the process was rushed sacrificing a full and fair review of the facts how could the House not thoroughly transparently investigate the gross negligence of the Capitol police on January 6th and why would the Democrats hold an impeachment hearing of this nature when if it is handled even remotely fairly is going to sew doubts in the validity of the current Democrat President's election. The media has made a big to do about Donald Trump's legal team resigning over their disagreement with Donald Trump to argue that the election was rigged which Trump wants argued. Although they should not argue that the election was rigged because it is an allegation they cannot prove they should definitely, definitely argue that it is reasonable for the President and his supporters to hold this belief as a matter of fact the trial should spend days if not an entire week building a case on that very issue or the impeachment trial is not a fair trial.
In the articles of impeachment it states " 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." The Democrats raised this issue so it is fair for Donald Trump's lawyers to argue that the President views were reasonable and there is so much evidence to this extent. First off, the whole concept of universal mail in ballots is unfair fair elections involve citizens being able to completely voluntarily decide who they will vote for universal mail in ballot triggers ballot harvesting which violates this principle; frankly, I think many constitutional experts would conclude that universal mail in ballots will eventually be found to be per se unconstitutional for this very reason as time passes and Donald Trump permanently leaves the public eye the media will uncover an abundance of ballot harvesting in future elections which will cause a public outcry banning it. There is plenty of evidence supporting reasonableness here; in certain Pennsylvania counties voters were permitted to cure the defect in their ballot after it was delivered in how many Democrat counties were election Judges kept at such a distance where they could not check to see that signatures on ballots matched the registration records. One state had dozens and dozens of affidavits from people that witnessed impropriety in the election but it was not followed up and given the weight due such wrongdoing. How about the one county where vote counting workers were scanning ballots after the work was shut down for the day and the worker scanned a pile of ballots multiple times. The evidence can be piled high here but Mr. Trump needs to get smart lawyers that can screen through all the evidence in this regard and only utilize evidence beyond significant reproach.
Trump's lawyers need to layout the abundance of evidence that the plan to riot was concoct by some of the rioters way before Donald Trump's speech on January 6th. Another important line of argument would be to utilize security experts to not only establish that the command of the Capital Police was negligent in not dramatically improving security arrangements which were readily available to them and this is very important such experts should be able to support that the Capitol Police's failure to have adequate security protections such as fences to separate protesters with the police was a gigantic contributory factor to causing the protesters to riot, assault the police and invade the capitol. Common sense and plain view showed police officers and protesters hand to hand struggling and fighting one another if there was adequate fencing there wouldn't have been this hand to hand struggling which snow balled the whole confrontation into a riot. Trump's lawyers should show the hypocrisy and double standard of this trial where many Republican elected officials said the same types of things that Donald Trump said and they are not facing charges of any crime; in fact there is one Congressman who was at the ellipse the morning of Jan. 6th and said as bad if not worse things than Donald Trump said and is not facing criminal charges. Donald Trump's lawyers should argue that the article of impeachment is a political document in many respects but in one standout respect in so far as it argues that Donald Trump " threatened the integrity of the democratic system". This accusation by the Democrats is a "poitical" charge which has no place in an article or process of impeachment; Donald Trump holding the office of the Presidency believed the election held at the end of his first term was stolen from him, that belief was reasonable, he advocated against the steal zealously all behavior permitted in a free society a society that recognizes free speech rights he wasn't alone amongst elected officials in such zealous behavior for one a whole contingent of Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature wrote to members of the U.S. Congress essentially requesting they not accept the PA delegation to the Electoral College. Democrats if they were not so blinded by the politics of this whole issue would recognize and celebrate how America's system of Democracy worked under these enormously strained times, America's court system held up and let the rule of law and the evidence rule the day, America's state legislatures and Secretary of States did their duty and respected their citizens votes and upheld their citizens voice and members of Congress upheld the integrity of the system and put into effect the will of the people!
In the articles of impeachment it states " 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." The Democrats raised this issue so it is fair for Donald Trump's lawyers to argue that the President views were reasonable and there is so much evidence to this extent. First off, the whole concept of universal mail in ballots is unfair fair elections involve citizens being able to completely voluntarily decide who they will vote for universal mail in ballot triggers ballot harvesting which violates this principle; frankly, I think many constitutional experts would conclude that universal mail in ballots will eventually be found to be per se unconstitutional for this very reason as time passes and Donald Trump permanently leaves the public eye the media will uncover an abundance of ballot harvesting in future elections which will cause a public outcry banning it. There is plenty of evidence supporting reasonableness here; in certain Pennsylvania counties voters were permitted to cure the defect in their ballot after it was delivered in how many Democrat counties were election Judges kept at such a distance where they could not check to see that signatures on ballots matched the registration records. One state had dozens and dozens of affidavits from people that witnessed impropriety in the election but it was not followed up and given the weight due such wrongdoing. How about the one county where vote counting workers were scanning ballots after the work was shut down for the day and the worker scanned a pile of ballots multiple times. The evidence can be piled high here but Mr. Trump needs to get smart lawyers that can screen through all the evidence in this regard and only utilize evidence beyond significant reproach.
Trump's lawyers need to layout the abundance of evidence that the plan to riot was concoct by some of the rioters way before Donald Trump's speech on January 6th. Another important line of argument would be to utilize security experts to not only establish that the command of the Capital Police was negligent in not dramatically improving security arrangements which were readily available to them and this is very important such experts should be able to support that the Capitol Police's failure to have adequate security protections such as fences to separate protesters with the police was a gigantic contributory factor to causing the protesters to riot, assault the police and invade the capitol. Common sense and plain view showed police officers and protesters hand to hand struggling and fighting one another if there was adequate fencing there wouldn't have been this hand to hand struggling which snow balled the whole confrontation into a riot. Trump's lawyers should show the hypocrisy and double standard of this trial where many Republican elected officials said the same types of things that Donald Trump said and they are not facing charges of any crime; in fact there is one Congressman who was at the ellipse the morning of Jan. 6th and said as bad if not worse things than Donald Trump said and is not facing criminal charges. Donald Trump's lawyers should argue that the article of impeachment is a political document in many respects but in one standout respect in so far as it argues that Donald Trump " threatened the integrity of the democratic system". This accusation by the Democrats is a "poitical" charge which has no place in an article or process of impeachment; Donald Trump holding the office of the Presidency believed the election held at the end of his first term was stolen from him, that belief was reasonable, he advocated against the steal zealously all behavior permitted in a free society a society that recognizes free speech rights he wasn't alone amongst elected officials in such zealous behavior for one a whole contingent of Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature wrote to members of the U.S. Congress essentially requesting they not accept the PA delegation to the Electoral College. Democrats if they were not so blinded by the politics of this whole issue would recognize and celebrate how America's system of Democracy worked under these enormously strained times, America's court system held up and let the rule of law and the evidence rule the day, America's state legislatures and Secretary of States did their duty and respected their citizens votes and upheld their citizens voice and members of Congress upheld the integrity of the system and put into effect the will of the people!
