Now the Washington Post Admits Trump Did Not Incite the Capitol Riot

[airplanemechanic]

I doubt if there will even be any impeachment trial. It's a shame taxpayers have to waste money like this just so the commies can try to stop Trump from running again. Of course it's not the first time they've used our money yet alone our agencies for their political agendas. If they try, I'm sure Trump will see it to the Supreme Court because you can't remove a President who's already out of office.

the Constitution (article 1, section 3, clause 6) says the Senate Has the sole power to try all impeachments. ALL IMPEACHMENTS. No deadline, no requirement that it has to be a sitting president. Other content about impeachments never states that removal from office is the only consequence of conviction.

The constitution also states that the sole purpose of impeachment is to remove someone from office.

That's already been done so impeachment is moot.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Anyone that heard his speech knows he said to peaceably go to the capitol....this was as big a hoax and fraud as the elections were....if you libs want to be stupid have at it...stop trying to spread your stupidity here.....

LOL

 

[bendog]

I doubt if there will even be any impeachment trial. It's a shame taxpayers have to waste money like this just so the commies can try to stop Trump from running again. Of course it's not the first time they've used our money yet alone our agencies for their political agendas. If they try, I'm sure Trump will see it to the Supreme Court because you can't remove a President who's already out of office.

the Constitution (article 1, section 3, clause 6) says the Senate Has the sole power to try all impeachments. ALL IMPEACHMENTS. No deadline, no requirement that it has to be a sitting president. Other content about impeachments never states that removal from office is the only consequence of conviction.

You're not quoting my post, with was there has to be a trial. The Senate can adopt or amend their rules from 1867 or whenever. They can even limit the charge to specifically what the House managers say is "insurrection"

 

[bendog]

I doubt if there will even be any impeachment trial. It's a shame taxpayers have to waste money like this just so the commies can try to stop Trump from running again. Of course it's not the first time they've used our money yet alone our agencies for their political agendas. If they try, I'm sure Trump will see it to the Supreme Court because you can't remove a President who's already out of office.

the Constitution (article 1, section 3, clause 6) says the Senate Has the sole power to try all impeachments. ALL IMPEACHMENTS. No deadline, no requirement that it has to be a sitting president. Other content about impeachments never states that removal from office is the only consequence of conviction.

The constitution also states that the sole purpose of impeachment is to remove someone from office.

That's already been done so impeachment is moot.

I'd guess the senate could vote on that.

 

[MadDog]

I doubt if there will even be any impeachment trial. It's a shame taxpayers have to waste money like this just so the commies can try to stop Trump from running again. Of course it's not the first time they've used our money yet alone our agencies for their political agendas. If they try, I'm sure Trump will see it to the Supreme Court because you can't remove a President who's already out of office.

the Constitution (article 1, section 3, clause 6) says the Senate Has the sole power to try all impeachments. ALL IMPEACHMENTS. No deadline, no requirement that it has to be a sitting president. Other content about impeachments never states that removal from office is the only consequence of conviction.

The constitution also states that the sole purpose of impeachment is to remove someone from office.

That's already been done so impeachment is moot.

Carry to show us where it says that’s the sole purpose. Is that too much to ask.

anything the Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit is Cosnstitutional. It doesn’t prohibit trial after leaving office.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I doubt if there will even be any impeachment trial. It's a shame taxpayers have to waste money like this just so the commies can try to stop Trump from running again. Of course it's not the first time they've used our money yet alone our agencies for their political agendas. If they try, I'm sure Trump will see it to the Supreme Court because you can't remove a President who's already out of office.

the Constitution (article 1, section 3, clause 6) says the Senate Has the sole power to try all impeachments. ALL IMPEACHMENTS. No deadline, no requirement that it has to be a sitting president. Other content about impeachments never states that removal from office is the only consequence of conviction.

The constitution also states that the sole purpose of impeachment is to remove someone from office.

That's already been done so impeachment is moot.

Carry to show us where it says that’s the sole purpose. Is that too much to ask.

anything the Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit is Cosnstitutional. It doesn’t prohibit trial after leaving office.

Your google works, look it up. Article 2 section 4.

Government publishing office look under "who may be impeached"

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-104/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-104-27.pdf

"As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective—removal from office—has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun against President Nixon in 1974 and federal judge George English in 1926. Deschler Ch 14 §§ 2.1, 2.2. President Nixon having resigned following the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House recommending his impeachment, further proceedings were discontinued."

 

[easyt65]

Pj Media

Now the Washington Post Admits Trump Did Not Incite the Capitol Riot

BY MATT MARGOLIS JAN 20, 2021

Excerpt:

With the second bogus impeachment in the books, the Washington Post has finally seen fit to admit that President Trump did not incite the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6 with his speech, acknowledging that it was, in fact, planned in advance.

The article, published Tuesday, the day before Biden’s inauguration, declares in its headline “Self-styled militia members planned on storming the U.S. Capitol days in advance of Jan. 6 attack, court documents say” and opens with the following paragraphs.

LINK

======

The obvious is finally admitted, Trump never incited the riot.

I knew that from the start since reading the transcript of the speech.

Of course he didn't.

From Democrats to Leftist fake news media to snowflakes, they have all offered up their own personal 'Orange Man Bad' interpretations of what the President did and said, but they can not point to one single thing from his speech transcripts to prove he did.

It was all a sham to justify a 2nd politically partisan Impeachment to permanently eliminate a political threat and labeling Conservatives and Trump supporters - anyone who opposes Socialist Ideology - a 'traitor' and a 'domestic terrorist'.

 

[MadDog]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

 

[toobfreak]

yep, you’re definitely a QAnut. If you think they’re liberals, we do you suppose Trump stood up for them and said they LOVED him. And of course, you’d accuse them of being liberals. Making accusations without having anything to back them up is what you QAnus do.

Hey asshole, If I'm a Qnut then it is without my voluntary knowledge, and if I am then that lends credibility to whatever they are! And I never said the horned guy was a liberal, jerkoff, quit putting words in my mouth, and show me where Trump ever pointed to THAT GUY, show me he was at the rally and Trump pointed to him in a sea of 50,000 and said he loved HIM. You're so fucking ignorant, dangerously STUPID you STINK.

All you fucking crackpots have done for four years is hit the world with your conspiracy theories. You're such an idiot, you even call yourself a Mad Dog. Maybe you need put down for rabies? Are you foaming at the mouth?

I question the election because I know that the way that thing went is statistically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE, all the media tried to immediately bury the matter, the same media that charged a Russian connection 24 hours a day for YEARS with NO EVIDENCE. They've tried to bury the evidence, bury the subject and now discredit those asking it because THEY KNOW if examined out in the open, we would find that JOE BIDEN DID NOT WIN NO FUCKING ELECTION and we have an illegal coup in the White House designed to get that horrible outsider Donald Trump the hell out of Washington so all the crooks can go back to business as usual, and if it takes 10 months or 10 years, eventually, THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT and there's not a DAMNED thing you can do to STOP IT.

 

[MadDog]

yep, you’re definitely a QAnut. If you think they’re liberals, we do you suppose Trump stood up for them and said they LOVED him. And of course, you’d accuse them of being liberals. Making accusations without having anything to back them up is what you QAnus do.

Hey asshole, If I'm a Qnut then it is without my voluntary knowledge, and if I am then that lends credibility to whatever they are! And I never said the horned guy was a liberal, jerkoff, quit putting words in my mouth, and show me where Trump ever pointed to THAT GUY, show me he was at the rally and Trump pointed to him in a sea of 50,000 and said he loved HIM. You're so fucking ignorant, dangerously STUPID you STINK.

All you fucking crackpots have done for four years is hit the world with your conspiracy theories. You're such an idiot, you even call yourself a Mad Dog. Maybe you need put down for rabies? Are you foaming at the mouth?

I question the election because I know that the way that thing went is statistically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE, all the media tried to immediately bury the matter, the same media that charged a Russian connection 24 hours a day for YEARS with NO EVIDENCE. They've tried to bury the evidence, bury the subject and now discredit those asking it because THEY KNOW if examined out in the open, we would find that JOE BIDEN DID NOT WIN NO FUCKING ELECTION and we have an illegal coup in the White House designed to get that horrible outsider Donald Trump the hell out of Washington so all the crooks can go back to business as usual, and if it takes 10 months or 10 years, eventually, THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT and there's not a DAMNED thing you can do to STOP IT.

 

[bendog]

yep, you’re definitely a QAnut. If you think they’re liberals, we do you suppose Trump stood up for them and said they LOVED him. And of course, you’d accuse them of being liberals. Making accusations without having anything to back them up is what you QAnus do.

Hey asshole, If I'm a Qnut then it is without my voluntary knowledge, and if I am then that lends credibility to whatever they are! And I never said the horned guy was a liberal, jerkoff, quit putting words in my mouth, and show me where Trump ever pointed to THAT GUY, show me he was at the rally and Trump pointed to him in a sea of 50,000 and said he loved HIM. You're so fucking ignorant, dangerously STUPID you STINK.

All you fucking crackpots have done for four years is hit the world with your conspiracy theories. You're such an idiot, you even call yourself a Mad Dog. Maybe you need put down for rabies? Are you foaming at the mouth?

I question the election because I know that the way that thing went is statistically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE, all the media tried to immediately bury the matter, the same media that charged a Russian connection 24 hours a day for YEARS with NO EVIDENCE. They've tried to bury the evidence, bury the subject and now discredit those asking it because THEY KNOW if examined out in the open, we would find that JOE BIDEN DID NOT WIN NO FUCKING ELECTION and we have an illegal coup in the White House designed to get that horrible outsider Donald Trump the hell out of Washington so all the crooks can go back to business as usual, and if it takes 10 months or 10 years, eventually, THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT and there's not a DAMNED thing you can do to STOP IT.

Hopefully he'll hold his breath waiting on those "irrefutable" statistics

 

[airplanemechanic]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

See post 226 dumbass. Yes, it does. The gov't says it too. I posted a GOVERNMENT website stating the purpose of impeachment.

 

[MadDog]

QAnuts rant a lot, spout baseless conspiracy theories and sometimes make up fantasy math claims. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck and act like a duck, you’re a duck. So just keep ranting on confirm what I’m saying.

Statistics will never tell you that something is IMPOSSIBLE

 

[MadDog]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

See post 226 dumbass. Yes, it does. The gov't says it too. I posted a GOVERNMENT website stating the purpose of impeachment.

You don’t cite the Constitution. What you are showing is someone’s interpretation. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution that a trial and conviction can’t happen after a President leaves office. On the other hand, I HAVE cited specific wording from the Constitution that The Senate Has the power to conduct trials for ALL impeachment’s. Doesn’t get much clearer than that.

Article II

www.law.cornell.edu

• Clause 6
• The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
  
  
  
  

 

[bendog]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

See post 226 dumbass. Yes, it does. The gov't says it too. I posted a GOVERNMENT website stating the purpose of impeachment.

you may want to look at p533 of your link

 

[airplanemechanic]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

See post 226 dumbass. Yes, it does. The gov't says it too. I posted a GOVERNMENT website stating the purpose of impeachment.

you may want to look at p533 of your link

Look at page 1 of my link, I quoted exactly what you didn't want to hear. My quote came from 533 dumbass.

 

[bendog]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

See post 226 dumbass. Yes, it does. The gov't says it too. I posted a GOVERNMENT website stating the purpose of impeachment.

you may want to look at p533 of your link

Look at page 1 of my link, I quoted exactly what you didn't want to hear.

Dude, they can convict a guy no longer in office. They've done it after a resignation. Read you're own danm links.

 

[MadDog]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

See post 226 dumbass. Yes, it does. The gov't says it too. I posted a GOVERNMENT website stating the purpose of impeachment.

you may want to look at p533 of your link

Good catch. airplanemechanic got caught with his tits in a wringer

 

[Kilroy2]

Well if they stormed the

Well I am sure that the majority wanted to do that. Unfortunately as BLM has learned that when you have a protest. Then the undesirables will show up. When the president says stop the steal that would suggest he has your back.

I know, that commie crystal ball again every one of you leftists claim to own. You know exactly what people are thinking when they say something, and you know exactly what it meant to other people when they heard it. So tell me, if you can throw out a President over your interpretation of what he said, why didn't they throw out Schumer when he said this:



Which of course led to this:

View attachment 446368

View attachment 446369

Care to explain how two same situations having the same result be treated differently?

Well they did not make it past that door and I do not believe anyone was killed or lost their jobs The damage to property was different. One was way more extensive. Also the issues are important. Trump can talk about election integrity but his goal was to stay in power. He would benefit the most at the expense of the institution. It was over when Pence said he could do nothing. Schumer did not make it about himself but about an issues of abortion. He did not call for them to stop the process. Yes they both used people to make statements. If you compare the two then it is easily to determine which one was worse. There is a thin line between protest and violent riots. If Schumer had turned into a riot then yes it is the same. Otherwise it is just trying to justify one situation and comparing it to another one that is clearly different.

In Washington they were roaming the hallways and sitting at desk taking pictures and videos. Violating the legislative branch place of business. Making law enforcement job easier. Stealing and breaking things. People died and others loss their jobs. Yes planning was poor and they should have known better.

Did they incite the people well yes that what speeches do.

Yet it is the cause and the resulting damage that is problematic. Anyone that damages property or break laws should be held accountable.

Anyone who incites it should be held accountable as words do matter. Yet they can only be held accountable to the extend of the damage done. Freedom of speech is a double edge sword. The bad elements will go beyond what is needed because they have other motives that drive them. They see the need for violence and will use peaceful protest as a means to achieve those goals. Law enforcement is aware of it but they can only do what their superiors allow them to do.

I would guess that why most people say "stay peaceful" when inciting them. Trump took it to far and should have considered at some point that it is no longer about me.

 

[MadDog]

Your google works, look it up.

I already did. It doesn’t say anywhere what you says it does.

So, if you’re so sure of yourself, it’s YOUR turn to look it up. If you can’t prove your claim, it must be baseless. But we’re all getting used to baseless claims.

See post 226 dumbass. Yes, it does. The gov't says it too. I posted a GOVERNMENT website stating the purpose of impeachment.

you may want to look at p533 of your link

Look at page 1 of my link, I quoted exactly what you didn't want to hear.

It does not require removal of office. It is simply providing impeachment as a means for removal. But don’t take my word for it. Bendog really nailed your ass.