Whilst Biden and Harris are busy doing their jobs, there's an Impeachment Hearing going on... (#125)

[Roussette]

Previous thread...
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a4145424-Moving-on-its-Biden-Harris-Administration-time-124?msgid=104553726#104553726

lmao that clip they just played of mark warner was him vowing on the Senate floor to
"fight" for HEALTH CARE FOR RETIRED MINE WORKERS.

i literally can't stop laughing

prettybird

All these people who are being "accused" by the defence for saying that they would fight are not the ones being charged

It's like trying to defend a murderer by showing videos of other people committing murder, and saying it's OK because other people are doing it.

Also, the AOC clip was her responding to another (Republican) House member harassing her. And it was said in front of Congress, not a riled up mob. The context is missing completely in most of their examples.

Now airing clips of Dems objecting to the electoral certification of various states when Trump won in 2016 bc the electors were not properly certified

Ironically in the clips, they showed JOE BIDEN gaveling these objections down. ->

"If you think this is not impeachable, what is? What would be?” Raskin said. “If you don’t find this a high crime and misdemeanor today, you have set a new, terrible standard for presidential misconduct in the United States of America"

This x 100. I also find it inconceivable that he could be found not guilty.

While at the same time having no faith in their system/people to achieve this.

Trump lawyer ends his portion of the defense by using a Jerry Nadler quote from 20+ years ago in which Nadler decried partisan impeachment efforts. A reminder that 10 House Republicans, including a member of the House GOP leadership, voted to impeach Trump.

"This is not whataboutism," Trump defense lawyer Michael van der Veen says before playing a compilation of harsh rhetoric from Democrats

Why is he now going on about the use of the 1st Amendment in "this Chamber"?

Trump is charged with inciting a mob before, during and after the rally at the Elipse on January 6th

Nothing to do with anything he said in the Chamber

V interesting programme on bbc2 last night, first of three "Trump takes on the world" detailed look at his presidency, engagements with NATO etc, meetings with Merkel, Macron, May. Comments and insights from many politicians and advisors who were in the meetings, reporting some of the stuff that Trump said, impact on European leaders. Well worth a watch.

Across all the best to you

Not sure if I can bear to watch this defence but will try

Have just poured a celebratory G&T as Dr has just rung with a vaccine appointment, so delighted!

van der Veen goes on to accuse Democratic Managers of leaving out “landmark First Amendment cases..” in their presentation, cites the founders’ assertion that “lawful and constitutional conduct may not be used in an impeachment”

Raskin prebutted this Trump defense: "As a matter of law, as a matter of logic, President Trump's brazen attempt to invoke the First Amendment now won't hold up in any way."

He can fuck right off with his, "Please, read along with me"

All the best Across

Good news about your jab Roussette

AcrossthePond55 lovely to see you again

Roussette yay for the vaccine! my dad went today, and I'm so happy.

Instill have no idea what Trumps Lawywrs are talking about. Is it me or are they jumping around, hoping that we will not notice they have no defence?

I was not expecting Trump’s lawyers to compare his lies about election fraud and his summoning of supporters to the Capitol to “stop the steal” to Julian Bond’s objection to the Vietnam War. But here we are. The gall.

If you take his argument to its conclusion that the Supreme Court has said that elected officials have the right to free speech and to say whatever they want, then an "elected official" can literally say anything he or she wants

Trump’s lawyers are basically arguing that incitement isn’t even a thing. (Now they are switching to citing Brandenburg v Ohio, which applies to legal cases, not an impeachment.)

@Roussette, had mine today...

Why is this man banging on about him saying 'peacefully and patriotically' when he only said that HOURS after the rioters were inside the Capitol.

How dare he say 'read along with me' when 15 Republicans couldn't even be bothered to attend the hearing yesterday when I/Managers were talking

This clip now... surely it's a home goal?

borntobequiet good to hear! Hope you are feeling OK.

Lengthy clips of Trump rambling incoherently is their defence???

Blimey. Focussing in on the word 'fight'. Not sure where he can't grasp that Trump was shouting 'fight' to a rabid crowd who he asked to be there and take back the country.

It's laughable

Lolol apparently Trump saying 'fight' to the crowd meant he wanted them to out and vote

My thoughts are with you, @AcrossthePond55 x

I'm feeling to angry with the world to watch any more. Did some yoga to some loud rock music - very soothing!

Van der Veen shows another montage of Dems saying the word "fight," and argues when Trump said "fight on Jan. 6," he didn't mean it literally.

"The reality is, Mr. Trump was not in any way, shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence."

Wow, Dana Bash on CNN has just said exactly this!