Excuse my ignorance America, is it normal for the jury to be made up largely of accessories to the crime and friends of the accused? .
Don't confuse the Senate proceeding with a court of law. What's happening right now is the American political version of kabuki theater. It's all for show. I'm sure the UK residents are familiar with political posturing, right?
So when ARE we going to see justice done and criminals prosecuted for crimes against the people? Are we to assume for instance that a father can tell his son on National TV, to go out and kill someone, suggest where he buys the gun, pay for his shooting lessons, convince him that his target deserves to die, and send him on his way telling him the address of the victim, how to get there and what to do when he arrives, yet has not committed any crime, because he didn't pull the trigger himself? It's a peculiar system of law over there mate. Don't you have courts that could deal with a case like that? .
Not likely to see justice done, because with a new guy in office there won't be any investigation. Nor any election reforms. So, let's assume that I am treated poorly by some bloke and I tell all my friends how I was terribly wronged. And suppose I say, "That bloke deserves to get his comeuppance, and I wouldn't mind a bit if somebody goes over to his house and gives him what he has coming, for what he did to me. It wasn't right. It wasn't fair!" Now suppose my friends go to the bloke's house and beat him to death. Under the current logic being used by partisan congressmen and MSM, I am guilty of incitement to murder. Under the law, I have only spoken my feelings and opinions, which I have every right to do, and I am not guilty of what my friends did. Even though they felt they were acting on my behalf, I cannot and should not be held legally liable for the manner in which they interpret my words and choose of their own volition to act of their own free will. My friends are accountable by law for murder, but I am not. This principle is settled law (per Supreme Court ruling) in the USA. (One could argue that I should have acted and spoken in a more moral and responsible manner, but that is another thing entirely; I have not committed a crime.) I hope this illustration helps people understand why Trump cannot legitimately be found to have committed a 'high crime or misdemeanor.' Different people listened to his words and arrived at different interpretations. Our law is supposed to protect his right to speak, even to say what he said, whether one likes those words or not. The fact that some people interpreted the words to justify (in their own minds) their own acts of violence is an indictment of themselves, not of the speaker.
You don't yet know that reform will not follow, and election reforms can't address vote rigging that did not happen, only procedures which might be abused, which applies to both sides Republican and Democrat. Trump was tweeting months before any voting took place that if he lost it would be because it was rigged. That was a move to set up an insurrection which he carried through to his attack on Capitol hill by the mob that he had rabble roused. Long before you were actually 'wronged'? Thou shalt not bear false witness is one of the big ones. Trump did the equivalent of that by accusing 'the bloke who would treat him poorly' if he lost, long before it actually happened. Would you do that if you thought you might be treated poorly by some bloke, but he hadn't yet done anything to you yet? False witness again, unless you have evidence and absolute proof with at least two witnesses that it was he that did it and it actually was done. Some friends! You would be, and guilty of false witness too if the 'wrong' you claim happened didn't happen but you had just made it up because you lost an election to the 'bloke' who you claimed 'wronged' you. So there is no law in the USA against incitement to commit a crime by whipping up a lynch mob? That's just 'Free Speech' you say? Phooey! Same again! So if I say, write or imply something to which you take offence or act upon, it would be entirely your own fault for inferring and wrongly interpreting what I obviously implied deliberatey to offend you or prompt you to the action I all along intended? It doesn't work that way really though, does it. WE are rightly held responsible for what we write, say and imply. So should Trump be, if there is such a thing as justice left in the USA. .
First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment to the US Constitution The citizens of the United States have, that which the citizens of thee United Kingdom and of Australia like to imagine we have, however we would have difficulty establish a legal basis for the claim that we have them aside from the assumptions we make in relation to common law. Did Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury have such freedoms? Did the men and women who took part in the Pilgrimage of Grace have them? Did Sir Thomas Moore have such rights? Clearly not. So somehow we presume we have acquired them in the intervening period. The best we are going to come up with is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was largely the work of the greatest of the Roosevelts, Eleanor, the long suffering. The interesting thing about the 1st Amendment is that there are limits to all those things. Our Freedom of Speech is regularly abridged, and in Australia with have laws against 'Hate Speech', and the fracas oven Israel Folau clearly showed that what he understood as his Freedom of Religion what something that he does not have, unabridged. Likewise clearly Donald Trump's right to free speech is abridged, be he President or Citizen. The difference he has is that he has a Constitution he can point to and presumably rely on in his defence.
There was no "move to set up an insurrection." This claim has been fabricated out of whole polyester cloth. The party in control of the government is also the party that benefits from the election hijinks, so they have no incentive to initiate reform. The entire "bearing false witness" thing is ridiculous. In the illustration, I was wronged, and there's nothing deceitful about saying how I feel about it. If anyone thinks I would indeed (in the illustration) be guilty of a crime called incitement to commit murder, that individual has no rational concept of the US legal code. Obviously, without conducting a short course in the study of both Constitutional Law and Criminal Law, there is no way to convey the reality of the situation. But this does reveal to me the reason why certain individuals may not be persuaded by my illustration, so it's enlightening.
In your illustration you did not go on National TV and address a huge crowd of armed supporters who you had whipped into a frenzy by making false accusations and lies concerning the 'harm' that had been done to you. Your reasoning seems to be that someone like Hitler who used similar massed rally manipulating tactics and empassioned speechifying, bore no responsibility whatever for the products of his rhetoric, (fanatical Nazis), or the crimes they went on to commit under his leadership. You would presumably defend his rights to 'Free Speech', just as the American Nazi Party, 1936-1939, tried to argue at Madison Square Garden in 1939 with their anti-Semitic tripe. It was no coincidence that there were many neo-Nazi 'supporters' in the crowd that day invading Capitol Hill, attracted by Trumps rhetoric and empowered by his subversive suggestions. .
False allegations? That is the claim of MSM, yet thousands of sworn depositions by witnesses show MSM to be the liars on this issue. Or do you think that thousands of witnesses to the irregular and improper ballot counting methods all lied under oath? MSM is well-organized and well-funded; thousands of volunteer or temporary-employee poll workers, spread across a bunch of states, are not capable of effectively coordinating in a massive lie the way a handful of mega-corporations can. MSM tells everyone that Trump lost all the lawsuits (implying that they were all frivolous). Lest we forget, nearly every lawsuit that MSM counted as a 'loss' for Trump (or the conservative groups who filed the suits) was dismissed on procedural grounds and the merits of those cases were never adjudged. (Procedural grounds are things like, "this case is moot" or "the filing has a wrong date" or "this was filed in the wrong district" or "the plaintiff has no standing in this jurisdiction," etc. They are technicalities and weasel-out reasons.) But in the few cases that have survived these technical challenges, the plaintiffs (Trump or conservative groups) have won the great majority. MSM does not report this fact, so I'm not surprised that few are aware of it. And many lawsuits still are in process, including (IIRC) three causes of action yet to be heard by the US Supreme Court. It's almost certainly "too little, too late" to make a difference in who sits in the Oval Office, but I have no doubt in my mind that the election truly was stolen by the progressive "Deep State" (the administrative behemoth) and overseas accomplices, with the backing of wealthy elites who wish to bring the US down to the level of a third-world nation by 'ten thousand small cuts.' I appreciate you complimenting Trump by attributing to him such immense powers of persuasion that you compare him to Hitler (the 'guilt by association' trick), but Trump was doing little more than stating (actually very ostentatiously and tediously) the very things that conservatives already knew. He didn't talk anyone into anything. He's a lousy public speaker, truly he is! (I could do ten times better myself!) If he really were as persuasive as you suggest, then the people would merely have marched peacefully and 'made their voices heard' (by their physical presence, their banners and signs, and their chants)... because that is what Trump told them to do! Opponents like to pick and choose, and dice and splice Trump's words to suit their preferred narrative; I've seen the nightly news reports in which the editing room has taken an active role in splicing together bits and pieces of the speech to make his words seem far more damning than they were in reality. And while we're on the subject of altering reality to fit the narrative, I don't know if I've mentioned this before: my wife was watching the speech in question, on live TV (Newsmax). Before Trump even finished his speech, they cut away to report and show live video that people were entering the Capitol building. Do you get that? Before he finished speaking! My wife remarked to me about this as it was happening (I was in the other room, not watching). MSM blames Trump's speech, but the listeners were still more than a half hour away from the Capitol building when the incursions began! I'm positive there were instigators; this was a 'false flag' operation to smear all conservatives along with Trump.
It is not much of a feat of imagination to realise that 'followers' who dress in tee shirts, and with tatooes, proudly displaying their Nazi sympathies while they storm your seat of democracy in the USA, would not have qualms at perjuring themselves, telling downright lies, making false accusations, bearing false witness and suppressing the truth, to promote their own political agenda, at Trump's instigation, and following his appalling example at perverting the truth throught his entire presidency. Those who are unable to 'imagine' the possibility of such things simply lack imagination or have only a very tentative grasp on the history of Nazism in America. There were thousands of them and all quite capable of 'swearing depositions' to achieve their ends. Trump was riding a tiger by attracting such 'followers' but he who rides a tiger can't get off. He who rides an elephant also has to convince himself that it is HE and not just the elephant that decides the direction in which they are both going. .
Under lockdown I think best in the quiet hours and responses come from across the pond around midnight in the UK. Last night I had watched a late film on TV ending at 00:15 and got into replying without realising time going by. .
This is a gross conflation of different types of people at different times and in different circumstances. Moreover, it highlights some of the instigators who pretended to be Trump supporters. Honestly, the relevance of false flag operations is too important to be overlooked. "A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on a second party" (Wikipedia). Anyone with a Nazi emblem or a horn headdress was not a normal conservative, you can be sure of that. They were almost certainly present to make everyone else appear to be radicalized fools. (This is how MSM and the global elites want to portray all Christians, by the way! If they decide the time is right to demonize Christians, what better way than to send a few Nazi skinheads and guys with horn hats to attend some large Christian event? The photos alone, even absent any instigation of trouble, would be damaging enough when splashed all over global media.) Talk about riding an elephant if you wish, but the emblem for the other party is a donkey. They are of one mind with their animal, I think. As far as 'direction,' Trump was neither fish nor fowl, he was not a partisan politician. He was unique in this regard among all the choices we had to vote for. Conservatives are sick of all the crooked politicians. Of all the candidates in 2016, only Trump was convincing in his promises to reduce the number of onerous government regulations, reduce the number of troops deployed overseas, prevent taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions, make national and border security a priority, re-equip our military, work to reduce unemployment, get us out of the Paris climate accord, and prioritize the needs of the American citizens ahead of globalism. And guess what? Trump made great progress in all of these areas! He even got Kim to stop firing missiles (but under Biden, Kim is back at it). He tamped down Iran's saber-rattling (but now that Biden is in, they're back at it). He okayed the Keystone Pipeline, which created thousands of jobs (and Biden has halted it even though it's nearly completed). Trump brought most of our troops home as promised, including those in Syria (a place we had no business being to begin with, yet now Biden has already sent troops back into Syria). He encouraged manufacturing to return to our shores (now they might start to flee overseas again, taking jobs and defense capabilities with them). Trump's energy policy led to some of the lowest fuel prices in the US in years; I paid as little as $1.80/gallon for vehicle gasoline last year, compared to prices as high as $3.80/gallon in the Obama years (and under Biden the price has already climbed to $2.29). Trump supported the hard-working, taxpaying, God-fearing citizens of the US, so those citizens in turn supported him... despite his many and obvious flaws. Those who attended Trump rallies were cheering, not Trump the flawed and egotistical man, but Trump the proven supporter of many of their cherished ideals. Honest, hard-working, patriotic, conservative Christians made up the primary Trump support base, not because Trump was some fabulously captivating speaker or charismatic idol (he was far from it), but because Trump showed himself loyal to the best interests of the USA and its citizens in the view of these people. (Of course, to those who want socialism, open borders, more government handouts, freedom to murder the unborn, a weakened military, a green new deal, or any of a number of atheistic or anti-American policies, Trump seemed like a terrible choice.) It should not surprise me that members from other countries would post their dislike of Trump. He was not their president, after all, and his policies were not designed to benefit the people of other countries. Trump was the US President, and his policies were for the good of US citizens. What has been (not a surprise but) a disappointment is that nearly half the people in the US have been so deeply deceived that they voted against the best interests of America (and are already beginning to reap the whirlwind of consequences, although they are slow to recognize it). I say "nearly half," because Trump had the legitimate votes and it was voter fraud that made up the difference for Biden. The sworn affidavits of ordinary (non-swastika-bearing and non-horn-wearing), average American citizens, including grandmothers and retirees and fathers of families, attested to this fact.
In case anyone wonders how the donkey and elephant emblems came about, https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-republican-and-democratic-parties-get-their-animal-symbols BTW Tiffy, what do you think of my newest stained-glass avatar photo?
An example of a 'false flag' operation, on a large scale: Operation Northwoods In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on American soil, against American citizens. The head of every branch of the US armed forces gave written approval to sink US ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and gun down and bomb civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C., and Miami. The idea was to blame the self-inflicted terrorism on Cuba's leader, Fidel Castro, so the American public would beg and scream for the Marines to storm Havana. _The public learned about Operation Northwoods 35 years later, when the Top Secret document was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. Among other things, Operation Northwoods proposed:_- Faking the crash of an American passenger plane. The disaster was to be accomplished by faking a commercial flight from the US to Jamaica, and having the plane boarded at a public airport by CIA agents disguised as college students going on vacation. An empty remote-controlled plane would follow the commercial flight as it left Florida. The commercial flight's pilots would radio for help, mention that they had been attacked by a Cuban fighter, then land in secret at Eglin AFB. The empty remote-controlled plane would then be blown out of the sky and the public would be told all the poor college students aboard were killed._- Using a possible NASA disaster (astronaut John Glenn's death) as a pretext to launch the war. The plan called for "manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans" if something went wrong with NASA's third manned space launch. _- Blowing up buildings in Washington and Miami. Cuban agents (undercover CIA agents) would be arrested, and they would confess to the bombings. In addition, false documents proving Castro's involvement in the attacks would be "found" and given to the press. _- Attacking an American military base in Guantanamo with CIA recruits posing as Cuban mercenaries. This involved blowing up the ammunition depot and would obviously result in material damages and many dead American troops. As a last resort, the plan even mentioned bribing one of Castro's commanders to initiate the Guantanamo attack. That deserves repeating: the Pentagon considered using our tax dollars to bribe another country's military to attack our own troops in order to instigate a full-scale war.Credit to thirdworldtraveler.com. It should be noted that more and more US citizens are coming to recognize the CIA as a rogue operation, btw.
I'm presently listening to the defense team make mincemeat of the impeachment arguments. Such great stuff.... everyone should tune in or read the transcripts! They even showed falsified tweets used by the House Democrats.
The Democrats spent 2 days building a house of cards, and Trump's legal team blew it down in less than 2 hours.
I wish I had mentioned it before. I like it very much. Remeniscent of the style of a window in one of the three churches of the parish my wife was vicar of in Somerset some years ago. Where is the window in the photograph situated? .
Not the legal team or any legal argument, just a larger herd of elephants who couldn't remember what he was really like, outnumbering the smaller herd of donkeys that could. As you say, it was not a court of law, it was a charade. God help America. If Trump couldn't be impeached and make it stick, then no future president will ever be, no matter what they do or say. .