Trump’s Senate Trial Rests On The Claim That He Lied About Vote Fraud, He Didn’t

[Grouse]

Yet, despite the media continually labeling claims of any election fraud or significant fraud as “false,” there is a lot of evidence of significant vote fraud. What has been misleading are the claims that the courts have examined this evidence.

https://crimeresearch.org/2021/02/at-townhall-trumps-senate-trial-rests-on-the-claim-that-he-lied-about-vote-fraud-he-didnt/

[BowmanMike]

Yawn.....

[Grouse]

If the Republicans had won and the left was screaming about voter fraud, leftists would be calling for a hanging.  Such partisanship with regard to the destruction of election integrity, is why we have the huge divide we see in this land today.

The fact one feels a need to post a mocking comment about it is sad and shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

"Suppose Biden and other Democrats really want to unify the country and heal the wounds. They should avoid the political theater of impeaching someone who is no longer president and offer to investigate whether vote fraud occurred. They should have nothing to fear if they are right that there is no evidence of fraud."

Edited February 13, 2021 by Grouse

[DoubleDose]

This is an op-ed piece.  Having watched enough of the "impeachment trial", my understanding is that it has nothing to do with lieing or voter fraud.  It all has to do with whether his speech on that day called for or incited the riot.  I am sure many are going to vote guilty for the following reasons: 1) DJT hatred (derangement syndrome), 2) claims he lied (about what irrelevant), 3) his claim of voter fraud (stop the steal), 4) Dems have been striving and calling for this since before inauguration, 5) Republican hatred, and 6) eliminate him as a potential 2024 candidate.  I deliberately left off the list actual belief the speech incited the riot.  The evidence presented was scenes of the Capitol that day, which is after the fact and not disputed.  How people there felt (scared) on that day, which is also after the fact and not disputed.  DJT tweets from before that day, which had nothing to do with that day. Rioter tweets from that day which incriminates them not DJT, etc etc etc.  DJTs defense team showed much of the evidence presented was doctored and edited for effect.  The actual evidence of the speech did not call for or incite riot, in fact the opposite was explicitly stated.  They also showed all the speeches and tweets of Dems that were far more vitriolic and demonstrate that DJT speech that day did not cross the line of current (LOW) standards.

This is just another example of a process our founding fathers put into place to protect the republic that has been weaponized for political purposes.  This is a kangaroo court of political theater without the slightest resemblance to a criminal legal process.

[rachunter]

19 minutes ago, DoubleDose said:

 5) Republican hatred, and 6) eliminate him as a potential 2024 candidate.  

These are the two main reasons behind this trial.Hopefully they'll be a better voting process in 2024 to avoid fraud unlike the 2020 election.

I'll add one more the hatred for one man Donald j. Trump

[Northcountryman]

32 minutes ago, DoubleDose said:

This is an op-ed piece.  Having watched enough of the "impeachment trial", my understanding is that it has nothing to do with lieing or voter fraud.  It all has to do with whether his speech on that day called for or incited the riot.  I am sure many are going to vote guilty for the following reasons: 1) DJT hatred (derangement syndrome), 2) claims he lied (about what irrelevant), 3) his claim of voter fraud (stop the steal), 4) Dems have been striving and calling for this since before inauguration, 5) Republican hatred, and 6) eliminate him as a potential 2024 candidate.  I deliberately left off the list actual belief the speech incited the riot.  The evidence presented was scenes of the Capitol that day, which is after the fact and not disputed.  How people there felt (scared) on that day, which is also after the fact and not disputed.  DJT tweets from before that day, which had nothing to do with that day. Rioter tweets from that day which incriminates them not DJT, etc etc etc.  DJTs defense team showed much of the evidence presented was doctored and edited for effect.  The actual evidence of the speech did not call for or incite riot, in fact the opposite was explicitly stated.  They also showed all the speeches and tweets of Dems that were far more vitriolic and demonstrate that DJT speech that day did not cross the line of current (LOW) standards.

This is just another example of a process our founding fathers put into place to protect the republic that has been weaponized for political purposes.  This is a kangaroo court of political theater without the slightest resemblance to a criminal legal process.

I agree with your analysis, but disagree that he will be found guilty.  My call is votes to convict remain trhe same as the intital vote on constitutionality of the entire process: 56-44 with the same 6 Republican "Traitors"  voting to convict w/ the Dems. Without the requisite 2/3, he will , thus, be acquitted.  

It is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he is NOT GUILTY of incitement of a riot, pure and simple.  Read the speech--case over .

[DoubleDose]

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

I agree with your analysis, but disagree that he will be found guilty.  My call is votes to convict remain trhe same as the intital vote on constitutionality of the entire process: 56-44 with the same 6 Republican "Traitors"  voting to convict w/ the Dems. Without the requisite 2/3, he will , thus, be acquitted.  

It is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he is NOT GUILTY of incitement of a riot, pure and simple.  Read the speech--case over .

Ncm, you need to read my posts more carefully.   Every time you disagree with me we are actually in agreement.  I never stated or implied he would be found guilty.  In fact, I didn't say anything regarding guilty or not guilty. I gave all the reasons people will use to cast a guilty vote; and none of them are about his speech that day.  Now, on the subject of voting, I completely agree with you.  I do not see anyone changing their vote from what it would have been before the trial.  Final outcome, not guilty, further division, and further escalation of attacks from the Left onto the Right.

[Northcountryman]

6 minutes ago, DoubleDose said:

Ncm, you need to read my posts more carefully.   Every time you disagree with me we are actually in agreement.  I never stated or implied he would be found guilty.  In fact, I didn't say anything regarding guilty or not guilty. I gave all the reasons people will use to cast a guilty vote; and none of them are about his speech that day.  Now, on the subject of voting, I completely agree with you.  I do not see anyone changing their vote from what it would have been before the trial.  Final outcome, not guilty, further division, and further escalation of attacks from the Left onto the Right.

Yes, I just re-read and stand corrected--you did not say that he would be found guilty.  My apologies 

[Northcountryman]

As per your second point of contention however, how many times have we diagreed about something , yet were actually in agreement? I could be wrong, but I dont remember that happening.  The only disagreement I can recall between us is the China coronavirus thing back awhile ago 

[helmut in the bush]

You 2 all set for Valentines day?