Except she didn’t talk about going to Calvary she said they were “bringing the..”Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
|
|
|
|
|
Except she didn’t talk about going to Calvary she said they were “bringing the..”
Loaded questions, stupid questions, subjective questions, and nothing else. Close this up and move on. Unless the house managers produce a document that says......
“Please come to Washington on January 6th and attack the capital.”
-Donald J. Trump
They need to drop it. No one has control of you but you. Be responsible for your actions. Don’t jump off a bridge because someone else does. I don’t care which side you are on. You can say whatever you want outside of “Fire” or “Bomb” if there isn’t one. Your actions matter, just like everyone else’s including Trump. If he didn’t specifically call out people to attack the capital and he wasn’t marching with them, then the managers have no case.
The defense smashed the amateur efforts of the House Managers, exposing them as the partisan hacks they are. I think the difference was (is), and gawd! I hate to admit this, but even as his 3rd stringers, Trump's team are real lawyers and conducted themselves as such. They cited case law, precedent, etc...but the Dem hacks, while perhaps technically "lawyers" by formal education, are really mere politicians.
This country would be a much better place if anyone with a legal degree or who is a member of the bar in any jurisdiction was prohibited from serving in any elected federal office. And I would extend that prohibition to states as well.
Politician lawyers just manipulate the law for the benefit of themselves and their campaign donors.
🤣🙌
Wow!!! The lying, double standard Dems got hammered and abused today in the hearing!!! It’s all over the news per these liberal elitist embarrassing themselves and the country on national tv. 😂🙌
So true Ted! Love it!!!
Ted Cruz Asks Impeachment Managers if Kamala Harris Incited Riots from Black Lives Matter Protests
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) submitted a question during the fourth day of the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump asking if language Vice President Kamala Harris used in 2020 regarding Black Lives Matter protests is considered incitement given the impeachment managers’ “proposed standard” for incitement.
Cruz’s question began, “While violent riots were raging, Kamala Harris said on national TV, ‘They’re not gonna let up, and they should not,’” quoting viral comments then-Sen. Harris (D-CA) made on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert last June in reference to nationwide Black Lives Matter protests.
The protests, which were sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in May, were largely peaceful but, in many instances, ended up devolving into destructive riots throughout the country that included vandalism, looting, fires, violence, injury, and in some cases even death over the course of several months in 2020.
“And she also raised money to bail out violent rioters,” Cruz’s question continued in reference to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) Harris urged her Facebook and Twitter followers to support in June 2020.
Kamala Harris
@KamalaHarris
“If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.“
The MFF is an organization that seeks to combat cash bail by posting bail for detained individuals. The fund received a massive influx of donations amid last year’s protests and promoted its mission as many arrests were being made of those who went beyond protesting to allegedly violate the law.
Although Harris asked her followers to “help post bail for those protesting,” the fund’s website states that it does “not make determinations of bail support based on the crimes that individuals are alleged to have committed,” and furthermore, the fund has set free from jail individuals accused of egregious crimes. Last year, the MFF posted bail for a father accused of molesting his teenage daughter, a man accused of sexually assaulting his teenage niece, a man accused of sexually assaulting an eight-year-old, and a woman accused of stabbing her aunt, as the Daily Caller reported in November.
Cruz’s question continued, “Using the manager’s proposed standard, is there any coherent way for Donald Trump’s words to be incitement and Kamala Harris’s words not to be incitement?”
Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) responded to the question by saying on the chamber floor that he was “not familiar” with the quote from Harris that Cruz had referenced; however, Trump attorney Michael T. van der Veek rejected that notion during his own response to Cruz, saying his team had given video to the House’s team of Harris’s quote and that they had played the video three times that day.
More
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...tter-protests/
You know you are on the wrong side of history when your only argument is a “whataboutism”.
There wouldn’t be “whataboutism” if we could expect equal treatment. Let’s just make sure the standard, whatever that is, is held for both sides.
Weak...
In other words you have no defense for your leftist heroes.
Among other things you’re a hypocrite.
As a history nut, self-appointed military history EXPERT! Yes, I said self-appointed, I have to comment on the use of cavalry in a battle. During the periods of history when cavalry was a viable tactical option, there were two designations, heavy cavalry and light cavalry. They performed different roles. Don't want to get bogged down in details, since any discussion of the use of cavalry throughout history would take many, many pages I will try to narrow it down to the possible application in this scenario.
Since the tactical objective was a fixed fortification, the capitol building, cavalry would not have played a major role in trying to breach the defenses. At best, cavalry would have been placed on the flanks to guard against possible counter-attacks. Now, what they needed was artillery to knock down exterior defenses and to punch a hole in the walls. But ultimately it would have fallen on the backs of infantry to do the heavy lifting. Therefore, anyone leaning on "we are bringing the cavalry" was barking up the wrong tree.
But, maybe they did indeed mean "Calvary" after all.
Back to the real matter...
the Senate just voted to allow witnesses to be called. This will lengthen the proceeding and apparently the way the motion was worded, it is not clear if that leaves it open-ended. Therefore I recommend the Repubs call thousands of witnesses and keep this Senate occupied in this for the next two years, lessening the negative impact of this dem-controlled body.
It was obvious, despite the confusion. The vote was whether to have witnesses. By rule, each subpoena they want to issue thereafter needs a a majority vote.
When people use the term today they are rarely talking about a specific military tactic, but the idea of bringing support.
That can't be the case. Otherwise the Dems will vote 51-50 for their witnesses, and at least that against any witnesses the defense wishes to bring. Yeah, Harris' vote may not be needed in any case since Mitt the Shitt Romney and a few others may side with the Dems. The defense has to be allowed to call some witnesses....surely.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote