In the second day of the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, Senators heard exclusively from Democrat House Managers who spewed incendiary rhetoric to make their case for incitement. The irony should be lost on no one.
The double-standards supported and used by Democrats is so blatantly obvious that exposing it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Some of these same democrats are actually part of the impeachment proceedings.
If it were not for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.
Watch this video of numerous video clips of key democrat politicians who made the very same public statements that they now try to insist incited riots by Trump. Pure hypocrisy.
Even more so than their first desperate attempt to impeach President Trump, the first two days of this impeachment was a doubling-down on kabuki theater.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) claimed that Trump “lit the match” of violence and “doused the flames with kerosine.” All that was missing from the congressman’s presentation was a Photoshopped image of a smoldering Capitol Building with Trump holding a used matchbook.
Swalwell argued that Trump’s use of the figurative term “fight” really meant a violent “call to arms.” In Swalwell’s twisted world, Trump’s tweet that “history will remember” was secret code for “combat.”
That’s pretty rich coming from a congressman who had a sexual affair with a Chinese spy… and serves on the Congressional Intelligence Committee. You can’t make this stuff up!
The most baffling moment came when Swalwell played a clip of peaceful protesters chanting “stop the steal” outside an election official’s home in Michigan and then described it as “escalating violence!”
Wait…what? We have plenty of evidence that points to at least 4.3 million fraudulent votes in six contested states. See the following links for overwhelming evidence.
Election Fraud Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – Part 1
Election Fraud Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – Part 2
Election Fraud Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – Part 3
Election Fraud Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – Part 4
Election Fraud Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – Part 5
Rep. Stacy Plaskett (D-USVI) accused Trump of being a “white supremacist” and a chartered member of the extremist group, “The Proud Boys.” Her supposed evidence was laughably lame, but that’s good enough for conviction, right? Racist smears are always a guaranteed winner in any political venue.
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) played every single clip of Trump encouraging the crowd on January 6, 2021 to march to the Capitol. Except she neglected to play the only clip that truly mattered —when Trump instructed his supporters to be “peaceful” while making their “voices heard.” Somehow, that exculpatory evidence didn’t make the cut. Hmmm…a curious omission.
There was a persistent and deliberate theme presented by Democrats on Wednesday: Trump should be convicted because he was wrong when he declared publicly on several occasions that he actually won the election. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) displayed a collection of tweets and videos in which the then-president asserted that the election was rigged or stolen.
But what Castro and his colleagues have conveniently overlooked is that in America we have a right to be wrong. We have a right to express mistaken beliefs. We do not forbid foolish opinions or banish misguided convictions.
Using the standard that is being set in this impeachment; the mere public proclamation that an election was rigged, stolen or somehow illegitimate; every democrat politician who has made the same claims in the past is equally guilty to inciting insurrection.
I absolutely believe that there was massive fraud committed during the 2020 election. I have reviewed the detailed evidence from the six contested states. While I cannot say for sure that a full investigation would ultimately show that Trump won, and Biden lost; I can say with certainty that the evidence is so massive that we must have both a full forensic audit as well as a thorough investigation. The American people deserve nothing less. Millions will demand it, or we will have no reason to trust our elections again. If we do not get a proper investigation and presentation of evidence, at that point we can confidently say that America has become a banana republic oligarchy.
Democrats now abandoned what they have long supported, free speech, due process and the rule of law. Superficially, they seek to punish Trump for what they regard as reckless political rhetoric with which they disagree. In truth, they want to punish Trump because they hate him, and by extension, they hate any of us who are calling into question the legitimacy of the election.
Wednesday’s presentation by House Managers exposed a fatal flaw in their case against Trump. They did not actually present evidence to prove the charge of “incitement of insurrection”. All they presented was hyperbole willfully misconstrued. Virtually every piece of evidence was taken out of context, and they willfully and deliberately omitted exculpatory evidence. Democrats have yet to show one instance in which Trump advocated or directed specific acts of violence, which the law of incitement demands if a person is to be charged and found guilty.
If you want absolute proof that Democrats ignore the standards of “due process” for this impeachment, look no further than two key points. First, they held no committee hearings for preliminary presentation or review of evidence, and to hear from witnesses. Second, they allowed a sitting senator to be both the judge and a juror for the impeachment. Originally, they requested a US Supreme Court Justice to preside over the impeachment. But the justices know that this trail is an embarrassing kangaroo court. So, rather than give up on this sham, they doubled down on kabuki theater and lawlessness by appointing Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to preside over the trial as judge, and to be a juror. This would never be allowed in a court of law anywhere in our nation.
Furthermore, Sen. Leahy pronounced Trump guilty of inciting violence the same day the impeachment began.
If any judge or juror were known to have done this, by law they would immediately be dismissed from serving in the proceedings in any capacity. In our justice system, judges and jurors are disqualified from serving in any individual case in which they have already developed a concrete opinion of either guilt or innocence.
You know it is a kangaroo court when the so-called “judge” is also a juror who has declared his vote to convict before the trial has even begun. A gavel in his hand makes a mockery of neutral justice.