Trump Impeachment Trial Livestream

Raskin’s lying and narrative-building makes his case difficult to watch, even vomit inducing. What a travesty.

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Raskin’s lying and narrative-building makes his case difficult to watch, even vomit inducing. What a travesty.

Yes, we've already heard this narrative for a month all day, every day. I'll skip this part because I can't imagine they have anything that the media hasn't already sold the Left on already.

Trump's lawyers have a massive opportunity to expose so much. If they don't go bold, I don't believe they actually wanted to win.

Whoever is talking now (on behalf of Democrats) is a total professional BS artist roflmao 🤣

Everything is out of context and very assumptive and subject to propaganda 🤣

a reply to: xuenchen

I was over the House managers when one exploited his child's recent death by creating an anecdote to somehow connect it to the Capitol riots. He also pretended to cry and talked with a fake sad voice. That was yesterday.

It was one of the smarmiest things I've seen a lawyer do! Loathsome.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Whoever is talking now (on behalf of Democrats) is a total professional BS artist roflmao 🤣

Everything is out of context and very assumptive and subject to propaganda 🤣

Swalwell? The dude with a Chinese huzzy spy?

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Raskin’s lying and narrative-building makes his case difficult to watch, even vomit inducing. What a travesty.

Bring a tear to a glass eye, as my old Mum used to say.

originally posted by: 38181

originally posted by: xuenchen
Whoever is talking now (on behalf of Democrats) is a total professional BS artist roflmao 🤣

Everything is out of context and very assumptive and subject to propaganda 🤣

Swalwell? The dude with a Chinese huzzy spy?

No it was some other congressman 🎃

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: 38181

originally posted by: xuenchen
Whoever is talking now (on behalf of Democrats) is a total professional BS artist roflmao 🤣

Everything is out of context and very assumptive and subject to propaganda 🤣

Swalwell? The dude with a Chinese huzzy spy?

No it was some other congressman 🎃

I wonder if citizens of other countries are thinking..

"You Americans voluntarily chose these ret'ards to represent you in Congress? Seriously?!"

CNN really pouring it on ... 🤣


CNN's Anderson Cooper invokes genocide comparison to describe Trump supporters who stormed Capitol

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: 38181

originally posted by: xuenchen
Whoever is talking now (on behalf of Democrats) is a total professional BS artist roflmao 🤣

Everything is out of context and very assumptive and subject to propaganda 🤣

Swalwell? The dude with a Chinese huzzy spy?

No it was some other congressman 🎃

I wonder if citizens of other countries are thinking..

"You Americans voluntarily chose these ret'ards to represent you in Congress? Seriously?!"

Certainly. Seems to be a mix of people who think Americans have undying support for our government and people who see it more realistically, because it’s likely not very different in their countries, that politicians do whatever the hell they want, no matter how ludicrous or immoral it is.

originally posted by: xuenchen
CNN really pouring it on ... 🤣


CNN's Anderson Cooper invokes genocide comparison to describe Trump supporters who stormed Capitol

They have to be running out of hyperbole. They're going to need to orchestrate another false flag soon to prove that they can pretend there are some super-murderous Trump supporters.

Perhaps, just as the Defense rolls out their arguments?

it defies logic that Trump supporters would try to stop Congress from hearing the electoral college objections. They universally celebrated with each new Congress person that signed on to object.

It would defy logic that they would obstruct Trump's defense argument, as well, but that won't stop them from railroading their obvious BS through.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

One thing I found funny was claims that said "Trump" people were organizing on social media.

I think if an active "organizing" effort was underway, social media would be the last place anyone would post info about a coming coup insurrection 🤣

All this trial proves is what chickensh#ts Congress are.

Next time they send our men and women to real war we should remind them

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: MotherMayEye

One thing I found funny was claims that said "Trump" people were organizing on social media.

I think if an active "organizing" effort was underway, social media would be the last place anyone would post info about a coming coup insurrection 🤣

Yes. Suddenly the FBI doesn't need to leave home to infiltrate insurrectionist groups...

I read the affidavit for an FBI guy that infiltrated either the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys...can't remember which one both were infiltrated by at least one FBI person.

Anyway, he tweeted something about arranging hotel rooms and that he knew what "the plan" was.

He also tagged another person and called him 'Commander' but I thought...you're the one setting up hotel rooms and you're with the FBI....who is really doing the 'commanding?'

a reply to: seagull
second hand info.

wife just told me about some guys from herwork that went to the march and they said as they approached the capitol building (in the march) there were 3 busses sitting there with people on them that never actually were in the march but joined for the "festivities".

Make of that what you will.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's called entrapment.

originally posted by: HackScribbler
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's called entrapment.

Of course it is! The federal government is hopelessly corrupt.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Could be most anything, but it is kinda hinky, isn't it??

Agent Provocatuers is a tried and true method of instigating events that will result in things happening that one might find useful...

Article II

Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

He's not in office. How can they possiby interpret this to include a former president? Of course, I'm no constitutional scholar, so what do I know?

Note: This morning, I heard Bill Cassidy, R senator from Louisiana, saying how impressed he was with the impeachment trial managers and disappointed in Trump's team.

a reply to: xuenchen

There's enough evidence that they used Facebook events and parler to organise. No one said the terrorists were smart.