Ted Cruz Asks Impeachment Managers if Kamala Harris Incited Riots from Black Lives Matter Protests

originally posted by: 38181

originally posted by: Halfswede
The impeachment manager basically responded with, (paraphrase) "I have never heard of that quote from the VP and she would never incite violence". Then ignored the question at hand and followed up with random talking points about orange man.

I’ve dealt with people like this, I mean at least tried to. It’s almost as if there are two different species of humans with different brains.

It would be comparable to Jesus explaining about God to a real life Clown.

You are right about that. Even though we are all of the human race it certainly seems like anyone to the right of chairman Mao is certainly being corralled into another species bracket whether they like it or not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No it isn't. It's an impeachment, not a criminal trial. It's about the oath and standards of the office of the presidency.

I already noted that the legal standard for a criminal trial is not the same as for an impeachment trial. But that's not a plus for the critters putting on this Star Chamber. It just means that they make their own rules, and they've chosen to make their rules for Trump as unjust and unfair as possible. Literally, one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for Trump. Of course those so inclined can make whatever rationalizations and excuses they can pull out of their hats, but it is what it is.

This is not the "same crime". There is no virtue in not convicting a guilty party because it might mean someone else might be held to the same standard.

I may not be reading this as you intended, so if my response doesn't make sense, my apologies. The standard does not apply according to the office held. The standard is equal application of the law. If it's wrong for one person, then it's wrong for another person. If it's okay for one person, then it's okay for another person. Doesn't matter if they're president, running for president, a sitting congress critter, etc. The law is the same for everyone or for no one. Period.

Like I said, if they want to indict or impeach Kamala Harris, I say, "Have at it."

That's mighty nice of you. But the point is that it isn't about what they want to do. Congress critters are there to uphold the law and the Constitution and conduct the people's business. They have already chose not to prosecute Harris (and other Dems) for the same exact conduct that they are persecuting Trump for. Make whatever excuses and rationalizations one ways, but it is what it is, and everyone knows it.

This isn't about Harris, or what she said while campaigning, it's about the power play a sitting president tried to pull to impede a constitutionally mandated count, by Congress, of the Electoral College, and an attempt to override the will of the people.

You're right... just not in the way you intended. It should not about Harris or Trump. It should be about the law and the standards of behavior expected by elected officials -- whether president or senator -- and how other elected and unelected officials address that behavior.

And you're wrong about impeding the count. They were objecting to and challenging the count. They had literally just heard the first state objections and were about to consider and examine those objections when the "riot" occurred. Stopping the hearing and consideration of those objections was in direct opposition to the goals of Trump and his supporters. Unless and until those objections and the evidence are examined and considered, no one -- not you, not me, not anyone -- knows what the will of the people really is/was.

I hate it when you attempt to dehumanize our elected officials.

Please. Don't give me too much credit. I don't have to attempt anything... they manage to do that very well on their own!

Thanks for the big brained post Skokie, only the best comes from you, never a hack.

a reply to: Halfswede

Since you acknowledge it isn't a criminal trial and just a vote parade I assume you will be satisfied when he is voted "not guilty"

It's not a "vote parade". It's a constitutional process that the Founding Fathers enacted to defend the sanctity of the office of the presidency and the republic itself.

If inciting a violent mob to "take the Capitol" and impede the constitutional duty of Congress in order to overturn an election, putting lives of lawmakers, staffers and government employees and the insurrectionists themselves at risk, while sacking offices and destroying public property and calling for murder isn't impeachable, then nothing is.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

Actually precedent can be used in legal matters, just in case you didn’t know that.
More likely, you just decided to ignore it like all you deranged Dem supporters always do when it comes to your con artist idols.
Your whataboutism is hilarious.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Read up on the differences. Here you are.

Whataboutism as you are trying to use it started as a means to deflect from Soviet era human rights abuses by trying to use dark incidents of the past that are irrelevant to the present. It would be like saying 9/11 is bad and an example of Muslim extremism, and having someone try to deflect by referencing the Spanish Inquisition to attempt to indict Christians as just as bad.

However, in this case, we're talking about dark incidents that happened all of 3 months ago. That's not the distant past where everyone involved was dead or the systems and times under which those things flourished took place. They happened in the same era under the same officials who then praised them and are now condemning something much less severe.

So the lesson here is that a riot in these times is a riot. You are either for it or against it, not for it if it's ideologically in your favor and against it if it's not politically aligned to you which is the position Comma-LA and plenty of her cohorts have taken.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

It's only whataboutism because THAT "incitement" and bailing out violent folks was IGNORED wholesale by the MSM and most of their sycophants, including some posting here. A precedent of condoning violent mob behavior was SET in 2020, and that is indisputable.

Thought exercise:

If rioting and looting that went on for many months in 2020 across the US had been met with an iron first, in terms o law enforcement and legal response.....would there have been a Capitol riot?

When a standard is set on what is tolerated and permitted to go on, don't be shocked when it (SURPRISE!) it keeps happening.

As we are now seeing, the MSM and their SJW masters are setting off alarm bells, because they see no problem with /certain/ mobs congregating in streets, in fact they promote and cultivate it.

When certain /other/ mobs gather together and wreak havoc, then the "White Supremacist" label starts getting thrown around, the message is "UNACCEPTABLE! WE MUST ACT _NOW_"

IDGAF if people view it as whataboutism or not.

People need to start getting angry and upset about the BLM/Antifa rioting when that happens (hopefully it's done and over but I wouldn't bet on it) so that they are not exposed as utter hypocrites when "White Supremacists" do the same.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

Actually precedent can be used in legal matters, just in case you didn’t know that.
More likely, you just decided to ignore it like all you deranged Dem supporters always do when it comes to your con artist idols.
Your whataboutism is hilarious.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Or it's not, for either.

What part of this she's not getting, is beyond me. I feel like I have to knock it back to a cookie jar theft explanation, using kids and parents for her to get the point.

a reply to: Boadicea

They have already chose not to prosecute Harris (and other Dems) for the same exact conduct that they are persecuting Trump for.

No. It's not the same conduct, and nobody has chosen to NOT prosecute Harris. They are, in fact, threatening to do so if Democrats succeed in impeaching Trump.

And you're wrong about impeding the count. They were objecting to and challenging the count.

The "MOB" did in fact impede the count for 6 hours. The "MOB" wasn't interested in objections and challenges. They wanted Pence to "rule that Trump won the election." When it was clear that Pence wasn't going to do that, they called for him to be publicly hung.

Please. Don't give me too much credit. I don't have to attempt anything... they manage to do that very well on their own!

I think you have issue with authority. I bet you think executives and CEOs are also not quite human critters too.

I can't tell what's what in u.s. politics anymore. The left bs right divide has gotten so extreme. Is this trial hood, is it bad?

The only opinion i can trust is my own because everyone is so insanely bias when it comee to politics.

And my opinion is not educated enough.

Can't even trust ATSers. 99% are extremely bias to one side.

a reply to: RazorV66

Actually precedent can be used in legal matters, just in case you didn’t know that.

This case is unprecedented. This case will set precedent.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Oh I see it now. You actually believe the people impeaching a
United States citizen. Are better human beings than Donald Trump?
Man that's on a new level of ignorance for me. That's just what a piece of
work?

Well done indeed!

a reply to: ketsuko

However, in this case, we're talking about dark incidents that happened all of 3 months ago.

It's not about timing. It's about deflection that threats to unleash on Democrats later as revenge for tainting their former president's legacy and leverage in the political world in the near future.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's rich coming from someone who has argued that executives and CEOs make too much money and should be stripped of their salaries, etc., because they just aren't like the rest of us little people.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

A precedent of condoning violent mob behavior was SET in 2020, and that is indisputable.

No. If Donald Trump is NOT convicted, precedent will be set that it's okay to incite riots and insurrection, if you're a politician, that there's nothing the government can do about it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, it's solely about leveraging mobs for political power using irresponsible rhetoric. If what Trump did merits impeachment, then the same applies to plenty of other Democrats, including Harris. It doesn't matter if the mobs they were leveraging were in the Capitol itself. They were using them to political effect in the same manner. Harris went so far as to allow her campaign staffers to use the bailout fund.

Read the Times piece. The rioting was part of the shadow conspiracy to "fortify" our election.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's rich coming from someone who has argued that executives and CEOs make too much money and should be stripped of their salaries, etc., because they just aren't like the rest of us little people.

I have never made such an argument.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RazorV66

Actually precedent can be used in legal matters, just in case you didn’t know that.

This case is unprecedented. This case will set precedent.

How so?
Trump getting railroaded by the Dems is very common, it happened every day for 4 years straight.
Address what Cruz said.....Harris incited the riots and enabled the rioters by raising bail money.
Those are facts that are being denied by reality deniers like yourself.
The impeachment is a sham, run by huckster con artists continuing to fool their bleating sheep believers.

a reply to: ketsuko

If what Trump did merits impeachment, then the same applies to plenty of other Democrats, including Harris.

Bring it! But only after Trump is convicted.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

If what Trump did merits impeachment, then the same applies to plenty of other Democrats, including Harris.

Bring it! But only after Trump is convicted.

Trumps only real “crime” is hurting the feelz of Liberals again.
It must be so horrible for you.