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

Question: Is this the "first" time this question has been directly posed to a body of government?

Story Link 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.

“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.

In a Nutshell! Perfect!

a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

Look, hater, it's a trial. Albeit a sham trial but a trial nonetheless.

And you're upset that someone for the defense brings up precedent?

Typical authoritarian is typical.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What's good for the goose right??

Gotta love the desperation of the globalists as their fake narrative and lies are exposed.

What if they're all horrible?

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.

a reply to: DBCowboy

LOL!
You tell 'em Cowboy!

a reply to: seeker1963

Gotta love the desperation of the globalists as their fake narrative and lies are exposed.

Shakes fist at the sky and curses the Sun!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

Whataboutism actually matters from a legal standpoint. The specific question asked that given the standard they made up, can the VP be excluded from similar punishement or vice versa.

Whataboutism may be a poor way of arguing a simple debate, but if my neighbor who is an Alabama fan gets pulled over and blows a .15 and nobody says anything, but my other neighbor who is an Auburn fan does the same thing and get charged by a heavily Alabama fan DA office. You do in fact get to say "what about so and so" in your defense and it is a valid legal approach involving equal application of the law.

I should have seen who posted before I replied. You win. You got fed. My bad.

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.

a reply to: Snarl

Feet, meet fire, despite the goober trying to sweep it under the rug. Harris/BLM/Antifa/supporters, you go riiiight ahead and eat that crow, you do not get off scot-free. All's fair in equality, you're now an equal to Trump here, just like how eeeeveryone's supposed to be all equal and not different from each other anymore. So suck it.

If it's wrong/bad for people to shirk responsibility and say Trump "encouraged" destructive #, then guess the hell what, smart asses -- Harris, and every other stupid git in office encouraging riot violence should be plopped in front of that impeachment court for the same #. And dumped on the side of the road left to fend for themselves in the middle of Utah or something. I can't think of a better punishment, wallowing lost in Mormonland.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

When it comes to government, it's not "whataboutism," it's literally all about equal application of the law. I realize that a Star Chamber Senate impeachment trial is not held to the same legal standards as a criminal trial, but their willful failure to even try to be fair or respectful is what defines this as political persecution -- at best.

Equal application of the law is a cornerstone of the Constitution to ensure no one is above the law. There is no virtue in prosecuting/persecuting one for a "crime" but not prosecuting/persecuting another for the same crime. Especially in a political arena and for political reasons. Historically known as "common law," legally known as case law or legal precedent.

This is also why the critters -- left AND right -- have no credibility left with far too many people. People saw what happened all summer. People know who was egging the violent protesters on. People know who was protecting them from any consequences -- even just stopping them. They can cancel and silence and fire folks for their "wrong" think, but they're still going to think it. They're still going to know it. And they will act accordingly, judging everything in that context.

Just as I cannot accept Biden as a legitimate president, because he fought every effort to validate his election. I vote third party. I'm used to losing elections. I expect to lose elections! But I also expect the process to be as fair and honest and transparent as possible. I will always know that Biden refused to give the American people the confirmation they deserve. It doesn't matter at this point whether he won legitimately or not. And I say this as someone who can believe that the election fraud was hyped just for maximum political damage by Team Trump.

a reply to: Halfswede

Look, if they want to bring impeachment or criminal charges against Kamala Harris, then, let them do so. This trial is Donald Trump's trial, not Kamala Harris' trial, not Hillary Clinton's trial.

Trying a criminal while pointing to the perceived crimes of others is no defense. It's whataboutism.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Snarl

Ah! Gotta love the whataboutism.

Look, hater, it's a trial. Albeit a sham trial but a trial nonetheless.

And you're upset that someone for the defense brings up precedent?

Typical authoritarian is typical.

Legally, there's a difference.

Harris incited a series of mobs at a local level over a local issues. What she did is a state issue to be dealt with at a state level. If an individual police force wants to take her to court for encouraging a mob to storm a local precinct then they are free to do so.

What Trump is accused of doing is inciting a mob to storm the capital over a national issue. Which makes it a federal issue to be dealt with at the federal level.

Not saying that one case has moreless merit than the other. Only that Trump is accused of a federal crime but Harris is accused of a state level crime.

Inciting violence and inciting insurrection are considered different crimes.

a reply to: Boadicea

When it comes to government, it's not "whataboutism," it's literally all about equal application of the law.

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.

Equal application of the law is a cornerstone of the Constitution to ensure no one is above the law. There is no virtue in prosecuting/persecuting one for a "crime" but not prosecuting/persecuting another for the same crime.

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

This is also why the critters...

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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Halfswede

Trying a criminal while pointing to the perceived crimes of others is no defense. It's whataboutism.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but isn't this known as "precedent", which is one of the founding principles of the American legal system. If it's a crime when A does it, then it's a crime when B does it.

It does not excuse what Trump did (or didn't do depending on your perspective), but if it's recognized as being a crime in federal proceedings then it could be used in later federal proceedings involving people like Harris.

In so many words. If the official account of Trump's impeachment recognizes that Trump and Harris did similar things then this acknowledgement could be used as grounds to bring proceedings against Harris in the future.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Harris incited a series of mobs at a local level over a local issues.

That's a stretch. What I saw was Harris encouraging protests at a local level over local issues.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but isn't this known as "precedent", which is one of the founding principles of the American legal system. If it's a crime when A does it, then it's a crime when B does it.

Sadly, Kamala Harris isn't setting precedent here, Donald Trump is and the Senate are. If they don't convict Trump, how can they indict and convict Harris, or anyone else?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

When it comes to government, it's not "whataboutism," it's literally all about equal application of the law.

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.

Equal application of the law is a cornerstone of the Constitution to ensure no one is above the law. There is no virtue in prosecuting/persecuting one for a "crime" but not prosecuting/persecuting another for the same crime.

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

This is also why the critters...

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

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"