Observation. Local channels here are not covering President Trump's Legal Team, which is evidence of their bias by inequitable treatment of both sides. Good thing I stopped watching them and turned to OANN.
Trump's Legal Team doing a great job today! (Whew!)
Especially thought the one who presented the case regarding Trump's 1st amendment rights was great! He used the words of the Constitution <-- the document that the Globalists wish to erode. House Managers didn't cite case law, but Trump's Team did, along with the First Amendment itself.
The lawyer arguing against the House managers case re Trump's speech on 1-6 was also great, as I recall. He clearly showed the hypocrisy of every House manager and Senate members too. Each had video of them calling for "Fights". Were each of them "inciting violence?". It made me think of the scripture calling for those without fault to throw the first stone at the woman accused of adultery.
House Managers, Jamie Raskin, was attempting to rewrite a new impeachment doctrine...to erode the first amendment right of President Trump.
Interesting observation by the last lawyer to present before break--House of Representatives were effectively seeking to make President Trump an employee of the Legislative Branch. And I thought we have three separate but coequal branches.
No mention of Wood or Bond cases by House Mgrs, but Trump's Team clearly articulated their relevance. Why no mention by House guys? Because they wanted to ignore these rulings.
Q2: Does Trump's speech "deserve" protection under 1st Amendment?
Trump's Legal Team provided quotations that frankly, I didn't catch them. They quoted the Brandenburg v Ohio case as the landmark case regarding "inciting violence" . In it, a 3-pronged test was described that prevents speech from be accused of "inciting violence" unless...need the slide. Note taking not fast enough.
Hypocrisy was mentioned and illustrated again by all the Dem candidates for President using the word "Fight".
House Managers used manipulated videos.
President Trump used the word "Fight" 20x in his speech on 1-6, yet House Mgrs only chose 2 for their case against Trump. Why? Because only 2 served their motives.
Explained that, in context, the meaning of Fight in Trump's speech was to "Primary the ones that don't fight.". House Managers didn't use this one.
Some of us citizens know how corrupt the elections were...but Trump is right about No one calling it out before him.
" the Best Is Yet To Come. ". <-- I LOVE THIS!!
" who gets rid of "America First"? You may try, but you certainly don't tell anyone if you do."
The above are from Trump's speech on 1-6-2021.
All Democrat Presidential candidates have called for "fighting". HYPOCRISY. Were they referring to physical violence?
Ended with quote by Benjamin Franklin about FREEDOM of Speech.
More notes later in replies at next break.
Thanks!! Working and can't watch. Recording for later enjoyment. This update was great!
They killed it, I mean they showed the world the level of stupidity we're dealing with in the House.
Really appreciate the post, thanks!
P2.
CBS Local Affiliate picked up coverage for Castor's presentation. Hmm.
Did Trump's speech invite insurrection (or insurgency?) Or invite violence? Nope.
Nope. Insurrection would involve taking over TV stations, operating a shadow government, Etc. "We all know this isn't the case."
Trump is the most pro-police anti-mob President We be ever had. His supporters know & he himself had made it clear.
Politics has been interposed with hatred, and when this becomes part of the dynamic...
Phrase Castor hopes becomes part of the results of this unfortunate impeachment... "Political Hatred has no place in the American justice system and no place in the Congress of the US."
Video played contrasting Trump with Democrats. Anyone in the chamber disagree with Trump's words in that video?
Trump didn't invite violence because:
Brandenburg vs Ohio 3 Prongs: 1. Explicit or Implicit speech encourage violence or incites lawless action, 2. Intends speech to encourage violence or incite lawless action, and 3. Imminent use of Violence or lawless actions occurred must be as a result of the speech.
House Mgrs would have you believe Trump's followers obey his every word. But Trump's speech contained no instruction to violence.
Played video clip, "We are the real people that built this nation, not the ones that tear it down.". Could his words have been misunderstood ? Nope.
" in love and peace" was left out by House Mgrs.
Actual Trump tweets, not edited versions were shown.
Actual Timelines were shown. Shows the Capitol protesters did not even attend President Trump's speech. Indicates preplanning.
11:15am, Crowds forming at the Capitol. 1 hour before President Trump's speech.
12:49pm. First barriers pushed over.
1:09pm. US Capitol Plice call Sgt of Arms to call NG.
This timeline shows preplanning. Media reporters echo chamber of this. Catherine Herridge? Report of FBI warning thru JTTF structure. Explosives, pipe bombs, planted near Capitol the night before.
Nancy Pelosi called for 9-11 style commission.
GA Secretary of State Rofflensberger call secretly taped, publicly shared by others, not Trump. The word "Find" taken out of context...to mean Trump votes rather than invalid signatures. Presented facts related to the 2016 invalid signatures was a rate of 6.42%. In 2020, the invalid signature rate was 0.4%, despite the significant increase in uninitiated mail in ballots in Fulton County due to Covid elections process changes. Trump's "Find" quotes were all in the context of questioning why such a marked unexpected difference in the signature rejection percentages.
Quick wrap up of the defense case: Complete lack of evidence. House Democrats were seeking to eliminate a political opponent in Trump. Montage played. Their goal is to thwart the will of the people to chose their candidate.
"Senators, our country needs to get back to work. Instead of presenting further, we are relinquishing the remainder of our time...". So Senate can " get back to work on Covid Relief. "
No further defense.
Wait a minute. No presentation of evidence of election fraud? No presentation of evidence of foreign interference? They're done and just giving up?
I don't think it is giving up.
GOD has a way of working His Plan, and I think I caught a glimpse of it this morning.
Trump's Legal Team did a marvelous job of answering the impeachment accusations, exposing not only hypocrisy in the false allegations, but also revealing the motives driving the false allegations and methods.
imho, They revealed their (House managers) plans to replace Constitutional impeachment with something different (Jamie Raskin doctrine), and that their political aims of power and their hatred and jealousy clouded their judgment about how best to serve the citizens of US.
I think the House managers hoped to use public opinion to put them over the top, but that they discovered public opinion is not with them. It warms my heart that the public chooses to disregard politics driven by hatred and jealousy.
Thank you! Looking forward to the next set of notes
Just posted P2. May post a part 3, but maybe not. As MY President says, "We'll see."
Great recap thanks!