No the impeachment trial will not enter in stuff like that.
You basically get articles about very specific things, and then you can only address those specific things.
They're going to say "he incited insurrection with the speech." What happened in the election is immaterial to the content of the speech and the immediate aftermath. Even if the election was fraudulent - and i dont think it was - you can't insight an unlawful action, and then hide behind the complaint being legitimate.
The courts refused to hear the lawyers present evidence.
Everytime Guiliani and Jenna went to court the judge asked "is this a fraud case?" and everytime they said no. They said "no your honor." or "we are not here today alleging fraud."
EVERY. TIME.
We saw votes switch live. We know there was rampant fraud.
You saw an intermediary reporting agency that predicts votecounts make corrections live, which were not certified at any point as being official. Those weren't votes, those were preliminary guesses which always switch.
Denying that there was fraud is just putting your fingers in your ears.
I have looked hard for a trump attorney alleging fraud in court when they file their motions and there are none. They instead say "irregularities" which are not fraud. There is zero evidence irregularities (someone with a similar name as someone, someone who moved) effect even .0005 percent of a vote.
What they argued for was chain of custody or to interpret statuatory definitions of custody different to say "XYZ VOTES ARE INELIGIBLE" not that they were cast fraudulently but that the state fucked up and was obligated to throw them out despite the voter being real, legal, and cast legally at the time. Judge's were not willing to do that because they view it as disenfranchisement.
A casual look at the data reveals that what happened cannot be natural.
Those are fringe positions and no reputable high level mathematician is endorsing those methodologies for a reason. You can prove anything with "synthetic calculus." Particularly if your audience doesn't have a background or expertise in maths.
If no fraud, why refuse?
If fraud, why not allege in court? Again, the courts can't move to investigate something that isn't alleged before them.
Since they refused to hear the evidence
The attorneys did not claim or present evidence of fraud. they alleged, in court, something different then went out of the court or onto twitter and alleged fraud, but not when they could get disbarred for lying.
lol wow. you 100% didn't serve. the military is not like this at all. we went into iraq without proper plating on our vehicles.
still only about 30% of our fighters are presently air worthy.
"military precision" is a euphemism.
Because I'm also a con artist of sorts. I work in sales. All of these tactics are in sales workshops.
You know what an exposed deep state security apparatus leak looks like? Snowden handing off a USB drive. Proof. Not suggestion. There's no CIA coup that relied on suggestion. There's no revolution in human history predicated on secret codes.
The tick-tock, drip-drop thing while asking questions is how Scientology hooks people.
i spent about 2 and a half hours today reading the book of q proofs, skipping to the actual drops, and the authors' explanation as to how they're proved.
its cold reading.
by using questions you can lead and influence people quite easily. asking questions to confirm biases is actually easier than suggesting statements. i use cold reading and tactics like this in fucking women, sales, literally everything.
why hasn't a SINGLE person in the military (who have been caught torturing, waterboarding, shooting civilians, using white phosphorous, assassination programs, etc) not leaked a SINGLE confirming document or had a SINGLE person go on the record?
its pretty simple:
not a single attorney (lin, powell, giuiliani, etc, or lesser known attorneys) went in front of a judge and swore in front of a judge at the risk of their ability to practice law they had evidence of fraud.
The election from which Biden took power is clearly fraudulent,
not. a. single. attorney. risked. their. job. to. claim. this.
the guys selling ad-space on their podcast or blog kept moving the goal posts.
trump went to arizona, flew into john mccain airport, took john mccain boulevard to a place where mccain launched his presidential election and talked shit about mccain as a draft dodger. some people liked it...but more...
i'm in arizona. 2016 there were 31 trump signs on my street. 2020, there was also 23 signs, but now they were all in one guys gravel yard.
Do I have proof? No. It's a military op. We aren't meant to KNOW what's going on. But after reading exhaustive accounts of the Act of 1871 and watching hours of brain melting explanations of how our republic was hijacked by a shadow government who enacted illegal amendments to enslave us to the central banks and the IRS, and listening to several highly illuminating and logical discussions of this subject in multiple Bards FM vids on YT, this makes the most logical sense. To me, anyway.
You don't have proof. People on this forum use "its a militarily op" like "its the will of allah" or something. there's nothing going on. you need to put on your big boy pants and go outside and just chill the fuck out for a second.
Maybe the military would stop a coup. Certainly in the thousands and thousands of people that would need to know something, one person would leak. But there was no leak.
But there was no coup.
brain melting
yes, you sound like someone who has done too much LSD.
if anyone looked nervous it was for the trump/q mob that rushed the capitol, killed one cop, maimed another, and marched through the halls threatening to hang people.
thats why they were nervous.
not because of an 8chan shitposter using cold reading tricks on people who believe they're too smart to be cold read.
that's not how impeachment proceedings work, is what i'm telling you.