Former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team mounted a combative defense on Friday focused more on assailing Democrats for “hypocrisy” and “hatred” than justifying Mr. Trump’s own monthslong effort to overturn a democratic election that culminated in last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol.
After days of powerful video footage showing a mob of Trump supporters beating police officers, chasing lawmakers and threatening to kill the vice president and House speaker, Mr. Trump’s lawyers denied that he had incited what they called a “small group” that turned violent. Instead, they tried to turn the tables by calling out Democrats for their own language, which they deemed just as incendiary as Mr. Trump’s.
In so doing, the former president’s lawyers went after not just the House Democrats serving as managers, or prosecutors, in the Senate impeachment trial, but half of the jurors sitting in front of them in the chamber. A rat-a-tat-tat montage of video clips played by the Trump team showed nearly every Democratic senator as well as President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris using the word “fight” or the phrase “fight like hell” just as Mr. Trump did at a rally of supporters on Jan. 6 just before the siege of the Capitol.
“Suddenly, the word ‘fight’ is off limits?” said Michael T. van der Veen, one of the lawyers hurriedly hired in recent days to defend Mr. Trump. “Spare us the hypocrisy and false indignation. It’s a term that’s used over and over and over again by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And, of course, the Democrat House managers know that the word ‘fight’ has been used figuratively in political speech forever.”
To emphasize the point, the Trump team played some of the same clips four or five times in less than three hours as some of the Democratic senators shook their heads and at least one of their Republican colleagues laughed appreciatively. The lawyers argued that the trial was “shameful” and “a deliberate attempt by the Democrat Party to smear, censor and cancel” an opponent and then rested their case without using even a quarter of the 16 hours allotted to the former president’s defense.
In the process, they tried to effectively narrow the prosecution’s “incitement of insurrection” case as if it centered only on their client’s use of that one phrase in that one speech instead of the relentless campaign that Mr. Trump waged since last summer to discredit an election he would eventually lose and galvanize his supporters to help him cling to power.
“They really didn’t address the facts of the case at all,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead impeachment manager. “There were a couple propaganda reels about Democratic politicians that would be excluded in any court in the land. They talk about the rules of evidence — all of that was totally irrelevant to the case before us.”
After the Trump team’s abbreviated defense, the senators posed their own questions, generally using their queries to score political points and prompting the former president’s prosecutors and defenders to respond to arguments by the other camp.
The questions, a total of 28 submitted in writing and read by a clerk, suggested that most Republicans remained likely to vote to acquit Mr. Trump when the Senate reconvenes for final arguments at 10 a.m. Saturday, blocking the two-thirds supermajority required by the Constitution for conviction.
Angel Evans
Some of the few Republicans thought to be open to conviction, including Senators Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, peppered the lawyers with questions about what Mr. Trump knew and when he knew it during the attack. The managers have argued that it was not just the president’s words and actions in advance of the attack that betrayed his oath, but his failure to act more assertively to stop his supporters after it started.
Responding to the senators, the defense lawyers pointed to mildly worded messages and a video that Mr. Trump posted on Twitter after the building was stormed calling on his supporters not to use violence while still endorsing their cause and telling them that he loved them. The managers repeated that Mr. Trump never made a strong, explicit call on the rioters to halt the attack, nor did he send help.
Mr. Romney and Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, zeroed in on Mr. Trump’s failure to exhibit any concern over the safety of his own vice president, Mike Pence, who was targeted for death by the former president’s supporters because he refused to try to block finalization of the election. Even after Mr. Pence was evacuated from the Senate chamber that day, Mr. Trump attacked him on Twitter, saying that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”
Mr. van der Veen told the senators that “at no point was the president informed that the vice president was in any danger.” But in fact, Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, told reporters this week that he spoke by telephone with Mr. Trump during the attack and told him that Mr. Pence had been rushed out of the chamber to protect him from the mob. And officials have said that Mr. Trump never called Mr. Pence to check on his safety and did not speak with him for days.
Austin Gray
The defense team struggled to avoid directly addressing what managers called Mr. Trump’s “big lie” that the election was stolen, which led the rioters to storm the Capitol to try to stop Congress from counting the Electoral College votes ratifying the result. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, challenged Mr. Trump’s lawyers to say whether they believe he actually won the election.
“My judgment?” Mr. van der Veen replied and then defiantly demanded: “Who asked that?”
“I did,” Mr. Sanders said.
“My judgment’s irrelevant in this proceeding,” Mr. van der Veen said, prompting an eruption from Democratic senators. He repeated that “it’s irrelevant” to the question of whether Mr. Trump incited the riot.
Senate Democrats dismissed the defense’s efforts to equate Mr. Trump’s actions with Democratic speeches. “They’re trying to draw a dangerous and distorted equivalence,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, told reporters during a break in the trial. “I think it is plainly a distraction from Donald Trump inviting the mob to Washington.”
But for Republicans looking for reasons to acquit Mr. Trump, the defense was more than enough. “The president’s lawyers blew the House managers’ case out of the water,” said Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin.
Even Ms. Murkowski, who called on Mr. Trump to resign after the Capitol siege, said the defense team was “more on their game” than during the trial’s opening day this week.
John Harris
During the question period, senators closely watched for clues about where their colleagues stood. Although most lawmakers still guessed that only a handful of Republicans would vote to convict, an additional group of Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have said almost nothing to colleagues about the unfolding trial in private or during daily luncheons before it convenes, prompting speculation that they could be preparing to break from the party.
The managers need 17 Republicans to join all 50 Democrats to reach the two-thirds required for conviction. While Mr. Trump can no longer be removed from office because his term has ended, he could be barred from ever seeking public office again.
The former president had trouble recruiting a legal team to defend him. The lawyers who represented him last year during his first impeachment trial did not come back for this one, and the set of lawyers he initially hired for this proceeding backed out in disagreement over strategy. Bruce L. Castor Jr., the leader of this third set, was widely criticized for his preliminary presentation on Tuesday, including reportedly by Mr. Trump.
Mr. Castor and David I. Schoen were largely supplanted on Friday by Mr. van der Veen, who has no long history with the president and in fact was reported to have once called Mr. Trump a “crook” with an expletive, a statement he has denied. Just last year, Mr. van der Veen represented a client suing Mr. Trump over moves that might limit mail-in voting and accused the president of making claims with “no evidence.”
But Mr. van der Veen on Friday offered the sort of aggressive performance that Mr. Trump prefers from his representatives as he accused the other side of “doctoring the evidence” with “manipulated video,” all to promote “a preposterous and monstrous lie” that the former president encouraged violence.
Matthew Wilson
A personal injury lawyer whose Philadelphia law firm solicits slip-and-fall clients on the radio and whose website boasts of winning judgments stemming from auto accidents and one case “involving a dog bite,” Mr. van der Veen proceeded to lecture Mr. Raskin, who taught constitutional law at American University for more than 25 years, about the Constitution. The managers’ arguments, Mr. van der Veen said, were “less than I would expect from a first-year law student.”
He and his colleagues offered little new information about the president’s conduct, but argued that Mr. Trump was exercising his free-speech rights in his fiery address to a rally before supporters broke into the Capitol. The lawyers leaned heavily on Mr. Trump’s single use of the word “peacefully” as he urged backers to march to the Capitol while minimizing the 20 times he used the word “fight.”
“No thinking person could seriously believe that the president’s Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection,” Mr. van der Veen said. “The suggestion is patently absurd on its face. Nothing in the text could ever be construed as encouraging, condoning or inciting unlawful activity of any kind.”
Sensitive to the charge that Mr. Trump endangered police officers, who were beaten and in one case killed during the assault, the lawyers played a series of video clips in which he called himself a “law and order president” along with images of antiracism protests that turned violent last summer.
They likewise showed video clips of Democrats objecting to Electoral College votes in past years when Republicans won, including Mr. Raskin in 2017 when Mr. Trump’s victory was sealed, comparing them with Mr. Trump’s criticism of the 2020 election. At the same time, those videos also showed Joseph R. Biden Jr., then vice president and president of the Senate, gaveling those protests out of order.
Angel Richardson
Stacey Plaskett, a Democratic delegate from the Virgin Islands and one of the managers, objected that many of the faces singled out in the videos of Democratic politicians and street protesters were Black. “It was not lost on me so many of them were people of color and women, Black women,” she said. “Black women like myself who are sick and tired of being sick and tired for our children.”
The defense lawyers argued that Democrats were pursuing Mr. Trump out of personal and partisan animosity, using the word “hatred” 15 times during their formal presentation, and they cast the trial as an effort to suppress a political opponent and his supporters.
“It is about canceling 75 million Trump voters and criminalizing political viewpoints,” Mr. van der Veen said. “That’s what this trial is really about. It is the only existential issue before us. It asks for constitutional cancel culture to take over in the United States Senate. Are we going to allow canceling and banning and silencing to be sanctioned in this body?”
Jonathan Ross
>inb4 republican distractions that can not defend trumps actions
Anthony Stewart
weird how that's how it always goes in these threads (and irl) isn't it? You never see anyone say >actually, I completely support President Trump and his actions, he didn't do anything wrong it's always some weasel shit about >well what about how DEMONCRAPS LIED about the severity of the largely peaceful protest >LMAO coming from the people who support CHAZ?? That's rich! >Actually it was ANTIFA!
Just for the record, could one conservative here come out and say that they support what President Trump did, and that they think that nothing that happened on the 6th was impeachable, and that should such an event ever happen again in January at the instigation of, say, Joe Biden, they would consider it to be a normal part of political affairs?
Charles Garcia
They haven't even tried to defend his actions. Their only "defense" has been meaningless whataboutism with one lawyer brilliantly chiming in that the insurrectionists were all antifa directed by Pelosi and Schumer even though Trump's own DOJ and FBI stated that there was no indication or evidence antifa or any other group was involved other than Trump supporters.
Luis Reed
If Joe told them to peacefully protest, then sure.
Charles Williams
I literally do not care and can not be made to care Random acts of violence are just part of the America I have come to know in 2020.
You know, you’re right. There’s a president trump general, after all. MAYBE all the people bitching that this place is nonstop conservatives and pol are wrong?
Lincoln Butler
The lawyers are just doing a song and dance for the dog and pony show, and even on the off-chance Trump is acquited it will have minimal effect on the impact of these things The whole fiasco was bait to give the press all they need to renew the conflation of dissenters and the call for their crucifixion. Maybe Trump really was a Russian asset the whole time - on your side, to lash out with minimal damage then encourage short-sighted stupidity in a final bang to put a nail in the populism coffin.
This post is a microcosm of that bait. >Here are the beliefs I want to hear you to say you have, explain to me why these are your beliefs >LOL come on, we've declared this indefensible, now, anyone want to defend them? Sympathise with the sacrificial slaughter? It's not too late to align yourself with the losers, you know!
As much as I want to say fuck off, I do in fact think that the event had a bright side. A system shock like this serves to remind people of what they're capable of if things were ever truly bad (the issue here having been people perceiving things as already bad). Then the news cycle and its counter-reaction give a chance to think critically about what really goes on for more psueds who are slightly above it but previously too apathetic to care about politics. tl;dr trump got a bunch of people off their asses to be a part of history instead of wasting away in mediocrity. This doesn't reflect a conservatice viewpoint but there I took the bait.
Mason Bell
You should take all this directly to the Supreme Court
In fact, given that Antrim County was subject to a hand recount, it is literally impossible as a matter of fact that the machines affected the outcome of the count.
>hereistheevidence.com/ The vast majority of these do not allege systemic fraud of any kind, and those that do fail to prove it.
>courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/king-v-whitmer/ Exactly the same as above. The Dec 7 court ruling eviscerating the garbage claims made in this lawsuit is in your very own link. Try reading it. The plaintiffs later dropped the case of their own accord.
>Stacey Plaskett, a Democratic delegate from the Virgin Islands and one of the managers, objected that many of the faces singled out in the videos of Democratic politicians and street protesters were Black. “It was not lost on me so many of them were people of color and women, Black women,” she said. “Black women like myself who are sick and tired of being sick and tired for our children.” LMAO they can't fucking stop themselves! The defense attorney should just accuse them of hating Trump for being a white male
Cooper Powell
It's not a court of law, it's a political body. Pointing out the hypocrisy of political opponents is natural. If you don't like it then why don't you just not be a hypocrite?
Camden Gray
It just shows the laws need to be re-written to put a lid on these sorts of lies and propaganda where they can't use public airwaves to broadcast them without, or at least bring back equal time.
Given the republicans are just the party of treason, will there at least be a criminal trial where Trump will be prosecuted for this? I can't imagine with all the proof we've seen and the fact this is without first hand witnesses yet, they couldn't nail Trump for sedition or treason.
Nathan Brooks
>attacking credentials instead of the data of the findings
>The vast majority of these do not allege systemic fraud of any kind, and those that do fail to prove it.
No shit sherlock, that's because the point is to show statistical improbabilities that would be confirmed as or as not fraud only by a forensic audit of all the machines. A forensic audit that never happened due to the establishment fighting tooth and nail to ensure it never could, which is exactly how a guilty party would act.
1. Find bloody knife with fingerprints on it in a murder case 2. Suspect is the son of the Chief of Police 3. Chief of Police blocks you from being able to check his sons fingerprint 4. NEENER NEENER NEENER THERE'S NO EVIDENCE MY SON DID THE CRIME BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE FINGERPRINTS AHAHAHAHAHA NEEENER NEEEENER NEEEEEEENER!!!!
>The claims of fraud filed here were rejected by a district court, an appeals court, and the Supreme Court. They were bullshit.
Evidentiary hearings where blocked and the cases where thrown out for nonsensical technicalities.
>Exactly the same as above. The Dec 7 court ruling eviscerating the garbage claims made in this lawsuit is in your very own link. Try reading it. The plaintiffs later dropped the case of their own accord.
I did read it. You didn't The counter evidence they presented was guilty of several false dichotomy fallacies. You either didn't read any of it, or you are a retard.
>Schizophrenic garbage that invents non-existent numbers out of thin air so he can try and make money with videos that have less than 500 views each.
>"I don't understand what this guy is saying therefore it is wrong"
lmao
Grayson Richardson
I agree. Opposition supporters must not be allowed to utilize mass media channels for their vile political goals. Opposition is the first step towards fascism and an insult to every true American patriot.
Isaac Cook
Not like any of this matters, the Republican traitors in the senate were never going to convict him.
Ryder Stewart
Man, Americans are dumb.
Jeremiah Green
Yeah, no shit. Have you seen our education system?
Zachary Diaz
Wherever did you get that idea?
>Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?" Upton responded:
>I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future. For our children.[3][4]
Alexander Torres
>instigator alleges murder >investigate and find no body, missing person, or murder weapon >instigator has motive to pin murder charges on defendant >police begin packing up since nothing burger >instigator demands the police seize the house as evidence and put the defendant in jail just in case >no >THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A GUILTY PERSON WOULD NOT WANT TO HAPPEN WHY ARE YOU DENYING JUSTICE
Ethan King
>trump got a bunch of people off their asses to be a part of history instead of wasting away in mediocrity hopefully they think prison is worthwhile is to have accomplished nothing for a con man
Chase Adams
Why should I have to say what's obvious and what purpose would it serve. This impeachment trial is the most desperate thing I've ever seen, so no I'm not going to take it seriously.
Jaxon Turner
Tu quoque
too easy
Ryder Robinson
Cringe Based
Lucas Brown
>put a lid on these sorts of lies and propaganda where they can't use public airwaves to broadcast them "election was stolen by putin" lol
Tyler Foster
He didn't incite the riots
To further make this case, part of his defense was showing other people who used the same rhetoric as Trump who also didn't incite riots, which exposes the fallacy & bias of the accusation
Christopher Bennett
Jesus NYT lives in it's own world. So much bullshit said so elegantly.
Luis Parker
That is actually how the Federal Supreme Court operates in many cases, they rule based on precedent of what was allowed or decided before in prior rulings
Brody Parker
Republicans are a turd
Democrats are a turd with a ribbon of chocolate icing on top too make it more edible
Jayden White
Trump's incitement was well documented by the House impeachment managers (even some Trump bootlicking Senators said they had made a strong case) going back 8 months prior to the election and his encouragement of violence against Democrats building to a crescendo of his incitement provoking the coup attempt on 1/6. As well as his actions as the coup was occurring which demonstrated he clearly supported the coup.
The defense playing a montage of out of context videos of politicians using the term "fight" not a single one even hinting at or resulting in violence was silly. Their only other defense was claiming antifa was responsible which has been refuted by Trump's own DOJ and 1st Ammendment which is obviously inapplicable in this case.
In short his guilt was laid bare by the evidence presented and no defense contradicted his guilt at all. The American people were witnesses and they won't forget the cowardly spineless, gutless actions of 43 Senators in failing to convict. It was a day of national shame for the GOP.
Nathan Stewart
Not a single thing Trump said encouraged violence or hinted at encouraging violence. The people saying this shit are using things out of context like him saying, "proud boys stand back and stand by" to say that he incited protestors to break into the capital.
If there is such a good case, why is Trump not being placed under arrest? Inciting a huge riot is a crime, why haven't they pressed any criminal charges in all this time? When will trump be getting charged with this crime? LOCK HIM UP!
Ethan Brown
He was charged with high crimes and misdemeanors by his impeachment. The case of his guilt was clearly, decisively proven with even Moscow Mitch excoriating him after the vote for being guilty as charged. The fact 43 Senators are spineless amoebas who shake in fear at Trump looking cross eyed at them, does not diminish his guilt one iota. 57-43 was a resounding affirmation of his culpability and the American people know it. Magat zombie cultists don't even count as 3/5ths of a person so they don't count at all.
Leo Hill
When is Trump going to be arrested and charged with incitement? Why isn't he in jail for this crime?
Ryan Morgan
except the icing is made of shit as well..
Samuel Sullivan
Ask Moscow Mitch.
>Even though McConnell, who turns 79 in one week, voted to acquit Trump in the impeachment court, he pointedly added that former presidents can be subject to criminal and civil litigation, and that Trump “didn’t get away with anything yet -- yet.”
“Impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice,” McConnell said. “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office.”
Wyatt Robinson
>Relying on the word of McConnel that Trump will get his "just deserts"
Now THIS is cope posting.
Colton Rogers
Why the fuck would they be afraid of him if he's not president anymore? Look at this faggot and his olympic tier mental gymnastics.
Julian Nelson
Take your meds.
Angel Nelson
>Sticking out like a sore thumb
Connor Anderson
>effort to overturn a democratic election Are we talking about the 100 guys who walked in the capitol or the thousands of armed guys who made a secession in Portland?
Noah Anderson
Right. They're not afraid of him. They're afraid of republican primary voters.
Daniel Ortiz
>whataboutism and gaslighting in 1 sentence You should audition for one of the Fox Prime Time Political Entertainment bobblehead spots!
Ian Lopez
>get boxed into an ideological corner? Just cry whataboutism and gaslighting without evidence! >it works 60% of the time, all the time!
Kayden Thomas
>get boxed into an ideological corner Too bad your post did no such thing, magat cultist. Cry harder, you lost, 57-43.
Hudson Gomez
>you lost! Last I checked he was acquitted
Leo Sullivan
Either they are both insurrection or they both aren’t
Charles Miller
>Trump lawyers try the "no you" argument. >It worked /thread
Samuel Turner
Trump's lawyers were bad. Senate Republicans are spineless traitors to Democracy. These are both facts. Trump's defense team could of dropped trou and helicoptered for 6 hours straight and the Republicans still would of acquitted him.
Asher Campbell
>Senate Republicans are spineless traitors to Democracy absolutely fucking seething.
>GOP is a toxic stain on America Why do you care? You're not American.
Ian James
You lost. Trump is the most acquitted President in history :)
Joseph Davis
Lol he deleted his copium
Cooper Brooks
>absolutely fucking seething. Just a statement of fact.
>Why do you care? You're not American. Zing.
>Trump is the most acquitted President in history :) True.
Gavin Baker
>People who don't vote how I want them to are evil traitores! Nah, it's seethe
Wyatt Ross
>People who don't vote how I want them to are evil traitores! You people are very bad at strawmen.
>Nah, it's seethe Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Thomas Perez
Go to bed Powell. Not even Trump believes the election was stolen. If he did then he would have claimed so in court. And he nor his team never did.
Josiah Cox
>Trump's incitement was well documented by the House impeachment managers Trump specifically said to march "peacefully and patriotically" to let their voices be heard. That is not an instruction to riot or smash windows or break in.
Jack Morris
Nah, Trump did it with massive election fraud with voter suppression.
Wyatt Moore
>march peacefully and patriotically Why do you insist on lying on a Louisiana black widow venom milking board?
Cooper Diaz
That was preordained. Trump could have mown down 20 random people in broad daylight with an AR-15 and the gutless, castrated republicant Senators would have acquited. The win was 14 more people voted to convict than acquit, as well as the fact even the ones who acquitted him did so on the basis of a technicality. Not a single one defended Trump's actions and some admitted he was guilty but didn't believe the Senate could try the impeachment since he had already been booted from office. And some like Moscow Mitch who voted to acquit ripped Trump a new poop shoot for his guilt in inciting the insurrection/coup.
No, friend, this was indeed a big win for Dems.
Dylan King
Freedom is slavery War is peace Losing is winning
Zachary Rodriguez
Ok, which Republican Senators besides a handful of Dear Leader Fuhrer wannabes like Hawley or Lisping Lady Lindsey justified their acquittal vote by defending the actions of the Orange Fool Fuhrer?
Luke Allen
Can we get a daily limit on the amount of cope posts this user is allowed to make? Jesus christ.
Xavier Morales
>SEE! SEE! We got a couple Republicans to vote to convict so that MUST mean something right?? >ANY DAY NOW! we gunna fin' them rushin collooooosions!! >ANY DAY NOW!! we gunna finally impeach him out of office!
kek
Christian Green
I see you can't respond to that virtually no Repukelicant Senators defended Trump's actions or denied his prolonged 8 month campaign inciting and prodding his zombie cult to implement the day of infamy, 1/6, when his cult zombies attempted to overthrow Democracy, assassinate elected officials and crown Trump Fuhrer for Life. Thx for agreeing with me that it was a great success for the Democrats in the eyes of everyone who isn't in the cult. 7 Repukelicants is not "a couple." 57-43, 2 scoops of impeachment forever and ever. Suck it up buttercup!
Thomas Murphy
Firstly that was not the only defense presented. Secondly it was done in an effort to show that the accusations against the former president where politically motivated or based on the events that followed instead of the actual intent of his speech which is what he was actually on trial for.
Alexander Foster
>2 scoops of acquittal forever and ever FTFY
Alexander Brooks
He probably meant to say “stand down” as he has disavowed white supremacy on numerous occasions. The house managers own video has him saying “sure” immediately after asked if he would.
Ryder Gonzalez
>Not even Trump believes the election was stolen. If he did then he would have claimed so in court.
Imagine being stupid enough to unironically try to argue this.
Riddle me this brainlet, if "muh courts" decide what is factual, then how did the mainstream media "know" that there was no election fraud before any courts even had a date?
Cart before the horse.
Easton Hill
Because there was literally no indication or proof of fraud?
Robert Peterson
>there was literally no indication or proof of fraud? well, at least half of this is definitely true.
Luke Cruz
seething
Benjamin Rogers
>Republican suggest they may call democrats as witnesses to testify under oath >just suggest it >Democrats immediately spike the impeachment hearing and within 24 hour Trump is acquitted lol.
Dominic Ortiz
Election fraud cases are literally going to the Supreme Court as we speak user. You would know this if you actually payed attention to the court cases instead of regurgitating whatever flavor of propaganda that mainstream media has fed you like a baby bird.
Ryder Davis
>g-guys w-we got da Quaken this time! It's totally going to work! Q dropped the hint, "storms" back on the menu bois!
Daniel Powell
Your a fucking retard and you have no argument, you just babble like a simpleton It's sad, really
Joshua Taylor
Pointing out double standards is a perfectly valid defense though. If there is a private company that allows white people to come in all the time, but then as soon as a black person steps foot they get charged with tresspassing and forcibly removed, that company can and should lose a discrimination lawsuit.
Guess what, the pendulum also swings that way in politics. You can't incite violent protests in Portland OR for months on end, and then when Trump says to protest peacefully and patriotically you turn around and try to twist his words to make them sound treasonous. I don't even like Trump, I didn't vote for him, and I'm glad to see his useless ass go, but the conservatives are totally in the right on this one. Not guilty, deal with it, now move the fuck on and stop letting BIG BAD ORANGE MAN live inside your heads rent fucking free. Seriously it's just sad at this point. Orange man is FUCKING GONE why you dumb niggas still have TDS lmao.
Caleb Diaz
>7% of BLM protests ended up in violence Protests against systemic racism that turned violent late at night because criminals took advantage of the situation to loot, are not comparable to a sitting President beginning 8 months prior to the election start building his cult followers into a maniacal rage saying the only possible way he could lose was through fraud and reaching a fever pitch the day after the election, culminating in his attempts to coerce GA election officials to "find" enough votes to make him the winner or else, inciting his maniacal zombie mob with calls to fight like hell to take back this stolen election, you can't win by being weak, show those Congressmen and Pence what strength means and he'll be right there with them, along with Ghouliani's trial by combat speech, then while viewing it on the TV dancing with glee and telling McCarthy who pleaded for him to call it off that the insurrectionists are more concerned about the election than he was, waiting for hours before finally being forced by aides to release a video where he reiterated the Big Lie and he felt their pain and loved them from the bottom of his shriveled coal black heart but you have to go home now.
>TDS The only TDS is in the cult zombie followers who worship an utter incompetent who attempted to overthrow Democracy. As long as those so called "people" exist, there must be virulent opposition.
Btw, I know you're a false flagging magat which is why I decided to rub your face in the truth.
Dominic Turner
>Protests against systemic racism that turned violent late at night because criminals took advantage of the situation to loot, are not comparable to a sitting President beginning 8 months prior to the election start building his cult followers into a maniacal rage saying the only possible way he could lose was through fraud
So in other words, you fully admit that it actually has absolutely nothing to do with the violence, and everything to do with their political beliefs and you are perfectly fine with violence happening as long as it supports your views.
Thank you for debunking yourself. You did it better than I ever could.
Alexander Kelly
>So in other words, you fully admit that it actually has absolutely nothing to do with the violence, and everything to do with their political beliefs and you are perfectly fine with violence happening as long as it supports your views. Yes. 100%. Absolutely. Only a dipshit would argue otherwise. The revolutionary war was literally a ragtag band of political dissidents who systemically waged war against the state that oppressed them. The revolutionary war was a good thing. Violence that serves to improve the quality of life and autonomy of people is good. Violence that serves to install a white nationalist dictatorship and overthrow Democracy is bad.
>Trump says to protest peacefully and patriotically you turn around and try to twist his words to make them sound treasonous. This is not what he said. What he said, several times, was that the election was stolen and that the country would not be saved through weakness. He told his followers that they needed to "be tough" and "fight back" and that if they didn't their lives, country and way of life would be destroyed. This is a pathetically dishonest mischaracterization of his actual rhetoric.
So his actual rhetoric was "Use violence to make it so I won the election regardless of actual result". Got it.
Bentley Lee
keep in mind the dems kept telling biden not to concede way in advance of the election because they planned fake ballot dumps and hacking from china, et al. once they knew how much trump had won by so they would know how many fake votes to put in
Angel Butler
>Use violence to make it so I won the election regardless of actual result That's the logical result of his rhetoric, yes. It makes perfect sense that people would resort to violence after being told they're all going to die if they don't "fight" and "take their country back" for months on end. Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe believes otherwise.
