Democrats had high hopes for Impeachment 2.0. In fact, they need to pull it off if they’re ever going to fully rid the White House of Donald Trump.
But the way things are going, there could be an acquittal by the weekend.
To be honest, Lindsey Graham revealed himself to be a fence-sitter. He clearly isn’t capable of putting a stop to the biggest steal of the century. And that’s fine. Because I have a feeling Graham’s wishy washy demeanor regarding the 2020 election will prove to be the end of his long career in Congress.
Of course, that’s what we need. To rid DC of those who’ve leeched off the system for decades. But in the meantime, Graham is still considered a voice to be reckoned with. And as such, Graham predicts this leftist-led circus leads to one outcome, and one outcome only.
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?
In today’s hearings, Michael van der Veen, an attorney on Trump’s legal team, called the impeachment trial an “unjust and unconstitutional act of political vengeance.” Further, van der Veen offers evidence supporting his statements that nobody could think Trump’s speech incited violence.
He plays video of House Democrats, including Raskin, objecting to certification after Trump was elected. He says it is a “preposterous” and “monstrous lie” to claim that Trump wanted to incite violence.
Van Der Veen in his opening presentation for Trump's defense shows a video of Democrats objecting to certifying President Trump presidential election in 2017, which begins with now-House lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (D-MD). pic.twitter.com/399l9bD4Sr
— Craig Caplan (@CraigCaplan) February 12, 2021
As van der Veen put it, “you can’t incite what is already going to happen.” Let’s get real. Trump didn’t say anything we haven’t heard for years. At least as far as inflammatory language is concerned.
Haven’t Democrats repeatedly supported protesters who don’t adhere to “peaceful” standards?
Just a few months ago, “Autonomous Zones” surfaced in cities such as Seattle. Did Congress discourage their methodology? Of course not. Even after a black man died in the CHOP Zone, because gangsters wouldn’t allow police or ambulance to try to save him, leftists defended the violent protest zones.
As a result, last summer nearly 75% of DC cops admitted they were ready to walk away from the police force. And one can bet that number largely reflects the frustration police now feel. Sadly, politicians are slow to defend law enforcement and quick to crucify them. And that leaves all of us in a sour spot.
It took Donald Trump’s dedication to law and order to put an end to Seattle’s CHOP Zone and the many other violent protests in the nation. And to thank him, he faces the firing squad AGAIN.
"The hatred that the House managers and others on the left have for Pres. Trump has driven them to skip the basic elements of due process and fairness," Trump impeachment attorney David Schoen argues. https://t.co/r7tOhMYO2U #impeachmenttrial pic.twitter.com/E5rfUXycPd
— ABC News (@ABC) February 12, 2021
At the end of the day, there’s one thing leftists refuse to see. And it’s a pretty important piece of this puzzle. There’s no precedent for impeaching a politician no longer in office. That means the only reason to hold an impeachment is to embarrass Donald Trump and try to keep him from coming back in 2024.
As ABC News adds:
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked both House managers and Trump’s legal team if a future Congress could impeach a former secretary of state.
“Voting to convict the former president would create a new precedent that a formal official can be convicted and disqualified by the Senate,” Rubio’s question said.
“Therefore, is it not true that, under this new precedent, a future House facing partisan pressure to “lock her up” could impeach a former secretary of state and a future Senate be forced to put her on trial and potentially disqualify from any future office?”
As you might guess, Democrats didn’t want to go there. Which is too bad, because that would be the show of a lifetime to see.