Trump Trial Round 2

Posted: February 11th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Trial Round 2

.:.So “round 2” of the Senate Trial is when the Democratic Team goes on the offense and actually present their case. Round 2 took two days, yesterday and today. I found both days to be very interesting. I really enjoy watching people formulate a thought process and trying to use their thought process to try and convince an audience to see things their way.

So, the case the Democratic Team is making, which is to say the story or narrative or quilt work or patchwork, they are putting together is when the Democratic Lawyers take tweets that Trump wrote and juxtaposed said tweets to videos of the so-called “insurrection,” and as they juxtapose the Trump tweets in chronological order with the video of the days and hours leading up to Jan 6th and the moments during the so-called insurrection, said Team proceeds to narrate, which is to say to tell their audience their stitch work version of the story.

The essential argument of the Democrat’s case is that Trump incited an “attack” or “insurrection” against Capitol Hill. As such, the Democratic Team, being on the offensive, is playing the role of the Prosecution. And so, as the Prosecution, it is their job and duty to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the suspect had the Criminal Intent to perpetrate the alleged unlawful act or crime. In Trump’s case, the Prosecution must prove beyond any doubt that Trump indeed had the intent/intention of creating an actual insurrection against the government of the United States, or they have no real criminal case. The presence of intent is important. Regarding the importance of intent, the following article should be read carefully, in order to understand Legal Thought Processes:

And so, we see in the case of Dominic Pezzola of The Proud Boys, that his actions that day of Jan 6th at Capitol Hill was not manifested [committed] because of “criminal intent” but out of “Conscience.” Therefore, the note to be taken into consideration is that one’s Conscience, and the actions and behaviour one does and commits, out of one’s Conscience, be such conscience warped and misguided as such may be, does not constitute criminal intent, meaning the actual, willful, intention of committing a crime of some sort.

Therefore, the Prosecution must prove that Trump had the actual intention/intent to do what they narrated he was doing. My assessment, after watching their two-day argument and case presentation was that the Democratic Lawyers spent very little time and effort trying to prove and show that Trump had the criminal intent to manifest an insurrection. In two days, consisting of hours and hours of talking and video sharing, the Democratic Lawyers, barely brought up intention/intent.

Instead the Democratic Lawyers spend 12 hours a day, stitching together a flimsy story, a literal story mind you, where their case was like as if they were showing videos and slide shows to grade schoolers. The Democratic Team’s case was literally: “This was what Donald Trump wrote in a Tweet and now watch this video… his tweet and the actions of the insurrectionists are clearly connected!” That’s their narrative, literally for the past 24 hours to trial sessions.

My first contention is with the Democratic Team’s insistent use of the weasel word “insurrection” to describe the large group of people that stormed Capitol Hill:

An “insurrection” by definition is when a person or group of people use force and violence against an authority or government. And so, by definition, those people who stormed Capitol Hill were not “insurrectionists.” Why not? Because the “government” of the United States is an entity composed of three branches, and the “government” of the US does not live in the Capitol Hill building. Trump, when he was president, along with his cabinet constituted a third of what is the US Government, and the Supreme Court is the other third part of the same said Government, and Congress is the other third part.

The people who stormed Capitol Hill, did not use force against the president and his cabinet, nor against the Supreme Court, or even against members of Congress. They didn’t even use force against the police of the Capitol Hill building. When a few Capitol Police held a few of the Protesters on the ground at gun point, you can see hundreds of other Protesters simple walk by and do nothing against those police officers to even free their fellow Protesters.

Objectively speaking, those people who stormed Capitol Hill were simply Protesters, whose emotions were stoked and hyped up, who acted on their emotive beliefs and emotionally driven Conscience and they took their Protest down to Capitol Hill and into the building. If anything, their presence in the said building was unlawful, because they did not have a permit to conduct their protest in the Capitol Hill building.

The Republican Lawyers can easily tackle the Democrat’s shabby narrative [their case] by dividing the Democrat’s case into two halves: 1) What Trump said or tweeted/wrote & 2) What the Protesters did.

Once the case is divided in half, the Republican Lawyers can then attack the two halves separately. First by using the First Amendment to show that Trump has the right, just like any American to say what he wants or write what he wants, and that just because Trump says things that are disagreeable, strong opinionated, etc, does not mean that he speaks and writes such things with the actual intent to produce an insurrection or a coup. Secondly, the Republican Lawyers can work to show that the people that stormed Capitol Hill were not insurrectionists by definition, but merely angry Protestors, who unlawfully took their protest into a building they should not have been inside of. Thirdly, the Republican Team needs to show that the Protesters, and that’s all they were, were not at Capitol Hill for a planned insurrection, but they were there because of misunderstandings and misguided Conscience. And fourthly, the Republicans Teams needs to divorce Trump and the Protestors apart from each other, meaning that they will have to work to show that what the Protesters did was of their own free will and accord, that what they did was born from heated emotions, and not actually because Trump instructed and controlled them.

I personally found the Democrat’s Case presentation, by all of its Lawyers to be barfy [meaning makes you want to vomit]. Their case was so dumb and melodramatic and theatrical, it made you want to puke. It was also hypocritical, because they would spend long moments talking about how the Cops at Capitol Hill suffered so much from the evil insurrectionists… but yet, last year, factions in the Left-Democratic Party stoked and encouraged the BLM and Antifa protests, which resulted in not only vast/mass assault against cops, but police station were also actually burned down! 90% of their case was a fallacious appeal to emotions. The Democratic Team have clearly abandoned any attempt at trying to convince the Republican Senators to convict Trump, and they’re focusing all of their energy to the American People’s emotions.

There was a point in their case presentation when it got so cheesy, so melodramatic, that it was offensive. This was when one of the lady Lawyers came up to continue their case, and at the end, this lady had the nerve to try and insinuate or equate the Capitol Hill Protest with September 11th! Where the lady said, roughly: “24 heroic Americans died on September 11th, when they laid their lives down in that airplane headed for this very building. Those heroes save our lives. And I appreciate the heroes [Capitol Hill cops] who risked their lives to save ours that day of the insurrection,” and the lady proceeded to produce a very fake and insincere look of sadness. There was no reason whatsoever to bring up September 11th with the Capitol Hill Protest. The two had nothing to do with each other. It’s a dangerous non-sequitur, to imply that the 911 terrorists and the Capitol Hill Protesters were the same breed of violent people: terrorists.

My last thoughts on the Democrat’s case is the amateurish nature of Trump’s so-called “insurrection.” Those Democrats tried really hard to make the Protesters look like terrorists, where they used inaccurate descriptions such as “armed to the teeth,” and “50 feet away from us all being killed.”

Trump’s problem is that he confuses soldiers with protesters with guns. A militia [survivalist enthusiast with guns] and trained soldiers are two very different breed of people. A soldier is first of all professionally trained in and out of the battlefield to be an effective killer of enemy combatants. And out in the battlefield, when enemy soldiers are shooting at you, as a soldier being shot at, you have no choice but to use deadly and lethal force to protect yourself and fellow soldiers.

Whereas a “militia” or a group of right-wing guys with scary looking rifles, who spend their time in the woods target practicing, who have never been trained to kill, who do not possess the mentality and psychology of a killer soldier, who is not being fired at by enemy combatants, who has never killed anything in their lives, who have never seen anything killed in real life before, regardless of how angry and hateful their speech and rhetoric may be: simply does not have the Nature and Ethos of a soldier and simply cannot psychologically and emotionally get themselves to intentionally kill anyone. The intention/intent to actually commit murder was not present in those Protestors, and neither was the correct Nature and Ethos present in those Protestors: they were not at Capitol Hill to intentionally harm anyone with lethal force. Yes, their language was angry and violent and at times hateful, but they were not “insurrectionists” by definition, nor by Nature & Ethos. They are simply and mostly undereducated people who really liked Trump, who believed Trump’s fabrications of stolen votes, and who were ultimately used and duped by Trump and his Friends as pawns and patsies. A guy who looks scary and who spews right-wing stuff, who has a rifle, and who has only ever used said rifle to shoot at empty soda cans and use said rifle as photo-op props for social media to look cool to their peers is not a killer and does not have the skills or capacity to take down a government. Which should be obvious, because the Protest at Capitol Hill was in no way coherent or planned: those people had no idea what they were doing or where they were going. They were just angry, and were venting their anger.


Comments are closed.