Trump Acquitted

Posted: February 13th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Acquitted

.:.Former President Trump has just been Acquitted by the Senate! I thought Mr. Van Der Veen’s closing statements were on point to reason and doctrine. God I hate the Left, and those Democratic Managers: what a bunch of intellectually dishonest power whore cons.

Now that Trump has been acquitted and not guilty/convicted of inciting “insurrection,” the Left and their Journalist fake-news propaganda machine will be looking for blood from the Right! During the next few weeks, we’ll see the Left and its power take their thirst for blood on The Proud Boys.

/Chloe

 


Trump Trial Final Round

Posted: February 12th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Trial Final Round

.:.Regading the Democrat’s entire case: “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”

Excellent work! The Trump Team put forth their defense in circa 3 hours! What a brilliant show! My favorite Trump Lawyer was Mr. Van Der Veen, who I thought was a great thinker. I loved the look of distaste and contempt he had for the Democratic Team. There were times when Mr. Van Der Veen took his glasses off to look at the Democratic Team to emphasize his condescending contempt.

The best part about Mr. Van Der Veen’s defense was that, in contrast to the entire case of the Democratic Team’s case, Mr. Van Der Veen use Logic, Reason, and Doctrinal Text. Doctrinal Text here meaning texts such as those from the US Constitution and text from court trials clarifying laws and precedents.

My favorite point in Van Der Veen’s defense was when he cited the Brandenburg case, which clarifies the difference between the Free Speech we all enjoy which is protected by the US Constitution and what exactly is “incitement speech.” The Brandenburg case has three holdings/criteria which must be met in order for a statement – spoken or written or otherwise – to qualify as “incitement speech,” where “incitement speech” here means speech used to incite unlawful acts, crimes, and so on. The three holdings/criteria of incitement speech:

Mr. Van Der Veen showed that Trump talks and verbal expressions and the words he used was not incitement speech, made to incite the protesters to become violent. Van Der Veen made sure to also place emphasis upon the word “imminent” per the third criteria. This is very important regarding the chronology of the events of Jan 6th: there was already a crowd of protesters at Capitol Hill, becoming aggressive and violent a full one hour before Trump even came out to make his speech that day.

The Trump Lawyers also showed that Trump, even as president, does still have his freedom of public speech protected under the First Amendment, which the Democratic Team denied. Therefore, we learn that the US Constitution protects everyone’s freedom to speak their views, opinions, beliefs, feelings, conscience, etc – social, political, or otherwise – regardless of how passionate, radical, unconventional, inflammatory, or hateful, such speech or text may be; even if your speech and beliefs regard the destruction of the government.

The Trump Team also showed that a certain section of the protesters that day of Jan 6th had planned some kind of violent attack on Capitol Hill independent of any incitement on Trump’s part.

All-in-all, the Trump Lawyers did exactly as I had thought/predicted they would do. I’m very pleased with their defense. It was a pleasant contrast to the Democrat’s case where the Democrat’s case was 90% silly Appeal to Emotions and trump’s words taken out of context. Whereas the Trump Team used doctrinal texts, past precedents, logic, and reason.

My predictions:

  1. Trump will be acquitted. And if he runs again in 4 years, he may just win.
  2. A group will take the rap for the protest at Capitol Hill.
  3. When the Leftist Journalists and Leftist Media learn that they will not get their desired Trump sacrifice, they will focus their attention on a scapegoat:
  4. Therefore, the Left and the media will most likely turn their wrath on The Proud Boys, who will be the group that takes the rap.
  5. Thus, more fake-news/propaganda against the Right will be coming soon.

And so, o9a should be prepared to get sucked into the Leftist media’s wrath again. Thus, if you are Right leaning, or if you are an associated with o9a in anyway, I highly suggest that you watch the three hours of Trump’s Lawyers talk their case and points, regarding Free Speech, your rights, your right to say and write what you want, regardless of whether such things you express are passionate, radical, unconventional, racist, violent, deranged, malicious, etc.

Watching this Senate Trial has taught me two valuable things: 1) That I really do hate the Left & 2) I now understand my Constitutional Rights.

/Chloe

 

 


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.

/Chloe


Trump Trial Round 1

Posted: February 10th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Trial Round 1

 

.:.I unfortunately find boring trial things to be cool and interesting, because I like watching the lawyers think, reason, and use their art and science of jurisprudence. I’ve been watching Trump’s Impeachment trail from the beginning, and will most likely watch the whole thing till the end.

I like Jurisprudence. As a Buddhist, sectarian/religious/doctrinal jurisprudence is very important. For example: Is it “lawful,” for a national “soldier” of a Buddhist country such as Thailand, who is a “professed” “Buddhist,” to be a soldier, carry weapons, and use such weapons to “kill” enemy soldiers? On the one hand, the Buddhist soldier kills enemy soldiers, which causes Dukkham in the family of the killed enemy soldiers. On the other hand, if the Buddhist soldier, does not kill enemy soldiers, the citizens of his country may suffer, should they be enslaved or tyrannized by the aggressive enemy nation.

The first round I think went to the Democrats. I’m a registered Republican. I only vote for Republican candidates. I thought the Democrat Lawyers had a very solid and well structured and well articulated case and set of arguments regarding the legality and constitutionality of trying a “former” elected official in the Senate. I really enjoyed watching the democrat team present their arguments and data. What I didn’t like was the use of that video because it can be used as a tool to appeal to the emotions. I also disliked the intentional use, on the democrat teams part, of the word “insurgence;” and I disliked their intentional pre-conviction language and vocabulary they used where they talked about Trump as being the person and source of the alleged “insurgence” and “insurrection.”

Unfortunately, the Republican Team of Lawyers, during that first round, seemed to be goofballs. The first Republican Lawyers, Bruce Castor, had a very incoherent “argument,” or “arguments.” I had trouble understanding what exactly his case was that he was trying to present. It’s more effective if and when you present one argument at a time. Like how the Democrat Lawyers did it. The Democrat Team focused on whether or not trying a former president in the Senate was legal and constitutional.

Whereas Bruce Castor rambled on and on and was all over the place. In the beginning he mentioned the idea of the First Amendment, where he said roughly that people have the right to express their opinions and speak their mind, even if such opinions are strong political views, and even if other dislike such strong political views. Which I agree with. Just because a person, or group of people, have strong political views, such as the case with many of the Capitol Hill rioters, does not mean that such people will physically use force and violence to perhaps physically express their views and opinions.

For example: you have worked long hours at your job and are driving home and are stuck in traffic, and a person cuts you off, you get angry and vocally express that the person who cut you off should die or that you’d like to kill them. Just because you vocally said that, and just because you had strong emotions, does not mean that (A) you have the intent to commit a murder & (B) that you will murder the guy who cut you off. And so therefore: just because an individual may be racist, or harbor discriminatory feelings and opinions about other races, and may be a self-identified “neo-nazi,” does not mean that such people are criminals or terrorists. They right to possess their own thoughts, and even express their thoughts in word or in writing is protected by the Constitution.

But then Bruce’s argument menders in all sorts of directions, and he begins to talk about a Speculative/Rhetorical argument, where he basically said: If this trial goes forward, it will set a new precedent, because if Trump is tried when he is out of office, then it could be that in the future, any former officer the “other party” doesn’t like can be impeached and barred from holding office just because the “other party” doesn’t want them in office. Rhetorical and Speculative argument don’t belong in court cases, simply because they are speculative and not factual arguments [arguments based on known facts and precedents]. It becomes a logical fallacy if and when you judge or deliberate a case by pondering on speculative arguments, because Objectively, a speculative argument simple does not exist in the real world.

What I liked about Bruce Castor was his calm demeanor, and his ability to engage contact with his audience via eye contact and body language. The second Republican fella, David Schoen didn’t have that calm demeanor, and lacked the same body language and eye contact. David Schoen kept his eyes mostly on his papers.

I found David Schoen presentation of argument to be troublesome for a number of reasons. He first reminded me of a bald Woody Allen. Secondly, he had this gross habit of licking his mouth and teeth like an old man or a lizard. And thirdly, he had this bizarre habit of putting his hand on his head each time he drank water. His carriage and demeanor was so odd, that it distracted you from what he was trying to say. I was so curious as to why he had to touch his head every time he drank water, that I actually don’t remember what David Schoen’s arguments were.

I was one of the ones who thought David Schoen was trying to keep a toupee on his head from falling. So, I spent my time looking at his head to see if I can see a toupee. Fortunately, the internet told me what this fella was doing. I hypothesized, when I was watching the show live, that this guy was a practicing Jew and that his strange habit was most likely something Kosher and Jewish. Boy, Trump really knows how to pick a defense team doesn’t he!?

The unfortunate thing about trials is that not only is your argument important, but your presentation, body language, and demeanor are also important as well, because your job as a lawyer is to try and convince other people to accept your argument and case. And, from a perusal of this first round, it appears Trump has a couple clowns on his defense team.

Despite his two clowns, Trump may not have anything to worry about, because the Senate’s Republicans are in the majority still behind him. And so, in all intents and purposes, this “trial” – insofar as the trial in the Senate goes – is a kangaroo court. The Senators are not a jury proper. A jury is methodically picked, questions, examined, and vetted, before they become members of the jury. What’s happening in the Senate is more properly a “Peer Review Process,” where peer public officials are judging a fellow peer public official [or former public official]. Therefore, this Senate “Trial” is in actually a Political Show: a TV show, where the arguments and cases being presented are in actuality being formed and presented for the American Public.

Being such, you can then see or discern the subtextual strategy the Democrats and their Lawyers are trying to use: The Democratic Team presented a solid argument and case, and used video footage as a means of appealing to emotions not to convince Republican Senators, but to present such to the American Public. Meaning that, what the Democrats are doing is they are trying to apply pressure on the Republican Senators where the Democrats are basically saying to said Republican Senators: “Look here… we’re presenting our case to the American people, and we’re going to manipulate and appeal to their emotions by showing videos of this insurrection, by displaying empathy, by using language and vocabulary of treason and insurrection, such that, if you Republicans do not convict Trump like we desire, then you Republican Senators and your political careers may be at risk, because the American People will lose faith in you, corporations that financially support you will distance themselves from you, blah blah blah.” It’s a sly move. What’s interesting is to watch to see if those Republican Senators will cave in out of fear, or if they will stand ground and maintain their defiant position.

The Republican Party and the Republican Senators have very little choice but to maintain their position, and try and show support for Trump. Why so? Because, all things are a product of its environment, and the social and ethnic topography and demographics of America is changing. In two generations, Latinos and African-Americans together with other ethnic minorities will be the majority.

What does that mean? It means that politics will look like it does in California and New York. California is virtually a one party system where Democrats control the California State Government. In such context, the Republican Party risks becoming irrelevant within a couple generations [circa 60 years]. Irrelevancy for a political party means loss of power.

Therefore, the Republican Party has two primary options it will have to take: 1) Begin to present their platform to the conservative and traditional sectors of ethnic races & 2) follow Trump’s lead, and continue to establish connections with Trump’s marketbase and audience, who are mostly Right wing oriented.

Given the said conditions and cultural circumstances the Republican Party is in, my hypothesis about this Senate Trial is that: (A) Trump will not be convicted, and he will be acquitted OR (B) if Trump is convicted in the Senate, then such conviction will be accomplished by a narrow majority where a small minimal amount of Republican Senators will defect; which is to say that the majority of Republican Senators will stand ground as a way to appeal to the marketbase and audience.

In the End, whatever the case may end up being in the Senate, the Democrats will win the cultural sentiments of the American Audience, and will gain further financial support from corporations, because big corporations are by default Left oriented, being that such corporations desire to make large profit/money, and so the majority population is were such money comes from, and if the majority population is non-Whites, then you as a corporation have little choice but to be Left.

I’m trying very hard not to be divisive. I’m Republican, like my whole family is. But I’m trying to be fair. Culturally speaking, the Democrats will win. The Democrat Lawyers had a very good, coherent, solid argument and case. The Republican Lawyers were so far clowns, to my personal dismay [and amusement]. Logically, my intellectual opinion, based on the given context and parameters, is that Republicans should acquit Trump. But Emotionally, I feel that it’s sad and disgusting that Trump and Friends can manipulate their fanbase, groupies, and supporters, to have them be Pawns and Patsies who then stormed the Capitol, and then said people are discarded like used tampons and disowned. But I know that emotions are just that: emotions. And emotions are strong and irrational by nature. And one should not govern a country or one’s life, with strong and emotive beliefs.

Lastly, I don’t believe that the Government of the United States is sinister or nefarious and so, I do not believe that the Government will convict and charge the majority of those people who stormed Capitol Hill, because the majority of them are not criminals. The majority of those people where acting on strong, irrational emotions. Yes they may have broken laws where they breached that building and destroyed property, but the intent/intention to actual engage and manifest a coup/insurrection may not have been present in the hearts and minds of a majority of those people. Regardless of what journalists in their sensationalistic articles say: journalists are not judges, they are not courts of law, they are not a tribune, they do not make verdicts and judgments, and do not have legal power to declare a person or group of people to be criminals and terrorists. Due Process is still Constitutional, as some of the Senate Lawyers stated and re-affirmed, and people/suspects are still innocent until proven guilt in a court of law. Journalists are not courts, judges, lawyers, or members of a jury. I hate journalists for this reason: that they present themselves to be some kind of legal authority who can dictate criminality in people just by writing an article.

/Chloe