Democrats Seek to Redefine the Word ‘Acquitted’ in the Aftermath of Trump’s Acquittal
Democrats are trying to regain control of the narrative on President Trump’s acquittal as the 2020 presidential election campaign season heats up.
That President Donald Trump was acquitted on both impeachment articles is a matter of public record.
Many of us watched events play out on live TV Wednesday as Republican and Democratic Senators cast their votes for or against each article.
In the end, Trump prevailed, and the Democrats who pushed for his impeachment since day one of his presidency failed in predictable but spectacular fashion.
Since that time, however, House and Senate Democrats have been in denial about the outcome. Trump taking victory laps the next day further enraged them.
So they’re out for blood. One way they think they’ll get it is by redefining the word “acquitted” (which was splashed on the top fold of newspapers around the country Thursday) as if in doing so they can credibly claim that Trump’s acquittal was illegitimate.
Good Morning @SpeakerPelosi, @RepAdamSchiff, and @RepJerryNadler! pic.twitter.com/k7NzhEN0wJ
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) February 6, 2020
One notable example of this way of thinking is Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who on Thursday appeared on CNN to discuss Senate proceedings and where Democrats go from here. During the segment with anchor Wolf Blitzer, Hirono referred to Trump’s acquittal as something that happened during a “rigged trial” and because of that, the acquittal was not legitimate.
Her remarks were so off the wall that even Blitzer wouldn’t let her off the hook for them:
“The Senate has clearly spoken now. The president was acquitted,” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said.
“No, Wolf. He wasn’t acquitted. It was a rigged trial,” Hirono interrupted. “You don’t get acquitted when you don’t even get to call witnesses or relevant witnesses or have the documents because the president stonewalled all efforts on behalf of the House to get the information they requested. So there you go! It was a rigged trial.”
She continued, “[Trump] can go run around saying he was acquitted, but you don’t get acquitted in a rigged trial.”
Blizter pushed back, but Hirono doubled down:
“There was a roll call, guilty or not guilty, not guilty was the majority,” Blitzer told Hiromo. “And the Chief Justice of the United States announced that he was acquitted, that he was not guilty.”
“But the American public knows that it was a rigged trial, so okay, you’re found not guilty in a rigged trial. I don’t think that they think that this was all kosher. No, it wasn’t,” Hiromo shot back. “So meanwhile, you have the president crowing about it, which is totally expected and now it’s anything goes for this president and this administration.”
Watch:
You know who I go to for high level analysis? Sen. Mazie Hirono. Apparently Trump wasn't acquitted and she definitely doesn't suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. pic.twitter.com/iuGfCYkY9W
— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) February 7, 2020
Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised to hear Hirono make such preposterous arguments, considering she’s the same Democratic Senator who said just days before the votes were cast that she didn’t “care what kind of nice, little, legal, Constitutional defenses that they came up with.”
But it’s worth noting all the same that this has emerged as a key talking point for Democrats in order to try and regain control of the narrative as the 2020 presidential election campaign season is heating up.
This attempt at rewriting of rules actually started last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and several more of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate made similar remarks.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) echoed the talking point during an Instagram live video chat she did the night of the State of the Union address, the eve of the Senate’s vote to acquit Trump:
During an Instagram Q&A, Rep. @AOC says that if the Senate votes to acquit President @realDonaldTrump tomorrow, "it's not an acquittal because no trial really happened, no witnesses were called, no testimony is given." pic.twitter.com/9rx3M6bqDV
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 5, 2020
Unfortunately for Hirono, Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, and all the rest, that’s not how this works.
It wasn’t the Senate’s job to investigate the allegations. It was the House’s job. In fact, if there was a “rigged” part of this whole affair it was in how the House conducted the investigation, severely limiting the president’s legal options as well as controlling the witness list and ruling over House Republicans’ ability to subpoena with an iron fist.
There was also the rushed component to how the impeachment inquiry was conducted. It was behind closed doors, with the vast majority of the information flow regarding witnesses coming from conveniently timed leaks to the media from Democrats using out of context quotes and supposed “evidence” to support their case.
Then the public impeachment inquiry hearings began, and that’s when the wheels really began to fall off for House Democrats, as independent and swing state voters and even some Democrats were turned off by the way they were conducting proceedings. Nevertheless, House Democrats continued, wanting to wrap up Trump’s impeachment with a shiny red bow before Christmas.
After reigning over and shafting Republicans during the entire process in the House, Pelosi had the gall to hold on to the articles of impeachment for a few weeks as if Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnnell (R-KY) was just going to cede ground to her as to how the Senate trial would be conducted.
House Democrats voted in favor of the two impeachment articles based on their opinions of the evidence that was presented during the inquiry and what they heard during witness testimony. Yet when it came time for the adults in the Senate to take charge, all of a sudden that evidence and witness testimony was not enough. Democrats demanded the Senate pick up where the House left off.
That Mitch McConnell refused to play by their rules didn’t mean there was suddenly no witness testimony and no evidence and therefore “no trial.” The Senate had well over 30,000 pages of documents and the testimony of the 17 witnesses heard during the House’s impeachment inquiry to consider.
If the House’s case was so weak that they needed the Senate to call more witnesses then it stands to reason Trump should have never been impeached in the first place. It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault, and it’s not Donald Trump’s fault that House Democrats rushed through the inquiry to get a Christmas impeachment.
If the mainstream media and so-called “impartial” fact checkers would do their jobs whenever Democrats made these claims, their rhetoric about “rigged trials” and an illegitimate acquittal wouldn’t survive for very long. But the national press has just as much of a vested interest in casting doubt on the outcome of the Senate’s impeachment trial as Democrats do.
So if Republicans want these talking points to be nuked, they’ll have to step in and fill that void.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Failure to convict means that the presumption of innocence remains.
And not it means you’re not a Traitorous Democrat!!!!!!!!!!!!
“And NOW it means……”
The democrats are at least partly right. Like the Iowa caucuses, this is just no way to run a railroad.
It’s five more years of the same, no matter what.
Agree 100%.
One of the primary reasons democrats impeached Trump is they want to control the news cycle narrative. Media lost news cycle supremacy in early to mid 2019 – until they launched the impeachment sham in August.
That and a cover-up lead by CNN, WaPo, NYT et al, of inconvenient quid pro Joes, quid pro Bos, and progressive collateral damage to their public and private rackets.
Media lead us by the nose. We’re constantly reacting to some fresh new fabricated outrage. They’re the bride and we are forever the bridesmaid. They’re in our OODA loop. Trump upset that balance beginning in 2015. Media used Trump as clickbait revenue. Journalist figured – as they’ve done in the past – that they’d clickbait people into supporting Trump and then pull the rug out from under him. The October Surprise. The old rug trick didn’t work. Trump was in their OODA loop, and stayed there with varying success through Aug. 2019.
Today they’ve got us reacting to their perverse use of the word ‘acquittal.’ BBC is already parroting this fresh new sham.
The election will decide whether the Democrats will be in a position to continue their witchhunt.
They can keep pushing it until the next Congress is sworn in, but if they do I think the electorate will be so sick of it that the Republicans will have a majority in both the House and the Senate. (Along with, of course, re-election of the President.)
You are so right. Only by voting out these Democrat lunatics will the madness end,
Marriage.
Baby.
Man.
Woman.
Why not Acquittal?
Well, sure. Why not? A coup is now called impeachment.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.
–Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
I am looking forward to the democrats redefining the word “LOSS” come November.
We already know.
“RUSSIA!!!”
(again)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeZQe12COz4
I would love it if we had an unbiased media so one of them could ask the simple question that gives their argument he lie.
“So you are saying the acquittal is illegitimate because of not having the records/witnesses. So I presume then that if the vote had been to convict you would have spoken out against it as well since the without those records/witnesses either verdict would be just as illegitimate, correct Senator?”
Yes, they really are that stupid.
Two can play the scare quotes game: E.G.
“Democrats” say Trump not acquitted, because there nothing “democratic” about a coup.
Excepting, of course, that my version accords with the facts.
Rut Roh!
The Dictatorship Loving Dems are loving them some Big Tech Dictatorship again!!!
Dems Demand Twitter, Facebook Take Down Edited Video Of Pelosi Ripping Up State Of The Union Speech Posted By Trump
https://www.weaselzippers.us/443422-dems-demand-twitter-facebook-take-down-edited-video-of-pelosi-ripping-up-state-of-the-union-speech-posted-by-trump/
Yea, both twitter and facebook have refused to take the video down and have made public statements that the video doesn’t violate their rules. I am no fan of either platform, but credit where it is due.
Thanks.
Twitter and Facebook Execs must be starting to figure out that if they keep pulling the crap they have been, then it means curtains for them……….
They can only “steal” the narrative if we sit on our hands.
Don’t let anyone get away spewing this crap in everyday conversation. Just calmly say you disagree, and let them act like fools in response.
But do it.
The left controls to many words as is.
Including “is.”
And, apparently, “too”.
Meanwhile Trump and the GOP will stick to their definition of ‘winning’.
Well, they’re right, in the sense that “acquittal” isn’t the best description. Call it what it is—
VICTORY
—and let those fascist wannabes choke on it.
In other news;
Ambassador Sondland has been recalled with immediate affect.
Lt Col Vindman has been removed from his post.
Vindman’s brother has been remove from his post.
It’s only a matter of time before Eric is being interrogated for his part in an attempted coup.
I didn’t see anything about Vindman’s brother, got a source on that one?
Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a National Security Council attorney, was suddenly fired.
Pasty-faced comrades. Yevengy certainly looks Slavic-Ukrainian.
https://www.businessinsider.com/yevgeny-vindman-ousted-white-house-same-time-as-alex-2020-2
Thanks for the response. I just love those warm fuzzy feel good articles, lol.
Wonder since they are twins of we can hold their court martials together. Even better, I bet we can find a 2 man station somewhere they can take turns defrosting the toilet.
Plugging the national security holes… whores h/t NAACP and other semantic players.
Semantic games in progress – imputed positive perceptions, notwithstanding. So Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, politically congruent.
Well, if they’re going to kick up a fuss when I say he was acquitted, I guess I’ll just have to fall back on exonerated.
The Democrats did redefine the word “impeachment”. I think it now means something close to, let’s see,, Joke, Vendetta, partisan hit job. Acquittal is still good. They will not sully acquittal. They can try, but they just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.
With nearly zero chance of DJT conviction in the Republican Senate, the Dems/Progs went ahead with the process anyway. They want to influence General Election voters by slinging mud. It’s the new standard in the court of public opinion, preponderance of innuendo. The Democrats are aided by the dinosaur media, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party.
Social justice warriors always lie, double down, and project. Mazie lies in claiming Trump was not acquitted and that no witness testimony was presented. And, she projects by claiming the Senate trial was rigged — it was the House impeachment that was rigged by being initiated on the basis of a fake whistleblower claim, by denying Republican witnesses, and by not allowing Trump to meaningfully participate in violation of all principles of due process.
The political world has changed. I am 52 and have always perceived a back-and-forth swing of power between parties as business as usual. That seems complicated now by the stark lurch to the left of the dims.
A candidate of the left now is so beholden to hard-left influence that heretofore would have been deemed radical. I’m curious what you guys think…..
It seems there is vast opportunity for a shrewd and dynamic Democrat candidate willing to lampoon the radicals. Am I seeing things clearly or is there hope that the left could come to their senses and “moderate?”
Didn’t the left “recover” from the likes of Wilson and Roosevelt? If not, we simply cannot let them take the White House.
Ah…no… the US didn’t recover from Wilson or FDR in my opinion. Wilson was the first Progressive president. Teddy did have some points but Wilson pushed the “living” constitution and pushed increased presidential authority (even if his wife had to wield it.) Oh and he re-segregated military and government. FDR.. what can be said? A lot of socialist policies, attempting to load SCOTUS, etc,etc. Just be glad he put Truman in as VP otherwise we would have had a Soviet plant as president.
Gropin’ Joe was supposed to be that “Moderate” candidate.
Besides him getting dragged to the Left with the other loons, they never stopped to consider that his brain is Jello and he just ain’t up to the task.
I think there is a chance that the left will Moderate after the next election. I fully expect Trump to win in a landslide and for the GOP to retake the house and keep the senate. If that happens that is going to cause a HUGE blow up on the left and hopefully that explosion will take out a good chunk of the radical left wing that has seized control of the dems.
Or at least one can hope.
Using Hirono’s logic, Trump was never impeached. It was a rigged process, a show trial, a secret inquisition with information dribbled to allies in the MSM to ‘justify’ its existence. Witness appearances and statements were controlled and manipulated by Democrats to ensure that their narrative was unchallenged. And while they complained that Trump and his allies didn’t simply roll over at their demands, they refused to use the courts to determine who was adhering to the law.
Then again, do those who believe that Trump is guilty regardless of what the Constitution says really care? Trump bad man!
That was my thought as well, since it was a “rigged” trial what does that say about all the votes to convict?
You just need to start calling them fascists. It’s what they really are and they’re not really hiding it anymore, it’s just everyone is in denial.
If they ever regain power and get hold of all the branches of government there will be gulags and executions.
What really seems to make them go ballistic is calling them “communists.” I think it’s like knowing a demon’s true name and using it against him.
” The Senate had well over 30,000 pages of documents and the testimony of the 17 witnesses heard during the House’s impeachment inquiry to consider.”
There were 18 witnesses, but only the transcripts of 17 were released.
Well, Clinton redefined the meaning of the word “is” so why not just redefine acquittal, or anything else that supports the Democrats’ narrative?
If this was a real trial, the defense would have been able to argue that 99% of the 23,000 pages of testimony were inadmissible due to opinion and hearsay. The case would have been over during the pretrial hearing. The judge would have thrown it out and reprimanded the prosecutors for wasting the court’s time.
.
The reality though, is that this was not a real trial and witnesses or not, the rules in the House investigation were enforced and followed, like them or not, and the rules in the Senate investigation were followed – LIKE THEM OR NOT!
.
Case closed. NOT GUILTY.
Also never forget that the rules that were followed in the house were made by the house, so if the Senate Dems don’t like the rules they should go talk to Schiff for Brains, Nadless, and Granny Nanny.