House Democrats Charge Trump With ‘Incitement of Insurrection’ in Impeachment Resolution
Also, the Republicans blocked the 25th Amendment bill. Floor vote for that will take place on Tuesday.
The House Democrats introduced an impeachment resolution, which charges President Donald Trump with “incitement of insurrection” related to the riots on Capitol Hill last Wednesday.
The resolution comes after House Republicans objected to the House resolution demanding Vice President Mike Pence invoke the 25th Amendment.
Impeachment Resolution
The impeachment resolution points to Trump’s rhetoric before he spoke at the Save America Rally last Wednesday. Ever since November 4th, “Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.”
The Democrats pointed out how Trump begged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to discover votes that would give him a victory in the state.
But Trump’s speech at the Save America Rally, which took place right before the rally, was the last straw:
He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged-and foreseeable resulted in-lawless action at the Capitol, such as: ‘if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.
Therefore, the Democrats concluded that “Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government” and “betrayed his trust as President.”
25th Amendment
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told her Democratic colleagues Sunday night that she planned to introduce a resolution to ask Pence to invoke the 25th amendment.
Pelosi urged the Democrats to consent when they talked to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Monday morning. This way they could avoid taking the resolution, penned by Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, to the floor.
West Virginia Rep. Alex Mooney objected.
The resolution went to the floor, but Republicans blocked the bill.
Pelosi told the House that she will bring the resolution to the floor for a vote on Tuesday.
.@LeaderHoyer asks for Unanimous Consent on H.R. 21 calling on @VP Pence to convene and mobilize the cabinet to invoke Section 4 of the 25th amendment. @RepAlexMooney objects. pic.twitter.com/IoEoOfuUxj
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 11, 2021
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Burn.
It.
Down.
Can we just skip to secession? I don’t want to be part of their world…I just want to be left alone in my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
What we really seek is America without the left; if we secede, we won’t have America, but we’ll still have the left.
I don’t agree with that at all. If we secede, we take with us who we want.
You’re not taking me!
I’ve spent my whole life building my little slice of paradise on my 14 acres in the woods.
I’m not giving it up without a fight!
Yeah. Let’s make our own America with blackjack and hookers.
Circus clowns doing what they do best.
Surely the R’s – the one’s with a spine anyway – will read into the record the quotes of Pelosi, Harris, eat all that not only encouraged BLM/Antifa riots, as well as their demagoguery of anyone who criticized the real anarchists.
The dems will cook up some new rules to prohibit that.
No. Not a chance.
“Rs with a spine”…now that’s funny
It’s the political equivalent of a unicorn, shooting rainbows out of its butt.
A lot of that speech has been taken out of context or been deliberately misquoted
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/
If you’re intellectually dishonest enough to use a finding from Politifact as a source, well, enough said. And to think that President Trump has never had anything he said taken out of context or snipped to fit the left’s agenda. Go back to your mama’s basement.
Don’t bother. NeverTrumpers like “mark311” are the political equivalent of Flat Earthers.
Really that’s deeply ironic considering that’s probably an accurate description of your election fraud views. I can can back up my views with facts can you?
It’s a balanced piece of work and from my reading elsewhere is backed up. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about providing a good source. You haven’t actually countered my point at all rather sought to discredit the source with an ad hominem attack.
I agree with you but will add that you haven’t gone far enough.
Democrats and the Democrat media have spun Trumps speech so much as to have completely fabricated something he never said.
So while you are right it’s been spun out of context ist so far out of context as to be false.
Oh wait…you weren’t talking about Trumps speech were you Mark? Go fuck yourself you little seditious fucking fuck ??
I assume you mean “speeches”, since these are four different people quoted. But Politifact’s nitpicking doesn’t significantly change anything. All four of them were supporting violence and intimidation, whether they called it “unrest”, “uprising”, or “peaceful protests”. The BLM protests may have been “mostly peaceful”, but the Jan 6 protest was a lot peacefuler, so any analysis that absolves Harris also absolves Trump, a fortiori.
That’s my specific point that they didn’t endorse violence of course they supported the protests. That is a significant difference. With regard to the recent protests well the crimes are somewhat different as is the context breaking into the capitol building to try and stop the democratic process happening was a direct attempt to interfere with democracy.
They did endorse violence. “Unrest” and “uprising” are inherently violent. And the “peaceful protests” that Harris supported so enthusiastically were manifestly not peaceful. Meanwhile Trump did not endorse violence in any way.
And no, the crimes are not at all different. “breaking into the capitol building to try and stop the democratic process happening was a direct attempt to interfere with democracy”. So *%^*ing what? How does that make it special? Since when is the Capitol, or any government building, more important than some honest citizen’s business? On the contrary, government buildings, unlike private property, are legitimate targets of anger against the government. And since when is “a direct attempt to interfere with democracy” a crime?
@Milhouse
I appreciate your first point I agree that the language used could have been better.
As for your second point I’m genuinely surprised that you can’t see the issue. Given your stance on legal issues from what I’ve read it sounded like you believed in the rule of law. Apparently I was wrong about that. In effect what you are saying is that when a bunch of thugs try and impose their view on everyone else it’s ok that’s about as far from being legal as you get. The entire purpose of the protest was to interfere with the vote count it wasn’t to express anger it was to prevent the transition. Very different things.
First of all, the purpose of the protest was to express the protesters’ view, exactly like every other protest.
And there is nothing that makes “the transition” more special than any other human activity. Disrupting it is exactly as bad and no more than disrupting anything else. And a whole lot less bad than destroying someone’s business.
The government is our servant, not our master; it exists for our sake, not we for its. And it is certainly not sacred. Therefore its functions are all inherently less important than ours. You seem to think otherwise.
@Milhouse
I think we have reached an impasse. You are entitled to your view but I just don’t get how you can diminish the importance of the event. I am puzzled by your view, it seems to strike against the rule of law and the importance of protecting the constitution along with constitutional institutions. I don’t know how to progress this discussion any further so I’m just going to leave it at that.
They all have a spine, just most of them are on the other team.
And stop calling me Shirley.
Any chance this is about justifying the overturning of his SCOTUS appointments (or packing)?
It’s about a LOT of things like that.
Thus incited by President Trump
Except the “breaching of the Capitol” occurred began while Trump was still speaking according to timelines people have compiled.
So, factually untrue, since the rally and the Capitol are about a mile and a half apart.
I have been watching Barnes when with “Viva Frei” on YouTube. He also states same time line. And… better sit down for this… one of the early reporting groups recognized the anarchists and blunted the intial incursion… Alex Jones.
Other video for people who have followed the likes of Antifa and Hong Kong activists (the later with clean tactics) … showed a highly trained breaching squad. Now who has had the training and experience with such tactics? Trumpers? So until things (ever) get sorted out… do not believe the regular press … but I repeat myself.
So, Trump asking a SOS in a state which had the most transparent evidence of election fraud in the nation to find the fraudulent ballots is somehow insurrection, but Pelosi telling Pentagon officials to refuse to obey lawful orders of the CinC and demand that the VP and Cabinet remove Trump, via the 25th Amendment, is somehow not insurrection. What then constitutes insurrection? Who engages in certain acts? And, what constitutes a “riot”? Apparently forcibly entering the seat of representative government to present grievances, without arson, wide spread vandalism and relatively few injuries by demonstrators is a “riot”. However, causing vandalism, burning large sections of cities, looting, assault & battery, homicide and directly attacking government buildings and installations and declaring sections of the country as autonomous zones is simply a demonstration.
And these political yahoos wonder why half the population doesn’t believe a word they say and view then as enemies.
I think you need to understand the context. From the point of view of many there wasn’t election fraud (I’m sorry but the case hasn’t been proven at all) further the capitol in the midst of a constitution handing over of power to Biden was interrupted. Their are casualties, injuries to police officers, theft of property, significant evidence of attempted kidnap and that’s not insignificant. You also seem to think that the violence by BLM etc was tolerated that simply isn’t the case. There were a lot of arrests and in comparison to DC it’s pretty weird that the DC BLM march was greeted with a militarised response and the Trump supporters were taking selfies with some of the police.
“the case” has never been given the opportunity to be proven in a court of law.
Actually that’s not the case , it’s been heard in a number of instances. For example their was the Brann judgement. There was also the case with all the so called expert witnesses. So no you are wrong the evidence has been presented by the Trump legal team to a court and found to be pretty poor.
You have it backwards. No court has ruled o the evidence. They have either ignored it or ruled on technical issues and “disenfranchisement”. There are still a few cases wending their way through federal courts, where the evidence may actually be heard and evaluated. Legislatures proved more receptive. But most refused to take action, other than studying future protections, citing lack of jurisdiction. And NO LEA has performed any serious investigation into the charges of fraud. Yet, the evidence keeps mounting that significant fraud did, in fact occur.
First, whether people “believe” that fraud occurred or not is not relevant, until such time as a comprehensive investigation is performed and all the evidence examined.
Yes, a session of Congress was interrupted. The same thing happened, with the collusion of the members of Congress during the Kavanagah hearings.
There was some damage done to the Capital building, during the incursion. Most of which occurred during the entry process and was reserved to windows and doors used for entry. There was some minor theft. There was no significant vandalism and no arson. Injuries were rather minor, with a couple of exception, and occurred when Capital police actively attempted to prevent entry. So far the only fatality directly related to the incursion process was the shooting of one young woman by a Capital PO. The only “evidence” that there was any plot to kidnap any member of Congress, because two of the “demonstrators” were carrying zip-ties. Hardly much good for kidnapping a significant number of Congressmen.
As for the difference between the the Capital incursion and the previous BLM demonstrations was not militarization, whatever that means. The BLM demonstrations were i progress for several days, with attendant riots at night, before National Guard and Military police units were dispatched to guard federal buildings. Ad, though a large number of arrests were made, DC, mot of those arrested were released without being charged by local authorities. The only ones charged were those charged under federal law. In response to the series of BLM riots, they were rewarded with having a park named after their organization and the name of their organization painted on a public street by the District government; even though these riots caused billions of dollars in damage, looting and personal injury.
So, there were significant differences in how both sets of disturbances were treated. The first resulted in few injuries, minor damage and minor theft and no one called for the dissolution of the government. The second resulted in a huge amount of property damage, many more and much more serious injuries, much more theft, and the call for dissolution of government services. The first lasted for about four hours. The second lasted for weeks. Yet, the political class is literally out of their minds over the first “demonstration” and tolerated the second. Hummm.
So, why the difference in the response? Possibly the people targeted, Establishment politicians, and those responsible for the “demonstrations”?
Firstly ive provided specific examples of where evidence has been provided which you havent refutted.
With regard to specific points
“First, whether people “believe” that fraud occurred or not is not relevant, until such time as a comprehensive investigation is performed and all the evidence examined.”
The onus is on those believing in fraud to provide sufficient evidence to reopen an investigation. We know that the FBI have investigated and that various states have investigated also. Clearly we have no idea what the extent of that investigation was but it was enough to refute the allegations made in court cases. However I would agree a comprehensive report needs to be carried out on election integrity and the wide spread claims of fraud from across all states examined. This would be to inform the public on what level of fraud there actually was and also to recommend specific electoral reforms to improve the integrity of elections and perhaps more importantly provide confidence that the election just passed was actually fraud free.
Yes, a session of Congress was interrupted. The same thing happened, with the collusion of the members of Congress during the Kavanagah hearings.
And both those events were wrong, pointing to someone elses crime and saying that legitimises anothers crime doesnt work does it.
“There was some damage done to the Capital building, during the incursion. Most of which occurred during the entry process and was reserved to windows and doors used for entry. There was some minor theft. There was no significant vandalism and no arson. Injuries were rather minor, with a couple of exception, and occurred when Capital police actively attempted to prevent entry. So far the only fatality directly related to the incursion process was the shooting of one young woman by a Capital PO. The only “evidence” that there was any plot to kidnap any member of Congress, because two of the “demonstrators” were carrying zip-ties. Hardly much good for kidnapping a significant number of Congressmen.”
Well the reports indicate more than that dont they, 50 + injuries to police officers, The video of the officer with his head being crushed in a door, videos of people with wrist ties (ie potentially looking to kidnap someone), pipe bombs planted, the theft of property is a little worse than that given the potential for confidential information to be lost or used for wrongful purposes.
“As for the difference between the the Capital incursion and the previous BLM demonstrations was not militarization, whatever that means. The BLM demonstrations were i progress for several days, with attendant riots at night, before National Guard and Military police units were dispatched to guard federal buildings. Ad, though a large number of arrests were made, DC, mot of those arrested were released without being charged by local authorities. The only ones charged were those charged under federal law. In response to the series of BLM riots, they were rewarded with having a park named after their organization and the name of their organization painted on a public street by the District government; even though these riots caused billions of dollars in damage, looting and personal injury.”
You are digressing from the comparison, im being every specific im comparing the DC summer protests with the DC Trump protests. Dont start adding in other places because thats not we are discussing. Firstly when i say militarised im talking about row after row of men wearing full tactical gear, fully armed. The BLM protestors were a whole block away and never made an attempt to gain entry. This is when the notorious Trump photo opp happened when teargas, batons and horses were used to disburse protestors so Trump could take a photo outside a church. YEs there were a lot of arrests and this has been publically commented upon as being unacceptable many of these arrests were without probable cause.
“So, there were significant differences in how both sets of disturbances were treated. The first resulted in few injuries, minor damage and minor theft and no one called for the dissolution of the government. The second resulted in a huge amount of property damage, many more and much more serious injuries, much more theft, and the call for dissolution of government services. The first lasted for about four hours. The second lasted for weeks. Yet, the political class is literally out of their minds over the first “demonstration” and tolerated the second. Hummm.”
YOu are right no one is calling for the dissolution of government what they were calling for was the unjustified extension to Trumps presidency. You have a rather alarming tendency to conflate everyones views together there was a wide spectrum of view on the BLM protests as a whole its not (pardon the pun) a black and white set of events.
“So, why the difference in the response? Possibly the people targeted, Establishment politicians, and those responsible for the “demonstrations”?”
The difference in response is pretty obvious you just dont seem to accept that breaking into the Capitol building in this manner is not acceptable.
First of all, I have no idea what example you are referring to. I have seen none from you.
As to believing that fraud is important, in this case it isn’t. Whether the members of the group believed that fraud had occurred, it does not make their actions lawful.
Also, there has been no meaningful investigation of the claims of fraud by any LEA, including the FBI. Bill Barr, made the claim, within days, that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. Weasel wording. There was ample reasonable suspicion, and in some cases probable cause, of election law violations. These have never been addressed by LE.
You are mischaracterizing the court cases. None were to asked to rule that specific incident of election fraud had occurred. They requested that the certification process be temporarily stopped, until additional evidence could be obtained, or that specific batches of ballots be disqualified because of violation of state election laws. The court never said that no evidence existed of either fraud or election law violations. They ruled that the plaintiff’s request would not be granted because the plaintiff did not have standing, that the violations were not egregious enough to warrant casting the offending ballots aside or the court did not have jurisdiction.
As you note, NO comprehensive investigation into these claims have been made. Where the evidence has been heard, it has been compelling. The fact, that he existing organs of government were nearly totally disposed to dodge their responsibility to conduct such an investigation and rush too certify what could very well be the results of a fraudulent election should be of great concern to every voter.
What the reactions of the Congress Critters to the Kavanaugh and Capital cases illustrate is how divergent they reactions are. In fact, they are almost totally diametrically opposed.
Compared to the extent of damage and injury which occurred during the Capital incursion and the BLM riots in DC, there is a stark disconnect. In the BLM riots several building were burned. Vandalism and property damage was extensive. Theft was also extensive. Injury to LEOs was in the hundreds, some very severe. And, there was a number of incidents of the rioters attacking other citizens and the media. Contrast that to the Capital incursion; where we had no arson, very little property damage not related to gaining entry, no reported incidents of attacks on civilians by the demonstrators, total LE injuries [of all kinds] of approximately 50 and uncatalogued, but obviously limited theft. Hardly analogous.
Now, prior to the to the deployment of National Guard and Military police in DC, the BLM demonstrators had attempted to breach the perimeter of the WH and did, in fact succeed in breaching the barricades on the Treasury side of the compound. This resulted in the President being moved to the secure bunker. This is why the military units ere deployed. Now, you may not know this, but the WH, being the residence of the CinC, is considered a military installation of the US. This is why active duty military units can be used to guard it, as they are daily. And, most of the arrests did involve more than sufficient probable cause, just as they did during the Inauguration Day demonstrations in DC. The DC authorities dropped the charges against most defendants, who they publicly acknowledged had committed the crimes, but decided that the crimes were not serious enough to prosecute. There were a few of the more serious cases where it was claimed not enough evidence existed to warrant prosecution.
Actually, the Capital demonstrators were calling for the same thing that the Trump Campaign that the results of the election not be certified, until the charges of fraud are investigated by competent authorities. Hardly on a par with demanding civil LE be defunded and disbanded and demanding carte blanche to commit criminal acts. As to the goals and objectives of BLM, these have been clearly stated publicly. And, apparently, the organization is not above using threats of violence and violence to achieve those goals.
Actually, breaking into the Capital is not acceptable. Neither is burning down wide swaths of American cities, committing enormous acts of vandalism, looting, assault and battery and homicide. Yet, the extreme reaction of the Establishment to the relatively small and contained Capital incursion and rather lackluster response to the Summer of Burning Love riots is stark.
@ Mac45
Ive referenced the Brann judgement and the Antrim county lawsuit. Specifically in terms of Antrim County a number of expert reports were written and rebutted.
One of the reasons that election fraud hasnt been used in some of the cases (see the Brann Judgement) is because Trump legal team took that claim out of the suit.
There is a large disconnect between what Trumps legal team have claimed and actually presented to court so sifting through their BS is an endless and thankless task.
AS for investigations well if there is nothing to investigate then why waste the time, that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to say given the lunacy of some of the claims. There are plenty of sites which give basic fact checks on a number of the claims and clearly refutes them. How long did you think it took for a dedicated team to look at the lurid nonsense that was coming out of the Trump camp and think wow thats a load of shit.
I dont meant to be rude but its painful looking at some of the claims. Ive done my best to try and research actual evidence and everytime when it comes to looking at the details of the claim it falls over. Ive even managed to get Milhouse to admit there isnt evidence. His best argument is that the system is prone to fraud which doesnt really tell anyone anything about how much fraud there is or indeed going anyways to prove it.
The reality is the court cases have failed on the basis of the facts available, where audits of signatures have happened nothing has been found, where hand re counts have happened nothing has been found wrong, and where expert reports have been provided they have turned out to be extremely poor.
I am in favour of somekind of commission to look into the claims to create a final report along with recommendations on election integrity that makes sense but clearly that is too late with regard to the outcome of the election.
If you can provide a coherent source establishing the case by all means send me the link and ill look at it.
Mark, whether there actually was election fraud is irrelevant. There is no systemic racism in America, and police are not going around gunning down black people, and yet Democrats insist that so long as BLM protesters are motivated by their passionate belief in these fantasies their violence can be excused. The same must be true for those who use violence out of a passionate belief that the election was stolen, even if that turns out not to be true.
The fact that “the capitol in the midst of a constitution handing over of power to Biden was interrupted” is completely irrelevant to anything. Even if they’d smashed up the Capitol it would not have been as bad as smashing up someone’s business, let alone hundreds of businesses. Counting the electoral votes is not special, and is not more important than the thousands of activities by ordinary people that were disrupted or worse by BLM protests, even so-called “peaceful” ones. It resumed after a brief interruption, and continued none the worse, which is more than can be said of those thousands of activities.
And yes, BLM riots were almost entirely allowed to happen without any consequence for the rioters. Some few were arrested, but let go without charges. Most were not even arrested, as police were ordered to leave them alone. And this riot was met with tear gas, flashbangs, and all the things that you falsely claim would never be used against it. The things the Democrats are saying along these lines, and you are repeating, are simply lies. Deliberate lies, on their part; I’ll do you the courtesy of supposing that you’re honestly repeating them.
umm wow, sorry there have been way to many videos of Black people being shot in the back for you to justify that statement.
Sorry on point of principle interrupting the transfer of power isnt bad is that what you are saying. As a point of principle surely that goes to the heart of everything. What if they had succeeded and postponed the count indefintely (an unlikely scenario i know) would that have convinced you that it was a bad thing to do. IF you cant see that what they did was wrong, well suffice to say i thought you were better than that.
Maybe, and this could just be me, but the likes of Trayvon and that other fucking numpty who thought he could kill a Police officer with impunity might still be alive today (to terrorise their neighbourhoods) if they hadn’t tried killing people.
I know right…controversial.
Really? How many? The only one I can think of is that piece of shit Jacob Blake, and I dare you to claim it was not justified.
But really, whether it’s one case or twenty, what difference does it make what part of their anatomy they’re shot in? The only relevant question is did they need shooting, and you can’t point to a significant number of cases where the shooting was not justified, because they don’t exist. Nor can you point to any pattern of black people being shot more often than white people in the same circumstances, because that just does not happen.
The same applies to that much-abused term “unarmed”. Once it’s determined that someone needs shooting, what difference does it make whether they are armed or not? Being unarmed makes it less likely that such a determination would be made in the first place, but once it has been determined it’s completely irrelevant.
The fact is that police encounters with white criminals are more likely to lead to the criminal being killed than are identical encounters with black criminals. And that proves beyond any possible doubt that the premise of “black lives matter” is an outright lie.
And yes, interrupting a formal ceremony in Congress is no worse than interrupting any legitimate human activity. Congress is not special.
/This.
At some point we and our elected officials forgot our respective Constitutional roles. The Tea Party tried to reestablish them, but it was too late even then.
Interesting read at Powerline: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/the-deep-state-is-rattled.php
@ Milhouse,
It matters because the police are supposed to have some level of care. Shooting someone in the back is clearly disproportionate. If you cant see that i am concerned to say the least.
I would also point out that the number of death from police shootings in the black population is significantly higher compared to the white population. You seem to be dismissing the issue in its entirety which i find perplexing.
Sigh. The only thing disproportionate is the focus on black people being shot by officers (of any and all races). Here’s a fun fact for you:
The commonality in most (but not all) police shootings of people of any race is their lack of compliance with lawful police commands. As you know, this applies to Jacobs, Floyd, and Brown (well, in Brown’s case, he was trying to grab the officer’s weapon–a move that is certain to get you (justifiably) shot by police.)
The “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” crowd encourage not only distrust but disrespect of police officers. The left (like you) continually perpetuate the idea that it’s “open season” on black people, despite statistical evidence, and then wonder why when black people disrespect, resist, attack, or otherwise fail to obey lawful commands they end up dead.
Let’s aim for a society that actually respects law enforcement and complies, then when some nutter cop shoots a compliant suspect, they can be sent to prison. Where they belong.
The truth is that police officers are overwhelming good guys (and gals and its). The bad ones need to be rooted out and sent to prison if they’ve committed provable crimes. No one, literally no one, supports keeping bad cops on the job. But we already have a system to deal with bad cops, and there are many many currently (and rightly) sitting in state or federal prison for their crimes.
Your “concern” over our ability to understand a complex issue is . . . just another troll ploy, one with which we are all very familiar. Save your “concern” for another site with less informed and less malleable readers. This might surprise you, but your “concern” means pretty nothing to anyone here.
@ Fuzzy Slippers
An opinion piece not well supported. To be honest any piece that makes serious reference to the deep state automatically becomes suspect.
And here, mark311, is the moment you realize that your mission here is fruitless. Whether or not you choose to act accordingly is up to you, but your type breezes through here from time to time. The result is always the same because you are talking to people not only miles more intelligent than you seem to be also far better informed and far more worldly.
You’re not making any sense. What has anatomy got to do with proportionality? Please explain how shooting someone in the back is more “disproportionate” than shooting them in the front, the side, or the head. I’m beginning to wonder whether you have any idea what the word “proportionate” means, in this context.
So? That’s completely to be expected, since the number of criminals in the black population is significantly higher than in the white population, and the number of black criminals who stupidly resist arrest is also significantly higher than the number of white criminals who do that. However the number of deaths from police shootings in the population of black criminals who stupidly resist arrest is lower than that in the population of white criminals who do the same.
There is no issue. Unless you can point to a significant number of unjustified police shootings, there cannot be an issue, regardless of anybody’s race. Nor can you point to any instance of a black criminal being treated worse than he would be if he were white. Not one. Go on, I dare you to find one.
@ Fuzzy slippers
An interesting set of points. With reference to ‘concern’ I’m not I’m here because I like to engage in genuine debate and many interesting points have been raised here. Some I agree with some I don’t. Thats furthering my understanding. As for your ad hominem attack well that’s pretty poor isn’t it. If your standard of discourse is to insult me for no other reason than I have a different point of view then I’m disappointed.
With regard to your points about police shootings data set you reference that was taken out of context.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-02-06/the-debate-around-police-violence-and-racial-bias
I would agree that the issues are complex which is why I’ve been said anything about systemic racism k do however think that given the amount of shootings and the manner of the deaths in a significant number of instances that there is a problem. Defining that problem and reaching a reasonable conclusion is the issue and your slanted perspective doesn’t help. Entrenching your position doesn’t help either.
Mac, when you’re right you’re right.
When is that smug (insert expletive) going to launch the Impeachment against Quid Pro Joe? The violated title 15 and 18 when he withheld the loan money. By her own rules he’s out.
The impeachment resolution, if actually passed by the House, will sit in the Senate until after the inauguration. The Senate right now is 50-50 and Pence holds the tie breaker until then. The Senate had agreed to hold no new substantial business until the 21st. Of course, if one or more Pubs were to side with the Dems that could change.
Real questions —
— can Trump be tried in the Senate after he leaves office?
— If so, may the Congress bar him from offices of ‘profit and trust’ if they convict him?
— If so, does that actually bar him from elected office, since at least some constitutional scholars say that offices of ‘profit and trust’ pertain only to appointed serve?
— Would the USSC bother to weigh in on any of this?
To answer your questions:
-The Senate cannot try a private citizen. Of course, the Senate could have a farcical trial, but it would have all the meaning of declaring next Tuesday as National Dill Pickle With Whipped Cream Day.
– Congress cannot bar Trump from running again for public office (see Alcee Hastings).
– The Supreme Court will rubber-stamp whatever the Communist Party wants regardless of what the Constitution says.
Recovering Lutheran is incorrect.
To answer your questions,
1. Yes, he can be tried after he leaves office. Indeed the House can impeach him after he leaves office. There is absolutely no bar against impeaching a former office holder. It hasn’t been done before because there was no point, not because it can’t be. But I like John Hinderaker’s suggestion that if the Dems do this then when the Reps next retake the House they should impeach Barack 0bama. Sauce for the goose.
2. Yes, if he’s convicted the senate can (but need not) bar him from holding “any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states”.
3. Alcee Hastings doesn’t prove anything, because the senate chose not to bar him from future office. But I believe you are correct here: elected offices are not “offices under the united states”, and therefore the senate could not have barred Hastings from being elected to congress even if it had wanted to, and it cannot bar Trump from being reelected president. Mind you this is not a majority view, but I believe it is the correct one.
4. No, the Supreme Court would say it is not justiciable, and is entirely a matter for the two political branches to work out between themselves.
The senate hearing is rumoured to be scheduled for the 19th of Jan.
Since Cory Bush is all in for expelling all members of Congress who questioned the election of 2020, is she also in favor of expelling all of those who questioned the election of 2016 (up to an including the Squad, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Al Green, Hillary herself, Warren, Schumer, Pelosi, et al) or is she only considering that if you are for President Trump you are evil beyond measure (her delusion shared by less than half the country)?
It amazes me to know end to listen to them give speeches that begin with Unity, Unity, Unity and less than 2 minutes (or 2sentences, whichever comes first) begin to denigrate fully half of the American electorate! Don’t put the lie out there.
It is abject hypocrisy of the highest order to refer to the riots and insurrection of this past summer as “peaceful protests” and in the next breath refer to Wednesday’s invasion of Congress as an insurrection and sedition. They are part and parcel of the exact same set of actions. Some of these same people addressed the anger and frustration of people this summer who felt that they were not getting fair treatment or supported those who said they weren’t getting fair treatment. The exact anger and frustration was vented on Wednesday after 4+ years of bogus investigations, a sham impeachment, a sham trial, and endless coup attempts to remove a duly elected president. From tax investigations for Trump, not either Biden or Clinton, to a Special Council (not counsel but a group of some of the most radical leftists possible) that came up with zero on the President, to another near insurrection at the Congress as well as the Supreme Court during SCOTUS hearings, the radical leftists spared no outrage, no militant marches and no limit to a list of “witnesses” who could not get their stories believed (except by the blindly faithful).
I anxiously await seeing if Rep Bush is honest in her attempt to curb any acts of violence or if her bias against this president is just an act of racism in reverse.
The tax investigations are ongoing, they aren’t finished by any stretch.
Trump explicitly said he wanted them to peacefully protest.
The Dems aren’t going to like their new definitions of incitement and insurrection if the shoe ever returns to the other foot. They and our Big Tech Big Brothers seem to think that will never happen.
They shot their wad this election and still barely managed to steal the WH and Senate. While losing seats in the House. They’ve got a lot of work to do in the next few years given the margins.
They don’t seem to realize Trump’s bark was much, much worse than his bite. Lesson learned. The bite of the next anti-swamp POTUS will be much, much worse than his/her bite.
In his actions Trump was actually far too moderate in dealing with the swamp and his disloyal appointees. While being too vocal. The next guy won’t make the same mistakes.
Apropos of nothing…Think any pollsters are still too stupid to understand why many people didn’t want to tell them they supported Trump?
How you gonna get the next non-swamp POTUS?
They got 2 years, and then it’s going to change. That’s the only thing I have going right now. That (relatively) sane people will vote people in to stop this insanity before it goes any further.
All elections will now be rigged, so that’s not going to happen
Bill Whittle has a video on how we can implement free elections again, look up “we have one job”. Seems plausible to me. I would prefer that vote fraudsters be shot dead on the spot, but that’s kind of messy.
…you realize they stole this election, right? How do you plan on voting your way out of trouble when elections are stolen. That’s what this whole kerfluffle is about.
She is so damned ugly that there should be black tape across the eyes and a warning provided before exposing her visage to the public.
This is the look of a depraved mind.
I.hate.these.people.
God.help.us.all…
The only short-term possibility for this country to survive and be free is military intervention. What horrible options we face.
We may see that within a week.
Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was a Trump supporter who opposed impeachment:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/10/what-the-left-wants-to-ignore-about-slain-capitol-police-officer/
Actually his support for Trump has been mentioned in the left wing media. I’m not sure how that’s a good thing making a big deal out of him being a Trump supporter? It seems likely that Trump supporter (s) killed the man.
Mark, Mark, Mark. For someone who demands evidence you seem to be reaching a conclusion on little or none. So far, no evidence has been presented that his death was caused by the actions of anyone, least of all the demonstrators.
Remember George Floyd? Peopl lined up to accuse the police of killing Floyd. Then we had a very comprehensive autopsy performed. It disclosed that Floyd was a walking poster boy for heart failure. He had multiple preexisting conditions which were fatal in themselves. Then he also had taken a self induced overdose of a cocktail of illicit drugs, including a fatal dose of Fentynal. The ME found NO evidence that his breathing or blood flow to the brain was restricted by the police action. His cause of death was classified as heart failure brought about a drug overdose. Yet, despite this evidence, and with no evidence that the police withheld medical treatment or did anything else which would have contributed to his death, the LEOs were charged with homicide.
I was very specific in my language I used the word ‘Seemed’. Its a reasonable and logical conclusion to draw when the reports clearly state that he suffered injuries as a result of the protests. IVe been very clear that its early days in many of my comments but blindly assuming that a violent protest didnt play its part in his death is just plain dishonest.
You “seem” to have a brain. But the evidence is flimsy at best.
What you are speaking of is making an assumption. Remember the old adage: “When you assume you make an ass out of you and me”. And, to make matters worse, it is an assumption not based on reliable evidence, but rumor and innuendo.
Rule number one of today’s society is, do not believe ANY media report unless it can be corroborated by hard, third party data. All that we can reliably ASSUME from the current media reports is that Sicknick succumbed to a medical condition, which was not immediately related to anything that happened during the Capital incursion. There are contradictory and unverified accounts of various injuries and exposure to chemicals floating around. But, no confirmation of the accuracy of these reports. Until we have an autopsy, which we will have as there is a homicide investigation ongoing, we can not claim that Sicknick died as a result of any action of any other party.
@Mac45
There are two parts first and foremost I totally agreed its very early days and as such yes of course the evidence might well lead into a different direction.
Secondly my argument is built from logic. Not everything can have evidence but clearly that’s desirable and preferable but in the circumstances we know that 1) this was a Trump protest 2) that Trump protestors went into the building 3) that there are numerous reports of violence 4) there is at least one video of an officer being crushed by a door/mob 5) that the police statement specifically mentioned injuries sustained in the course of duty and 6) that the statement went on to say he died as a result of those injuries. Now clearly early days but on the balance of probability my statement is correct. Like I said I may be proved wrong and I would certainly not suggest that anyone could be sent to prison on the basis of the evidence thus far but it is a reasonable assumption with some form of foundation.
As you rightly say all this will be investigated and I’m hopeful that the truth will be established
@mailman
You don’t appear to be contributing very much to the discussion. Whilst I may disagree with the like of Mac45 and Milhouse on many fronts I very much appreciate that they at least engage and sincerely provide a coherent response. As such they have my respect, from a principles perspective debate between different parts of the politic spectrum is absolutely vital to democracy , it’s one foundational reason why free speech is so important.
You however mailman seem to add very little from any side of the argument. So with respect your ad hominem attacks mean nothing.
With regard to George Floyd there were two Autopsies attributed the main cause of death as being directly related to the actions of the police officer. Both concluded Homicide.
From Scientific American
“A timeline of events illustrates how a series of omissions and commissions regarding Mr. Floyd’s initial autopsy results deceptively fractured the truth. On May 28, a statement released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s office reported ongoing investigations and acknowledgement from the forensic pathologist that an “autopsy … must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information.” As per standardized medical examination, Floyd’s underlying health conditions and toxicology screen were documented. These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd’s coronary artery disease and hypertension, which increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted.
Without this important medical context, however, the public was left to reconcile manipulated medical language with the evidence they had personally witnessed. Ultimately, the initial report overstated and misrepresented the role of chronic medical conditions, inappropriately alluded to intoxicants, and failed to acknowledge the stark reality that but for the defendant’s knee on George Floyd’s neck, he would not be dead today.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/
From Medpagetoday
“Following a press conference on June 1 about the second autopsy, Baden admitted that portions of Floyd’s organs were indeed missing, and that he didn’t have access to the results from toxicology testing. Soon after, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner issued a press release, and subsequent to that, the full autopsy report, which indicated that the cause of death was “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression,” and that the manner of death was homicide. They listed arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use as other significant conditions contributing to death.
This means that Floyd stopped breathing and his heart stopped beating (cardiopulmonary arrest) because of the injury caused by his restraint in the custody of law enforcement officers, to include asphyxia from neck compression. Asphyxia means that there is a lack of oxygen going to the brain. It can happen from obstruction of the airway, restriction of breathing from compression of the neck or chest, or the prevention of blood flow to the brain by collapsing the blood vessels in the neck. It can also happen from the replacement of oxygen in the blood by carbon monoxide, or depletion of oxygen in the atmosphere, like in a fire. “Cardiopulmonary arrest” is not a heart attack. Online sources that imply that the medical examiner is covering up George Floyd’s death by calling it a “heart attack” are wrong.”
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913
So your example doesn’t support your case either. In fact all it tells me is that you havent really digested the actual evidence surrounding his death at all merely cherry picked media reports to support your viewpoint.
First of all, there was only one hands-on autopsy done, by the Hennipen County ME. Read the Hennipen ME’s actual autopsy report. The death was originally classified as an accidental overdose. It was changed to homicide, without explanation by the MS after a meeting with Democrat political leaders in Minnesota.
Now the Scientific America was both horribly slanted and scientifically inaccurate. In the first place, the Hennipen autopsy was meticulously conducted. The levels of illicit drugs, in Floyd’s system, at the time of his death, were very accurately recorded. They were well into the fatal range. Floyd’s symptoms, before his death were also consistent with a severe drug reaction an possible drug overdose. Also, the claim is not that Floyd was merely asphyxiated. It is that he was manually strangled, either through compression of the airway or the carotid artery. Such compression would leave readily identifiable signs and trauma, especially in a struggling suspect. None were found. His asphyxia was well within reason as a result of a drug overdose which was caused by the drugs in his system.
While the optics of Ofc. Chauvin kneeling upon Floyd’s neck were horrible and compelling, the forensic examination did not support the conclusion, based upon them, that Chauvin killed Floyd. This is why we conduct detailed investigations into criminal complaints.
@Mac45
Well this is an interesting discussion, I think when it comes to the autopsy report (which I’ve read) it’s important to know what the report actually means. This is why I’ve read a number of medical websites that seek to explain what the technical language within the report actually says. Now my understanding from this reading is that their isn’t always evidence of asphyxia although there is signs of it in terms of the neck compression. The forensic report is a detailed examination and thus will include all discovered ailments and drugs etc. This does not mean however that all the listed ailments are the cause of death. The wording is such that it says in effect the heart stopped because of the restraining manoeuvre carried out. That’s the official forensic verdict the report surrounding drugs etc as mentioned is a misquotation from the charging sheet as I understand it. Given the contextual evidence of 8 minutes plus of restrain and the bloke saying he couldn’t breathe that’s pretty hard to argue against. I’ve provided another link below. Thus far I’ve yet to come across an expert opinion which supports the contrary opinion but of you have one that would be good. In this particular context I’m aware that the technical language and nature of the reports means that I need to rely on sources to explain the context, meaning and veracity of the autopsy report this I’m more than happy to be corrected if you can provide a suitable source that provides that kind of expert interpretation.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/amp/
Having read thee Hennipen autopsy you are fmiliar with this passage:
“III. No life-threatening injuries identified
A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal
structures
C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries
D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other
than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column
injuries, or visceral injuries
E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and
lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks
negative for occult trauma”.
As you can see, there was NO sign of any trauma, including the neck and throat and the brain. Now, if asphyxiation was the cause of death and it was the result if Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck, there would have been some evidence of trauma in those areas. The neck and throat due to direct compression and cerebral hemorrhaging due to pressure changees due to compression of the carotid artery. None of these signs were found. This makes asphyxiation due to manual compression very, very unlikely.
On the other hand, the following laundry list of drugs found i Floyd’s system;
“VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing
performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at
9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine)
A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:
1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
2. Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
3. 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
4. Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
5. 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL;
Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL
6. Cotinine positive
7. Caffeine positive
B. Blood volatiles: negative for ethanol, methanol,
isopropanol, or acetone
C. Urine drug screen: presumptive positive for cannabinoids,
amphetamines, and fentanyl/metabolite
D. Urine drug screen confirmation: morphine (free) 86 ng/mL”;
combined with the various preexisting medical conditions make it very likely that this was the ultimate cause of death.
Your argument is that IF asphyxiation, not manual strangulation, can occur without leaving and physical trauma or other evidence, then we can dismiss the very likely cause of death, a drug OD, by simply ignoring the actual physical evidence supporting that cause of death. This is unicorn territory.
So, when faced with a very likely cause of death, drug OD, versus a very, very unlikely cause of death, asphyxiation by manual strangulation, which do you choose? And, remember, in a criminal case, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Get that? No prosecutor, in his right mind, would take this case into court.
As for expert testimony, you will certainly see that at trial. This will turn into George Zimmerman 2.0.
Mark, as far as I’m concerned any “expert report” paid for by Ben Crump should be presumed to be a pack of lies, unless independently verified. So I am not interested in what Crump’s paid pathologist said; I assign it no more value than a post on Gateway Pundit. If it happens to be true in some aspect, it’s purely by accident.
I also think any client who is represented by Crump (or by Gloria Allred) should be tentatively presumed not to have a case. Tentatively because it’s possible that they just found them in the phone book, and didn’t know what kind of lawyer they were hiring. But that’s not the way to bet.
@Mac45
I appreciate your points, i think ill have to wait for the expert testimony. Ive yet to find an article from a physician or pathologist or similar who supports your claim but that doesnt mean you are wrong. Since im reliant on the expert testimony im just going to wait and see what the trial brings out.
The Democrats have made it clear that they will use any possible excuse to impeach Trump, simply as a routine exercise of their majority power in the House. I hope that the Republicans will follow this precedent whenever they have the majority in the House while there is a Democrat in the White House.
I can see a future where the House majority constantly seeks impeachment of any President from the other party. In some ways, such a system would resemble the Prime Minister selection in other countries.
Pelosi proves each and every that she is unfit for office. Her personal animosity against Trump is shocking.
Her knickers are still in a very tight twist over that time he threw her, her luggage, and all her fellow travelers off of that plane. That one act alone is enough to make me a fan of Trump (but I do have other, more thoughtful, reasons as well).
This resolution is quite wordy. If they were honest they could just say:
“… Article I:
Donald Trump has allowed himself to be elected President without leave from the DNC. This is an unprecedented attack on Our Democracy.”
Yes, that’s been their problem with him since day one.
Rush pointed out if even 1 Democrat Propaganda ministry outlets posted or read on air Trump’s speech.
Sounds to me Nanzi tried a military coup d’etat but couldn’t find Napoleon to try it.
Some interesting information: apparently none of the people arrested for the riot at the Capitol were users of Parler. Instead, they used Facebook to organize:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/392089.php
More interesting information: Trump’s approval rating is 48%, with 51% disapproving. Last Thursday he had 51% approving of his job performance.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan011
In other words, the same percentages he has had most of his presidency (Obama was at 52% at this point, not much better). But by all means NeverTrumpers – tell us how the country is turning solidly against Trump.
If Trump had any shred of integrity, he’d resign.
He’s not a conservative.
He’s a POS.
Shame on anyone who still supports or admires him.
You misspelled “Beijing Biden,” troll.
BAB
Your not even a clever troll
Mommys’ basements don’t house the best and brightest.
Of course Trump isn’t a Conservative. We haven’t had a conservative President in the modern era. Even the Presidents that are considered “conservative” were usually socially liberal, including RR and GWB.
The thong people like you fail to understand about DJT, is that all he is is a symbol. He, and his election, are messages sent to out entrenched political class. The message is simple; represent we the voters. Listen to us. His supporters support him, not for himself, but because he DID listen to them and worked on their behalf. And, that is what terrified the political class and their masters; the Establishment. What if the unwashed masses of the proletariat were actually calling the shots?
DJT will not resign. Why? Because, he has devoted himself to the people who elected him. They were the only ones who did not stab him the back. Considering what he put up with for the four years of his Presidency, on their behalf, he is not leaving now.
No, he isn’t a conservative, or a good person. But he’s governed like one, which is much more important than actually being one.
But conservative or not, why on earth would he resign? What possible cause could he have for that?
Like a conservative or a good person? Which is it? or…drum roll…both?
Trump’s greatness lies in the fact that he kept his word. He worked for the men and women who had elected him, not for those who had bought him. He made populist promises, the populists elected him and he made good on those promises.
Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative are merely words, today. They have no real meaning in today’s political climate. Today, the dichotomy is Establishment & Populist.
FINALLY:
Texas Lawmakers Consider Secession Over Life Under Democrat Marxism — Several States Interested in Movement:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/texas-lawmakers-consider-secession-life-democrat-marxism-several-states-interested-movement-video/
Gee Nancy, you sure seem to be busy creating distractions. May I ask why? Are you steering people away from democrat, communist, Pelosi scandals? Asking for a nation.
California Queefer has to be the most hated woman of her own time. Throw some holy water in her general direction and see how the demons react
I doubt putting a stake through that woman’s heart would kill her.
Let’s be scientific about this, and do an experiment, and see.
It’s all nonsense. Trump did not incite anything. He urged people to march to the Capitol and rally there, just as similar crowds have done many hundreds of times over the past two centuries, at the urging of politicians of all kinds. The purpose in all those hundreds of cases was to make congress aware of their passion as it carried out what they believed to be a great wrong, and to encourage those congressmen who were standing against it. How can anyone say this is wrong? There is literally nothing whatsoever to support a supposition that he meant for them to break in to the Capitol, or that his audience understood him that way.
The other point I’ve seen people pounce on is that he said to “fight”. Well, of course he did. So has every politician, on both sides, on various occasions. “Fighting” is a standard term in politics, and it is never taken literally. It means fighting politically, legally, socially and morally, etc.
For that matter, what about “campaign”? That’s just as violent a word as “fight”, if taken literally, and yet has there ever been a candidate for office, from president to dog-catcher, who has not used that term? I believe it’s even used in the law! “Campaign contributions”, “campaign funds”, etc. are all legal terms, I believe; obviously they do not refer to literal campaigns.
Let he who has never campaigned in an election, struggled for a cause, or targeted an opponent, cast the first stone — metaphorical, of course.
Let’s not even mention the common political uses of the terms “massacre” and “bloodshed”.
Vox has a good timeline with plenty of reference links on Trumps history of incitement. https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech
Not saying i agree with everything laid down in the time line but it does paint a pretty coherent picture.
I do appreciate your point about specific word used, id argue that the discourse has certainly roughened over the years.
Regarding your specific point about marching on the Capitol thats all well and good referencing actual legal demonstrations but circumstances where the Capitol building has been broken into quite another. https://www.history.com/news/us-capitol-building-violence-fires
And irrelevant, since he did not call for that. He called for a march on the Capitol, and you just agreed that there’s nothing at all wrong with that. And yet that is the entire evidence against him.
I just had a quick look at your stupid Vox piece, and immediately ran into this: “In August, he defended a teenage supporter who shot three people at a Black Lives Matter protest.” Naturally he defended him. Every decent person must defend him. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero, a wonderful kid, any parent would be proud to have their child turn out as good as him, so why would Trump not defend him? Rittenhouse showed amazing self-control in only killing the three people who actually posed a direct threat to his life at that very moment, and not any of the dozens of other thugs who were just as guilty but weren’t at that moment in a position to kill him.
Once I saw that I saw no need to read any further.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a vigilante, I’d agree that his case is controversial. However In the absence of you actually reading the full article it’s difficult to continue the discussion. Again it’s an impasse. I think your idea of acceptable speech from a leader and mine as quite different. But hey that’s free speech and democracy.