Senate Votes Trump ‘Won the Election in a Landslide’

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

He was not in any way correct nether.

COVID 19 did not go away Wide-Eyes when Trump said it would any more than Dominic Cummings goes driving to castles with the Mrs and weans in tow to prove his eyesight's working during a pandemic.

Aye we are doing smashing this side of the pond. LoL

How many different variants now doing the rounds?

About 4 that they know about, which probably dont bode to well.

Ive had it, im just hoping having it means im immune for a spell, or even against the other mutations, chance would be a fine thing indeed all th same.

All is not well, but the sky is not falling just yet, here, or in the good old USA.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You need to read the Article of Impeachment.

ARTICLE 1: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

Notice it doesn't say anything about lying?

In the months preceding the Joint Session, President 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. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide." He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably 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 the 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.

Additionally, Congress didn't vote on whether or not Trump pressured Georgia's Secretary of State, but it was part of the Article of Impeachment's narrative.

President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

www.npr.org... rrection

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes they did. The House alleged Trump's claims he won the election were false and it was up to the Senate to decide if they were false statements or not.

The Defense agreed it was up to the Senate to decide, too.

Everyone was in agreement.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I just don't know how history could possibly show Congress found Trump not guilty of making false statements when he claimed that he won the election, but..it's also a fact that Joe Biden won the election.

It creates two opposite outcomes being true at the same time. So one must not be correct. Joe Biden is in fact POTUS. Leaving only that Congress should have convicted him (Trump) of false statements.

Seems simple enough.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You obviously paid no attention during the trial proceeding.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Senate found Trump 'not guilty' on the entire article of Impeachment. BTW, the Defense responded that this particular allegation was 'denied as irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.'

The only two allegations that weren't 'denied as irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate ' were the charges of inciting an insurrection and making false statements.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I watched all of it.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I just don't know how history could possibly show Congress found Trump not guilty of making false statements when he claimed that he won the election, but..it's also a fact that Joe Biden won the election.

It creates two opposite outcomes being true at the same time. So one must not be correct. Joe Biden is in fact POTUS. Leaving only that Congress should have convicted him (Trump) of false statements.

Seems simple enough.

The Senate ruling was very simple. DJT was/is protected by 1st amendment. In other words, he has the right to be wrong. Same as every other citizen who wants to talk loudly and publicly about how the earth is flat and dinosaur bones were faked by Satan trying to deceive humanity.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Trump wasn't impeached for making false statements. He was impeached for inciting an insurrection. He was tried, for inciting an insurrection, in the Senate and acquitted.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're not understanding the OP.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TzarChasm

I watched all of it.

Then you would know that a great deal of time was spent on defending the freedom of speech, not on how factually accurate that speech must be to qualify for constitutional protection.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure.

So in other words, those were "false statements".

He's just not being convicted for saying them.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure.

So in other words, those were "false statements".

He's just not being convicted for saying them.

Correct. Partly because freedom of speech, mostly because the Senate has better stuff to do. Like saving our society from a pandemic.

a reply to: queenofswords

Understanding of the OP aside.

All 50 US states and the District of Columbia have certified their election results.

Those results show that Biden won with 306 electoral votes, to Trump’s 232.

Meaning Biden won the popular vote over Trump by about 7 million.

And there is no evidence that wide scale voter fraud affected that outcome.

Trump lost the Election by a Landslide and was impeached for inciting an insurrection, acquitted in lightning-fast impeachment trial, the vote being 57-43 in favour of conviction, but 67 votes were required to convict him.

Thats the facts of the matter far as i understand them.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TzarChasm

I watched all of it.

Then you would know that a great deal of time was spent on defending the freedom of speech, not on how factually accurate that speech must be to qualify for constitutional protection.

No need for the Senate to ponder 'how factually accurate' his claims might be. They are the deciders of the fact in question.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TzarChasm

I watched all of it.

Then you would know that a great deal of time was spent on defending the freedom of speech, not on how factually accurate that speech must be to qualify for constitutional protection.

No need for the Senate to ponder 'how factually accurate' his claims might be. They are the deciders of the fact in question.

Indeed. That question was answered on the 6th of January.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TzarChasm

I watched all of it.

Then you would know that a great deal of time was spent on defending the freedom of speech, not on how factually accurate that speech must be to qualify for constitutional protection.

That was a legal argument against the constitutionality of the trial. And it is interesting how little effort the House put into trying to prove Trump's statements were false.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TzarChasm

I watched all of it.

Then you would know that a great deal of time was spent on defending the freedom of speech, not on how factually accurate that speech must be to qualify for constitutional protection.

That was a legal argument against the constitutionality of the trial. And it is interesting how little effort the House put into trying to prove Trump's statements were false.

Yeah, it's almost like they have better things to do.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
......it is interesting how little effort the House put into trying to prove Trump's statements were false.

He has to prove his statement true first. Because the rest of reality has already happened and says otherwise,

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
......it is interesting how little effort the House put into trying to prove Trump's statements were false.

He has to prove his statement true first. Because the rest of reality has already happened and says otherwise,

No, the House as the prosecuting party has to prove he is guilty of what they claimed. They had the burden of proof. They put it on themselves.