No, they presented a well thought out case to the senators knowing the public was watching.
They were trying to inform and remind the public what happened, and if it convinced senators to convict, that’s just a benefit.
Did you watch? I watched a lot of it. The house managers made an excellent case, so I don’t get why you’d say they’re just throwing random stuff together. Pretty sure that’s what Trump’s lawyer did when he ad libbed.
Many including McConnell told the public through leaks, don’t need to read minds.
I agree, and it’s clear to me Trump’s case was indefensible.
The house case had a lot of merit.
I don’t, so I guess we can stop if we can’t get past that.
I’ve made clear why I don’t think they did. That’s my whole point. If there was more of a case than the Jan 6 speech, why wasn’t it in the impeachment articles?
Because the it risked running long and derailing Biden’s agenda. We saw this with the witnesses. Trump’s attorney said if you call one, I’m going to call 100. I think it was successful. Especially the senators who let Trump walk will eventually pay a price. Biden can move on and no one can say they didn’t try to hold Trump accountable
I’m a simple man. If there was a charge, it should have been in the impeachment articles. They specifically focused on the one thing I said was bullshit from day 1, so they haven’t sold me. I might well agree with other charges, but they didn’t make them.
I guess they focused on the one they thought would be easiest for the people to understand as they all saw it on tv. After the Ukraine impeachment which was said to be complex and confusing
I think those videos of the insurrection will be played in election ads for years to come.
Time will tell if they chose correctly
It is generous to categorize these as mistakes. They happen so often, and the mistakes only happen in one direction. That goes for Fox as well (where the mistakes all flow in one direction, just the opposite of CNN, NYTimes, WaPo, MSNBC, LA Times, etc.
The problem with this story is that it is false in all respects. From the start, there was almost no evidence to substantiate it. The only basis were the two original New York Times articles asserting that this happened based on the claim of anonymous law enforcement officials.
Despite this alleged brutal murder taking place in one of the most surveilled buildings on the planet, filled that day with hundreds of cellphones taping the events, nobody saw video of it. No photographs depicted it. To this day, no autopsy report has been released. No details from any official source have been provided.
But no matter. The fire extinguisher story was now a matter of lore. Nobody could question it. And nobody did: until after a February 2 CNN article that asked why nobody has been arrested for what clearly was the most serious crime committed that day: the brutal murder of Officer Sicknick with a fire extinguisher. Though the headline gave no hint of this, the middle of the article provided evidence which essentially declared the original New York Times story false:
In Sicknick’s case, it’s still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner’s review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process.
According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true .
The CNN story speculates that perhaps Sicknick inhaled “bear spray,” but like the ProPublica interview with his brother who said he inhaled pepper spray, does not say whether it came from the police or protesters. It is also just a theory. CNN noted that investigators are “vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month’s insurrection.” Beyond that, “to date, little information has been shared publicly about the circumstances of the death of the 13-year veteran of the police force, including any findings from an autopsy that was conducted by DC’s medical examiner.”
Few noticed this remarkable admission buried in this article. None of this was seriously questioned until a relatively new outlet called Revolver News on February 9 compiled and analyzed all the contradictions and lack of evidence in the prevailing story, after which Fox News ’ Tucker Carlson, citing that article, devoted the first eight minutes of his February 10 program to examining these massive evidentiary holes.
That caused right-wing media outlets to begin questioning what happened, but mainstream liberal outlets — those who spread the story aggressively in the first place — largely and predictably ignored it all.
One really truly needs to ask why a news service is simply providing narrative cover.
Over and over, no evidence has emerged for the most melodramatic media claims — torn out Panic Buttons and plots to kill Vice President Mike Pence or Mitt Romney. What we know for certain, as The Washington Postnoted this week, is that “Despite warnings of violent plots around Inauguration Day, only a smattering of right-wing protesters appeared at the nation’s statehouses.” That does not sound like an ongoing insurrection, to put it mildly.
All this matters because it inherently matters if the media is recklessly circulating falsehoods about the most inflammatory and significant news stories. As was true for their series of Russiagate debacles, even if each “mistake” standing alone can be dismissed as relatively insignificant or understandable, when they pile up — always in the same narrative direction — people rightly conclude the propaganda is deliberate and trust in journalism erodes further.
With no news to trust, the entrenched powers that be, the geriatric few, and the money that backs them can essentially do whatever the hell they want. Imagine when they decided that “we” need another war.
For the first time in the history of the United States, a defeated president attempted to overturn the election’s outcome to keep himself in office.
Trump’s effort to try to steal the election was multifaceted. He spent months lying that there was massive voter fraud. He pressured state officials and state legislators not to certify President Joe Biden’s win. He filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits. He urged members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence to throw out valid electoral votes on January 6. And, that same day, he encouraged supporters to gather in Washington and egged them on. The violence at the Capitol ensued.
It was stunning conduct that flew in the face of the US tradition of peaceful transition of power. And Congress did have an opportunity by which they could make Trump face a very real consequence for this: impeachment and prohibition from holding federal office again in the future (preventing him from running again in 2024). An impeachment of a US president has never ended with conviction, but surely, if one ever would, one would think that Trump’s conduct would merit it.
This Friday, February 19th, the Supreme Court will have a conference to consider what cases they will hear later this year.
Several high profile election fraud cases filed by Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are among those to be considered.
A lawsuit by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly in Pennsylvania is also on the list for consideration.
The Supreme Court may not ultimately accept any of the cases for review. Four of the nine Justices must vote to hear a case in order for it to go on the calendar.
We knew years ago Durham was giving a pass to everyone on the inside, the Barr and Durham relationship has long been referred to as Barr being the Bondo and Durham was the paint job.
Likely because any attempt to hold IC people to account would drag in Obama and they couldn’t have that. Plus if you start digging into the mess they created you end up dragging all three branches into it. That’s how FUBAR the situation was they created and to add to that, the MSM went along with all of it.
I see the NY TImes and Forbes are still carrying water for the IC, I have heard their story many times before and it’s junk and part of why no one trusts them any more. Espcially on this issue they are incapable of telling the truth.
But looks like they may have found a new toy to play with and go after Trump for something in Italy, I hope they have fun with that.
Uh no, not new, that was the 2019 criminal investigation, where you commented it was “hilarious as she [maddow] is scratching her head trying to figure out why the Durham probe changed it’s official status to a criminal investigation.” because, uh, you apparently thought it was oh so clear why.
It was clear and still is, but it’s also clear and within a few months of Durham being on the case that he was giving a wide berth to the IC.
Anyway, it’s your country, if you like a politicized IC that go after the political opponents of one side have at it. Including but not limited to trying to remove a duly elected President.
Of course they should have been brought up on criminal charges, treason/sedition ould have been appropriate. Problem was, too many involved.
you had no idea why.