I was probably a bit obtuse in my post, but if you think this impeachment won't have a chilling effect on the first amendment for the rest of the country, then you are willfully ignoring human nature along with 5,000 years of recorded history.

Space aliens and fluoridated water in the schools? :hmmm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohgTEk9h1kc

Look how he did not say:

"I, Donald John Trump do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, unless the constitution is stupid because I was voted out in which case I will much rather exercise my right to incite a mob to attack the capitol in the hopes they will throw out all votes and appoint me their leader for as long as I like.

So help me god."

With all due respect I don't think that there was the slightest chance that the Republic would fall on Jan. 6th. It would take a lot more than an unruly and destructive mob to accomplish that.

In a way it did; as it stands it seems to be acceptable for a president to send a violent mob after his opponents if he's not pleased with the election. Because had they reached pelosi, pence, romney etc. - a lot more blood would have been spilled.

Democracy is not the rule of the one with the most violent followers. Which one would you rather have?

well no, that is never acceptable, but that is not what happened and no amount of fact twisting and outright lying by the Democrats is going to change that.

The former President will be acquitted, that is a foregone conclusion.

Sorry no. Your definition of the Republic falling would have to be explained. No such thing happened.

There is no proof that this was the case. In order for that to be true you would have to have a clear command by Trump to do so. Can you quote such a statement? And it can't be an ambiguous statement. It has to be specific such as "ok go to the Capital and kill some members of Congress." There also has to be intent. Can you or anyone prove that it was Trump's intent to cause anyone physical harm or do damage to property? Again you need irrefutable evidence of this. Is there any? On the contrary we have Trump urging the listeners to behave in a peaceful manner. The fact that they behaved differently is on them.

As any jive lawyer would say "pure speculation your Honor".

I hope that you are not suggesting that there are violent followers on only one side of the American political divide are you?

Your point being?

The only reason for this second "impeachment", is an attempt to prevent Trump from running in 2024.

FYI: Grover Cleveland lost his re-election bid in 1888 due to voter fraud. He was elected for a second term in 1892.

I used to think that. Now I think it's more about making the GOP take sides.

Some facts we are not getting on CNN.

Say it ain't so?????

I do. By the bahaviour of most republican senators, reading books, feet on their desks etc. they seem to be thinking their live were never in danger during the insurection.
(as a sidenote: what would you do with your kids behaving like this while in a private school that costs you a fortune? would they be allowed to stay at that school?)
If they had the slightest worry such event could occur again, only with - say - Bidens followers, they would be a lot more interested in a thorough investigation of the event.
So not even Ted Cruz thinks there are equally violent followers on the other side.

Only CNN is news, fox news is commentary. On the first night of the Trial they had the story of a man using dog shampoo. Second night "the broken promises of Joe Biden". Not the trial - trivia.

:haha::har::haha::o

You made the wild night avatar today! :Kaleun_Cheers: