Wikapedia told me rabble, rabble, rabble.

Again, this whole proceeding is nothing more than political show boating.

Meanwhile actual "insurrections" are happening daily and it's mostly not reported by the MSM.  Or maybe because it's a "mostly peaceful protest".

1) that didn't come from Wikipedia
2) it could come from the Iranian Government for all you should care.  As a conservative, your first question should be "is it true?" Authoritarians and postmodern liberals are the ones who say, "who says?" 
3) I do care about these attempted insurrections even though they are far away from the nation's capitol.  I think we both have every confidence that the federal government will protect its buildings and arrest and prosecute those who try to break in.  The difference is, about 2/3 of Americans did not have that same confidence with regard to Trump putting down the January 6 insurrection.  Biden is not encouraging people to protest at the Seattle federal court house.  Trump, at the very least, encouraged a protest at the Capitol in DC on the 6th. Again, you're comparing houseflies to 747s.

---

---

Stopped reading there.
You're wrong, it is constitutional, but lets agree to disagree about it.
Let's pretend McConnell treated this like an emergency and the trial was happening but it wasn't January 20 yet. Now answer my question.

who needs the nutmeg now, brother?

I missed you.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Again, this whole proceeding is nothing more than political show boating.

Meanwhile actual "insurrections" are happening daily and it's mostly not reported by the MSM.  Or maybe because it's a "mostly peaceful protest".

1) that didn't come from Wikipedia
2) it could come from the Iranian Government for all you should care.  As a conservative, your first question should be "is it true?" Authoritarians and postmodern liberals are the ones who say, "who says?" 
3) I do care about these attempted insurrections even though they are far away from the nation's capitol.  I think we both have every confidence that the federal government will protect its buildings and arrest and prosecute those who try to break in.  The difference is, about 2/3 of Americans did not have that same confidence with regard to Trump putting down the January 6 insurrection.  Biden is not encouraging people to protest at the Seattle federal court house.  Trump, at the very least, encouraged a protest at the Capitol in DC on the 6th. Again, you're comparing houseflies to 747s.

---

---

who needs the nutmeg now, brother?

I missed you.

Regarding the first part in bold... please hold your breath while waiting for your party's president to do anything about it.  For that matter just please hold your breath until your favorite news channels (CNN, NBC,etc) actually bother to report on it.

Regarding the second part in bold it's fake news.  Unless you consider his speech saying to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard" as encouraging a riot.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I just heard testimony that Trump spent 50 MILLION dollars on ads baselessly calling the election fraudulent between December 1st and January 6th.  Wow. 

His hands are dirty as [BLEEP]. 

His propensity to simply lie to a base that would rather adopt "alternative facts" than accept that he was lying through his teeth has finally caught up to him, and he'll be rightfully impeached for it.

Then it wasn’t his speech on the 6th the caused everyone to storm the capitol building? His commercials running for a month ahead of time whipped every one into a frenzy? Why wasn’t there more security in Washington that day if anyone really believed any of the [BLEEP] they’re now trying to push? 

It was his speech, no, the commercials. No, it’s because he lies so impeach him!!!
Keep moving those goal posts around ...eventually you might land on something that sticks.

Listing reasons isn't moving goalposts and there a plenty of valid reasons. 

They all appear to be sticking by the way.

---

1) that didn't come from Wikipedia
2) it could come from the Iranian Government for all you should care.  As a conservative, your first question should be "is it true?" Authoritarians and postmodern liberals are the ones who say, "who says?" 
3) I do care about these attempted insurrections even though they are far away from the nation's capitol.  I think we both have every confidence that the federal government will protect its buildings and arrest and prosecute those who try to break in.  The difference is, about 2/3 of Americans did not have that same confidence with regard to Trump putting down the January 6 insurrection.  Biden is not encouraging people to protest at the Seattle federal court house.  Trump, at the very least, encouraged a protest at the Capitol in DC on the 6th. Again, you're comparing houseflies to 747s.

---

I missed you.

Regarding the first part in bold... please hold your breath while waiting for your party's president to do anything about it.  For that matter just please hold your breath until your favorite news channels (CNN, NBC,etc) actually bother to report on it.

Regarding the second part in bold it's fake news.  Unless you consider his speech saying to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard" as encouraging a riot.

Why do you imagine he's not doing anything?
Aren't people being arrested and charged?
I will admit to checking CNN.com frequently, though I never watch TV news. I admit they're biased, but I don't own them so why should I care?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regarding the first part in bold... please hold your breath while waiting for your party's president to do anything about it.  For that matter just please hold your breath until your favorite news channels (CNN, NBC,etc) actually bother to report on it.

Regarding the second part in bold it's fake news.  Unless you consider his speech saying to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard" as encouraging a riot.

Why do you imagine he's not doing anything?
Aren't people being arrested and charged?
I will admit to checking CNN.com frequently, though I never watch TV news. I admit they're biased, but I don't own them so why should I care?

What’s the difference?

---

Why do you imagine he's not doing anything?
Aren't people being arrested and charged?
I will admit to checking CNN.com frequently, though I never watch TV news. I admit they're biased, but I don't own them so why should I care?

What’s the difference?

It's far from the only news source I check, and I know they usually don't tell me the full story and I know they dramatize things that are not actually a big deal at all. I also know Fox news does the same thing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You also know that it subconsciously affects the way you interpret information.

---

You also know that it subconsciously affects the way you interpret information.

But not you. You're above all of that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Of course I have biases. The difference between us is that I'm an extremely critical and compartmentalized person. I tend to be pretty critical of all news i consume and compartmentalize new data until it can be verified. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I just think you are too trusting of these sources at a time when they've never lied more.

---

According to the house managers of this farce Capitol riots will happen again if Trump is not held accountable. Seriously? These people are fear mongering to the nth degree. They know the weak minded (on both sides) listening to their crap will be clutching their pearls and wigging out and won't blink an eye if the dems get their way and suddenly the NG is on assignment at the Capitol indefinitely. This could set a dangerous precedent.

---

According to the house managers of this farce Capitol riots will happen again if Trump is not held accountable. Seriously? These people are fear mongering to the nth degree. They know the weak minded (on both sides) listening to their crap will be clutching their pearls and wigging out and won't blink an eye if the dems get their way and suddenly the NG is on assignment at the Capitol indefinitely. This could set a dangerous precedent.

Allowing a president impunity after fomenting an angry mob for weeks on end, culminating in deaths at the capitol will set a dangerous precedent.

---

Of course I have biases. The difference between us is that I'm an extremely critical and compartmentalized person. I tend to be pretty critical of all news i consume and compartmentalize new data until it can be verified. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I just think you are too trusting of these sources at a time when they've never lied more.

I'm not really getting anything from a biased source on this though.
On this particular issue, the January 6th insurrection and the impeachment trial resulting from it, I am basing my opinion on video of Trump's speech, the transcript of Trump's speech, the location and context of his speech, the insurrection that followed, the phone calls that Trump made during the insurrection, and the tweets that he made during the insurrection.
None of these were the acts of a man legitimately protesting and trying to persuade Congress. All of them were acts of a man intent on shutting Congress down if they didn't give him what he wanted.
Of course those are my conclusions based on my critical thinking.
My interpretation of the undeniable facts could be wrong.
But I don't see you trying to interpret these undeniable facts. I see you trying to deny them, and distract from them, talking about biased media which is not applicable to the conversation.

---

According to the house managers of this farce Capitol riots will happen again if Trump is not held accountable. Seriously? These people are fear mongering to the nth degree. They know the weak minded (on both sides) listening to their crap will be clutching their pearls and wigging out and won't blink an eye if the dems get their way and suddenly the NG is on assignment at the Capitol indefinitely. This could set a dangerous precedent.

Allowing a president impunity after fomenting an angry mob for weeks on end, culminating in deaths at the capitol will set a dangerous precedent.

Exactly.
As David French has said, you are setting a questionable precedent either way.
Trump may or may not run again.
but if Trump is not punished for what he did, that sets a precedent, and another president, from either party might try to imitate what Trump did.
I would rather set a precedent of back and forth petty partisan punishments between the parties, than a precedent of total impunity.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

After watching this he's definitely guilty !

---

No Young and the Restless again today....... grrrrrrrr!

---

I'm not really getting anything from a biased source on this though.
On this particular issue, the January 6th insurrection and the impeachment trial resulting from it, I am basing my opinion on video of Trump's speech, the transcript of Trump's speech, the location and context of his speech, the insurrection that followed, the phone calls that Trump made during the insurrection, and the tweets that he made during the insurrection.
None of these were the acts of a man legitimately protesting and trying to persuade Congress. All of them were acts of a man intent on shutting Congress down if they didn't give him what he wanted.
Of course those are my conclusions based on my critical thinking.
My interpretation of the undeniable facts could be wrong.
But I don't see you trying to interpret these undeniable facts. I see you trying to deny them, and distract from them, talking about biased media which is not applicable to the conversation.

---

Allowing a president impunity after fomenting an angry mob for weeks on end, culminating in deaths at the capitol will set a dangerous precedent.

Exactly.
As David French has said, you are setting a questionable precedent either way.
Trump may or may not run again.
but if Trump is not punished for what he did, that sets a precedent, and another president, from either party might try to imitate what Trump did.
I would rather set a precedent of back and forth petty partisan punishments between the parties, than a precedent of total impunity.

I assume neither of you are interested in objective and unbiased examination of the relevant facts.  Shouldn't we first determine if his words met the legal threshold necessary to establish guilt?

Undeniable facts are not subject to interpretation, they're FACTS.  Whether or not a specific occurrence was a direct result of given facts is a conclusion and subject to possible debate.  

I'd love to see you post the specific transcript language you reference.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I'm not really getting anything from a biased source on this though.
On this particular issue, the January 6th insurrection and the impeachment trial resulting from it, I am basing my opinion on video of Trump's speech, the transcript of Trump's speech, the location and context of his speech, the insurrection that followed, the phone calls that Trump made during the insurrection, and the tweets that he made during the insurrection.
None of these were the acts of a man legitimately protesting and trying to persuade Congress. All of them were acts of a man intent on shutting Congress down if they didn't give him what he wanted.
Of course those are my conclusions based on my critical thinking.
My interpretation of the undeniable facts could be wrong.
But I don't see you trying to interpret these undeniable facts. I see you trying to deny them, and distract from them, talking about biased media which is not applicable to the conversation.

---

Exactly.
As David French has said, you are setting a questionable precedent either way.
Trump may or may not run again.
but if Trump is not punished for what he did, that sets a precedent, and another president, from either party might try to imitate what Trump did.
I would rather set a precedent of back and forth petty partisan punishments between the parties, than a precedent of total impunity.

I assume neither of you are interested in objective and unbiased examination of the relevant facts.  Shouldn't we first determine if his words met the legal threshold necessary to establish guilt?

Undeniable facts are not subject to interpretation, they're FACTS.  Whether or not a specific occurrence was a direct result of given facts is a conclusion and subject to possible debate.  

I'd love to see you post the specific transcript language you reference.

If they were a grand jury in a criminal case, yes, but they are senators in an impeachment trial.
You can be impeached and convicted even if they can't prove you have broken any particular law.
See, for instance, Alcee Hastings.  The Senate convicted him, but a jury did not.
That's how it's supposed to work.  It's supposed to be easier to get convicted and removed in the Senate than it is to get sent to jail by a jury.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

According to the house managers of this farce Capitol riots will happen again if Trump is not held accountable. Seriously? These people are fear mongering to the nth degree. They know the weak minded (on both sides) listening to their crap will be clutching their pearls and wigging out and won't blink an eye if the dems get their way and suddenly the NG is on assignment at the Capitol indefinitely. This could set a dangerous precedent.

Allowing a president impunity after fomenting an angry mob for weeks on end, culminating in deaths at the capitol will set a dangerous precedent.

Shall we examine those deaths?

1.  Unarmed female protester shot by Capitol police.  Funny how no details of this police shooting has been in the media.

2.  Capitol police officer died 24 hours after the protest.  The media tells everyone that he died after being "hit in the head with a fire extinguisher".  Kind of strange that he sent a text to his brother saying that he had been pepper sprayed a few times but was alright.  No mention of a head injury.  No official autopsy report and his body has been cremated.

3.  Unarmed female died of unknown cause.  Speculation is that she might have gotten trampled, yet no clear cause of death.

4.  Middle aged man with a history of cardiac issues died of a heart attack on Capitol grounds.  No evidence that he even attempted to enter the building.

5.  Middle aged man died of a stroke while on Capitol grounds.  No evidence that he even attempted to enter the building.

These are the deaths that occurred that day that somehow the "angry mob" caused.

Shall we look at the deaths and destruction that angry mobs started in democrat run cities over 2020?

The bottom line is, the charge that the democrat led House impeached President Trump for is bogus.  The whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated by not only the media, but also the democrats that are doing it only because of their hatred of the former President.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Allowing a president impunity after fomenting an angry mob for weeks on end, culminating in deaths at the capitol will set a dangerous precedent.

Shall we examine those deaths?

1.  Unarmed female protester shot by Capitol police.  Funny how no details of this police shooting has been in the media.

2.  Capitol police officer died 24 hours after the protest.  The media tells everyone that he died after being "hit in the head with a fire extinguisher".  Kind of strange that he sent a text to his brother saying that he had been pepper sprayed a few times but was alright.  No mention of a head injury.  No official autopsy report and his body has been cremated.

3.  Unarmed female died of unknown cause.  Speculation is that she might have gotten trampled, yet no clear cause of death.

4.  Middle aged man with a history of cardiac issues died of a heart attack on Capitol grounds.  No evidence that he even attempted to enter the building.

5.  Middle aged man died of a stroke while on Capitol grounds.  No evidence that he even attempted to enter the building.

These are the deaths that occurred that day that somehow the "angry mob" caused.

Shall we look at the deaths and destruction that angry mobs started in democrat run cities over 2020?

The bottom line is, the charge that the democrat led House impeached President Trump for is bogus.  The whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated by not only the media, but also the democrats that are doing it only because of their hatred of the former President.

You can diminish the death of a police officer all day if that's really the hill you want to plant a flag on. 

You can't explain away that the former president spread a blatant lie for weeks on, end using millions upon millions of dollars to do so and then directed the mob that his lie gathered to march on the capitol where he was being certified as the loser of the election. 

There were countless messages like this angering people to action to overturn a perfectly lawful election that he didn't like the result of:



It makes him complicit enough to warrant the trial.

---

From what Ive read and heard, the defense nailed it. Good for President Trump!

---

Shall we examine those deaths?

1.  Unarmed female protester shot by Capitol police.  Funny how no details of this police shooting has been in the media.

2.  Capitol police officer died 24 hours after the protest.  The media tells everyone that he died after being "hit in the head with a fire extinguisher".  Kind of strange that he sent a text to his brother saying that he had been pepper sprayed a few times but was alright.  No mention of a head injury.  No official autopsy report and his body has been cremated.

3.  Unarmed female died of unknown cause.  Speculation is that she might have gotten trampled, yet no clear cause of death.

4.  Middle aged man with a history of cardiac issues died of a heart attack on Capitol grounds.  No evidence that he even attempted to enter the building.

5.  Middle aged man died of a stroke while on Capitol grounds.  No evidence that he even attempted to enter the building.

These are the deaths that occurred that day that somehow the "angry mob" caused.

Shall we look at the deaths and destruction that angry mobs started in democrat run cities over 2020?

The bottom line is, the charge that the democrat led House impeached President Trump for is bogus.  The whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated by not only the media, but also the democrats that are doing it only because of their hatred of the former President.

You can diminish the death of a police officer all day if that's really the hill you want to plant a flag on. 

You can't explain away that the former president spread a blatant lie for weeks on, end using millions upon millions of dollars to do so and then directed the mob that his lie gathered to march on the capitol where he was being certified as the loser of the election. 

There were countless messages like this angering people to action to overturn a perfectly lawful election that he didn't like the result of:



It makes him complicit enough to warrant the trial.

Yeah, don't see what he said that is outside the norm of political rhetoric and/or false.

---