Donald Trump Jr walks out of Triggered book launch after heckling – from supporters

Donald Trump Jr walks out of Triggered book launch after heckling – from supporters

Event at University of California is cut short amid anger at his refusal to take questions from the audience

I am completely disgusted that these people behaved this way at the book signing. I’m talking about conservatives heckling at Donald Trump Jr. because the y didn’t want to take questions. Really? This just gave the left their Monday talking points on all the liberal news channels. Kimberly Guilfoyle was right in calling them rude. 

 Donald Trump Jr walks out of Triggered book launch – video

Donald Trump Jr ventured on to the University of California’s overwhelmingly liberal Los Angeles campus on Sunday, hoping to prove what he had just argued in his book – that a hate-filled American left was hell-bent on silencing him and anyone else who supported the Trump presidency.

But the appearance backfired when his own supporters, diehard Make America Great Again conservatives, raised their voices most loudly in protest and ended up drowning him out barely 20 minutes into an event scheduled to last two hours.

The audience was angry that Trump Jr and his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, would not take questions. The loud shouts of “USA! USA!” that greeted Trump when he first appeared on the stage of a university lecture hall to promote his book Triggered: How The Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us quickly morphed into even louder, openly hostile chants of “Q and A! Q and A!”

The 450-strong audience had just been told they would not be allowed to ask questions, “due to time constraints”.

At first, Trump and Guilfoyle tried to ignore the discontent, which originated with a fringe group of America Firsters who believe the Trump administration has been taken captive by a cabal of internationalists, free-traders, and apologists for mass immigration.

When the shouting would not subside, Trump Jr tried – and failed – to argue that taking questions from the floor risked creating soundbites that leftwing social media posters would abuse and distort. Nobody was buying that.

In minutes, the entire argument put forward by the president’s son – that he was willing to engage in dialogue but that it was the left that refused to tolerate free speech – crumbled.

“I’m willing to listen…” Trump began.

“Q and A! Q and A!” the audience yelled back.

Read the entire article here: Donald Trump Jr walks out of Triggered book launch after heckling – from supporters

White Members of BLM Fight With Black Trump Supporters AT CPAC

White Members of BLM Fight With Black Trump Supporters AT CPAC

Will Johnson, the founder of Unite America First, confronted numerous members of Black Lives Matter at CPAC in Orlando, Florida, late in February, when representatives of the group gathered outside the convention to protest President Donald J. Trump’s America First policies and his speaking engagement with the group. Johnson, in his typical manner, attempted to engage the BLM members in the factual discussion.

“Why do we need Black people out here with the Black Lives matter?” the BLM member told Johnson when he asked where the Black people are with Black Lives Matter.

YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS UP

Johnson engaged activists and questioned their ideology, and it appeared that the white activists had gotten a set of talking points from some centralized group.

“Why do we need White people to tell Black people that their lives matter, as if we do n’t know that already,”Johnson said.

“Black Population makes up 13% of the population and commits 52% of the crimes, so why are you out here? Explain to me systematic racism,” Johnson, who is black, said.

“I do not believe your numbers,” said the white Black Lives Matter member.

“I am a Black man, and you are telling me that the party’s switched, and the Democrats are trolling Black people. LBJ said he would have Black people voting Democrats, with the idea of getting stuff. Let’s talk about who created the racism? Republicans have never championed slavery.

“There is slavery in the industustrial Prison Complex,” the BLM said, “You just don’t know about it,” he said.

“Your brains are empty,” the White BLM member told Johnson. (But that isn’t racist) “You are so brainwashed; you are so pathetic; your brain is nothing. And this is your own community; you don’t care.

“My community is America,” Johnson said.

“Wow you are so brainwahsed you just want White acceptance, ” the white BLM said. “You are calling the kettle -black,” the White BLM member said.

The only other Black American in the group were supporters of Trump’s and were Republicans who were being called racist by White BLM members.

The irony was almost shocking if it was a persistent theme around the country where White BLM members were openly attacking Black Conservatives.

A Black Trump supporter confronted the white BLM member about the defintion of “racism” and told him, it is someone who denies others opportunity. The activst is was speechless.

“Why are you a White person out here telling me a Black person that my life matters. Don’t you think I know that? What about White lives? Do they matter?” Johnson said.

“I may look White Passing, but I am not White. I have Black ancestry on my Grandmother’s side. Capitalism is why they are not here.

“So Black people all only work on Saturday?” Johnson said.

“I am just a person who bought the flag, I am not part of the movement. They don’t have any groups in Florida,” he told Johnson. “Why are you holding a flag that holds White people? Why are you supporting Democrats?”

“I think the Democrats stink too. I am Jewish from Africa and I am Native American, I am not caucasion,” the White BLM told Johnson.

HUGE EXCLUSIVE: Election Do-Over? Latinos For Trump Sue to Shut Congress Down Over Civil Rights Violations

HUGE EXCLUSIVE: Election Do-Over? Latinos For Trump Sue to Shut Congress Down Over Civil Rights Violations

Biannca Garcia has a long history of  conducting voter engagement campaigns for Hispanics and Latinos, working for the Blexit Campaign in Texas, in minority outreach for the RNC in Texas, and  she is about to lead what she calls the “biggest Civil Rights Action Case since Dr, Martin Luther King Jr.”

“Because of the illegal way the government used emergency powers for COVID to override our voting rights, we did not have our voices heard, and as minorities, we are supposed to have our votes protected. That is what the voting rights acts are about, and the Government did not do their due diligence,” Garcia said.

“We want the entire Congress to shut down because they are unconstitutional and operating illegally, and we are suing all 50 states. We are the Majority. We are the Middle 90%, who had our rights violated by the US Government,” Garcia told me. “The 5% for the Democrat party and the 5% in the Republican party are not in our lawsuit,” she said. “That leaves the Middle 90%.”

From the filing, they are calling the lawsuit of the “invisible argument”:

“The truth of the allegations set forth herein compels the shocking
conclusion that every member of currently-seated 117th U.S. Congress and the
President-Elect, who is scheduled to be sworn in this coming Wednesday, January
20th, were not legitimately elected because the People of the United States were given
ballots that were patently illegal under federal law, namely HAVA. Therefore, the
entire 117th Congress is illegitimate and all actions taken since January 3, 2021,
including the counting of the Electoral College votes and confirmation of Joseph
Biden as President-Elect and the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump are
null and void.
5. Never before in the history of the United States of America (the
“Republic”) has the entire federal election been conducted in clear and unequivocal
violation of duly-enacted federal election law. With the sitting President’s term set
to expire this Wednesday, January 20th, this situation is a Constitutional Crisis of
cataclysmic proportion unlike any seen since the Southern States seceded from the Republic in 1861. The only conceivable remedy is for this Honorable Court to enter
an injunction to restrain all further action and to enjoin the enforcement and effect
of all previous actions of the 117th Congress until trial upon the merits, and, upon a
verdict for the Plaintiffs, for the Court to order the 50 states to conduct a new federal
election that conforms to the minimum standards of HAVA.

DOCUMENT ONE: 1_4920726056589066579

“No one in the Government did their job to protect us from the illegal violations of our voting rights. so the list of people we want to be shut down is long.”

The court filings reference the HAVA Act, an extension of the Civil Rights Voting Act, both designed to protect minority voters with special funding from the federal government. There are checks and balances in the Acts that were not utilized in the recent elections, the plaintiffs claim. The groups that changed the laws to accommodate governors’ emergency powers and Secretary of State officers did not follow the Constitutional rules about voting. The voting act protections are the lawsuit’s primary claim.

Also named in the lawsuit:

PETE SESSION, MITCH McCONNELL, NANCY PELOSI,
MARK ZUCKERBERG, CHUCK
SCHUMER, ALEXANDRIA
OCASIO-CORTEZ, BRAD
RAFFENSPERGER, ALL
MEMBERS OF THE 117TH U.S.
CONGRESS,

From their second filing, lawyers claim:  Plaintiffs clearly have civil rights injuries under the
various statutes pleaded in this suit since there is no more fundamental injury to the
rights of a U.S. Citizen than public officials acting under color of law to deprive
Plaintiffs of their sacrosanct right to cast a legal ballot in the election of their
representatives to the federal government without due process of law, once that right
has been extended. 3 Plaintiffs have the standing to sue federal officials where they act
alongside state or local officials, 4 as is clearly the case where state and local officials
made unlawful changes to election procedures in violation of HAVA. “

DOCUMENT TWO: 1_4920726056589066580

“We are asking people to get involved.  We want to do the election over again, and we are asking the Grassroots of America to lock arms with us and help us.  We don’t want a big donor for this.  It is about the people we were all violated. Even if Trump had won, our rights would have still been violated because Congress did not do what they were supposed to do. And if we don’t get the government to protect our civil rights now, they never will again. All voters and minorities should be with us on this,” Garcia said.

The lawsuit is an effort of three groups, Latinos for Trump, Blacks for Trump, and Vets for Trump, and she is quick to point out that the lawsuit is not about Trump himself; it is about the combined concerns for American Civil Rights.

According to the website for the lawsuit, there is a question and answer video:

“Fraud 2020: Not just another Trump lawsuit” is the first video in our “Question and Answer” series helping Americans learn about the crimes committed against them. Unfortunately, we can not always trust the media to tell us the truth due to the influence of money and power over media companies.

M90USA’s “Q and A” video series will put forth the facts and allow the American people to decide for themselves.

“Not just another Trump lawsuit” explains the frauds and crimes conducted by partisan enterprises in the 2020 federal election to execute a “coup” against the United States people themselves.

Law and Crime has covered the case already, in a story and mocked the group’s efforts, and admitted that a judge is likely to hear the case.

“We know that to the left’s disappointment, the judge in our case is interested in hearing more about the Civil Rights violations that we have recorded.  We have affidavits from many people, minorities, including people who immigrated here from Cuba who say that their Civil Rights were violated in the 2020 Presidential elections and that their vote was not honored.  To minorities, all we have is the idea that our vote, which is sacred, is going to be protected by the United States government, and it is clear that our rights were not protected,” Garcia said.

WHAT THEY WANT

a. Permanent injunctive relief in the form of a new federal election for both Congress and the President and Vice President.
b. Permanent injunctive relief forever restraining Defendants from participating in any action relating to the process of electing public officials, other than casting their own lawful vote as a citizen of the United States, or at least restraining Defendants from such participation in the new federal election to be ordered after trial on the merits,
c. Permanent injunctive relief forever restraining Defendants from violating Plaintiffs constitutional rights described herein,
d. General Damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial;
e. Punitive Damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial;
f. Reasonable attorneys fees’ and costs of suit;
g. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest

“We know that our Civil Rights were not resected because of the way the Governors and the Secretaries of State in numerous states used emergency powers to bypass HAVA Act and other voting protections.  So we already know there are violations, and the Government can not ignore that,” she said.

“We filed a lawsuit before Inauguration, and we have made it at the first round, ” Garcia told me on Sunday.

WHAT THEY NEED

“We need the grassroots to get behind us, and if they can donate a little money.  We want to get to the Supreme Court, and we believe we can. This is going to be a huge case. It affects everyone, whether they like Trump or not,” Garcia said.

“They can’t look away from this genuine charge against minorities,” Garcia said,  and to be honest real Americans are not going to allow them to. This is real.  We didn’t all go through the Civil Rights Era for nothing.

We can’t look away. This isn’t just a high school drama. This is real:

This story is developing…

Democrat Impeachment Managers Doctored Video Leaving Out Trump’s Call to March ‘Peacefully and Patriotically’ [VIDEO]

Democrat Impeachment Managers Doctored Video Leaving Out Trump’s Call to March ‘Peacefully and Patriotically’ [VIDEO]

For all the bullschtein the Left has handed out like tech tyrants of social media punishing conservatives for posting inconvenient truths as “misleading information,” “disinformation,” or “conspiracy theories” the Democrat House impeachment managers are proving once again that there is a double standard when it comes to conservatives.

On Tuesday, the Democrat impeachment managers were called on the carpet for showing a video montage of the events of January 6 that just goes to show that they have turned the entire impeachment process into a mockery.

The Democrats played a 13-minute long video of clips from Donald Trump’s speech where the former president told his supporters to “fight like hell,” something all the prominent Democrats have said whenever they’re pushing an issue.  Anyone with a three-digit IQ knows Trump was not telling his supporters to literally start punching people, but that’s the message the House managers wanted to convey because they left out the most important part of Trump’s speech, the part where he said he wanted his supporters to go march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol to let their voices be heard.

It’s not as if the Democrats don’t know that millions upon millions of Americans have argued the Trump said peacefully and patriotically.  They know that.  Of course, they know it, but they kept that part out because they are scumbag liars.  Those two words “peacefully” and “patriotically” are what make the whole trial a sham.  The former president did not do what the Democrats are accusing him of having done, and they intentionally left that exculpatory evidence out because they intended to convince Republican senators that Trump incited the violence and an insurrection, of which he clearly did not.  The real evidence, not some cleverly edited video, shows.

WATCH:

Not long after the edited video was played and was spread around the Internet, Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN), a media group that simply broadcast Trump rallies without a leftist filter, posted to social media a video to show how the Democrats gaslighted the senators by removing exculpatory parts of their montage.

WATCH:

Donald Trump Jr. posted a video on Twitter of a Newsmax interview during which Representative Lee Zeldin (R-NY) also condemned the deceptive video used by Democrats.

“If they’re going to start playing the video of what the president said, how do you cut it out at the point where the president’s telling his supporters to do so peacefully and patriotically?” asked Zeldin.

Even the left-of-Lenin Newsweek published a fact-check on the accusations that the video was edited to remove Trump’s words calling for a peaceful and patriotic march, and said the claim was true.

“According to a transcript of the speech and footage of it in its entirety, Trump did make the statement on January 6,” the fact-check stated. “The video played at Trump’s trial Tuesday showed the violence that occurred at the Capitol but does not include that part of his speech.”  Of course not, and that was intentional.

“The montage presented by lead impeachment manager Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) shows the tens of thousands of Trump supporters at the Ellipse as he echoed unsubstantiated claims of a stolen election. It then cuts to rioters marching to and storming the Capitol before the conclusion of the speech, then returns to a later portion of Trump’s remarks,” it added.

The whole thing shows the Democrats have no problem gaslighting Americans with lies and lies of omission.  That attempt at propaganda should bring the six RINO losers back to the aisle of reality and vote not to convict.  The edited video proves the impeachment is a sham.

Though we know absolutely nothing will happen because of it, former representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) tweeted out a message that people should refer to page 34 of the House Rules positing that the manipulated video broke House rules.  He provided a link.

The Committee on Ethics is directed to report to the House, not later than December 31, 2021, any recommended amendments to the Code of Official Conduct, as well as any accompanying regulations, intended to address the circumstances and instances, if any, for which a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may be subject to discipline for the dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.” [emphasis added]

NY Legislature Pushing Bill to Freeze Statute of Limitations to Go After Trump For Perceived Crimes

NY Legislature Pushing Bill to Freeze Statute of Limitations to Go After Trump For Perceived Crimes

As the bogus impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins this week, New York legislators are pushing to pass the “No Citizen is Above the Law” bill that is aimed at making it easy for Trump or any future president to avoid state prosecution if accused of a crime.

Of course, it all depends on an accuser’s definition of “wrongdoing” because that definition could change more often than your underwear in the Wokety Woke Woke world we now live in.

The bill was proposed by state Senator Michael Gianaris (D-Queens) and Assemblyman Nick Perry (D-Brooklyn) and it is determined to stop the statute of limitations so that an angry mob can go after a former president because the statute of limitations clock will be frozen in time during the years a president sits in office.  Is it Constitutional?  Probably not, but since when has that ever stopped a partisan Democrat?

During a president’s term, he is immune from arrest or prosecution no different from members of Congress when Congress is in session.  This is based on a couple of Department of Justice (DOJ) memos from 1973 and 2000, both of which interpret the US Constitution, but both of which also have never been tested in the US Supreme Court.

Perry and Gianaris both argue that a president should not use the time they are in office to avoid prosecution because the statute of limitations expires.  In other words, a rule that has been around since time began but is not appreciated for one man, in particular, shall not continue to stand.

“Any president who breaks the law should be held accountable without regard to the time they spend in office.  As our nation prepares for an unprecedented second impeachment trial, we must close the loophole that allows Presidents to escape culpability by exploiting statutes of limitations due to Presidential immunity,” Gianaris said.

The New York Attorney General Letitia James, known for going after the NRA, because, well, obviously, and Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. are looking into Trump’s businesses.

James not only $750,000 in public money that she didn’t need for her campaign back in 2017, but she spent $500,000 of it on Election Day itself when she dumped money she would otherwise have been obligated to return.  James called the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization even though there is not an ounce of proof to say that.

In 2015 Vance refused to prosecute Harvey Weinstein despite having an audio file of the former Hollywood mogul admitting to sexual assault, but suddenly he became woke enough to want to go after Donald Trump for business dealings that if it goes the way everything else that’s been thrown at the man does will end up being absolutely nothing to the charges.

District attorneys in the United States have become corrupted by progressive politics.  DAs like Kim Jong Foxx in Chicago who suddenly dropped all charges against hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett, Kim Jong Gardner who failed to go after the rioters who broke through a locked gate onto private property but went after the McCluskeys who defended themselves instead, and Larry Krasner who is a disaster in Philadelphia, most of them funded by George Soros who is hell-bent on having American laws relaxed or even thrown by the wayside by prosecutors no longer prosecuting for certain types of crimes but going after innocent people like the Mclusky’s in Missouri.

The bill is expected to pass the New York Senate this week and will be voted on in the Assembly at any time.

Alan Dershowitz, Constitutional law professor, and Trump legal advisor said that the law is more-than-likely legal, so long as they don’t freeze the statute of limitations on a criminal prosecution, which is precisely what the bill is designed to do.

Republican lawmakers have stood up and accused Perry and Gianaris of political showboating.

“This is just a pointless political headline-grab that’s out of their jurisdiction and ignores more pressing concerns happening right in front of their faces,” said Assemblyman Will Barclay (R-Syracuse).

“It’s unfortunate they’ve spent far less energy reining-in executive powers or issuing a subpoena to the sitting governor,” added Barclay, referring to Cuomo’s terrible job at handling the coronavirus on top of what many consider murder in the nursing home death scandal where the governor forced COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes that caused a lot of deaths.

Donald Trump’s Lawyers Give His Response To Impeachment Article On Incitement Of Insurrection

Donald Trump’s Lawyers Give His Response To Impeachment Article On Incitement Of Insurrection

President Donald Trump, or should I remind everyone, especially Democrats, that he is now in reality “former” President Donald Trump, as he has not been in office since noon on January 20, 2021.  He is now a private citizen.

On Monday, the former president’s attorneys Bruce Castor and David Schoen responded to the Article of Impeachment scammed against him by the United States House of Woke Representatives.  I say scam because there was not a single hearing, there were no witnesses called, and the then-president was not allowed to respond to the accusations being made against him.  And the most important part is the House had no evidence to prove the allegations made in the Article.

Basically, the argument sums up to “The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed…”

Read their response below:

ANSWER OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP, 45TH PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, TO ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION
To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate:
The 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump, through his
counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., and David Schoen hereby responds to the Article
of Impeachment lodged against him by the United States House of
Representatives by breaking the allegations out into 8 Averments and,
Respectfully Represents:

1. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ‘shall have
the sole Power of Impeachment’ and that the President ‘shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.’”

Answer 1:
Admitted in part, denied in part as not relevant to any matter properly
before the Senate. It is admitted that the Constitutional provision at
Averment 1 is accurately reproduced. It is denied that the quoted provision
currently applies to the 45th President of the United States since he is no longer
“President.” The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold
office to be impeached. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the
clause ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for
the Senate to accomplish, and thus the current proceeding before the Senate is
void ab initio as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language
of the Constitution. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states “[j]udgment in
cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor…” (emphasis added). Since
removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent
which must occur before, and jointly with, “disqualification” to hold future
office, the fact that the Senate presently is unable to remove from office the 45th
President whose term has expired, means that Averment 1 is therefore
irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.

2. Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits
any person who has ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion against’ the United
States from ‘hold[ing] any office…under the United States’.

Answer 2:
Admitted in part, denied in part, and denied as not relevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. It is admitted that phrases from Section 3 of the
14th Amendment to the Constitution are correctly replicated in Averment 2. It
is denied that the 45th President engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the United States. The 45th President believes and therefore avers that as a
private citizen, the Senate has no jurisdiction over his ability to hold office and
for the Senate to take action on this averment would constitute a Bill of
Attainder in violation of Art. I, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.
The 45th President asks the Senate to dismiss Averment 2 relating to the 14th
Amendment as moot.

3. In his conduct while President of the United States – and in violation of
his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Answer 3:
Denied, and irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate. It is
denied that the 45th President of the United States ever engaged in a violation
of his oath of office. To the contrary, at all times, Donald J. Trump fully and
faithfully executed his duties as President of the United States, and at all times
acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States, while never engaging in any high Crimes or
Misdemeanors. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the clause
‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ referenced at Averment 1
above is impossible, and the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab
initio as a legal nullity patently contrary to the plain language of the
Constitution. As the present proceedings are moot and thus a nullity since the
45th President cannot be removed from an office he no longer occupies,
Averment 3 is irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

4. Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by
inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:
On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the
House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a
joint session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. 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.

Answer 4:
Admitted in part, denied in part, and denied as irrelevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. It is admitted that on January 6, 2021 a joint
session of Congress met with the Vice President, the House and the Senate, to
count the votes of the Electoral College. It is admitted that after the November
election, the 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the
Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since
with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic
“safeguards” states election laws and procedures were changed by local
politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures.
Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that
the 45th President’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies
they were false. Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First
Amendment. Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is
unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of
Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from
government retaliation. If the First Amendment protected only speech the
government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no
protection at all. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the
Constitutional clause at Averment 1 above ‘shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for…’ is impossible since the 45th President does not hold office
and the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity
rendering Averment 4 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

5. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump,
addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse in Washington DC. There, he reiterated
false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.”

Answer 5:
Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that President Trump
addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse on January 6, 2021 as is his right
under the First Amendment to the Constitution and expressed his opinion that
the election results were suspect, as is contained in the full recording of the
speech. To the extent Averment 5 alleges his opinion is factually in error, the
45th President denies this allegation.

6. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged – and
foreseeably resulted in – lawless action at then 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 act.

Answer 6:
Admitted in Part, denied in part. It is admitted that persons unlawfully
breached and vandalized the Capitol, that people were injured and killed, and
that law enforcement is currently investigating and prosecuting those who were
responsible. “Seditious acts” is a term of art with a legal meaning and the use
of that phrase in the article of impeachment is thus denied in the context in
which it was used. It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to
engage in destructive behavior. It is denied that the phrase “if you don’t fight
like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” had anything to do with
the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election
security in general, as evidenced by the recording of the speech. It is denied
that President Trump intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral votes.
As is customary, Members of Congress challenged electoral vote submissions
by state under a process written into Congressional rules allowing for the
respective Houses of Congress to debate whether a state’s submitted electoral
votes should be counted. In 2017, Democratic Members of Congress
repeatedly challenged the electoral votes submitted from states where President
Trump prevailed. In 2021, Republican Members of Congress challenged the
electoral votes submitted from states where President Biden prevailed. The
purpose of the Joint Sessions of Congress in 2017 and on January 6, 2021 was
for Members of Congress to fulfill their duty to be certain the Electoral College
votes were properly submitted, and any challenges thereto properly addressed
under Congressional rules. Congress’ duty, therefore, was not just to certify
the presidential election. Its duty was to first determine whether certification of
the presidential election vote was warranted and permissible under its rules.

7. “President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior
efforts to subvert 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 Georgia, Brad
Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential
election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

Answer 7:
Admitted in part. Denied in part. Denied as irrelevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. It is admitted that President Trump spoke on the
telephone with Secretary Raffensperger and multiple other parties, including
several attorneys for both parties, on January 2, 2021. Secretary Raffensperger
or someone at his direction surreptitiously recorded the call and subsequently
made it public. The recording accurately reflects the content of the
conversation. It is denied President Trump made any effort to subvert the
certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. It is denied that the
word “find” was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing
his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined one would “find that
you have many that aren’t even signed and you have many that are forgeries.”
It is denied that President Trump threatened Secretary Raffensperger. It is
denied that President Trump acted improperly in that telephone call in any
way. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the Constitutional
clause from Averment 1 above ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for…’ is impossible since the 45th President does not hold office rendering the
current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity making
Averment 7 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

8. “In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the
United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity
of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and
imperiled a coequal branch Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as
President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Answer 8:
Denied, and denied as irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.
It is denied that President Trump ever endangered the security of the United
States and its institutions of Government. It is denied he threatened the
integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of
power, and imperiled a coequal branch Government. It is denied he betrayed
his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Rather, the 45th President of the United States performed admirably in his role
as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the
American people. The 45th President believes and therefore avers that in the
United States, the people choose their President, and that he was properly
chosen in 2016 and sworn into office in 2017, serving his term to the best of
his ability in comportment with his oath of office. Since the 45th President is
no longer “President,” the Constitutional clause at Averment 1 above ‘shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for the Senate to
accomplish since the 45th President does not hold office, meaning the current
proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity rendering
Averment 8 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.
To the extent there are factual allegations made against the 45th President of
the United States contained in Article I that are not specifically addressed
above, said allegations are denied and strict proof at time of hearing is
demanded.

Legal Defenses
To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate:

The 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump, through his
counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., and David Schoen hereby avers that the Article of
Impeachment lodged against him by the United States House of
Representatives is facially and substantively flawed, and otherwise
unconstitutional, and must be dismissed with prejudice. In support thereof,
the 45th President,

Respectfully Represents:

1. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the
Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to
removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under
our Constitution.

2. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed rendering the
Article of Impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question.

3. Should the Senate act on the Article of Impeachment initiated in the
House of Representatives, it will have passed a Bill of Attainder in violation of
Article 1, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.

4. The Article of Impeachment misconstrues protected speech and fails to
meet the constitutional standard for any impeachable offense.

5. The House of Representatives deprived the 45th President of due process
of law in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachment by ignoring it own
procedures and precedents going back to the mid-19th century. The lack of due
process included, but was not limited to, its failure to conduct any meaningful
committee review or other investigation, engage in any full and fair
consideration of evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to
conduct any full and fair discussion by allowing the 45th President’s positions
to be heard in the House Chamber. No exigent circumstances under the law
were present excusing the House of Representatives’ rush to judgment. The
House of Representatives’ action, in depriving the 45th President of due process
of law, created a special category of citizenship for a single individual: the 45th
President of the United States. Should this body not act in favor of the 45th
President, the precedent set by the House of Representatives would become
that such persons as the 45th President similarly situated no longer enjoy the
rights of all American citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The actions by
the House make clear that in their opinion the 45th President does not enjoy
the protections of liberty upon which this great Nation was founded, where free
speech, and indeed, free political speech form the backbone of all American
liberties. None of the traditional reasons permitting the government to act in
such haste (i.e exigent circumstances) were present. The House had no reason
to rush its proceedings, disregard its own precedents and procedures, engage
in zero committee or other investigation, and fail to grant the accused his
“opportunity to be heard” in person or through counsel – all basic tenets of due
process of law. There was no exigency, as evidenced by the fact that the House
waited until after the end of the President’s term to even send the articles over
and there was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did.
Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in
America, especially in the Congress of the United States.

6. The Article of Impeachment violates the 45th President’s right to free
speech and thought guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.

7. The Article is constitutionally flawed in that it charges multiple instances
of allegedly impeachable conduct in a single article. By charging multiple
alleged wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it
impossible to guarantee compliance with the Constitutional mandate in Article
1, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 that permits a conviction only by at least two-thirds of the
members. The House charge fails by interweaving differing allegations rather
than breaking them out into counts of alleged individual instances of
misconduct. Rule XXIII of the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate
When Sitting on Impeachment Trials provides, in pertinent part, that an article
of impeachment shall not be divisible thereon. Because the Article at issue
here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article, it would be impossible to
know if two-thirds of the members agreed on the entire article, or just on parts,
as the basis for vote to convict. The House failed to adhere to strict Senate
rules and, instead, chose to make the Article as broad as possible intentionally
in the hope that some Senators might agree with parts, and other Senators
agree with other parts, but that when these groups of senators were added
together, the House might achieve the appearance of two thirds in agreement,
when those two thirds of members, in reality, did not concur on the same
allegations interwoven into an over-broad article designed for just such a
purpose. Such behavior on the part of the House of Representatives may have
a less nefarious reason, in the alternative, and simply be a by-product of the
haste in which the House unnecessarily acted while depriving the 45th
President of the United States of his American right to due process of law. The
45th President of the United States believes and therefore avers that the defect
in the drafting of the Article requires that Senators be instructed that if two
thirds of them fail to find any portion of the Article lacking in evidence
sufficient for conviction, then the entire Article fails and should be dismissed.

8. The Chief Justice of the United States is not set to preside over the
proceedings contemplated by the Senate, as he would be constitutionally
required to do if the House was seeking to have the president removed from
office under Art. I, Sec 3, Cl. 6 of the United States Constitution. Once the 45th
President’s term expired, and the House chose to allow jurisdiction to lapse on
the Article of Impeachment, the constitutional mandate for the Chief Justice to
preside at all impeachments involving the President evidently disappeared, and
he was replaced by a partisan Senator who will purportedly also act as a juror
while ruling on certain issues. The House actions thus were designed to
ensure that Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over the proceedings,
which effectively creates the additional appearance of bias with the proceedings
now being supervised by a partisan member of the Senate with a long history of
public remarks adverse to the 45th President. The 45th President believes and
therefore avers that this action of the House of Representatives, additionally,
violated his right to due process of law because the House, effectively,
maneuvered an ally in the Senate into the judge’s chair.

WHEREFORE, Donald John Trump, 45th President of the United States
respectfully requests the Honorable Members of the Senate of the United States
dismiss Article I: Incitement of Insurrection against him as moot, and thus in
violation of the Constitution, because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to remove
from office a man who does not hold office. In the alternative, the 45th
President respectfully requests the Senate acquit him on the merits of the
allegations raised in the article of impeachment.

Bush Era Politicians Get “Stompy Foot” Over GOP Support for President Trump and Walk Out

Bush Era Politicians Get “Stompy Foot” Over GOP Support for President Trump and Walk Out

Washington DC is going under a massive transformation since the Inurugation of Democrat Joe Biden. The Republican party is beginning to embrace that President Donald J. Trump is the people’s leader, and the people want Trump to lead the Grand Old Party in the future. The shift in focus from squishy leftist to  Populist Conservative leaves career politicians looking for new digs with an unfavorable “Uniparty.”

“Dozens of Republicans in former President George W. Bush’s administration are leaving the party, dismayed by a failure of many elected Republicans to disown Donald Trump,” Reuters reported on Monday.

The Establishment is not happy.

“These officials, some who served in the highest echelons of the Bush administration, said they had hoped that a Trump defeat would lead party leaders to move on from the former president and denounce his baseless claims that the November presidential election was stolen,” Reuters wrote, proving that many civil servants sill answer to their voters who do support Trump and want answers about the extraordinary November election.

“But with most Republican lawmakers sticking to Trump, these officials say they no longer recognize the party they served. Some have ended their membership; others are letting it lapse while a few are newly registered as independents, according to a dozen former Bush officials who spoke with Reuters.”

WHO CARES?

It is no surprise that the squishy, haughty leftist Republicans, who the American people do not care about, are leaving the GOP over the massive public support for President Donald J. Trump.

Trump is everything the Tea Party movement said they wanted. Trump’s policies and agenda for America is the great equalizer between the working American and the elite political class.

Former President George Bush Jr. was never all that exciting for Conservative Republican voters because he was always viewed as a squishy shadow of his father, a failed, and George Bush Sr. was an unpopular one-term President.

Conservatives at their time “held their noses” and voted for Bush Jr., who immediately was faced with 911 attacks, and so the country got behind him and supported him for the most part, out of a sense of duty to the nation.

But Bush was never popular; in fact, before his second term, Karl Rove had town halls around the country to beg and plead for people’s support, claiming the Bush administration would finally represent Conservatives with just one more term.

Bush got the votes, and betrayed the voters, and never looked back.

Bush Jr. spent his second term licking the boots of the people who were trashing him in the media, an utter submissive humiliation, opening the door for leftists to infiltrate public institutions, such as the public takeover schools.

In fact, Obama’s first term was really Bush Jr.’s second term. Bush lied to the public, and now his cronies are sad about Trump.

Reuters goes on:

“More than half of the Republicans in Congress – eight senators and 139 House representatives – voted to block certification of the election just hours after the Capitol siege.

Most Republican Senators have also indicated they would not support Trump’s impeachment, making it almost certain that the former president won’t be convicted in his Senate trial. Trump was impeached on Jan. 13 by the Democratic-led House of Representatives on charges of “incitement of insurrection,” the only president to be impeached twice.

The unwillingness by party leaders to disavow Trump was the final straw for some former Republican officials.”

So Trump has been successful so far in draining the GOP Swamp. We really may have won more than was at first evident to us.

Trump’s Impeachment Lawyer, David Schoen, Was One of the Last People to Meet With Jeffrey Epstein

Trump’s Impeachment Lawyer, David Schoen, Was One of the Last People to Meet With Jeffrey Epstein

According to President Donald J. Trump, David Schoen appeared on Fox News on Monday and told show host Sean Hannity that he was ready for the job in a week to defend Trump in Washington DC is an Impeachment trial.

Washington DC has gone on the warpath against Trump in a full-blown and shocking campaign of revenge, and they are dragging out every dirty political trick that they can collectively come up with to harm and abuse Trump for daring to represent the will of the American people over their shady backroom deals and cronyism.

“Besides the fact that it is an unconstitutional and very very dangerous road to take to the first amendment, and against everything we believe in this country,” Schoen told Hannity.

“Impeachment is tearing the country apart.  Biden missed an opportunity to call this off and be a Statesman.  The democrats tried to impeach Trump on his first day, so this is the weapon they have used against him, Pelosi and Water just want to stop him from running for president again. What about the people who want an open political process. sing impeachment to stop someone from running.  The people are being judged, and Jury has already announced that the defendant must be convicted.  Leahy has already called for Trump to be convicted. Does this country really need videotapes of people being hurt? We would stipulate there was a riot, and it has nothing to do with what President Trump,” Schoen said.

Schoen was one of, if not the last person to meet with Jeffrey Epstein, telling Fox News about the meeting casting doubt on the official cause of death for Epstein.

“I saw him a few days earlier,” said Schoen on Fox Nation’s “Deep Dive” last year. “The reason I say I don’t believe it was suicide is for my interaction with him that day. The purpose of asking me to come there that day and over the past previous couple of weeks was to ask me to take over his defense.”

Schoen was due to represent Epstein.

“We agreed in the course of that discussion… He was upbeat and excited about going forward,” Schoen continued. “The following day, I got a phone call from one of his lawyers saying he just met with him after I met with him. How excited he is about going forward with this. If I could get in that night and start giving orders to the team, it would be a great help.”

Schoen hit the ground running in his first interview on Trump’s behalf on his first full day on the job.

“I was flattered he asked me, and I’m honored to represent him,” said Schoen, who lives in Atlanta and has law offices in New York and Montgomery, Alabama.

“Two trial lawyers, David Schoen and Bruce Castor Jr. will head the legal team defending him in the Senate against the charge that he incited the deadly invasion of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6,” CNBC reported on Sunday.

“The hiring of Schoen, a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer who previously represented Trump’s longtime ally Roger Stone, and Castor, a former district attorney known for declining to prosecute Bill Cosby on sexual assault charges, was announced Sunday in a press release from Trump’s office,” CNBC said.

Fox News reported on the impeachment:”Last week, 45 Republican senators voted that the Senate did not have the authority to hold a trial for a former president. But 50 Democrats and five Republicans voted that it can — allowing the trial to move forward and virtually assuring that senators will eventually be forced to vote on whether or not to convict Trump. It’s highly unlikely that any court would step in to tell the Senate how to run its internal affairs.”

.

Trump Speaks Publicly For The First Time Since Leaving Office

Trump Speaks Publicly For The First Time Since Leaving Office

On Friday, former President Donald Trump made his first public comments since leaving office and said that he’ll make a comeback in some way but he didn’t expand on it.

“We’ll do something, but not just yet,” Trump told Rob Crilly of the Washington Examiner on Friday. He didn’t come forward with any kind of details.  And that’s just fine with me because we know that any time Trump said he was going to do something the mainstream media did everything in their power to thwart him.

Trump made the comment as he was eating at the International Golf Club in West Palm Beach Florida.

Wednesday morning, before he left for Florida, the then President made remarks that were also about being “back in some form.”

“I will tell you that the future of this country has never been better. I wish the new administration great luck and great success. I think they’ll have great success. They have the foundation to do something really spectacular,” Trump said to supporters only hours prior to Joe Biden being inaugurated.  I don’t think he believes that for a split second and neither do any of us.   I think he had to say it because he was the outgoing president and wanted to appear presidential but he knows that the Biden administration with the Democrats in the House and Senate are going to bring us to Venezuelan levels of poverty and chaos.  They’re bringing in the same kind of deadly Democratic socialism that destroyed the once rich and vibrant Venezuela.

Trump was referring to the economy when he told supporters “you’re going to see incredible numbers coming in” and it would get even better if the Biden administration let his policies remain unchecked.  But that ship has already sailed as Joe Biden has already signed enough executive orders to really harm the American working class.

On day one, Joe Biden wrote a bunch of executive orders to undo a number of Trump’s executive orders on immigration, suspending the Keystone XL pipeline, removing Trump’s 1776 Commission, and more.  Every order he undid was good for America.  We reported on Biden’s amnesty program which is geared toward building up illegal aliens, giving them amnesty, and allowing them to take American worker’s jobs.  The result of the program will be to screw over American workers because their wages will go down again by the Biden administration increasing foreign work competition.  And the amnesty freaks are telling us that working Americans will feel good about themselves as they watch their jobs and wages get diverted to migrants, foreign graduates, and of course Wall Street.

On Tuesday, Trump said in a video that was posted online, “I want you to know that the movement we started is only just beginning. There’s never been anything like it.”

Stephen Miller, former Trump adviser said on Friday that “Florida is really the perfect place to be the new HQ of the MAGA movement and a launching pad for the president’s next endeavor.”

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were known to interfere in their successor’s policies and decision making, of course, both successors were Republican presidents.  Trump has the opportunity to play a role politically, Miller said.  But how much do you wanna bet that the Fake News Woke Supremacists will scream and moan that Trump is no longer the president and should remain silent?  If the Woke didn’t have hypocrisy they wouldn’t be the Woke.

“He leaves with the certain knowledge that he put everything you have into the mission,” Miller added. “This movement is beginning. This movement is a young movement.  It’s still in its infancy and the president… his own journey is still only begun.”

Some people close to the former president say that he’ll probably get involved in the 2022 midterm elections and he could possibly run for president again in 2024, that is if enough Republicans grow a spine in the Senate and refuse to vote to convict Trump in the bogus Chuck Schumer impeachment trial after Trump has already left office.

“Trump has a number of goals over the next couple of years … winning back the House and the Senate for Republicans in 2022 to make sure that we can stop the Democratic craziness,” said another former adviser, Jason Miller, earlier this week.

Miller asserted that Trump will “emerge as the nation’s leader on ballot and voter integrity.”  He better, because millions of American voters believe the Democrats stole the 2020 election from him.

0