Attorney Lin Wood on Thursday went into Beast Mode on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and called for his resignation. I personally think in 2022 when Republicans take back majorities in both houses of Congress they should impeach Roberts and then remove him from office and then break for lunch.
The pro Donald Trump attorney took to social media to deliver his wrath.
“This may be most important tweet of my life.
Chief Justice John Roberts is corrupt & should resign immediately. Justice Stephen Breyer should also resign immediately.
They are “anti-Trumpers” dedicated to preventing public from knowing TRUTH of @realDonaldTrump re-election.”
Wood also questioned whether or not Roberts had visited pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s island as a photo has gone around of Bill Clinton and others known to have visited Epstein Island where a man appears to resemble Justice Roberts. I personally don’t think it’s him, but the other side must have something on him, because of the way he changed his mind on the Obamacare ruling at the very last second. Apparently, Roberts originally was going to side with the Constitutionalists on the High Court and vote to throw the entire train wreck out, but at the very last second, he changed his vote to keep the horrible law alive.
“I have long had questions about “the John Roberts” on Jeffrey Epstein private jet flight logs. I suspected it was our Chief Justice. MSM has shown no interest in investigating issue to find TRUTH.
America is now entitled to know the answer.
Every lie will be revealed.
“Corruption & deceit have reached most powerful office in our country – the Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a sad day for our country but a day on which we must wake up & face the truth.
Roberts is reason that SCOTUS has not acted on election cases. Others involved.”
C-SPAN aired a hearing in which the speaker talked about what really happened at SCOTUS when they were discussing whether or not to hear the Texas case making Constitutional arguments about how four key battleground states violated the Constitution. Prepare to be shocked.
On Tuesday, the president retweeted the attorney, who was making claims that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger would be “going to jail.”
“President Trump @realDonaldTrump is a genuinely good man. He does not really like to fire people. I bet he dislikes putting people in jail, especially “Republicans.”
Wood also attached a Photoshopped image of Kemp and Raffensperger wearing pro-China masks, as the attorney has said at the beginning of his investigation into election fraud in Georgia that he has proof that both politicians were compromised by Chinese money.
Personally, I think a much bigger problem is the fact that the SOS appointed Jordan Fuchs, a 30-year-old woman with only one year of political experience as a consultant, as Deputy Secretary of State, and it has been alleged that she brokered the Dominion contract and allegedly had something to do with the consent decree that Raffensperger ultimately accepted which changed election law regarding ballot signature verifications.
President Trump also made his argument known in response to Monday’s Electoral College vote, promising that there is “much more to come.”
“Tremendous problems being found with voting machines. They are so far off it is ridiculous,” President Trump tweeted. “This is not what the USA is all about. Law enforcement shielding machines. DO NOT TAMPER, a crime. Much more to come!”
“68% error rate in Michigan Voting Machines. Should be, by law, a tiny percentage of one percent. Did Michigan Secretary of State break the law? Stay tuned!”
Supreme Court Justice John Robers is a controversial judge, appointed by George Bush and at the time considered a conservative scholar, who has spent more than a decade delivering a deep betrayal to the American people as one of the more radical left justices on the Supreme Court, and one high profile person who is close to the President is boldly and publically calling Roberts to task with evidence that will damage Roberts.
“Answers to 2 simple questions below will tell We The People ALL we need to know about Chief Justice John Roberts. We, The People, are entitled to answers. You work for us, Justice Roberts. Answer these questions. They will not go away. You cannot fly TRUTH away on Epstein jet,” Wood said.
Woods also claims to have proof of a damaging phone call between Roberts and another justice that proves Roberts should step down.
“The People have list of questions for C.J. Roberts based on bizarre votes on major cases starting with Obamacare. But let’s ask him just two: 1. Are you the John Roberts on Epstein flight logs? 2. Did you say about @realDonaldTrump “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Wood said.
“Excellent thread to read & consider. A judge must be impartial. Chief Justice has proven by his documented profane comments about @realDonaldTrump that he is biased. At a minimum, barring further embarrassing disclosures, Roberts should recuse himself Trump election cases,” he said.
Attorney Lin Wood has taken up an approach of fiery blows in defense of President Donald J. Trump, against the Supreme Court’s actions, especially of Justice John Roberts, that is unfolding hourly.
Roberts does even more than deliver painful SCOTUS decisions, according to the Brookings Institute, he is also the mastermind behind the troublesome FISA Court:
“Among his non-judicial duties, the Chief Justice of the United States selects sitting federal judges to serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in addition to their regular judicial duties. A recent New York Times article reported that ten of the cou ’s 11 current judges, all selected by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents, as were 86 percent of all Roberts’ designees to the court. Critics say that a FISA court dominated by Republican appointees is likely to be overly sympathetic to government requests. This controversy has awakened a broader debate about the authority that has accumulated in the office of chief justice.
HAMMER TIME- WOODS TAKES ROBERTS TO THE WOODSHED
“The People have a list of questions for C.J. Roberts based on bizarre votes on major cases starting with Obamacare. But let’s ask him just two: 1. Are you the John Roberts on Epstein flight logs? 2. Did you say about @realDonaldTrump “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” He posted, alluding to a secret phone call.
“Chief Justice John Roberts wields great power. (1) has significant influence in selecting cases for review (2) presides over oral arguments (3) leads a discussion of cases among the justices. When a court renders an opinion, if in the majority, he chooses who writes court’s opinion.” he wrote.
Calls for Wood to release the phone call he refers to:
There is proof that Roberts could have a bias against Trump:
Wood’s pointed words comes at the same time a Supreme Court Clerk reports Roberts was overheard screaming about Trump:
CCP? Wood posted that he believes many officials are lying and taking money from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) It is unclear from his posts if he believes Roberts to be in that group.
“We The People have reached the point where we have seen & experienced enough corruption in OUR government. Enough is always enough. Our elected officials are dirty. They need to come clean. Here is some simple advice on how to clean up the mess you have made of our country. (1) Obey one of God’s Ten Commandments – tell the TRUTH.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” – Exodus 20:16 Following this simple rule would be refreshing to We The People. The truth would bring light to our present darkness. (2) If you speak TRUTH, you will find favor with We The People. Your rewards will be great. “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” – Revelation 22:14 Beats CCP money. (3) If you continue to lie to We The People for CCP $, power, & influence, it will not end well for you. We will FIRE you. Not good. “For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” – Revelation 22:15,” Wood posted.
According to the Democrats, anyone who uses the filibuster is a racist, If that is true then Democrats in the Senate. Last year alone the Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times. The KKK did not block anything. That must mean that the Democrats are much worse than KKK. I’m just kidding.
The reason that Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times is their ideology, not their racism.
Now, the Democrats want to kill the filibuster so that they will have a dictatorship in order to control the masses. The Democrats claim that slave owners were the people responsible for the filibuster.
But, that s a lie.
The filibuster was put in place in 1806, 55 years before the civil war. Slavery was the law of the land them. There was no need to put the filibuster in place due to slavery.
The filibuster is the only thing standing in the way for the Democrats to have total control of the government. That should scare you and it is a dangerous thing for them. What happens when the Republicans take control with no filibuster? They could make crossing our border a felony and anyone who aids them could be tried for aiding and abetting the illegal aliens. They could cut all funding for Planned Parenthood and other budget items.
Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report
President Joe Biden has been increasingly critical of the Senate filibuster, calling it a Jim Crow relic and saying it has been widely abused despite Democrats using it over 300 times in 2020, compared to once by Republicans.
“After @POTUS @JoeBiden denounced the rampant abuse of the filibuster last year, we did some digging,” Fox News anchor John Roberts tweeted Friday. “Republicans used it once. Democrats used it 327 times.”
The concept of the filibuster is easy to understand. Before a bill can be voted for there is a vote and in o0rder to do that they must get sixty votes in the Senate. If the vote gets at least sixty votes then an actual vote on the bill needs just 51 votes to pass. The vote to kill the filibuster cannot be filibuster and would require all 50 Democrats to pass. There are two Democratic Senators who are currently opposed to ending the filibuster. They are Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
The liberal state of Hawaii’s strict infringement on open carry of firearms is lawful according to a ruling by a notoriously left-wing panel of federal appeals court judges on Wednesday in a lawsuit that was brought by a man who unsuccessfully several times attempted to obtain a license to carry a loaded gun in public.
George Young, the man who brought the suit’s lawyer said he is going to ask the US Supreme Court to review the case. “We are hopeful the Supreme Court will grant review in Mr. Young’s case,” attorney Alan Beck said.
Young is arguing that he has the right to carry a gun for self-defense and he rightfully argues that being infringed from doing so is unconstitutional and violates his Second Amendment rights. His lawsuit that he filed in 2012 was thrown out when a judge who knew nothing about the Second Amendment sided with anti-gun officials who said the Second Amendment only applied to guns kept in homes. That was written in DC v. Heller, but the judges who ruled misinterpreted the Heller ruling with respect to the “in the home” aspect of the ruling.
In Heller, the Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment only allows individuals to have a gun inside their home. The “inside the home” statement came from the charge of the case, which was the District of Columbia prohibited individual Americans from keeping and bearing handguns in the home. “In the home” was nothing more than the Court making a specific determination of what DC did.
The liberals used the “in the home” verbiage to remove individual Second Amendment rights. You have to keep an eye on tyrannical liberals. They’re crafty people. Let’s just hope that Chief Justice Roberts understands this nuance of Heller.
Here are the literal words that the Court used to start the majority opinion:
“We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”
Later in the opinion, the Court wrote:
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
In other words, the Founders’ intentions were that to keep and bear arms meant to defend the individual and the homestead. The “individual” right never meant only inside the home.
Here is where it gets ugly.
Young appealed and three federal appeals court judges ruled in his favor, but then the state asked for a larger panel of judges (read the liberals on the court) to hear the case.
I am so sick and tired of Democrats rigging everything. A three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution, according to Heller and all of the research that went into that opinion, an American citizen may carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. That is the precedent of The High Court. So, Democrats, hating to lose, knew that the full 9th Circuit, instead of just a three-judge panel, would make up a panel that is left of Vladimir Lenin.
In the end, the panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday “held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawaii‘s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.”
So what happened? Did the Second Amendment suddenly change after adding more liberal judges to the case? This is why I laughed at Chief Justice John Roberts when he tried to scold former president Donald Trump saying that there are no Democrat judges and Republican judges. This is a clear cut case that there absolutely are judges who rule for ideology over the upholding the Constitution and it happens every day of the year.
According to Young’s lawyer, Hawaii has a “de facto ban” on carrying guns in public. That’s called an infringement, and it violates the Second Amendment, I don’t care how many whacked-out radical judges say otherwise.
Neal Katyal, an attorney representing Hawaii, argued to the panel that the ban is not a flat ban, because people can carry firearms if they have good cause. The problem here is that the Second Amendment was not written with a “good cause” clause. Such an entity would leave it up to whoever is elected to power at that time. How does a politician get to choose what a good cause is when we’re talking about defending your life?
The “9th Circus” ruled on the same day that Hawaii’s Attorney General’s office released a report that shows all individual citizens who applied for a license to carry a firearm in public in 2020 were denied their rights.
One of the four judges who dissented, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, wrote that the majority’s ruling that the Second Amendment only allows the right to keep a gun for self-defense in the home “is as unprecedented as it is extreme.”
The Supreme Court will hear five cases in reference to voting irregularities and broken state laws.
They will hear cases brought by Sidney and Lin Wood on Michigan and Georgia. One case brought by Rep Mike Kelly, and two lawsuits filed in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by former President Donald Trump’s campaign. The cases will be heard and the court will decide whether or no0t to consider the cases.
If any of the cases are heard in the main session, they will be heard and decided in October. My guess is that no matter what the courts decide, it will not change the election results. But, it could change the way elections are run if the court reestablishes that only state legislatures can decide how elections are run in their state.
This would stop governors, SOSs, and AGs from unilaterally setting election laws like was done in 2020.
The main sticking point could be mail-in voting because no swing state has proof of the chain of custody of the votes or signature matching. This could allow a large number of manufactured votes to be accepted by people like Mickey Mouse and Babe Ruth. There is also the issue of out of state voting and voting by illegal aliens. The Supreme Court under the direction of John Roberts has not been praised for its courage.
The court challenge was originally asked to be moved up on the calendar before inauguration day which leads me to believe that they will do much in the way of securing the vote. If nothing is done at all, then you can write of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of the constitution. And if that happens it’s just a matter of time before the entire country collapses.
Now, all of the cases mentioned above are scheduled for a conference taking place this Friday, February 19, according to records on the Supreme Court’s website.
In nearly every plea, attorneys backing Trump’s election challenges insisted their cases be heard prior to President Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, or else their success would be unlikely, the Washington Examiner reported. However, even now that Biden’s inauguration has come and gone, the lawsuits have not been withdrawn.
“Our legal issue remains important and in need of the court’s review,” Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Examiner in reference to Pennsylvania’s handling of the 2020 election. Kelly’s lawyer Greg Teufel added that he has no plans to drop the lawsuit.
Last week we reported when Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) told the members of the Senate that the impeachment trial they are going to hold against Donald Trump was unconstitutional because impeachment is to remove a president from office and Donald Trump has already left office and he is a private citizen. Nevertheless, the Democrats are hell-bent on trying private citizen Trump, not because of the main punishment which is to remove a president from office, but for one of the optional punishments put in there as an add-on that the convicted can no longer run for office. And they are accusing trump of inciting violence that erupted into a riot at the Capitol on January 6. Senator Paul pointed out that there was no such language of incitement found in Trump’s speech. In fact, he pointed out that the president said that they were going to march “peacefully and patriotically” to let their voices be heard. But none of that is getting in the way of the walk supremacy agenda.
Can they deny that President Trump’s speech was not inciteful? Maybe dictionary.com will help them out and change the definition to incitement? Who knows, because the Woke website has done so for the Supremacy in the recent past.
The senator from Kentucky then went on to remind his Democrat colleagues that elected Democratic officials told their supporters to attack Republicans. If Trump is to be impeached for asking his followers to peacefully and patriotically make their voices be heard by members of Congress then what do we do the Democrats speech that is far more incendiary rhetoric and actions?
He mentioned when a supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) drove to a baseball field in DC where Republicans were practicing for a game and started shooting with the intention of killing as many Republicans as he could and came very close to killing Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA). What drove this raging left-wing lunatic to attempted murder were the words of Senator Sanders who told his constituents that the Republicans were trying to take away their health care. Yeah, it was a lie, but Sanders caucuses with the Democrats so it was no big deal, right?
Paul also mentioned Kamala Harris, who is now the Vice Thief-in-Chief, but when he was a US senator from California she took to social media to solicit funds for a company that was bailing out criminal rioters who looted and burned Minneapolis businesses and caused all kinds of mayhem and havoc in the city so that they could get back out onto the streets again. She did it under the guise of pretending that the people who were being bailed out were peaceful protesters even though peaceful protesters were not the targets for arrest because peaceful protesters have the right to do that. The people Kamala was rooting for were criminals who were rioting or looting or assaulting people and setting businesses on fire. The company that Harris helped boost their donations to the highest ever achieved, the Minnesota Freedom Fund, is now refusing to share their records of who they actually helped get back on the streets of Minneapolis. The bail organization got a reported cash dump in the tens of millions of dollars thanks to Harris’ support. Previously they only took in about $100,000 according to their tax returns.
Then, Senator Paul reminded us off when Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) told Democrats to look for Republicans who serve in the Trump administration – but let’s face it, she meant all Republicans – and if they see them at a department store, or a restaurant or a gasoline station they were to “create a crowd” and to “push back” and to tell them that they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Can the Democrats really tell us that Waters’ words were not inciteful speech? Moreso than anything Trump said at the rally on January 6. She told Democrats to go to Republican’s houses and harass them!
Paul pointed out that Senator Cory Booker said in a speech to supporters to “Please don’t just come here today and then go home. Go to the Hill today. Get up and, please, get up in the face of some congresspeople.”
Can the Democrats honestly tell us that Booker’s words were not inciteful?
Barack Obama as president once told an audience of they were going to punish their enemies [the Republicans] and reward our friends [the Democrats].
And then there was the time that justice Alito of the United States Supreme Court had to respond to the now Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who threatened two sitting Supreme Court justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, in a very insightful speech with a bunch of people around him.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Can the Democrats really tell us that Schumer’s speech was not inciteful? He violently threatened two justices.
And in the true form of the Left, though radical Woked Supremacist Laurence Tribe denounced Schumer’s speech, and even left-wing Justice John Roberts said, “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” and the threats brought then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell out of his hole to call the remarks “astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible.”
Schumer went on television news to say that he wasn’t trying to be inciteful, even though a person with a double-digit IQ knows what he said was violent, Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) attempt to get Schumer censured fall flat.
Don’t forget how the Woke mob on the Left almost a year and a half before Schumer’s violent threats against two justices, stormed the Capitol after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the High Court. They forcefully took over Senator Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) office. Grassley was the Senate President Pro Tempore at the time. Remember when Democrats invited rabble-rousers into the confirmation hearing room to shout and scream and try to stop the hearing? I don’t remember Democrats or Fake News outlets calling for the arrest of the mob that stormed the Senate building or those who tried to stop the confirmation process, do you?
The Woke Supremacy is arguing that even though Trump asked for a peaceful protest, something even they cannot deny because it’s on film, they say that the former president exercising his Constitutional right to not concede the 2020 election because there was a massive amount of evidence that election fraud took place was incitement that caused the riot. They are either dumb or mentally ill. For Democrats, rules apply to them when they are favorable but only to Republicans when they are not.
So, then how are we supposed to believe in equal justice when the Majority Leader of the is going after private citizen Donald Trump for something he did not do after Schumer spent years trash-talking Constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court that culminated in violent incitement from the Majority Leader?
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,
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.
Ever since the January 6 riot at the Capitol the Democrats and the Left, in general, have been exploiting it to gaslight the world into thinking that all 74 million Trump voters are violent anarchists who want to kill Democrats and leftists. The idea itself is absurd as the opposite would be more likely after witnessing months of violent riots and looting that went on in Democrat-run cities and states where Democrat leaders not only did nothing to stop them but in some cases actually encouraged them with flowery language and rhetoric that made it seem like burning down businesses was righteous because, well, obviously. But there’s a little kink in the armor of Democrat lies.
It wasn’t all Trump voters who participated in the riot as registered Democrats and even nonvoters were among those arrested at the January 6 Capitol riot, according to an analysis of voting records.
The protest was a pro-Trump event that went the wrong way after what many believe was ANTIFA and other like-minded types who infiltrated the protest passing themselves off as Trump supporters who took actions that started the riot. There’s video proof of Trump supporters pulling certain individuals back after they started attempting to break into the Capitol. One can be heard saying you’re not a part of this, this is not what we do, etc.
The riot ignited the second impeachment of now-former President Donald Trump as Democrats, mostly with a few deranged RINOs, blamed Trump and said that he incited insurrection after he delivered a speech to supporters earlier in the day. Trump never said a single word that incited a riot. In fact, we have him on video saying they were going to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol to let their voices be heard. How many Democrats have said far worse than that? A man listened to the lying rhetoric of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and shot up a baseball field nearly killing Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA).
Even so, House Democrats are milking the event for all it’s worth claiming they were afraid for their lives as protesters stormed the Capitol building, the House voted to impeach the president after having nothing to do with the riot, in fact, he was still speaking when it started and there’s no way any of the people who were listening to his speech could have even gotten to the Capitol and through the crowds of protesters in time to storm the building. It’s just nonsense to claim so. The impeachment trial in the Senate is scheduled to begin next week. The Democrats and some Republicans who also never understood the Constitution are going through with trying a private citizen and without the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presiding. It is unconstitutional to try a private citizen as the Constitution says “the president,” and it says the Chief Justice shall preside. Chief Justice John Roberts wants no part in the trial because he knows the whole thing is unconstitutional and he doesn’t want to have to recuse himself after the Senate convicts a man who is no longer president.
The DC swamp has truly gone nuts.
On Monday, Sanders asked, “The Republican Party has a fundamental decision to make. Will it be a conservative party functioning within a democratic society? Or will it be an authoritarian party built upon the Big Lie, conspiracy theories and violence?” The socialist senator from Vermont concluded it “cannot be both”
The goofy senator from Vermont sounds like the south end of a northbound horse. Anyone with an IQ above double digits knows that it is the Democratic Party that is the party of violence, party of riots, the party of burning down businesses, it’s the party of looting, the party of going out and interrupting peaceful protests and infiltrating peaceful protest to start trouble.
While the Democrats and their boot-licking sycophants in the Fake News media continue to push the narrative that it was all Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol that day, voting records tell a different story in that some of the people involved in the riot were registered Democrats and some didn’t even vote in the 2020 election.
CNN did a random act of journalism and reported on data it analyzed that of 180 people who were arrested “at least eight of the people who are now facing criminal charges for their involvement in the events at the Capitol did not vote in the November 2020 presidential election, according to an analysis of voting records from the states where protestors were arrested and those states where public records show they have lived.”
While most of the people there voted in the presidential election and were there to let the politicians know that they didn’t appreciate their votes being stolen from them making them disenfranchised voters, and a majority were registered Republicans, the data analysis uncovered that “a handful were registered as Democrats in those jurisdictions that provided party information.” So the riot, which was allegedly less than 10% of the protesters there, was not some planned Republican insurrection as has been reported by CNN and other Fake News outlets.
“Public access to voter history records varies by state, and CNN was unable to view the records of some of those charged,” CNN reported:
Among those who didn’t vote were a 65-year-old Georgia man who, according to government documents, was found in his van with a fully-loaded pistol and ammunition, and a Louisiana man who publicly bragged about spending nearly two hours inside the Capitol after attending Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally. Another was a 21-year-old woman from Missouri who prosecutors say shared a video on Snapchat that showed her parading around with a piece of a wooden sign from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. And a Florida man previously convicted of attempted murder who was accused by the government of refusing to leave the Capitol likely did not have the option to cast a ballot because of his unpaid court fines.
The Democrats are trying to build a case against the former president claiming he knew in advance what was going to happen, which does not line up at all with the evidence that is available. Trump called for a peaceful and patriotic march and then after the violence started the president put out two videos and multiple posts on social media asking for calm and for the people to respect the police and to end the violence and go home. He reminded the protesters that the Republican Party is the party of law and order. The problem is that the social media tech giants deleted the videos and tweets and other online posts and the and Fake News outlets never reported on them but the rest of the world saw them and read them respectively prior to the censorship.
Because of the partisan nature of the Woke Supremacist Democrats and how they are using hyperbolic rhetoric to make a horrible scene seem worse than it was, and because the world actually knows the truth, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) deemed the impeachment trial “dead on arrival.”
On Tuesday, forty-five US senators voted on Tuesday with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), raising Constitutional concerns over the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. Remember, Trump is no longer in office. An impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president from office. How are they going to remove Trump from office when he’s already out of office?
Forty-five senators voted with Senator Paul’s motion to raise the question of whether it is constitutional to impeach Trump after he left office. That means five Republicans actually voted with Democrats to let it be known that they believe it is Constitutional to try a former president.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) voted with Senator Paul on the motion that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
The traitors to the Constitution on the Republican side were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and Pat Toomey (R-PA) voted with the Woke Supremamcist Democrats because they believe that trying a president after he leaves office is Constitutional. It’s always the same disgraceful Republicans who vote with Democrats on the most outrageous things.
Besides flushing the RINOs out of the sewers, the ones who love to bow down to their Democrat masters, this vote can also be used the weigh the balance of how a final conviction vote will look. Thankfully there are not enough imbeciles in the US Senate who will vote against the Constitution just to harm the orange man that is bad.
On Tuesday, Senator Paul wrote that 45 senators agreed that this trial is a “sham:”
“The Senate just voted on my Constitutional point of order. 45 Senators agreed that this sham of a “trial” is unconstitutional. That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process. This “trial” is dead on arrival in the Senate,” the senator from Kentucky wrote.
Paul argued on the Senate floor that the trial against private citizen Trump is simply a partisan move by Democrats and Trump haters. The senator pointed out that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is not even going to preside over the trial. The Constitution says it must be the Chief Justice, but that isn’t going to stop the Woke Supremacy from holding a trial anyway. Instead, they have asked SenatorPat Leahy (D-VT), a man who has been in the Senate since 1975, and is the Senate Pro Tempore, to preside over the trial. That alone is 100 percent unconstitutional. The Democrats are just making it up as they go along. The entire thing is a sham.
He said before his procedural motion, “This impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country. Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former president, a private citizen is the antithesis of unity. Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat [Senate President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy] to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial, and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country. No, ‘unity’ is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness. If we are about to try to impeach a president, where is the Chief Justice? If the accused is no longer president, where is the constitutional power to impeach him? Private citizens don’t get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from office. And the accused here has already left office.”
Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history. Instead of doing the nation’s work, with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation’s time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office.
“A sham, this is, a travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day,” he added.