I just listened to the chaplain of the Senate give the opening prayer to the Senate of the United States of America followed by ALL Senators and others in the chamber giving the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Of course, today is the day when individual 1’s “defenders” referred to as “lawyers” by many, began their attempt to defend individual 1 and, to me, it was as if I was watching Fox “news.” The first “lawyer” suggested the “facts” of January 6th show that individual 1’s January 6th remarks on the ellipse were focused on a “peaceful protest.” He began what is going to be several hours of “whataboutism.”

OMG, as I listen to this “lawyer” it’s as if LYING is “routine” in the republican circles. He’s using the Black Lives Matter movement to do his “whataboutthat?” He’s saying the words “If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore,” can not be construed to suggest urging his followers to “fight like hell.” His “whataboutism” is on the border of absurd. Now he’s referring to what happened in Portland, Oregon and suggesting Nancy Pelosi was wrong in calling the THUGS individual 1 sent to Portland “storm troopers.” Well, these “Thugs” were unidentified “storm troopers” who were pulling random people off the streets, taking them to unidentified places and badgering them – ILLEGALLY.

In fact, individual 1 – after people in Portland “tagged” the Federal Building (which I’m not defending) – somehow got a “law” in place where anyone damaging a Federal Building is liable for 10 years in prison. So, now there are HUNDREDS of his supporters who are automatically subject to that law and, some, facing 30 or more years in prison. And, of course, now, his lawyers are suggesting ALL those who breached the Capitol Building should face the full legal consequences of their actions. This first “lawyer” was having trouble getting some of the words out of his mouth – I believe this is what happened when someone knows he is LYING.

Already, the next “lawyer” is following suit. (I’m trying to do this in “real time”) Now we’re hearing professional “deflection.” This “lawyer” is the one who is known for defending “mob bosses.” Isn’t that appropriate? This guy is complaining about the “rush” to “justice” and the lack of “due process.” Of course, this is not a court room and individual 1’s lawyers are trying to make it so. Individual 1 will face no consequences if convicted in this “trial” and he is suggesting the House managers “have no evidence.” Of course, the managers have the CLEAREST evidence one would need to prove the intent of someone with individual 1’s own words.

This “lawyer” is suggesting individual 1 didn’t have the opportunity to defend himself, despite being “invited” to testify in his own defense. This guy is absurd, but he’ll give the republicans in the Senate something to “hang their hands on.” He actually played the video of individual 1 telling his followers to go to the Capitol Building and “support our brave republican members of Congress” and “encourage them to support the ‘legal slate of electors’ which “should” be counted.” Did individual 1 actually think they could do that without breaching the Capitol? Is he really as stupid as his lawyers would suggest? I don’t think so.

Now, I’m listening to an endless series of videos with democrats using the words of democrats using the word “fight.” Of course, his “mob boss” defending lawyer is suggesting the use of the word “fight” by democrats makes what individual 1 said at the Ellipse of Washington DC on January 6th, 2021 (which he actually told them to “remember this date forever”) OK. What he didn’t say was that NONE of the use of the word “fight” by democrats was suggesting nor ended up with a violent reaction by the people they were talking to. He was doing EXACTLY what he was accusing the House managers of doing. In the VAST majority of situation where the democrats were using the word “fight” was to encourage people to vote. That part was left out.

It’s hard for me to type fast enough to actually keep up. Now he’s talking about the “Big Lie” – the claim the election was stolen. He’s claiming the “Big Lie” had nothing to do with the reaction of the INSURRECTIONISTS who breached the Capitol. Here comes more “whataboutism.” Of course, that’s EXACTLY what I expected to hear – and I’m forcing myself to listen to it. Naturally, I have to admit I’m biased. I don’t “hate” individual 1, but I do despise him if I am honest with my feelings. I know the republicans will not “convict” him, but I do believe he could be LEGALLY liable for what happened on January 6th, 2021 when five people DIED and massive damage was dont to our nation’s Capitol Building. He knew about the “Proud Boys” who he asked to “Stand back and stand by” in the first presidential debate.

When he was praised by David Duke and acted as if he had no idea who David Duke is, well, it was simply another of his long list of LIES. Regarding the “whataboutism” of this “mob defending” lawyer, NONE of the democrats’ use of the word “fight” resulted in mob violence and to suggest the Black Lives Matter protests were the results of those words are exactly what he’s accusing the House managers of doing. The BLM movement was the result of Police officers MURDERING Black people all across this nation – for NO reason. And, of course, it was started by the video of the Police Officer in Minneapolis LYNCHING George Floyd while being video taped – for ALL to see. The difference is HUGE.

This lawyer even went so far as to suggest the use of the “Calvary” coming to DC on the 6th as being a reference to their “Christian beliefs.” My first thought was “are you kidding me?” Then I remembered the lady from Texas who was live streaming as she ILLEGALLY entered the Capitol Building giving “thanks to Jesus” while she was committing a FELONY. Maybe that is what he was referring to, otherwise, I have no clue what he meant by that one. These “lawyers” have no defense for what individual 1 did on the 6th of January 2021. He even went so far as to “sick” his followers – who were already inside the building – on Mike Pense, by tweeting Pense has “failed us.” Obviously, he was intending on these people entering the building and “pressuring” Pense to do what individual 1 wanted – which was to overturn a “free and fair election.” Yikes!

So, now we have the first guy who was defending our TWICE IMPEACHED so-called two time popular vote LOSING president and when he says I’m not doing this (showing a video) for “whataboutism” when that was exactly what he was doing. What, so far, neither of the two “lawyers” defending individual 1 have referred to is the result of individual 1’s “speech.” They are suggesting the THUGS who breached the Capitol Building, while chanting “hang Mike Pense” and after having erected a gallows on the Capitol grounds, and were breaking down doors, breaking windows, and SEARCHING for members of Congress AND the Vice President – while two of them were carrying zip ties – were there on their own. That individual 1’s words and the words of those who were included in the “rally” at the Ellipse had nothing to do with the uprising.

This “lawyer” is suggesting individual 1’s incendiary speech is “protected by the first amendment to the constitution. What the House managers said was the result of the speech is why our TWICE IMPEACHED so-called two time popular vote LOSING president is on “trial” right now. He’s, once again, suggesting individual 1 was encouraging “peaceful” a peaceful response by his ARMED mob as they were told to go to the Capitol Building and “fight like hell” as they were supporting “our fine republican members of Congress” and, of course, there will be “some not so fine.” (I’m paraphrasing out of my weak memory) Do you really believe they could do that out on the street? There were at least 10 thousand people in his audience. It’s absurd to claim this crowd was not incited – when you watched it in real time – or on video.

As I’l listening to this “lawyer” suggest the House managers and the House which IMPEACHED individual 1 are doing so based on individual 1’s “constitutionally protected free speech.” Of course, that is absurd on its face. What individual 1 was IMPEACHED for was not for his speech, but for the result of his speech – the storming of his Capitol Building and the attempts to find VP Pense with zip ties, the trashing of the Building, the murdering of a Police Officer, the injuring of 140 other Police Officers – two of which took their own lives afterward – and the deaths of four others including a woman who was trampled during the uprising.

So far, neither of the “lawyers” have referred to individual 1’s oath of office and what he DIDN’T do after the Building was under attack. He reportedly was enjoying it. He called the people who breached the Capitol Building “very special.” Individual 1’s lawyers are doing exactly what they’ve accused the House managers of doing, but they’re dancing around the reality of what happened on January 6th 2021. Free speech is not incendiary speech, but the reality of whether individual 1’s speech was “protected” would only be determined if he were indicted and had to defend himself in an actual court of law. This instance is TOTALLY about his oath of office and whether or not he has lived up to it. Of course, I’ve been giving examples for years of how he’s NOT been “living up” to his “oath.”

At this point, his “lawyers” have said NOTHING about individual 1’s FAILURE to tell his supporters to STOP as soon as he realized they had stormed the Capitol Building. That would suggest he supported it. In fact, all the evidence would suggest he was enjoying what he was seeing and the “lawyers” for individual 1, so far, are ignoring this reality. These “lawyers” have clearly LIED on at least two or three occasions, and likely more. Here’s what they’ve got going for them. They’re simply giving “cover” for a bunch of republican Senators who will NEVER vote to convict individual 1 in the first place – which EVERYONE already knows.

What individual 1’s “lawyers” will NEVER talk about is “context” even though they, themselves, “attacked” the House managers on that front – very disingenuously. For example, the “Big Lie” which individual 1’s “lawyers” (I put it in quotes because lawyers are not supposed to LIE – if they do it in a court of law, they DO get sanctioned) brought up as being “absurd” (my characterization) started well before the election of November 3rd. Our now TWICE IMPEACHED so-called two time popular vote LOSING president began the “Big Lie” during the campaign when he realized how many Americans were “voting by mail.” He called them the “ballots.” As if the “ballots” were all going to be “fraudulent.” That was when the words, “If we lose it will be because the election was rigged” began. And, it culminated when individual 1 said he would be at the Capitol with his supporters after he had incited them to attack the Capitol – was that another “Big Lie?” Or just another one of the MANY LIES which came from his mouth during the four long years of his administration.

The third lawyer is now speaking but I’m getting tired of typing and if someone is still reading this you are likely tired of reading it. The third lawyer has already come across as absurd as he’s complementing his predecessors who will be PANNED by a large segment of the legal community for their remarks and this guy is going to be just as absurd. He’s started off by “defining INSURRECTION” and claiming this was no INSURRECTION. Here’s why it wasn’t an insurrection – Brian Sicknick and the 140 Police Officers who were INJURED preventing the INSURRECTIONISTS from succeeding. The FACT they failed to succeed does not mean it wasn’t an INSURRECTION. It simply means they FAILED to cause Mike Pense and the republicans in Congress to OVERTURN a “free and fair election.” This was an ATTEMPTED INSURRECTION!

I know I said I’d stop writing, but this guy is suggesting “there’s no place for hate” in America – which I would hopefully agree – however, I have to ask did he not see the HATE in the group which breeched the Capitol Building? Did he not hear those individual 1 supporters who claimed as they were breaching the Capitol that “The only good democrat is a DEAD democrat.” As all three of individual 1’s lawyers are accusing the House managers of using edited video to “manipulate” their position this one is using “edited video” to manipulate his point. What he’s NOT doing is addressing the FACTS of what individual 1 actually did. Keep in mind, he wasn’t able, at first, to find ANYONE willing to defend him, but then came up with this bunch right before the “trial.” This guy is showing himself as he refers to the “democratic” members as “democrat” members – a “slur” which I believe was originated by none other than Rush Limbaugh – speaking of HATERS.

These guys are almost comical, but they don’t need to be any better because they’re arguing to a bunch of republican Senators who are going to vote to acquit individual 1 no matter what comes out of their mouths. Once again, this third “lawyer” is attempting to compare this matter with an actual legal proceeding. When the House managers compared impeachment with an “indictment” it was only to point out it was the “charge.” They pointed out individual 1 would have the opportunity to defend himself in the “trial” – which is NOT a legal proceeding – and, of course, he refused to come testify to defend himself. These lawyers are taking things out of context beyond my belief – as they’re accusing the House managers of doing. All three of these “lawyers” are suggesting there should be no connection to what individual 1 said at the rally at the Ellipse and what the crowd he was addressing actually did. And, they haven’t referred to him suggesting he would “be there with you” when he actually was back in the Oval Office watching on TV. These guys are going to be obliterated by the response from the House managers – that’s my prediction.

OMG – I want to stop typing, but this third “lawyer” is simply giving MORE evidence to the complicity of individual 1 in the “attempted” INSURRECTION. He’s talking about all the reports this was a “planned event” as if individual 1 had no idea about that planning. Who prevented the proper amount of protection of the Capitol Building? Was not individual 1 the “Commander in Chief? If he wasn’t in favor of this why did he sit there and enjoy it – according to the people in the “White House” with him. Another OMG – now he’s talking about Georgia’s election which was recounted THREE times. He’s comparing the percent of rejection of votes in Georgia in 2020 compared to 2016 when Georgia’s Secretary of State was Brian Kemp, one of the experts at voter suppression. Georgia went over the votes three times and what individual 1 did in Georgia will likely be considered a CRIME by the District Attorney of Fulton County. This guy is doing the best he can and he knows he needs to convince no one.

All three of these “lawyers” have failed to directly respond to the facts and have exposed themselves as total hypocrites by doing exactly the same thing they accuse the House managers of doing. They will be obliterated tomorrow. His presentation, in my view, has been pathetical. His final plea was that when the republicans are next in the majority they wouldn’t do the same thing to the democrats. I’d say, if a democratic president refused to accept defeat at the polls and instigated an “attempted” INSURRECTION I’d say IMPEAHCH and CONVICT him/her. It’s a “no brainer.” I’m going to end this by saying I just listened to the first two responses of individual 1’s “lawyers” to questions coming from their republican audience and it’s simply laughable. If you weren’t watching/listening I recommend you go back and do so.

Final Thought: I hope this is the last time I feel I have to write about individual 1, but I’m sure there will be more to follow. He’s going to be facing legal issues in multiple locations which, quite possibly will be related to this ATTACK on our nation’s government. I’m sure I’ll have a hard time ignoring whatever happens. Personally, the ONLY reason I care he’s held to account is because I have children and grandchildren and I hope they NEVER have to see someone attempt to overthrow our nation’s government EVER again. And, to suggest that was not his aim would be totally naïve.

I have to add: Senator Sanders sent a question to both the IMPEACHMENT managers and the defenders of individual 1 essentially trying to force the counsel to our TWICE IMPEACHED so-called two time popular vote LOSING president admit he LOST the election. Watching his counsel refuse the answer while attacking the House managers irrelevantly was almost comical. It will be interesting watching the commentary about the ex presidents defense team and their ridiculous presentation and then response to questions coming from the Senators – who’ve already ALL made up their minds. It all is really a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country if something we’ve all seen with our eyes is being argued to us we didn’t actually see it.