And everybody heard Trump do it. It's a smoking gun a citizen, or a lawmaker, can watch fire, and listen to the report, an infinite number of times.
For all the times I have heard Jamie Raskin praised as a constitutional scholar, I am stunned to think that he missed the straightest path to conviction. The entire case is clearly laid out in one hour-long phone call, with multiple witnesses present.
It's even more important when you consider what a hammering the ex-President's defense, especially Michael van der Veen, gave the idea that one particular set of words, one moment, was necessary to prove incitement.
I said at the beginning, back when Trump was still President, when Pelosi was giving Pence an ultimatum to invoke Article 25, or the House would impeach, that to charge Trump with incitement would necessitate proving an entire continuum of intent.
I thought the managers proved that, particularly when Tommy Tuberville's brief but crucial contact with Trump was added. The events of the correlated time line clearly show Trump's intent.
And It was also incredible that, having chosen to bring this count that the managers did, during the entire case made by the House nobody hammered on the fact that Trump specifically said he was going with the crowd-- uh, mob.
He didn't, of course; anybody with a 85 IQ should have known that was BS, because the Fuhrer (oh, sorry, President) could hardly lead a march on the Capitol even if there was a permit for the march, with the kind of Secret Service deployment that such a giant, mostly un-masked gathering (I estimate somewhere approaching 20 thousand) would require! But for Trump to say so was clearly that moment of incitement that occurred, if an actual specific moment be required to prove incitement.
However, a count of impeachment specifically on the phone call would not have needed that, nor significant documentation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
