Impeachment can’t be based on clearly ambiguous evidence

Surveillance is used to gather evidence and record statements that can be used against you in court. It’s therefore relevant here to discuss any major trial which indicates that statements made by the defendant are being misrepresented in a way that threatens the rule of law.

I’m a feminist, so nobody can accuse me of being biased in favor of a person like Trump when commenting on this article published at the top of the frontpage of the CNN website today:

Trump lawyers argue former President did not incite riots by telling supporters to ‘fight like hell’

A guilty verdict during a fair trial must be based on facts and/or statements which are clear (incitements to violence). If a statement is ambiguous in such a degree that it can easily be interpreted metaphorically, then it’s definitely not clear speech. Instead it’s a question of interpretation and opinion when each recipient of the message processes it subjectively. A guilty verdict, in any trial, can’t be based (primarily) on a single metaphor, no matter how anyone choses to interpret it. Consequently, even if one party in a conflict decides to understand a metaphor “literally” and view it in the worst light possible, it’s still just a subjective opinion, and that’s in principle never enough to justify any guilty verdict, unless you also have facts and clear speech to prove your case.

For example, if an American platoon leader said to his men, prior to a battle against Waffen SS during WW2, that “You must fight like hell” it’s clearly not an incitement to fight in a manner that violates the rules of war. It doesn’t mean that the soldiers should do anything illegal or fight like hellish war criminals.

Another example: if I write on my website that people should fight like hell to stop the totalitarian surveillance systems of Big Tech, then I’m just encouraging very intense opposition to this fascistoid system, but this doesn’t mean that I have incited anyone to punch an IT engineer in the face or burn down his house. If a bully or terrorist does that, he can’t avoid full responsibility for his actions by saying in court: “I was kind of just following orders because I had read on a website: “fight like hell”.

New York Post reveals the hypocrisy of the “Democrat” corporatists here:

Unearthed tweets show Jamie Raskin, Joe Biden saying ‘fight like hell’

The New York Times doesn’t even hide that globalized corporatists – whose use of the word “Democrat” is the newspeak equivalent to how Communists said that their own states were “People’s Democratic Republics” – are willing to convict Trump for incitement to insurrection despite his speech being legal and protected by the First Amendment:

Impeachment Trial May Hinge on Meaning of ‘Incitement’

“The Supreme Court has placed strict First Amendment limits on incitement charges in court. But many legal scholars say they do not apply in impeachment trials.”

If you believe, like I do, that large-scale mail-in ballot and computerized voting are a relatively fundamental violation of democratic election rules, then it follows logically that you can also claim that an election is illegitimate, fraudulent, rigged or stolen, if it has been based on new laws and procedures that you consider to be a risk to all fair democratic elections.

No computer is hacker-proof. I will therefore in principle never consider computerized voting to be a legitimate procedure. I have also studied social engineering enough to never trust large-scale mail-in ballot. In principle, this is a question of trust. Since I have good reason to mistrust the current system of all neoliberal states, I consider it to be even more suspect and illegitimate if there is no direct and unbroken chain of custody when casting a vote. This is my general conviction, independently of what “experts” say about a particular election, the US election in 2020 for example.

Supporters of the Biden administration are free to argue that my view is wrong when I claim that: all legitimate elections require that all citizens must show clear ID when showing up, in person, at a non-computerized polling station, except the usual tiny minority of voters who have a legitimate reason to vote through mail. Authorities had over six months to secure that polling stations were safe during the Covid-19 pandemic. In a free country I’m entitled to state my opinion that the US 2020 election was basically illegitimate, no matter who had won the election. If I had been a more passionate person I might even had said, “Stop the Steal”. However, I say this without assessing the truthfulness of any of the other electoral fraud claims made by Trump.

It’s political persecution, and a threat to constitutional democracy, if Trump is found guilty in a trial where the accusers have presented nothing more essential than the arguments and “evidence” seen here:


“President Trump’s statements at the January 6 rally were “accurate or not.” Id. at 4. It further asserts that one of President Trump’s statements—“if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”—was “clearly about the need for fight for election security in general.” Id. at 6. Finally, it declares that President Trump never “threatened Secretary Raffensperger.” Id. at 8.”

“To call these responses implausible would be an act of charity. President Trump’s repeated claims about a “rigged” and “stolen” election were false, no matter how many contortions his lawyers undertake to avoid saying so. When President Trump demanded that the armed, angry crowd at his Save America Rally “fight like hell” or “you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he wasn’t urging them to form political action committees about “election security in general.” And when the President of the United States demanded that Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger “find” enough votes to overturn the election—or else face “a big risk to you” and “a criminal offense”— that was obviously a threat, one which reveals his state of mind (and his desperation to try to retain power by any means necessary). The House looks forward to proving each of these points at trial.”

The two sections above just repeat what is being written here:

H.Res.24 – Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

If anybody says “a big risk to you” and “a criminal offense” it’s not obviously an illegal threat, because it can also be interpreted as simply being two harsh statements, two relatively brutal expressions of opinion, during one of the many heated political discussions that are common in all constitutional democracies. In any case, it certainly doesn’t prove that Trump intended to incite violence on the 6th of Jan, 2021.

The New York Times writes this about the conversation between Trump and Raffensperger:

“The president’s demand for action to overturn the result of the election in the state raised questions about whether he violated election fraud statutes, lawyers said, though a charge is unlikely.”

Trump Call to Georgia Official Might Violate State and Federal Law

Even if Trump violated a law, in the case mentioned above, it’s no proof that he planned or intended to encourage an attack on the Capitol. Or to put it differently: if Trump’s statements (Jan 02, 2021) proved his insurrectionist intent, why wasn’t the Capitol better protected on the 6th of January?

CNN reports:

Inside the fight for the Capitol: US Capitol Police officers recount being unprepared and ‘betrayed’

If any building is the target of a large street protest and the police leaves it almost unguarded it’s very predictable that any mob will attack it. This is true of all mobs, both left- and rightwing.

You simply can’t prove the meaning of a metaphor – such as “fight like hell” – unless you also have facts and clear speech to make your own interpretation the most plausible. I have listened to everything Trump communicated in public on the 6th of Jan, 2021, and can’t find any statement in the vicinity of saying: “Go attack the Capitol!”

Here is what Trump tweeted during the Capitol riot, as reported by CNBC:

“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” Trump tweeted. “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

“Trump later released a video asking supporters to leave the riots. “You have to go home now. We have to have peace,” Trump said, as he continued to falsely say that Democratic President-elect Joe Biden’s victory was “fraudulent” due to debunked claims of widespread voter fraud.”

Trump tweets amid violent Capitol Hill insurrection as leaders beg him to address the nation

As a supporter of constitutional democracies I’m actually scared and worried about the future of free societies and the rule of law when Democrats and corporate media decide to interpret the above tweet and video statement as being part of an incitement to violence.

An ambiguous impeachment video

On the first day of the second impeachment trial against Trump, the accusers presented a video intended to show/prove that Trump incited an insurrection:

Democrats begin impeachment trial with stunning riot video

But this emotional video doesn’t mention several of the statements during Trump’s speech which indicated his lawful intentions, and the alleged “evidence” in favor of interpreting his communication as an incitement to violence is clearly too ambiguous to justify a conviction.

The video almost doesn’t contain any “evidence” against Trump because it mainly shows relatively dramatic video clips covering the rioters. But you can se none of them attacking the Capitol with guns. The montage doesn’t mention that many were acting peacefully inside the Capitol building. And without a clear display of the timeline the video can give viewers the impression that it was Trump’s speech that started the riot. But it was already underway before Trump said “fight like hell”.

At 02:58 minutes into the video we hear Trump saying in the speech:

“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules.”

Firstly, if you believe, like I do, that it’s fundamentally illegitimate to change traditional election rules, by introducing large-scale mail-in ballot, in addition to relying on computerized voting, then you can argue that supporters of these new procedures are not staying true to a valid election, that they are basically acting fraudulently, as you see it.

“Fraud” is defined by Webster as:

“a) specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

b): an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK ”

Even if voters in America lost their traditional election procedure rights in a way that was legal, you can still claim it was basically fraudulent/tricky, because legality and morality are not necessarily the same.

What did Trump mean when saying ” … you are allowed to go by very different rules”? Maybe his intention was simply to say that: when Democrats change the rules of traditional election procedures, then we too can change (election) rules in our favor.

Claiming that one can play by very different rules is obviously not the same as inciting an insurrection.

Nonviolent but illegal civil disobedience is one example when people feel they are “allowed to go by very different rules”.

13:33 minutes into the video you can see a tweet from Trump, sent four hours after the Capitol was breached:

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Firstly, a tweet four hours after a riot breach can’t have incited it. Secondly, the short message from Trump can easily be interpreted as him just communicating to his political supporters that he understands their grievances, similar to how many Democrats can understand why BLM rioters were angry.

Trump said: “Go home with love & in peace.”

He also wrote: “Remember this day forever!” But what does that refer to? The riot? Or the day when Trump supporters believed an illegitimate election was in the process of being accepted by politicians in Washington DC?

Here are all Trump’s tweets on the 6th of Jan, 2021:

Donald Trump Twitter Feed Tweets | Factbase

Trump’s alleged response to McCarthy

CNN (Feb 12, 2021):

New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters

Firstly, it should be mentioned that Trump supporters don’t have faith in RINOs: Republicans in Name Only. Just because a Republican says something it doesn’t mean that he or she belongs to the same camp as Trumpists.

Why hasn’t Trump’s response to McCarthy been mentioned earlier by mainstream media? In this regard, the timeline seems strange:

“”He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them,” a Republican member of Congress said. “On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does.””

” … Trump’s comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week …” (…)

“It’s unclear to what extent these new details were known by the House Democratic impeachment managers or whether the team considered calling McCarthy as a witness.”

“”You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at,” Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. “That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn’t care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry.””

But if McCarthy is telling the truth, why was he not among the ten Republicans who wanted to impeach Trump?

These 10 House Republicans voted to impeach Trump on Wednesday

Is there a tape proving what Trump said? If a tape exists, is it real or a deep fake created by ultra-liberal Big Tech? Yes, this is a legitimate question in a hyper-polarized society because truth is the first casualty in “uncivil war” (Biden).

If McCarthy or someone else had a tape, why was it not immediately presented as evidence? It’s therefore very suspicious if such a tape comes to the surface now.

Though I’m primarily referring to deep fakes here to illustrate the danger which Big Tech has put us all in by creating technologies which manipulate the truth. When this technology exists why should conservatives trust ultra-liberal Big Tech companies that are known for unethical behavior and hating Trump?

Deep fakes are generally relevant in our context because how can rioters – if they somehow are able to read tweets or listen to their president in the middle of fighting – know that digitally broadcasted orders are real? When stakes are very high and things are extremely important to both sides in a violent conflict, how can you safely assume that the enemy will not use deep fakes to win an absolutely crucial battle? Big Tech has really messed up our societies…

But I digress. Back to the main story:

Why is CNN covering the McCarthy story now, over a month after the riot? Is it to take focus away from this:

The REAL evidence | Greg Kelly

According to The New York Times it appears like Democrats are more interested in winning (spinning?) “hearts and minds” in the public than proving Trump’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt:

If Convicting Trump Is Out of Reach, Managers Seek a Verdict From the Public and History

What could Trump have done? Does anyone really think rioters would have followed orders and promptly stopped once they were inside the Capitol building? That’s not how any mob works. Anyway, if the police and National Guard had been prepared they could have quickly intervened without Trump having to say anything to his supporters.

The person who should be held responsible for not stopping the riot is the Democrat and Black mayor of Washington DC who failed to deploy enough riot police. CNN reports:

Inside the fight for the Capitol: US Capitol Police officers recount being unprepared and ‘betrayed’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s