TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF DONALD J. TRUMP, 45TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

78 page document

Beginning of the Introduction:

During the past four years, Democrat members of the United States House of Representatives have filed at least nine (9) resolutions to impeach Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, each containing charges more outlandish than the next. One might have been excused for thinking that the Democrats’ fevered hatred for Citizen Trump and their “Trump Derangement Syndrome” would have broken by now, seeing as he is no longer the President, and yet for the second time in just over a year the United States Senate is preparing to sit as a Court of Impeachment, but this time over a private citizen who is a former President. In this Country, the Constitution – not a political party and not politicians – reigns supreme. But through this latest Article of Impeachment now before the Senate, Democrat politicians seek to carve out a mechanism by which they can silence a political opponent and a minority party. The Senate must summarily reject this brazen political act.

Just reading the contents is enough!

Constitution? What's that again?

Seems to have become a useless piece of paper which has no power to hold anyone accountable or defend individual liberty from anyone.

https://twitter.com/_/status/1357198658832240647

[link to mobile.twitter.com (secure)]

So Trumps lawyers argue that they cannot impeach a former President.

In doing so, Trump has accepted that he is a 'former' president and now has NO LEGAL claim to the Presidency - that Biden is the legal current President.


I wonder if this was the game all along.

Trump can no longer legally fight the results of the 2020 election because he has conceded that Biden is now the legal President.

From link (page 71):

Put simply, the articles are impermissibly duplicitous—that is, each article charges multiple different acts as possible grounds for sustaining a conviction. The problem with an article offering such a menu of options is that the Constitution requires two-thirds of Senators present to agree on the specific basis for conviction. A vote on a duplicitous article, however, could never provide certainty that a two-thirds majority had actually agreed upon a ground for conviction. Instead, such a vote could be the product of an amalgamation of votes resting on several different theories, no single one of which would have garnered two-thirds support if it had been presented separately. Accordingly, duplicitous articles like those exhibited here are facially unconstitutional.

Last Edited by Simple27 on 02/08/2021 03:33 PM

I'm not even a Q-tard

From link (page 72):

In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue… The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.

Who owns that site?

Page 73:

By limiting impeachment to cases of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the Framers restricted impeachment to specific offenses against “already known and established law.” That was a deliberate choice designed to constrain the impeachment power. In keeping with that restriction, every prior presidential impeachment in our history has been based on alleged violations of existing law—indeed, criminal law…The terminology of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” makes clear that an impeachable offense must be a violation of established law. The Impeachment Clause did not confer upon Congress a roving license to make up new standards of conduct for government officials and to permit removal from office merely on a conclusion that conduct was “bad” if there was not an existing law that it violated.

Trump I would imagine

[link to www.45office.com (secure)]

Link came from his page on g_a_b

Wow! They are picking from a Chinese menu.

Thanks mate

Just a Q_Tee

Notice that President Trump posted the same link you shared from his twitter account.

https://twitter.com/_/status/1358869380214386689

[link to mobile.twitter.com (secure)]

5 star

Bump

and pin request

Nobody lied like Donald T rump. Well, except for his followers.

And the disclaimer on the twitter profile...

For legal reasons I have to call this a parody page

Hmmm

Thank You AC!

see it's people like you that is why everybody's in a mess that they're in right now because you don't know what you're talking about don't get mad just listen none of those things have anything to do with each other each one as a Judah catered by itself you cannot impeach the 45th president because after an reelection the term has changed think of a contract stop being simple that's your first thing stopping simple and talking so much that you can venture self of absolute garbage stop it for your own good where you can continue it doesn't matter because nothing you say do think your field changes the truth of anyone matter. Nothing run along them

Beginning of Conclusion on page 74:

The Article of Impeachment presented by the House is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, any of which alone would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Taken together, they demonstrate conclusively that indulging House Democrats hunger for this political theater is a danger to our Republic democracy and the rights that we hold dear. Reasons for dismissal include:

The reasons are then numbered and listed.

Your welcome Simple27, reading the Memorandum now, lengthy but worth it.

Slam Dunk - Case Dismissed upon first reading. IMHO

Basically Congress is saying President Trump is still President by this action.

Remember, we are in a time where truth and reason are replaced by emotion and lies.

Don't be shocked if the same traitors in Congress - who allowed BidAn's fraud on Jan 6/7th - now roll over and convict him. They will bring the Storm upon themselves.