Someone on the inside directing right wing militia in real time as to how to find the congressional members so they could make a "citizens' arrest" and stop the electoral process.
if this is true.... why didn't they do it? They spent plenty of time in that building.
If this is true
What were the plans for those citizen arrests
House Democrats on Monday sent to the Senate their single impeachment article against Donald Trump, officially putting the former president on trial for his role in the deadly mob attack on the Capitol earlier in the month.
The ceremonial delivery — a somber cross-Capitol march performed by the nine Democratic House members who will prosecute the case — was a legal formality: The House had impeached Trump 12 days ago and Senate leaders have agreed to postpone the start of the public trial until the week of Feb. 8.
The timeline itself has been strategic, allowing the newly seated President Biden some breathing room to install several top Cabinet officials and advance the debate over another massive package of coronavirus relief, before the Senate becomes consumed by the highly contentious impeachment trial.
The details of that trial remain opaque. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has revealed neither how long the process will last, nor if Democrats will invite witness testimony to boost their case. But Democrats in both chambers have predicted the exercise will be shorter than the 21-day trial in 2020, after Trump was impeached on two charges related to his dealings with Ukraine.
Then, the Republican-controlled Senate had cleared Trump of both charges, with only one GOP senator, Utah’s Mitt Romney, voting to convict the president on allegations that he’d abused his power.
This time around, the landscape is different — and the math is expected to be as well.
Not only is Trump no longer in office, but his efforts to rouse thousands of his supporters to march on the Capitol to block Congress from formalizing Biden’s victory has been denounced by even some of his most devoted supporters.
Ten House Republicans joined every Democrat in impeaching Trump just seven days after the violent mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, killing a police officer and threatening violence against any lawmaker of either party poised to certify the election results, including Trump’s own vice president, Mike Pence.
The single article charges Trump with “willfully inciting violence against the government of the United States."
The trial phase puts Senate Republicans in a jam, forced to choose between defending their party’s standard-bearer or sending a message to future presidents that encouraging mobs to nullify state-certified elections won’t go unpunished. Adding to the pressure on GOP senators has been the long list of Republican figures outside of Congress voicing outrage at Trump’s actions.
“What we had was an incitement to riot at the United States Capitol. We had people killed, and to me there’s not a whole lot of question here,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump’s earliest GOP backers, said just after the riot. “If inciting to insurrection isn’t [impeachable], I don’t really know what it is.”
Still, the former president retains enormous sway over base voters in the GOP, the majority of whom blame Biden for the Capitol siege.
And Senate Republicans are already lining up against Trump’s conviction. Some maintain he did nothing wrong, suggesting without evidence that rampant fraud turned the election for Biden. Others are posing a legal argument, saying it’s unconstitutional to impeach a former president. Still others are making a political case, warning that the country is too violently divided to withstand another impeachment trial.
“We already have a flaming fire in this country,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told “Fox News Sunday.” “And it’s like taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire.”
Those arguments have been roundly rejected by Democrats, who say Trump committed crimes of sedition on live TV and must face the consequences. While he is no longer in office, they’re fighting for a Senate conviction to bar him from running again.
“We must not give Donald Trump a pass for inciting a deadly insurrection on our Capitol just a few weeks ago,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a key figure in Trump’s first impeachment, said Monday. “He must be held accountable.”
Unlike Trump's last impeachment, where Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presided, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate pro tempore and a frequent Trump critic, will be presiding over this trial. But Leahy pushed back on any suggestion he would tip the scale in favor of the prosecuting Democrats.
“I'm not presenting the evidence; I’m making sure that procedures are followed,” he told reporters on Monday. “I don't think there's any senator who over the 40-plus years I've been here would say that I've been anything but impartial in ruling on procedure.”
The formal transmission of the article came near the close of a hectic and historic month. Over a span of two weeks, the country saw an unprecedented mob attack on the seat of its democracy, the first impeachment of a president for the second time in his tenure, the inauguration of its oldest new president and a vice president who broke through barriers of both race and gender and the 400,000th death from the coronavirus pandemic.
Five people died in the Capitol attack, including Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. And scores of officers from both the Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police forces were injured.
During Monday’s solemn ceremony, acting Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett and Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson led the procession of the nine impeachment managers through some of the same ornate, historical spaces the rioters had poured into during the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The managers, all wearing matching black masks, passed through Statuary Hall, the old House chamber; walked past the Speaker’s Office where some rioters had ripped Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) nameplate off the wall; through the majestic Rotunda, where assailants engaged in hand-to-hand combat with police; and finally to the doors of the Senate chamber, which rioters had breached in their failed quest to overturn the election.
The nine Democrats who will prosecute the case against Trump are all Pelosi loyalists. She tapped Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), a former constitutional law professor, to serve as the lead impeachment manager. The others are Reps. Diana DeGette (Colo.), David Cicilline (R.I.), Joaquin Castro (Texas), Eric Swalwell (Calif.), Ted Lieu (Calif.), Stacey Plaskett (V.I.), Madeleine Dean (Pa.) and Joe Neguse (Colo.).
Notably, Pelosi did not add any of the 10 Republicans who voted for impeachment to the team of managers.
It was Raskin's task Monday evening to read the impeachment charges on the Senate floor, including warnings that Trump poses an ongoing threat "to national security, democracy and the Constitution" and therefore should be disqualified from holding "any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."
Behind him, Leahy presided over the reading, while the senators on the floor included both Schumer and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the minority leader who has said Trump directly "provoked" the attack on the Capitol.
More formalities will follow Tuesday, when all 100 senators will be sworn in as both judges and jurors. The Senate will then issue a formal summons to Trump, and his defense team and the prosecution will be given time to draft their legal briefs before public arguments begin next month.
It’s highly unlikely that enough Republicans will join Democrats to meet the threshold for conviction, which requires two-thirds of the Senate. But Democratic leaders are hell-bent on ensuring that senators are forced to pick a side, if only for the historical record.
“There is only one question at stake — only one question that Senators of both parties will have to answer, before God and their own conscience: Is former President Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection against the United States?” Schumer said.
Allies of former President Trump are waging an intense pressure campaign aimed at convincing GOP senators to vote against his conviction in next month’s impeachment trial.
The message to wavering GOP senators is that anyone who votes to convict Trump is guaranteeing a tough primary challenge that could end their political career.
The message is directed not only to red-state GOP senators who might be thinking of moving the party away from Trump, but to GOP leaders who might want to break with the president after a pro-Trump mob ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.
“There are several incumbent Republicans up in 2022 that would be vulnerable in a primary, from Roy Blunt to Todd Young and John Thune and many others,” said one prominent operative in Trump’s orbit. “The last thing these guys need is a pissed off Trump gunning for them.”
The warnings come as Congress is ramping up for an impeachment trial set to begin on Feb. 8.
House Democrats on Monday sent their single impeachment article against Trump to the Senate, officially putting the former president on trial for his role in the deadly mob attack.
Few think a trial will end with Trump’s conviction. This would take at least 17 GOP votes if every Democrat votes to convict, and GOP sources told The Hill last week that only five or six GOP senators would likely vote to convict Trump.
Nonetheless, Trump allies are taking nothing for granted.
They are publicly challenging the 10 House Republicans who joined Democrats to impeach Trump, sending an implicit message of what will come to GOP senators who vote to convict.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a top Trump ally, will travel to Wyoming this week to denounce Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who voted to impeach Trump and is the third-ranking House Republican. The trip by a rank-and-file member to criticize a leader of his own House caucus is strikingly unusual and comes amid an effort by pro-Trump House members to remove Cheney from GOP leadership.
Trump’s former strategist Stephen Bannon, who was pardoned by Trump in his last days in office, has been featuring GOP primary challengers on his podcast.
He recently interviewed Tom Norton, the Afghanistan War veteran who is challenging first-term Rep. Pete Meijer (R-Mich.), who voted to impeach Trump. Norton called for the other nine members to be primaried as well.
The threats to the GOP House members, and the vows to go after senators, are intended to convince members such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to oppose convicting Trump.
McConnell has not said how he will vote in the impeachment trial, but there have been reports that he has told associates he believes the president committed impeachable offenses when he told a crowd to march on the Capitol before the riot, which led to five deaths.
“It’s incumbent on party leadership to recognize that and to put their own personal vendettas with Trump aside and to work to unite the party,” the GOP operative said. “The Republican Party will not be a national party for much longer if our representatives in Washington don’t stop disrespecting their voters. So work with Trump to grow the party, or go to war with him and watch it explode in your face. It’s up to you.”
There has also been talk of Trump starting a third party, something associates say is not being actively planned but suggest could come a reality if the GOP breaks further with the former president.
“There’s nothing that’s actively being planned regarding an effort outside of that, but it’s completely up to Republican senators if this is something that becomes more serious,” said Jason Miller, a campaign aide who is now advising Trump on impeachment.
Miller says the president’s plan for now is to work with Republicans to help win back the House and Senate in 2022.
While Trump retains enormous support within the GOP, plenty of Republicans also think he’s leading their party down the drain.
Trump entered power with House and Senate majorities but lost the House in 2018 and the Senate in 2020 — after the GOP lost two runoff races in Georgia as Trump was focused on conspiracy theories surrounding his own electoral loss.
Rural voters have come out in force for Trump, but his brand has sullied the GOP image in the suburbs, where women, independents and centrist GOP voters have increasingly abandoned him.
The GOP is also concerned with the suspension of donations by corporations to Republicans after the storming of the Capitol.
It’s unclear how long this will last or whether it will be focused on those lawmakers who backed challenges to the Electoral College, but it is a subject of angst in GOP circles.
“It’s the ultimate challenge,” said veteran GOP operative Ed Rollins, who managed President Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. “You can’t win presidential races losing women by 15 percent. You need the MAGA voters, and 50-plus percent of independents. The Trump coalition doesn’t alone get you there, as proven by 2020 and losing a majority of voters in 2016. Angry, white, non-college males don’t get you there alone. You need to add to Hispanic numbers and clearly close the gap with women.”
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele urged GOP senators to fight without fear of Trump or his base, saying that the former president is weaker than he appears.
“We’re trusting our elected officials to stand up and lead,” he said. “You’ll have a tough primary, but we’ll rally to your support and be behind you if you stand and fight for us now. Don’t be scared off by their threats.”
The announcement Monday by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a pragmatic centrist, that he will retire at the end of the Congress is being seen by some as a sign of the party’s evolution — and that some Bush-era Republicans might no longer see a place for themselves. Portman is a former trade representative and budget director for former President George W. Bush.
Former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is worried about his party’s future.
“The Republican Party is in disarray, and it’s not a majority party because it’s abandoned the ability to attract the independent vote, especially from educated women and Hispanic voters who are the swing voters in every state,” he said. “The Trump base will be there, but it’s not as critical to building a majority. I think Trump will dissipate on his own anyway, and we’ll be looking back at the invasion of Capitol Hill and asking ourselves why were the party that allowed that to happen.”
Previous post on this topic:
Trump impeach trial Feb. 8 as McConnell, Biden preferred
The acting head of US Capitol Police apologized to Congress Tuesday for security failures during the Jan. 6 siege, which she characterized as a “terrorist attack” involving tens of thousands of “insurrectionists,” testimony shows.
Yogananda D. Pittman, the agency’s acting chief, offered her “sincerest apologies” on behalf of the department during a closed-door briefing Tuesday before the House Appropriations Committee.
“Let me be clear: the Department should have been more prepared for this attack,” Pittman said, according to a copy of her testimony obtained by The Post.
“We knew that militia group and white supremacists organizations would be attending. We also knew that some of these participants were intending to bring firearms and other weapons to the event.”
Pittman acknowledged the “strong potential” for violence at the Capitol – with Congress as a target — prior to the deadly unrest, noting that department officials knew it would be unlike previous protests as recently as Jan. 4.
They keep talking about the differences between the reactions to the BLM vs the Capitol on the 6th. There sure is a difference, not only in the reaction, but also the description.
But I will say, it's good to see the left finally show strong disapproval for riots.. Even when they are "mostly peaceful".
This riot was unique and totally deserves condemnation and coverage but the one incident is getting coverage that's a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the top 10 Summer riots added up.
Since it's the main factor in the impeachment and the location of the riot/reason is extraordinary, this makes sense too but still, based on the property damage, people injured, lives lost and people in the area affected in a negative way, this was not the worst one.
And when you consider that there were many hundreds of violent riots in the Summer, none that got more than a tiny fraction of the coverage of this one.......then we went on, it's obvious that politics is playing a role here.
It's pretty simple. You either condemn riots or you don't.
If you only condemn some riots, then they are merely political tools for you.
I would like to know what is different about Maxine Waters inciting people to go after Trump supporters and what Trump said
look at that big D in front of her name Wayne
"I would like to know what is different about Maxine Waters inciting people to go after Trump supporters and what Trump said"
Am happy to answer that question once again for you guys about what Trump did. Let's use 2 different posts this time. The first one is repeating the same answer that I gave Tim a few days earlier, then to mcfarm, who has received it a couple of times and will now give it directly to you Wayne, though I know you read this answer before because its been on here so many times the last 2+ months. I understand though, that after leaving here, you will go to some favorite right wings sights that tell you something different and you will forget what you are about to read............again but I am happy to repeat it as many times as necessary because the truth never gets tired and those that have it, should never give up because lies frustrating them is how lies beat the truth................that will never happen as long as I moderate..................nor will anything you post be censored because it disagrees with me or others.
By metmike - Jan. 25, 2021, 7 p.m.
"this has become quite odd MM. You say Trump is lose with the truth so he must be impeached and never heard from again"
Don't mind a bit stepping in at times like this with documented facts.
When the human cognitive bias, causes you guys to mischaracterize others(me in this case and Trumps actions) and make blatantly biased, misleading statements that describe a situation totally different than the reality so that it lines up to support their position. Maybe you don't even realize you are doing............so this will help you.
Trump was "loose with the truth" for much of 4 years and never deserved being impeached. However, note below (once again) my description of what he did for 2 months after the election.
By metmike - Jan. 23, 2021, 12:46 p.m.
"I think Trump making a speech using apparent lies was wrong. Using that as a guide, we can impeach a lot of politicians... But, it's not against the law."
You're totally mischaracterizing what really happened to justify your position.
Instead, why don't we use what actually happened.
For 2 months, Trump tried to sell the stolen election lie everyday. He used hundreds of people and paid millions of dollars that made frivolous allegations and even proven fraudulent allegations to try to trick people into thinking that the most secure election in US history was actually stolen from him........and showed ZERO evidence of systemic fraud that could have come close to overturning any of the states that he targeted with his diabolical scheme.
All his legal challenges were lost, some were laughable but at least most were legal. What he did in the above paragraph was create permanent damage to the credibility of future election results and ramp up divisiveness and........where he should be held accountable, he enraged and encouraged tens of millions of supporters, some to the point of taking actions.
Every time that he was proven conclusively wrong by every objective standard............and there were many dozens at least, his response was to reject the proof and continue with the false narrative of the election being stolen from him and trying to sell lies to his supporters the entire time.
He even tried to use his influence/power as president to pressure elected officials(GA phone call for instance) to change the results for him.
I think that Trump, who already had a touch of functional delusion, which was just hurting his credibility before.........had something snap in his brain after this loss as he was clearly clinically delusional and probably believed alot of the hogwash, despite having zero evidence.
However, his mental illness does not excuse him from the behavior and massive damage that he caused from 2 MONTHS worth of a contrived/intentional actions......not just "making a speech"
I am adding this to address just the issue of the blatant lies and misrepresenting of Dominion voting machines which was a main tactic in the scheme to trick people into thinking the election was stolen:
By metmike - Jan. 26, 2021, 12:17 p.m.
"If this gets to court they opened the way for their business model, and all its problems to be opened....hope this gets real interresting"
You don't think they know that mcfarm?
Maybe.......................most of those problems that you have been totally misled to believe.................don't exist.
Maybe..............that's why they are suing these frauds who misled people like you to believe that.
NOT maybe...................that's why you just made that statement.
NOT maybe...............that's why our court system exists...........because it's against the law to do what Trump and others did.
Tim is a strong supporter of the Constitution. Well, here it is in action and its seems like the far right wing types are the ones battling it, not telling us how great it is.
Defamation is a tort that encompasses false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation.
There are two basic categories of defamation: (1) libel and (2) slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation, though much spoken speech that has a written transcript also falls under the rubric of libel.
The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character.
Defamatory comments might include false comments that a person committed a particular crime or engaged in certain sexual activities.
The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote that the essence of a defamation claim is the right to protect one’s good name. He explained in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.”
metmike: As somebody very familiar with the FACTS in this case and the many, many false and baseless allegations intentionally intended to hurt Dominion, I say, with high confidence that Dominion WINS BIG, for the following 3 reasons.
1. This was VERY intentional. They specifically targeted Dominion.
2. What they put out there was baseless and fraudulent. The used false information and pushed false narratives. Not just once or twice or even a dozen times...............relentlessly over a 2 month period and with well documented evidence to prove it.
3. They obliterated Dominions reputation and I mean obliterated it to the point that maximum damages will be awarded with high confidence.
How right wing sources would twist this into it possibly being trouble and backfiring on Dominion shows that they are in La La Land.
I agree with that.
Where Trump blundered, is that he realized that the small fish voter fraud that you mentioned and is legit would no way tally up close to the votes that he needed to overturn state election results(he was not after the truth but instead wanted to change the results of the election to make him the winner) so he made up some big fish voter fraud using a corrupt/broken Dominion scheme.....that DID NOT EXIST.
Dominion can prove they did this many, many times and what the objective was............to obliterate Dominion's credibility/repution.
It would be one thing if they were trying to accomplish something nefarious and Dominion just happened to get hurt........which still would position Dominion for damages but their objective, specifically targeted Dominion and is well documented/will be easy to prove conclusively.
Man, this is a no brainer.
This case is probably THE quintessential example of a massive demonstration of why libel and slander laws to protect entities in the US exist for.
By metmike - Jan. 26, 2021, 2:44 p.m.
It will be interesting to see how Dominion treats President Trump on this.
Theres a big different between suing 2 attorneys and suing the president. They could be waiting to see how the impeachment process plays out as a trial in the Senate might give them additional evidence.
Whether he is convicted or not in the Senate may also play a role in the amount of money/damages they ask for.
Since he was the kingpin that hired Giuliani and was almost entirely responsible for the position and the main mouth piece of deception that slandered Dominion, at least hundreds of times, they may be waiting to save the best for last.......with damages the greatest from Trump.
I would be surprised if Trump is not sued for at least the amount of the others.
So lets compare what Trump did for 2 straight months.......a massive, sustained, fraudulent assault on our democratic election system to very effectively trick tens of millions of his supporters using many dozens of proven nafarious tactics into thinking the most secure election in history resulted in the election being stolen from him.
If you don't believe that's what he did.............then you are one of those people that got tricked by him. Not if, maybe or possibly. You either believe that Biden won solidly, fair and square/legally and Trump intentionally tried to convince people of a lie for 2 months...............or you continue to be tricked by the lie.
So let's compare that to what Maxine Waters did/said (which was also wrong):
The California Democrat and vehement critic of President Donald Trump made the comments on Saturday, first at a rally in Los Angeles and later in a television interview. The comments, which come after several Trump administration officials have been recently protested at restaurants, have raised fresh questions about the state of American political discourse and were seized on by Trump for political gain.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building, according to video of the event.
“We don’t know what damage has been done to these children. All that we know is they’re in cages. They’re in prisons. They’re in jails. I don’t care what they call it, that’s where they are and Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are to let you know you cannot get away with this,” she added.
Waters appeared on MSNBC later in the day to double down on her remarks, saying she has “no sympathy” for members of the Trump administration.
“The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the President, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’”
CNN reached out to Waters’ office on Monday morning and did not immediately receive a response.
Trump misconstrued Waters’ comments when he weighed in Monday afternoon.
“Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!”
Waters, however, did not call for physical harm to the officials or harassment against Trump’s supporters.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2018
Her comments were criticized by Republicans, though some Democrats were reluctant to take on Waters, a popular figure among progressives and a longtime member of Congress.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News Monday the remarks were “very dangerous” and called upon Waters to issue a public apology. Sen. Jeff Flake, a retiring Arizona Republican who has repeatedly criticized Trump, tweeted, “Left or right, nobody deserves this kind of treatment.”
Meghan McCain, the daughter of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, called Waters’ comments “absolutely insane” and “extremely dangerous.” McCain, who is also the daughter-in-law of Douglas Domenech, the current Assistant United States Secretary of the Interior for Insular Areas, asked on Twitter, “does this mean when we go out to dinner we should be ambushed?!?”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referred to Waters’ comments as “unacceptable” but blamed Trump’s “daily lack of civility” for provoking responses such as that of Waters.
“In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea,” Pelosi tweeted, linking out to a story about the remarks.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer gently disagreed with Waters’ comments.
“The American people have the right to speak their mind, and I agree that they ought to express their deep frustration with the Trump Administration’s policies,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement, adding, “We can do so while maintaining respect, notwithstanding President Trump’s lack of civility. We should rise above his hatefulness.”
Asked about Waters’ comments on CNN’s “New Day” Monday, Rep. Adriano Espaillat of New York would not criticize his fellow Democrat.
“To get sidetracked into these debates about whether or not somebody was welcome at a restaurant takes our eyes off of what’s going on in America today,” Espaillat said, later adding, “Maxine Waters is entitled to her opinion and I respect that.”
A case could actually be made for impeaching Maxine Waters at the time.
A weak case but still a legit weak case for her words.
She was clearly very wrong, though not specifically encouraging violence, when applied here in the real world by human beings using their own judgment on the specific form of applying her strong suggestions, her words will ALWAYS lead to violence in those people who have violent tendencies.
Trump calling her an extremely low IQ person was exactly the way to turn it into a vicious personal attack and result in some people that might have condemned Waters under some circumstances, actually come to her defense or let it slide because Trump actually revealed a good reason for why she was so extremely anti Trump in the first place.
But so what. What if Maxine Waters was never born?
Because she did something very wrong 2.5 years ago (that paled to what President Trump did after the election) that means Trump can do something more wrong in the same category that caused thousands of times more damage?
Of those condemning Waters ....many are defending Trump because of it, which makes no sense. If you had a few objective cells in your brain, a condemnation of Waters, using the same principle means that you should be giving a screaming condemnation of Trump for doing the same thing several orders of magnitude worse.
Those that defended Waters and are now condemning Trump are just huge hypocrites. THOSE PEOPLE should be called out...................but this still makes Trump no less guilty.