I could care less about his videos. I was talking about his J****** 6 speech. Look at the text of that speech. There is nothing in that text that any court would say was s******n or was exciting a r**t.

I have never called for overturning the e******n. Nor have I been persuaded by Trump. My point is and will always be that the e******n was s****n by the illegal changes in e******n law coupled with the mainstream media lying and saying that the H****r B***n investigation was Russian disinformation until a week after the e******n when they finally admitted that it was true. Those two things regardless of fraud swung the e******n to Biden and both were wrong. That makes the e******n s****n.

There may or may not have been fraud, but there was certainly irregularities and there are a lot of coincidences if there isn't fraud.

I am not more sold on Trump. I still don't like Trump. But, if it causes the progressives that much angst, then yes, absolutely I will support Trump. After watching what the left has done with censorship and with trying to destroy the lives of not just Trump, but other conservatives as well since J****** 6, then I view supporting Trump as the best way to fight those progressives. If you can't understand that, oh well.

You do not believe that the left is trying to strip freedoms from Americans, yet, that is exactly what they have started doing since J****** 6.

You seem to think that all big tech is censoring is violence and Trump, but that isn't true. They are going after every day Americans.

When Kurt Schillings loses his insurance because he supported Trump, then that is just plain wrong. When facebook and twitter erase Elijah Shafer from their roles just because he covered the capitol r**ts, that is just plain wrong. When Apple, Google and Amazon all work together to try to destroy Parler, that is dangerous to all Americans.

So, yes, if that is what it takes to fight the tyranny of the left, then you bet I will support Trump.

The problem is that if these people who've been as you call it "strip freedoms from Americans" support an i**********n against the US Government by trump, then they deserve to lose their freedoms.

Corporate America is correct to pull funding, and cancel business ties from anyone involved in the i**********n, either through direct involvment in the breach of the US Capitol Building, or through continued support of trump or any other organizations who planned and/or carried out the r**t at the US Capitol on J****** 6, 2021.

trump is toxic for democracy in the United States.

You are so wrong. Trump may be toxic. But, in the U.S. you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. There is no proof of anything that has been presented. And what you are not acknowledging is it isn't just Trump who is being destroyed.

Justifying tyranny by saying those individuals deserve to lose their freedoms is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, in Cuba, in Venezuela and in every other dictatorship in the world. Taking away freedoms is not acceptable in the U.S.

And, destroying anyone's ability to make a living is unacceptable. Felons have rights, including the right to work and make a living. Are you seriously trying to claim that someone not convicted of a crime should have less rights than a felon? That is a bizarre and dangerous idea.

In order to have freedom everyone must have freedom. It can not be selectively applied. And, they are trying to destroy people who had nothing to do with the "i**********n".

By the way, just out of curiosity, how is the attack on J****** 6 any different than the multiple attacks against the federal building in Portland? Aren't both attacks against the nation. Aren't both the same legally?

No, she does not. That isn't the point. The point is that the left is claiming that Trump must be charged because of the rule of law, while at the same time saying that there is no reason to charge her.

If you read Trump's speech from J****** 6, there is nothing in his speech that is illegal in any way. Rudy Gulliani, that might be a different matter, but Trump did nothing illegal on that day.

Did he behave like an i***t. You bet. But, he did not incite the violence. Those people already came with their weapons prior to listening to Trump. They made their own choice and they should pay for it. It isn't Trump's i**********n. It is a bunch of i***ts who broke the law and should pay for their crimes.

You on the left seem incapable of understanding why the right is angry. Well, the reason is simple. It is because when the left violates the law no one does anything about it, but the same people who support the corruption from the left have spent four years attacking Trump in many cases for things that the left actually did.

Impeaching Trump is just one more in a long line of things that are viewed by half of the country as just one more example of hypocrisy by the left. You want to go after Trump, I'm fine with that as long as you have the intellectual integrity to go after all corruption in politics. Of course that will never happen.

I didn't v**e for Trump in 2016. I did in 2020 and after listening to Trump's speech from J****** 6 that is being used to impeach him plus the videos that he has released since then, coupled with the social media ban on many conservatives I would v**e for him again in 2024 in a heartbeat.

It is ridiculous that there is ample evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the law, but nothing happened to her, while Trump runs what is essentially a pep rally and is impeached for that. The Democratic party is currently so corrupt that I would love to see Trump elected again, just to throw it in their faces.

I have heard several conservatives on here claim that Comey said she broke the law but he chose not to prosecute.

That is not what I remember though. I remember him saying that the statutes in question specifically required intent, which is not the case for almost all our laws. He said she had acted in a negligent manner, but he could not provide evidence of intent, which would have presented a case for illegal activity.

I am not expert enough on the statutes to say she broke the law. I can just say that she was and is sketchy as all get out. Maybe she did break the law.

I also can't say that trump broke the law. His speech on the 6th did not contain specific inciteful statements...he is too smart for that. He even spoke of protesting peacefully and patriotically. He was only being subtley and carefully inciteful. He let his surrogates make the most inflammatory statements...Rudy- "Trial by combat!"

But trump has been inciting his most die-hard followers for well over a year...and it was his die-hards that showed up that day. They had planned to do what they did prior to that day. trump did do a great job of firing them up even more though.

If the impeachment articles are based solely on his speech that day, I don't see how the Senate can convict. The articles are going to have to paint a broader picture of his speeches and tweets over the past year to have any chance of conviction. Unless of course the Democrats and 17 or more Republicans v**e to convict because they are just s**k of trump and want to v**e to convict. I will be surprised if the impeachment is successful.

trump is under investigation for inciting an i**********n, and s******n, which could lead to tyranny against the United States charges for trump.

Hillary Clinton has no place in the discussion of what trump has done.

Without the investigations being completed, there isn't any way for you to claim that the United States is heading in the direction of the former Soviet Union, Cuba or Venezuela.

Under a trump administration, what you claim would have been possible, and most likely would have happened!

But that threat has been lessened because of the SECOND trump Impeachment.

Open your eyes to what trump was trying to do.

trump was trying to steel the 2020 e******n from the duly elected President-Elect Joe Biden.

trump was trying to become a dictator.

trump tried to pull off a C**P agains the US Government.

You’re woefully failing to account for how our justice system works:it’s a decision tree where the process goes forward ONLY when the previous decision is a yes.

Simplified decision tree.

1) allegations are made
2) allegations are deemed credible and valid for investigation
3) investigations turn up evidence
4) does evidence meet the bar set to warrant charges and prosecution
5) charges and indictments are issued
6) prosecution and defense make their cases
7) has burden of proof been met
8) jury or judge makes ruling

The many Clinton investigations didn’t get past #3
The v***r f***d cases didn’t make it past #2
The s******n case against trump are currently in #3

The Clinton case(s) have been litigated by a myriad of players and unless new evidence is produced to reopen, those are closed cases. Your hopes for a Durham slam dunk are dashed. Haven’t you caught onto the pattern yet where trump rhetoric gins up your hopes and then reneges on them?

That’s how the justice system works. You may not like the outcome, but being a part of a law and order society, we accept outcomes.

I have heard several conservatives on here claim that Comey said she broke the law but he chose not to prosecute.

That is not what I remember though. I remember him saying that the statutes in question specifically required intent, which is not the case for almost all our laws. He said she had acted in a negligent manner, but he could not provide evidence of intent, which would have presented a case for illegal activity.

I am not expert enough on the statutes to say she broke the law. I can just say that she was and is sketchy as all get out. Maybe she did break the law.

I also can't say that trump broke the law. His speech on the 6th did not contain specific inciteful statements...he is too smart for that. He even spoke of protesting peacefully and patriotically. He was only being subtley and carefully inciteful. He let his surrogates make the most inflammatory statements...Rudy- "Trial by combat!"

But trump has been inciting his most die-hard followers for well over a year...and it was his die-hards that showed up that day. They had planned to do what they did prior to that day. trump did do a great job of firing them up even more with the plethora of lies he told in that speech.

If the impeachment articles are based solely on his speech that day, I don't see how the Senate can convict. The articles are going to have to paint a broader picture of his speeches and tweets over the past year to have any chance of conviction. Unless of course the Democrats and 17 or more Republicans v**e to convict because they are just s**k of trump and want to v**e to convict. I will be surprised if the impeachment is successful.