Donald Trump's impeachment defense statement, defending against vindictive Democrats, trying a private citizen, in a kangaroo court led by a fellow Democrat

        Editor's note, added February 3, 2021:

I had expected the Trump defense to include the full transcript of his January 6, 2021 speech, which called for a peaceful protest, near the end of the speech.

 

In fact, Capitol building protests, including leftist and Antifa protests, were already planned BEFORE the day of the speech, and they began before the speech began, which was given about two miles from the Capitol building. 

 

 

Some people had already breached the entrance of the Capitol building BEFORE anyone could have heard Trump calling for a peaceful protest near the end of his speech, and then immediately walked to the Capitol building, about two miles away.  

 

 

Calling for a peaceful protest is certainly not inciting an insurrection.  It is free speech.  Not a crime at all. But bad politics.

 

Trump's claim that he won the election is his speculation. 

 

A large amount of evidence of voting fraud did not convince any state legislature to withhold electors -- so the election was over on December 16, 2020.  

 

All electors were certified, and Biden won on that day. 

 

January 6, 2021 was just a "formal announcement" of the December 16, 2020 result. 

 

There was no logical reason for a January 6 rally, and no reason to protest at the Capitol. 

 

There is only one precedent for a Vice President not accepting electors on January 6. 

 

That was Vice President Thomas Jefferson. 

 

By rejecting Georgia electors, VP Jefferson became the new president. 

 

Not a precedent an honest man like Mike Pence would repeat, no matter how much pressure was put on him.  That pressure was not justified.

Based on the often biased reporting in 2020, when violent BLM and Antifa riots were described as "peaceful protests", the riot on January 6, 2011 was a "peaceful protest" too. 

 

Source of quotes below:

https://www.45office.com/assets/uploads/general/45th-presidents-answer-to-article-of-impeachment-final.pdf

excerpt:

 "The House of Representatives deprived the 45th President of due process of law in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachment by ignoring its own procedures and precedents going back to the mid-19th century.

The lack of due process included, but was not limited to, its failure to conduct any meaningful committee review or other investigation, engage in any full and fair consideration of evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to conduct any full and fair discussion by allowing the 45th President’s positions to be heard in the House Chamber.

No exigent circumstances under the law were present excusing the House of Representatives' rush to judgment.

The House of Representatives action, in depriving the 45th President of due process of law, created a special category of citizenship for a single individual: the 45th President of the United States. 

 

Should this body not act in favor of the 45th President, the precedent set by the House of Representatives would become that such persons as the 45th President similarly situated no longer enjoy the rights of all American citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  

The actions by the House make clear that in their opinion the 45h President does not enjoy the protections of liberty upon which this great Nation was founded , where free speech, and indeed, free political speech form the backbone of all American liberties.

None of the traditional reasons permitting the government to act in such haste (i.e exigent circumstances) were present.

The House had no reason to rush its proceedings, disregard its own precedents and procedures, engage in zero committee or other investigation, and fail to grant the accused his “opportunity to be heard ”in person or through counsel – all basic tenets of due process of law.

There was no exigency, as evidenced by the fact that the House waited until after the end of the President’s term to even send the articles over and there was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did.

Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in  America, especially in the Congress of the United States."