Saturday, February 13, 2021

A NATION RULED AND RUINED BY WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS AND THEIR BRIBES SUCKING PARASITE FAMILIES - Trump’s acquittal is a sign of ‘constitutional rot’ – partisanship overriding principles

 Trump’s acquittal is a sign of ‘constitutional rot’ – partisanship overriding principles

The Senate’s decision to acquit former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial may have been a victory for Trump, but it is a clear sign that democracy in the U.S. is in poor health.

As a constitutional scholar, I believe the United States – the world’s first constitutional democracy – is in a state of what I call “constitutional rot.”

In a constitutional democracy, the majority’s authority to govern is limited by the rule of law and by a set of legal rules and principles set out in the Constitution.

Constitutional rot is a condition in which we appear to be formally governed by constitutional rules and the rule of law, but the reality is quite different. When rot sets in, public officials and the public routinely ignore or subvert those rules while sanctimoniously professing fidelity to them.

How The Conversation is different: We explain without oversimplifying.

Constitutional rot is not only a failure of constitutional law — it is a failure of constitutional democracy.

Appearance is not reality

Among the practices and principles of a constitutional democracy are limited government and the separation of powers, majority rule through elections that are fair and free, respect for minority and individual liberties, and government based on reason and deliberation. These were famously stated in Federalist #1, an essay by Alexander Hamilton that laid out:

It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country … to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

In my book, “Peopling the Constitution,” I asked citizens to “imagine an ugly picture: A citizenry unwilling to hold its representatives or itself accountable to basic, fundamental constitutional rules and values.” This could happen either because fidelity to them is outweighed by some other goal, such as security or holding on to power, or because of a base impulse such as fear.

Or perhaps the people fail to hold representatives or themselves accountable because they do not know what those principles and values are or why or even if they are at risk.

Screenshot of Senate impeachment vote tally, 57-43
In this image from video, the final vote total of 57-43 meant an acquittal of former President Donald Trump of the impeachment charge because conviction requires a two-thirds majority vote. Senate Television via AP

Election 2020 and its long aftermath, culminating in a second impeachment trial of Trump, is a clear and undeniable sign of just how rotten things are, constitutionally speaking.

Trump and many of his Republican supporters inflamed an insurrection and encouraged violence directed at a coequal branch of government – Congress – as it discharged one of its most basic constitutional responsibilities – determining the results of the presidential election.

What ended on Jan. 6, 2021, as an assault on the peoples’ representatives began months earlier as an attack on the electoral process.

Trump and his allies justified both as the work of true constitutional patriots intent on saving the republic from imaginary electoral fraud.

Elections: The basics

Elections that are free and fair are central to constitutional democracy. This is why elections are a good marker of constitutional rot.

A constitutional democracy that cannot run elections that are free and fair, and which are acknowledged by winners and losers alike to be legitimate and conclusive, cannot call itself a democracy.

Just as important: The perception of fairness and the anticipation of fairness are critical to electoral legitimacy and public confidence in both the process and the result. Unwarranted and baseless attacks on the legitimacy of electoral results do long-term, insidious damage to the very fabric of constitutional democracy.

Election 2020, as assessed by professional and nonpartisan election officials, policy experts and academics, was one of the safest and most secure in American history. Consider a simple and overwhelming fact: Trump and his allies filed over 60 lawsuits trying to overturn the presidential election in federal courts and lost all but one.

In many of those cases, the judges involved – many of them Trump appointees – wrote opinions that spoke in unusually harsh language about the frivolity of the lawsuits.

And yet Trump and many of his Republican compatriots, rather than acknowledge defeat, determined instead to baselessly delegitimize the election.

Republican leaders, many of whom knew that Trump’s allegations were without merit, cynical and deeply corrosive of democracy, said nothing or encouraged him. That culminated in the certification vote in the House of Representatives on Jan. 6, when 121 Republican representatives voted not to accept the results from Arizona, and 138 voted not to accept the results from Pennsylvania.

But that was not even the most significant evidence of constitutional rot on Jan. 6. Building on a series of lies months – if not years – in the making, the nation’s president encouraged his supporters to march on Capitol Hill, with tragic, deadly results.

A mob is fought back by police
Police officers attempt to push back a pro-Trump mob trying to storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with Trump on Jan. 6, 2021. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Is constitutional rot irreversible?

The constitutional customs and rules that govern elections require public officials and citizens alike to enforce and apply them. Otherwise they are sterile formalities.

In the end, a safe and healthy constitutional democracy depends upon elected public officials and an educated citizenry that values the principles and practices of constitutional democracy more than it values political power and partisan politics.

This is why the Senate’s failure to convict Trump should be seen as a sure sign of just how deep our constitutional rot goes.

[Understand key political developments, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s election newsletter.]

As the nation moves on, overcoming constitutional rot, I believe, requires public officials who have the courage to speak the truth and to defend the Constitution. That’s especially the case when the threat comes from one of its own. Trump’s acquittal in the Senate shows us just how uncommon public-minded officials are.

The country is fortunate that many judges, and some public officials, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, honored their oaths.

The Senate’s failure to convict Trump is a constitutional failure not just “in legal terms but in civic terms – a failure not primarily of political institutions but of civic attitudes,” as constitutional scholar George Thomas recently wrote.

Overcoming rot would also rely on a foundation of constitutionally literate citizens who insist upon respect for basic constitutional values.

There is no guarantee that responsible citizens will always effectively guard constitutional values, but the best remedy for rot is civic education. Citizens will not hold their representatives – or themselves – to constitutional principles they don’t know or don’t understand.

As Thomas Jefferson counseled, “If we think the people not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

BLACK LIVES MURDER AND MAYHEM - WHITEY MADE THEM DO IT! - OR MAYBE IT WAS CORRUPT BRIBES SUCKING LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS WHO DID!?!

 

11 Arrested During Violent BLM Rally that Left 2 NYPD Officers Injured

NYPD arrests 11 during violent BLM protest on February 12. (Video Screenshot/New York Post)
Video Screenshot/New York Post
3:29

New York City police officers arrested 11 people during a violent Black Lives Matter march Friday night.  The melee left two NYPD officers injured.

Approximately 100 BLM marchers took to the streets of midtown Manhattan Friday night, the New York Post reported. At least two NYPD officers sustained minor injuries during the incident.

WABC reported the incident turned violent as protesters clashed with officers near 6th Avenue and West 54th Street around 9 p.m.

Police officials did not disclose how the officers were injured, the Post continued. Officers responded by arresting at least 11 of the anti-police protesters.

The confrontation on Sixth Avenue began when police placed one of the protesters in custody, the New York Daily News revealed. Police officials told the local news outlet a melee ensued leading to the arrest of multiple protesters.

Daily News photographer Sam Costanza came under attack from the protesters when they mistakenly identified him as a police officer. Costanza said ten to 15 protesters surrounded him and began fighting him.

One of the protesters reportedly recognized him from a protest at the NYPD 6th Precinct headquarters in Greenwich Village last year, the Post stated. One of the protesters began yelling, “He’s a cop,” leading others to swarm the man and beating him with their fists and other objects.

Photographer Jost Pacheco paints a different picture of the incident:

Costanza told the Daily News he believes the attackers broke his nose.

In addition to the injuries sustained by Costanza and two police officers, two police vehicles were also vandalized.

NYPD officials tweeted a photograph showing a vandalized restaurant in the East Village. The protesters also entered the restaurant and harassed the patrons. “This is not a peaceful protest,” officials stated.


Ted Cruz Asks Impeachment Managers if Kamala Harris Incited Riots from Black Lives Matter Protests

U.S. Senate
Volume 90%
3:33

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) submitted a question during the fourth day of the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump asking if language Vice President Kamala Harris used in 2020 regarding Black Lives Matter protests is considered incitement given the impeachment managers’ “proposed standard” for incitement.

Cruz’s question began, “While violent riots were raging, Kamala Harris said on national TV, ‘They’re not gonna let up, and they should not,’” quoting viral comments then-Sen. Harris (D-CA) made on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert last June in reference to nationwide Black Lives Matter protests.

The protests, which were sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in May, were largely peaceful but, in many instances, ended up devolving into destructive riots throughout the country that included vandalism, looting, fires, violence, injury, and in some cases even death over the course of several months in 2020.

“And she also raised money to bail out violent rioters,” Cruz’s question continued in reference to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) Harris urged her Facebook and Twitter followers to support in June 2020.

The MFF is an organization that seeks to combat cash bail by posting bail for detained individuals. The fund received a massive influx of donations amid last year’s protests and promoted its mission as many arrests were being made of those who went beyond protesting to allegedly violate the law.

Although Harris asked her followers to “help post bail for those protesting,” the fund’s website states that it does “not make determinations of bail support based on the crimes that individuals are alleged to have committed,” and furthermore, the fund has set free from jail individuals accused of egregious crimes. Last year, the MFF posted bail for a father accused of molesting his teenage daughter, a man accused of sexually assaulting his teenage niece, a man accused of sexually assaulting an eight-year-old, and a woman accused of stabbing her aunt, as the Daily Caller reported in November.

Cruz’s question continued, “Using the manager’s proposed standard, is there any coherent way for Donald Trump’s words to be incitement and Kamala Harris’s words not to be incitement?”

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) responded to the question by saying on the chamber floor that he was “not familiar” with the quote from Harris that Cruz had referenced; however, Trump attorney Michael T. van der Veek rejected that notion during his own response to Cruz, saying his team had given video to the House’s team of Harris’s quote and that they had played the video three times that day.

Raskin also said that despite not recognizing the quote, he finds it “absolutely unimaginable that Vice President Harris would ever incite violence or encourage or promote violence. Obviously, it’s completely irrelevant to the proceeding at hand, and I will allow her to defend herself.”

In a related question during the trial, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked on behalf of himself, Cruz, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), “Does a politician raising bail for rioters encourage more rioting?” A representative from Trump’s legal team replied, “Yes.”

Watch:

U.S. Senate
Volume 90%

Write to Ashley Oliver at aoliver@breitbart.com.

 

 

 "We must never substitute a doctrine of Black supremacy for white supremacy. For the doctrine of Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy," King had argued.

The Democrats, the media, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have adopted Muhammad’s position over King’s position, rejecting the wrongness of black supremacism.

 

Southern Poverty Law Center Stops Monitoring Black Hate Groups Because of ‘Equity’

Giving racists a pass in the name of anti-racism.

Tue Feb 9, 2021 

Daniel Greenfield

 

29

 

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The Southern Poverty Law Center claims it’s dedicated to fighting hate. But some things are more important than fighting hate.

Like “equity”.

In the name of equity, the SPLC announced that it’s shutting down its black nationalist hate groups category like the Nation of Islam. After “doing the internal work of anti-racism”, the SPLC will no longer list black racist hate groups because “the hate is not equal”.

Even racism requires its own equity.

The SPLC’s move dismantles the last remaining shred of credibility of the organization, but it also comes after Democrat politicians and activists, including Senator Cory Booker and Kamala Harris pressured the FBI to stop monitoring black nationalist hate groups before several murderous antisemitic attacks by members of the Black Hebrew Israelite hate group.

Despite these terrorist attacks, the pressure is still on in the media and among Democrat activists to keep the FBI from monitoring black supremacist and nationalist hate groups.

Activists had targeted the SPLC because, despite its bias, untrustworthiness, and sloppiness, its listings are widely used by law enforcement and by internet platforms deciding what qualifies as a hate group. The SPLC’s statement mainstreaming black supremacist hate groups repeatedly attacks the FBI and claims that these groups are actually the victims of law enforcement.

It also argues that black nationalist hate groups “are not made up of only Black individuals”.

“We reject federal law enforcement’s false and misleading contention regarding threats from Black separatists,” the SPLC statement insists. It pads this out with woke buzzwords and intersectional jargon to dodge the simple fact that it’s legitimizing black racist hate groups.

The SPLC had formerly tracked black nationalist hate groups through a ‘separatist’ category because a number of them, including the Nation of Islam, have wanted their own apartheid state. In its statement, the SPLC insists that there’s nothing wrong with racial secessionism.

“Black separatism was born out of valid anger against very real historical and systemic oppression” the SPLC argues. In Elijah Muhammad’s Message to the Blackman in America, the Nation of Islam leader explained that separatism was needed because white people were racially inferior “devils” and that "separation must come between god's people and the devil".

"Reverend King has made it clear that he never wants the black man to rule, because he knows it will be 'just as dangerous as white supremacy,'" Muhammad ranted. "This shows that all black people should disregard anything that a man like that says.”

"We must never substitute a doctrine of Black supremacy for white supremacy. For the doctrine of Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy," King had argued.

The Democrats, the media, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have adopted Muhammad’s position over King’s position, rejecting the wrongness of black supremacism.

Democrat politicians like Senator Booker have insisted that black nationalist violence doesn’t exist. “You said both ends of the spectrum, as if there actually is a movement of black identity extremism: it's almost creating this reality,” Booker had berated the head of the FBI.

Even the Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t ready to adopt Booker’s imaginary woke world in which a century of violence never happened and the Black Liberation Army, the Black Hebrew Israelite terror attack in Booker’s own state, the murder of 5 police officers in Dallas, the NOI and its splinter groups, like YBMB, and the murder of Malcolm X, never actually existed.

We live in a time when the murders of 8 people, the assaults on hundreds more, and the wrecking of communities to the tune of $2 billion by Black Lives Matter can be described as “mostly peaceful”. But even the SPLC’s new antiracist equity mandate hasn’t made the leap.

The SPLC admits that “some Black nationalists have committed violence against Jewish communities, but those are fueled by antisemitism, not separatism”. And it will stop listing black nationalist groups by race, but class them under antisemitism and homophobia. But racial separatism and antisemitism are symptoms of the racist beliefs of black nationalism.

“The Jew is behind the integration movement, using the Negro as a tool,” Malcolm X, Muhammad’s disciple, had told the head of a local KKK group and a Democrat candidate.

The NOI’s racialist texts insist that America is evil because its immigrants “came from the lower class of European people” followed by Asian immigrants who created “one of the most mixed people” because they had “freedom to worship” and were not compelled to be Muslims.

Black nationalists copied white nationalist beliefs and just flipped the races. That’s why the Nation of Islam and other black nationalist groups have worked with the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

The racism revisionists insist that black supremacists are fundamentally different than white supremacists, but they never explain how they’re different in their beliefs, only their root causes.

The Left swears by its sociology of root causes, but root excuses don't change beliefs.

White supremacists and black supremacists have the same basic beliefs, they’ve worked together, and they have the same apartheid state goals. The only difference is that the Southern Poverty Law Center excuses one and attacks the other. That’s only defensible if you believe that some kinds of racism are justified while others are not, and that the only real racism is power.

And that’s what the SPLC falsely claims, “in our endeavor for racial justice and equity, it is imperative that we adopt an understanding of racism grounded in nuance and the realities of racial power dynamics. Racism in America is historical, systemic and structural.”

Spot the nuance and racial power dynamics in black nationalist Stokely Carmichael declaring that, “I’ve never admired a white man, but the greatest of them, to my mind, was Hitler.”

Or Farrakhan calling Hitler ''a very great man.''

The SPLC’s Marxist critical race theory analysis of racism reduces it to power dynamics. Redefining racism as a “systemic” phenomenon replaces actual racism with renaming San Francisco schools that have acronyms to fight “white supremacy”. And then the SPLC can’t even pretend to be tracking hate groups, only those groups that it deems part of the system.

The absurdity of one of the wealthiest non-profits in the country (that has “poverty” in its name) pretending that the trailer park dwellers of the Klan represent “systemic racism” while insisting that Farrakhan, who got his photo taken with Obama at a Congressional Black Caucus event, is a helpless victim, takes the discrediting of what’s left the SPLC’s credibility to a new level.

The SPLC refuses to use the term “black nationalist” or “black supremacist” to describe black supremacist hate groups like the NOI which, literally, insist that they are the master race.

Elijah Muhammad’s Message to the Blackman in America laid out the creation story of the “white race” as coming from a mad scientist named Yakub who discovered there were "two people in him, and that one was black, the other brown" and "he could make the white, which he discovered was the weaker of the black germ" in a breeding program to make "brown” people.

Nation of Islam theology claims that "after the first 200 years, Mr. Yakub had done away with the black people, and all were brown. After another 200 years, he had us all yellow or red" and then finally "an all-pale white race of people" who were “made by nature a liar and a murderer”.

White people, Asians, and Indians, and most black people, according to black nationalists are illegitimate races, with white people, who are the least black, being the most evil.

This isn’t mere separatism. If that’s not racial supremacism, what is?

The Southern Poverty Law Center, founded by a Klansman’s lawyer, which has falsely accused many conservative organizations, including the David Horowitz Freedom Center, of racism has finally made its peace with racism in the name of antiracism. 

Analyzing Kamala's handwriting: A bigger ego than Obama?

 

By Marion DS Dreyfus

Kamala Harris, she of the never-far cackle and the constant pantsuit affectation, is a few heartbeats away from the presidency, after all.  Her inner workings, as manifested in her day-to-day penmanship, are thus of more than interest.

While her cursive writing, excerpted here and there from documents scribbled during or after meetings in her past affiliations in California, indicate a grounded, mindful person, her swooping descenders show a flair and exuberance that indicate an appetitive person, someone given to emotional excess and sexual interest.  Her hard-inked words indicate a forceful, no shilly-shallying personality who wants to be understood, without any doubt of what she wants.

She does not appear as tentative as her W.H. mate does in his wavering, weak, tentative pennings, for which we're not quite sure we're grateful, because neither person in the people's House is ideal, as the first fortnight regrettably demonstrates in spades.

 

This pairing has not brought about anything remotely like "unity," although it is true that Kamala Harris, the unliked first candidate to drop out of the presidential sweepstakes, has never made that great a declaration about unity, either for or against, though Ms. Harris's announcement on the Colbert program over a year ago did seem to support the continuation of violence and rioting in our major cities, which, she announced with careful enunciation to a shocked audience, "will continue, even after the election."  "And they should," she ended ominously, putting to nuanced rest any thought that she might be in favor of riot cessation and the turbulence, arson, maiming, and destruction these her supporters were "parenting" in city after city, some hundreds of such violent explosions in one year, unstoppered by any Democrat, unstemmed by Ms. Harris.

 In fact, Ms Harris was on record raising millions to bail out the functionally terroristic brutes of BLM and unstopped fascistic Antifa.  For the small businesses razed, burnt to the ground, perhaps never to rebuild, she had not a syllable of empathy or remorse.

Not really a recommendation for sympathetic next-but-one country leader. 

Her signature, however, indicates a wild sense of her own privilege, inimitable value, and ego.

In her regular script, though, her initial "K" is beyond histrionic, swelling and swooping all over the page, bearing little resemblance to the lessons taught in grade school on how to formulate a capital "K" or, for that matter, the letter "H."

If you did not know initially that her name is Kamala, you would not be able to discern in fact what her name was, since it in no way resembles a "K."  In that it reveals a proclivity for drama, as the woman does in real life; it demonstrates that this is an overweening ambitious person.  The residual "H" is also indecipherable, as the writer clearly has a well developed sense of who cares what you think? in her critically important signature.

She is unwilling to relinquish her place on the paper, as evidenced by her peculiar scrawled "H" — or whatever that line drawing represents.  The final touch is the strongly aggressive dot or smudged point as the act of aggressive finish.

The body of her script, however, shows someone with firm grip on her wants and wishes.  She does not drift from the center line, neither above nor below, in the grouping of her letters.

In her "f" formations, moreover, we see the makings of a writer, as she forms figure eights with each "f" formed.  As she underlines, crowds words together in notes, she indicates opportunism, parsimony, a willingness to skip steps and make things easier for herself, not something most people would argue with, incidentally, but also not something all persons manifest so obviously in their writing.

Her "t" crossings show a relatively balanced ego (contrasting with her actual signature) but show a tendency to dictatorial behavior.  Many of her "t" crossings have barely any tail to the left, and much firm extension to the right.  A bit of pushiness, dictatorial impulse.

In that her letters are smoothly formed, she shows a healthy physiognomy as reflected in the arches and garlands of her words.  On the other hand, her margins are niggardly to left, a little better to right, indicating she is limited in her generosity instincts.  Spaces between words are larger than usual, showing that Kamala's thought processes are orderly but not blizzard-fast.  Her straight up-and-down slant gives us the telltale that she is not overly emotional, takes herself as independent, not given to bending over backwards in circumstances others might yield.

All in all, she does not appear to be a psychopath, which is one worry people could entertain in observing her ambition.  She seems stable on the whole, though a drama queen in the clinch, shown by her assertive, no-holds-barred signature flourishes.

Would she be the ideal choice for president, should anything happen to the current disturbing White house occupant?

Not really.

But then, neither would we have selected the octogenarian-manque occupant, himself, based on his handwriting — and dictatorial behavior and orders since his heedless ascent to the people's House in January 2021.

And hearkening back to Obama's space-cadet egotistical hand, we see how that egotist worked out, just as his clarion cursive suggested would be the case.

 

Ted Cruz Asks Impeachment Managers if Kamala Harris Incited Riots from Black Lives Matter Protests

U.S. Senate

Volume 90%

ASHLEY OLIVER

12 Feb 20212,841

3:33

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) submitted a question during the fourth day of the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump asking if language Vice President Kamala Harris used in 2020 regarding Black Lives Matter protests is considered incitement given the impeachment managers’ “proposed standard” for incitement.

Cruz’s question began, “While violent riots were raging, Kamala Harris said on national TV, ‘They’re not gonna let up, and they should not,’” quoting viral comments then-Sen. Harris (D-CA) made on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert last June in reference to nationwide Black Lives Matter protests.

The protests, which were sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in May, were largely peaceful but, in many instances, ended up devolving into destructive riots throughout the country that included vandalism, looting, fires, violence, injury, and in some cases even death over the course of several months in 2020.

“And she also raised money to bail out violent rioters,” Cruz’s question continued in reference to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) Harris urged her Facebook and Twitter followers to support in June 2020.

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020

The MFF is an organization that seeks to combat cash bail by posting bail for detained individuals. The fund received a massive influx of donations amid last year’s protests and promoted its mission as many arrests were being made of those who went beyond protesting to allegedly violate the law.

Although Harris asked her followers to “help post bail for those protesting,” the fund’s website states that it does “not make determinations of bail support based on the crimes that individuals are alleged to have committed,” and furthermore, the fund has set free from jail individuals accused of egregious crimes. Last year, the MFF posted bail for a father accused of molesting his teenage daughter, a man accused of sexually assaulting his teenage niece, a man accused of sexually assaulting an eight-year-old, and a woman accused of stabbing her aunt, as the Daily Caller reported in November.

Cruz’s question continued, “Using the manager’s proposed standard, is there any coherent way for Donald Trump’s words to be incitement and Kamala Harris’s words not to be incitement?”

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) responded to the question by saying on the chamber floor that he was “not familiar” with the quote from Harris that Cruz had referenced; however, Trump attorney Michael T. van der Veek rejected that notion during his own response to Cruz, saying his team had given video to the House’s team of Harris’s quote and that they had played the video three times that day.

Raskin also said that despite not recognizing the quote, he finds it “absolutely unimaginable that Vice President Harris would ever incite violence or encourage or promote violence. Obviously, it’s completely irrelevant to the proceeding at hand, and I will allow her to defend herself.”

In a related question during the trial, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked on behalf of himself, Cruz, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), “Does a politician raising bail for rioters encourage more rioting?” A representative from Trump’s legal team replied, “Yes.”

Watch:

U.S. Senate

Volume 90%

Write to Ashley Oliver at aoliver@breitbart.com.