Why President Trump was found NOT GUILTY
February 15, 2021
Many think they know why President Trump was acquitted in the second impeachment farce. They believe it was because only seven Republican Senators were traitors. These seven betrayed their oaths of office, the Constitution, and their constituents. But seventeen traitors were required for conviction.
It was much more complicated than that. These are the reasons President Trump was found NOT GUILTY:
1. There was no insurrection.
2. Nancy Pelosi led a sham impeachment in the House with no evidence, no witnesses, and no one to represent the President.
3. The impeachment was unconstitutional, first because impeachment is to remove a federal official from office, and the President had already left office. It was also unconstitutional because the Chief Justice did not preside, as required by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.
4. The President encouraged his followers to peacefully protest. His words did not incite anything by any legal or constitutional standard.
5. The riot by a few hundred people at the Capitol was planned well in advance of President Trump’s January 6th speech, and the threat was well known to law enforcement and federal officers charged with the security of the Capitol.
6. The members of Congress were not in danger.
7. The Democrats tried to make the riot much more than it was in a feeble attempt to poison Senators against the President before the trial.
There was never a question of President Trump being found guilty in either impeachment pushed by Pelosi and her gang of radical Democrats. Yet she did not hesitate to spend $11.5 Million of our money on a show trial for no other purpose than to embarrass and harass the President. At the end of the Senate trial in Impeachment One, she gloated with an evil cackle, “He may not have been convicted, but he will always be impeached.
The cost of Impeachment Two will be less since it thankfully only took five days. Estimates are a cost of $3 to $4 Million to taxpayers, plus $519 Million for the ridiculous security ordered by O'Biden around the Capitol building. He ordered more troops to “protect” the Capitol than were there to protect Lincoln during the Civil War!
Let us take this point by point…
1. THERE WAS NO INSURRECTION.
Insurrection: An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
There was no “revolt.” There were about 250,000 patriots exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully protest against injustice. In any group of that size there will always be a few who do not use good sense and tend to go too far. But it is clear that the few actual Trump supporters who entered the Capitol that day were incited and led by professional anarchists wearing Trump hats and pretending to be Trump supporters. This was the kind of false flag attack that has occurred hundreds of times over the centuries.
A revolt requires weapons. There are no reports of any of the people in the Capitol building being armed – not even the anarchists. The windows were smashed with objects of opportunity; pieces of furniture and pipes. The only weapons fired were by government agents, including the shooting of an unarmed female Air Force veteran named Ashli Babbit by a Capitol Police Officer.
This was in no way a “coup,” as Democrats claim. It was not an attempt to bring down the government. The government at that time was the government headed by President Trump. The only effect of the riot was to delay the certification of a new government. Nothing the rioters could have done would have had any other impact than that.
The main thing to remember here is that the Democrats are trying to make us believe that the actions of a few hundred rioters (whom they call “domestic terrorists”) represent the hundreds of thousands of peaceful Trump supporters who never entered the Capitol. And by extension, they would have use believe that the demonstrators represent all Trump voters.
So, if you voted for President Trump, had a Trump-Pence sign in your yard, or posted something positive about the President on the Internet, prepare to be labeled a domestic terrorist. You will also be called a racist, a “nativist” (whatever that is), a white supremacist (even if you are black – it has already happened), and a religious bigot.
2. THE SECOND IMPEACHMENT WAS A SHAM, LIKE THE FIRST.
As I explained in my article, “The Truth About the Second Impeachment,” the “Snap Impeachment” by Nancy Pelosi with no evidence, no witnesses, and no one to represent the President was brazenly unconstitutional. Every American citizen, even one hated by the political party in power, has the right to face his or her accuser.
Convening a Senate trial by Chuck Schumer based on an unconstitutional impeachment by the House was also unconstitutional. Therefore, both Pelosi’s and Schumer’s actions are impeachable offenses. But neither will ever face justice. Why?
Because impeachment is a purely political matter. It has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with raw political power. The Framers of our Constitution knew this. So why did they provide for impeachment?
They were faced with a quandary. They could not allow federal officers, and in particular the president, to act improperly with impunity. That would be too much like the monarchy we had been freed from by the Revolution. But neither could they allow one political party to persecute the other with ease.
I continue to be awed by the wisdom of the Founders. Hundreds of years ago they could not have known what America would become, nor how advances in technology and science would change the way our nation would function. But they understood human nature, and they created the world’s longest surviving constitution. In fact, only half the constitutions of nations that have one have survived more than 19 years.
So, they made impeachment possible, but difficult. Both houses of Congress had to be involved, with the House able to impeach with a simple majority. But impeachment is nothing more than an accusation, somewhat akin to a Grand Jury indictment. The real power is in the hands of the Senate, which must acquit or convict with a two-thirds majority. It is almost impossible to attain a two-thirds majority of the members of both parties unless the accusation is so heinous that honest men and women would be willing to cross party lines. This is why no president has ever been convicted in an impeachment proceeding.
3. THE IMPEACHMENT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ON TWO GROUNDS.
The impeachment was unconstitutional, first because impeachment is to remove a federal official from office, and the President had already left office. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution reads, in part, “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
Anyone who reads those words who has even a shred of integrity or honesty in his character has to admit that they have only one interpretation: One cannot be removed from office unless he or she is in office. The Democrats have tried to twist the Constitution into a pretzel, but they have been unable to convince anyone who does not hate the President so much that he or she is willing to perjure themselves and vote to convict out of pure political vengeance.
They say that limiting impeachment to the constitutional definition would allow a president do commit some terrible act just before he leaves office. But there is no January suspension of the Constitution.
Besides the unconstitutional nature of the impeachment, think of the precedent it would have set. Had these zealots been successful, they would have shown themselves to be true domestic terrorists by throwing our nation into an anarchy where the weapons would have been political power.
I believe that O'Biden and Comrade Kamala will overplay their hands so badly that the Republicans will take over both Houses of Congress next year. If the Democrats had been able to set the precedent of impeaching someone who is not in office, the Republicans would have been free to impeach Obama for his many crimes against our nation. These are too numerous to recount but let us just look at one in which Hillary could have been impeached, as well.
Obama as Commander-in-Chief, and Hillary, who as Secretary of State was responsible for the security of our embassies, failed miserably. Our Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, had begged for more security in the deteriorating third-world nation, which Hillary denied. When the diplomatic mission in Benghazi came under attack, Stevens and his ridiculously small security detail called for help. We had military forces stationed close enough that they could have saved the four men who were massacred that day. These forces requested permission to rescue the ambassador and the three men who gave their lives trying to protect him from a mob. Hillary told them to stand down. This order could not have been given without Obama’s OK. Should they both be impeached?
In 2024 O'Biden will probably already have been pushed out of office, and Comrade Kamala along with whoever she picks to be her VP will be booted out of office. Both O'Biden and Harris have already committed impeachable offenses that threaten the security of our nation. O'Biden has been compromised by our gravest enemy, the Communist Party of China and is already doing their bidding. Harris encouraged rioters during the Democrats' “Summer of Love” when “peaceful protestors” murdered and raped citizens, looted and destroyed businesses, burned, and tried to bomb police and federal buildings, and murdered dozens of police officers. When the rioters were arrested, she raised money to bail them out, and many of them immediately burned buildings and committed murder as soon as she got them released. Shouldn’t she be impeached after she leaves office?
The second reason the impeachment was unconstitutional was that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did not preside, as required by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. This reads, in part, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” The Chief Justice refused to preside because the proceeding was so blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution does not provide for this, but if the Chief Justice is unwilling or unable to preside, it would be logical for one of the eight Associate Justices to take his place. But none of them – not even the most Liberal among them – wanted to take part in this farce and ruin their reputations.
So, Chuck Schumer, without a shred of constitutional authority, chose the president pro tempore of the Senate, Patrick Leahy, to preside over the trial. Leahy is a political hack who has often displayed his hatred for President Trump – hardly a good choice to preside over the President’s trial.
The party in power chooses the president pro tempore, usually based on age and length of service in the Senate. At eighty years of age and having spent 47 years feeding at the public trough, Leahy qualifies. The Constitution requires the Senate to elect a president pro tempore to serve as presiding officer in the absence of the vice president. The president pro tempore is authorized to preside over the Senate, sign legislation, and issue the oath of office to new senators. Nowhere does the Constitution give the holder of this office the ability to play Chief Justice.
4. THE PRESIDENT ENCOURAGED HIS FOLLOWERS TO “PEACEFULLY” PROTEST.
He never encouraged anyone to be violent, nor did he “incite” anyone to riot, much less to commit insurrection. By contrast, throughout the 2019 “Summer of Love,” as it was dubbed by Democrat public officials, Democrat Members of Congress, Governors, and Mayors encouraged and enabled violence in almost every large Democrat-controlled city.
In my articles, “The Truth About Black Lives Matter,” and “Are We Actually Dumb Enough to Start Another Civil War because We Don’t Like the Guys who lost last time?” I offer proof that Democrat leaders encouraged looters, rapists and murderers; and allowed rioters to destroy federal buildings and courthouses, private businesses, and police stations. In many cases Democrat officials ordered police to “stand down” and refused President Trump’s offers of federal assistance to quell the riots.
In my article, “A Kangaroo Trial Worthy of any Totalitarian Socialist Dictatorship,” I provide links to the full video and an unedited transcript of President Trump’s “Save America” speech. If you watch and read only the Liberal media, you will have seen carefully edited bits and pieces of what the President said that are deliberately designed to mislead you about the contents and purpose of the speech, and to turn you against our president. But if you take the time to either read the verified transcript or watch the full video, you will see that nothing the President said would have led or encouraged to commit any act of violence. The most controversial thing he said was to encourage his followers to “protest peacefully and patriotically.”
(Since many Liberal websites - including YouTube - have removed most of President Trump’s videos, I have taken the precaution of posting the transcript of his speech here, in case the pages that are linked above are censored and removed.)
Trumps’ defense team, as part of their presentation, showed Democrat officials, including Members of Congress actively inciting violence. They were basically doing what they accused President Trump of doing.
5. EVERYTHING ABOUT THE RIOT WAS PLANNED WELL BEFORE TRUMP'S SPEECH.
The riot by a few hundred people at the Capitol was planned by outside agitators such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter long before President Trump’s January 6th speech. The threats were well known by law enforcement and the federal officers charged with security of the Capitol. In addition to the threats, bombs were placed at both the offices of the Democrat National Committee and the Republican National Committee in Washington, DC – the day before the President’s speech.
The FBI first lied when they denied receiving intelligence about planned violence on January 6th. Later they admitted that they had received the intel but had not shared it with the Capitol Police or the DC police. Their failure to issue these warnings is probably why they initially lied about receiving the warnings.
Even the very liberal NPR reports that the Capitol Police received intel reports three days before the riot. The Chief of the Capitol Police begged Nancy Pelosi for additional security and asked for National Guard support. She refused both requests. (As Speaker of the House, Pelosi has overall responsibility for the security of the Capitol building.)
The bottom line is that others had planned the attack on the Capitol long before Trump gave his fairly benign speech on January 6th. The Democrats knew this, yet they failed to secure the Capitol. They made the Chief of the Capitol Police the scapegoat for their inaction and forced him to resign. Which begs the question: Did they want the Capitol to be attacked so that they could blame President Trump for it; or were they simply stupid? Neither option gives me any confidence in their ability to govern our nation.
6. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE EVER IN DANGER.
Although Pelosi wasted an entire day in Congress for a group therapy session in which Representatives bared their souls as they told horror stories about how afraid they were, there is no evidence that any of them were ever in danger. (The word is that Pelosi had planned to give every Member a therapy teddy bear after the session, but Amazon did not deliver them in time.)
Many members told harrowing stories about how they feared for their lives. Most were lies, including Alexandria Cortez’s account: “I can tell you I had a very close encounter where I feared I was going to die.” (See her video HERE.) In fact, she was not in the Capitol building that day but was in her office blocks away. (That might make one wonder if the people who planned the attack warned her to stay away.) Everyone bought her lie until she was called out by a Congresswoman who was actually there. Since then, she has tried various different ways to explain why what she said was not what she said.
Another close call with death involved Mitt Romney’s stupidity. He has been in the Senate long enough to know his directions. But he was walking toward the riot (which he could obviously hear), when a Capitol Police officer “saved his life” by telling him he was going the wrong way.
Again, there is no evidence that they (or any other Members) were ever in danger. Although there were no threats against the lives of the Members, the officers did the right thing by evacuating the Chamber, since they did not know what was going on. They knew there was an altercation, and that was enough to make them take sensible precautions. But in all the interviews I have heard, not one security official has stated that they believed the lives of the Senators and Congressmen were endangered.
The odd thing is that I have only heard Democrats pitifully cry about their “brush with death.” I have not heard any Republicans make the same claims. This is certainly not because the Republicans thought the rioters would not hurt them because the rioters would only go after Democrats. Democrats and Republicans look pretty much the same – except when they are voting on bills to kill more babies or make sodomy legal. Could it be that the Democrats are dramatizing the riot to make it more than it was and blame it on Republicans.
Finally, if the Capitol Police really thought the lives of the legislators were really in danger, they would have acted much differently. They, like the Secret Service, have sworn an oath to protect the Members of Congress with their lives. So why do we see videos of Capitol Police officers opening gates to allow protesters into the Capitol; videos of Capitol Police officers abandoning their posts; videos of Capitol Police officers taking “selfies” with rioters; and videos walking unopposed through the Capitol rotunda – and incongruously, staying with the rope lines?
We are told by Capitol Police spokesmen that they were “overwhelmed” by the large crowds. But the crowds were unarmed except for a few carrying American flags – and the police were armed. I believe that if the Capitol Police officers really believed that the legislators’ lives were in danger, they would have stood their ground and died doing their duty before they would have allowed death to descend on the Senators and Congressmen in the Chamber. Instead, other than a few fistfights, there was practically no resistance as the protestors marched into the Capitol Building.
7. DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA HAVE MADE THE RIOT MUCH MORE THAN IT WAS.
Liberal reporters, standing in front of blazing or bombed buildings, described riots last summer as “mostly peaceful.” TV viewers laughed, wondering if they were joking or trying to create a false narrative. The violent “protestors” of Antifa and Black Lives Matter were anything but peaceful. Most were violent bullies who loved to hurt and even kill people. But the voted Democrat, so the Democrats and the media protected them.
The hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters who came to Washington, DC, were actually “mostly peaceful.” There are always a few radicals in a crowd that size. And there were definitely paid professional leftist agitators who mingled with the crowd and encouraged violence.
But one Capitol Police Officer told reporters that he was struck by the age range of the people in the crowd. “People had their little kids, 2-year-olds, babies in strollers,” he stated. An elderly woman with a walker inched toward the Capitol: “Every two steps, she has to stop and catch her breath.” People planning to engage in violence don’t bring their babies along for the trip.
From the beginning, the Democrats and the Liberal media have colluded to make the riot seem worse than it was. Remember, as the Washington Post says, “Democrats Were for Occupying Capitols before They Were Against It.”
In February and March of 2011 protestors occupied the Wisconsin Capitol 24 hours a day – the longest occupation of a government building in US history. Almost all Republicans have denounced the mob that assaulted the US Capitol. But in 2011 Democrats praised the left-wing mob that occupied the state Capitol in Madison. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists.
The summer of 2020, which Democrats have called “The Summer of Love,” were far deadlier that the Capitol riot. And high-level Democrat officials encouraged them. Some Mayors locked arms with the rioters and said they stood “in solidarity” with them. They told police that “Buildings don’t matter – people matter.” Democrat administrations refused to allow police to stop the violence – until it came to their homes. Then they had a change of heart and started begging for the federal officers that President Trump had offered, and which they had refused earlier.
These riots in 140 cities cost over $2 Billion. 36 people lost their lives, and 2,037 Police Officers were injured. By contrast, the damage to the Capitol was minimal. Two people – not five – died, and 50 Police Officers were injured.
Why did the Democrats and the leftist media immediately trumpet that five people had died in the Capitol riot, when they knew it was untrue? They lied because it bolstered their false assertions that Trump supporter are violent people.
One person died in the Capitol that day - Ashli Babbit. A Capitol Police Officer returned to his headquarters after things calmed down, but died the next day – apparently of injuries suffered in an altercation with rioter on January 6th.
The three others who died were not in the Capitol but were in the huge crowd. They died due to “medical emergencies.” This should not be a surprise. In fact I would be surprised if no one had died in the huge crowd, which included many elderly people. As a firefighter-paramedic I have worked large crowds in which people died, but none a big as the one in DC that day. For instance, at the Orange Bowl, with a much smaller crowd, we had five deaths. People die every day, and in a crowd that size it would be unusual for the day to pass without someone dying of a medical condition.
In this case, Kevin Greeson of Alabama suffered a heart attack, and BenjaminPhilips of Pennsylvania died of a stroke. The third medical emergency patient was Rosanne Boyland of Georgia. According to a friend who was with her, she “passed out.” Although no cause of death has been reported, police were giving her CPR when the medics arrived, so she may have suffered a heart attack. None of them went into the Capitol that day. They were outside in the peaceful crowd.
So, the media and the Democrats knew that there was only one death in the Capitol that day, as reported by Greg Kelly on Newsmax TV – my new favorite since FOX News has crossed over to the Dark Side. He said, “Only one person died in the Capitol that day,” and he was correct. Officer Sicknick died the next day, presumably from injuries suffered at the Capitol – although that has not been confirmed. But the Liberal media has savaged him for telling the truth. Only their “truth” and their “facts” are allowed. PolitiFact – which is seldom truthful or factual, but is always political – rated Mr. Kelly’s statement as “False” on their cute little “Truth-o-meter.” Don’t trust them.
I always chuckle when preachers say, “In closing…” the first time. I know we’re in for another ten minutes and at least three more “In closings.” This won’t be that.
It’s rather sick the way the Democrats and the Left-Wing media (yes, they are the “enemy of the people”) have twisted and distorted the tragic events of January 6th for political and financial advantage. There’s a reason why politicians are among the least-trusted people in America, and the mainstream media are not far behind them – they all lie.
If we don’t start holding our politicians and the media to the same standards, we will lose our nation. We can’t have the Democrats praising real domestic terrorists, and then calling the 50% + patriotic, peace-loving Americans who voted for Trump domestic terrorists. We can’t allow them to call us racists because we believe differently that they do. Do you remember when Obama derided Christian Conservatives, saying we’re bitter and that we “cling to God or guns.”
This is what they believe. Not long ago the Department of Homeland Security issued a briefing on who to watch out for because they might become domestic terrorists. High on their list were veterans and evangelical Christians. They refer to the vast majority of America as “flyover country.” The really believe that only the coastal elites are intelligent, and therefore must make all decisions. The rest are “deplorable” country bumpkins who live in middle America and are only good enough to produce food for them.
They’re really good (or evil) in their use of words. They call a small riot an “insurrection.” A crowd is an angry mob if they support President Trump, but a crowd is a group of “peaceful protestors” if the support the interloper who is currently in the White House.
If violent Marxist groups like Antifa and BLM attack federal buildings, occupy police stations, or take over whole sections of large cities and declare them “autonomous zones," they are exercising their right to “peacefully protest.” It doesn’t matter how many people they kill or how many businesses they destroy. But a group who supports President Trump is obviously made up of low-IQ people who have been brainwashed. They’re already talking about “re-education” for us. They’ve started purging the military and police of people who have expressed support for President Trump.
We can’t hide our heads in the sand anymore. Some Conservatives and Christians tell me they plan to “hunker down” and keep a low profile until this all blows over. It is not going to blow over. We all have to stand up and call out evil lies whenever they are told.
Remember the words of Martin Niemoller, a German Lutheran philosopher:
He has written thousands of articles that have been republished in national newspapers and on hundreds of websites, and is a frequent guest on radio and television shows. His weekly Conservative Truth article (which is read by 250,000) offers a unique viewpoint on social, moral and political issues from a Biblical worldview. This has resulted in invitations to speak internationally at churches, conferences, Money Shows, universities, and on TV (including the 700 Club).
“Dr. Tom,” as his readers and followers affectionately refer to him, has a passion for teaching, as you can see from his ministry website (www.ChristianFinancialConcepts.com); his patriotic site (www.ConservativeTruth.org); and his business site (www.GoldenArtTreasures.com). Tom's friend Dr. Lance Wallnau wrote of him, "Tom Barrett is a Renaissance man with a passion for subject matter ranging from finance to theology and American history."
Visit Dr. Tom Barrett's website at www.DrTom.TV