Hoo boy and then Castor jumps in with his own big lie. Raffensperger released the recording to counter Drumpf's mischaracterizations of the call. This was not a Democratic hit job. This was a Republican defending his integrity against an insurrectionist.
It's worth noting in this defense that he's not playing the phone call. Unlike the other videos, nothing in that phone call even sounds okay by itself.
Despite Castor's incompetence in presenting the matter that his defense has claimed should be ignore there is a valid point of debate here.
The House managers used this same evidence to assert that Drumpf knowingly set the stage for the riot and insurrection. The FBI reports and such cited here are what they say proved that Drumpf knew exactly what was going on and chose to use it to direct the mob to his ends.
Unless some rather damning records show up this is unlikely to be a provable thing on either side. Whether or not Drumpf's failure to heed the warnings of the FBI was a stronger sign of incompetence or malice is basically the question that the whole of the Drumpf Presidency has always come down on.
I personally think that anybody still on the side of incompetence is a fool. The average Q-Anon out there certainly wouldn't believe it. The Storm was supposed to be on purpose.
You know... you know... the guy who's famously not in charge of the FBI anymore. His opinion is clearly germane to the incidence reports by the FBI about this.
He's hilariously made James Comey his star witness in this line of argument.
I'm sure there's actual evidence of these claims since it's talking about FBI stuff. It's just telling that, rather than presenting the documents, he decided to do exactly what they're team was trying to build as criticism of the House managers again.
What was the word on this from earlier? Hypocrites? You only get to deride that tactic when you don't choose to do it yourself.
It's also the opposite of the standard they demand of their base... if that were the case the fact that Q gets things right essentially a random amount of times wouldn't have resulted in its spread through the base.
This is closer to the scientific, mathematical, or logical standard. None of these people could be bound by that. Even in that one casting doubt isn't enough. You have to specifically disprove something.
This again pretty typical of how Republicans try to trick you. They don't have counter-arguments for everything, so they potentially succeed in one thing, and try to upgrade that everything the other side said must be false and a lie.
This just leaves the implication that the Republicans are more correct without ever having to provide anything specific to say that. Mostly because they have very little of substance to say on it.
"False in one thing. False in everything."
Really Castor? Both sides here are doing the lawyer thing where you throw every argument not just your best argument. So we should also evaluate your presentation to be entirely false if any of it is false?
I know this is a short presentation, but you wouldn't have gone on even this long if you'd wanted that to be the standard.
Castor just also repeated that claim that the House managers are being disingenuous in their prosecution. Repeating that central element of Drumpf's Big Lie that the Democrats are knowingly misleading you.
I feel like Tim Lee had an objection to stuff like this. Maybe he should object again since he cares so much about members of this body being misquoted?
It's the constant lying that grates at me. Castor just made the claim that the House managers spent no time linking Drumpf legally to inciting a riot. That's just not true. They had a whole little segment about where they thought it wasn't necessary to do, but did so anyway.
You may find their explanation insufficient, but you didn't claim that. Instead, you lied.
You didn't say, "They failed to connect my client ..." Instead, you lied.
According to the Washington Post coverage one of the "fights" in the montage of Democrats was Schumer talking about Covid. Apparently this reporter was there. He found it funny that this came right after Schoen complained about Democrats taking quotes out of context.
This is the first time I've watched their in-between coverage and it seems spot on at least at pointing out the absurd parts of the argument so far.
Michael T. van der Veen is going through a First Amendment argument about all of this. It's fairly technical so I don't have as much to say about it. I'm not sure whether any of this really even applies, but I will say this guys is a total prick to the other lawyers. It's an interesting contrast from the House's "my esteemed colleagues" to actively sneering directly at the people he's accusing of being fueled by hate.
We come here in search of a place to express our thoughts outside of the direct control and surveillance of unaccountable, mega-corporations. There is no common theme that binds us other than these being the bonds we've chosen rather than those that have been chosen for us.