Washington Post admits Trump did not “incite” Capitol riot — so there’s no need for an impeachment trial, right?

There are so many things that are wrong with the Democrats’ latest insane, politically dangerous effort to impeach former President Donald Trump — namely because he’s a former president.

But beyond that, and like his first impeachment, he’s been accused of a fabrication, a lie so profound and so obvious that now even the deranged leftists at the Washington Post have had to admit as much.

In the article of impeachment against the former president, Trump was accused of “inciting an insurrection” Jan. 6 when he gave a speech to a rally of supporters in Washington, D.C., as a joint session of Congress was meeting to count the tainted, rigged Electoral College ballots.

At one point, Trump told supporters to go to the U.S. Capitol Building and “peacefully” make themselves heard about how they opposed the manner in which several battleground states’ ballots were ‘allowed’ this year.

“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” the former president said.

Reread that very significant passage; do you see the word “peacefully?” Of course, you do — when was the last time a real insurgent leader asked his followers to revolt “peacefully?”

Nevertheless, after a very small percentage of rally goers participated in the Capitol riot, here came Nancy Pelosi, her lunatic Democratic Party, and a stampede of RINOs to falsely accuse Trump of calling for a rebellion or some such nonsense.

But the Washington Post, in a story essentially ‘buried’ on the paper’s website, reported on court documents that claim unequivocally no ‘insurrection’ occurred, and that many in the crowd of the president’s supporters were egged on by “self-styled militia” antagonizers:  

Self-styled militia members from Virginia, Ohio and other states made plans to storm the U.S. Capitol days in advance of the Jan. 6 attack, and then communicated in real time as they breached the building on opposite sides and talked about hunting for lawmakers, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

While authorities have charged more than 100 individuals in the riots, details in the new allegations against three U.S. military veterans offer a disturbing look at what they allegedly said to each other before, during and after the attack — statements that indicate a degree of preparation and determination to rush deep into the halls and tunnels of Congress to make “citizens’ arrests” of elected officials.

So, that’s it then, right? There won’t be any impeachment because it’s now obvious that the Capitol breach was not incited by the former president — right?

Wrong.

Fox News reported that House Speaker Pelosi plans to deliver the article of impeachment to the Senate on Monday — so that chamber can waste time ‘trying’ a president who has already left office.

“I’ve spoken to Speaker Pelosi who informed me that the article will be delivered to the Senate on Monday,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said ahead of the weekend. (Related: Joe Biden to squash President Trump’s attempt to roll back coronavirus travel restrictions.)

“We are respectful of the Senate’s constitutional power over the trial and always attentive to the fairness of the process, noting that the former president will have had the same amount of time to prepare for trial as our Managers,” Pelosi said. “Our Managers are ready to begin to make their case to 100 Senate jurors through the trial process.”

What a load. Experts have said there is no constitutional authority to impeach a president who is no longer in office, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a scholar who is a constitutionalist first and a liberal second.

He explains why an impeachment trial is a sham and a purposeful misreading of the Constitution so as to prevent Trump from ever being able to run for a second term (which he would win): 

For my part, I am admittedly fixated on the fact that impeachment refers to the removal of “the President” and other officials in office. I understand that many do not adhere to a strong textualist approach to the Constitution. However, there is a glaring anomaly in the text. Indeed, the primary stated purpose of the trial is to determine whether “the President . . .  shall be removed.” At the second Trump impeachment trial, the president will be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. So the Senate will hold a rather curious vote to decide whether to remove a president who has already gone. Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to be present to answer these questions because there is no president to try. Article I states “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”  So the Senate will get someone else.  The question is who is being tried. Is he a president? Obviously not. Is he a civil officer? No, he is a private citizen. A private citizen being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold.

Congress has turned into a perpetual clown show and our institutions into hollow, non-functional entities.

See more reporting like this at Trump.news.

Sources include:

JonathanTurley.org

WashingtonPost.com

NaturalNews.com