The falsification of evidence on the impeachment side and the lack of factual evidence were highlighted in the prosecution’s arguments. On February 10, U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) refuted the prosecution’s false statements during the Senate impeachment proceedings against former President Trump. U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) refutes the prosecution’s false statements during the Senate session on the impeachment of former President Trump.
On the second day of the impeachment trial against former President Trump, many of the arguments made by the impeachment manager relied on news reports rather than undisputed facts. And when the impeachment side cited reports that Republican Mike Lee, a Utah U.S. senator, had been arrested, it was not a good idea to use the evidence. When the impeachment side cited a story about Utah U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Lee, who was present, dismissed it as false. The issue of the prosecution’s use of speculation as a basis for conviction caused uproar and confusion on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
After Lee dismissed the evidence as false, the House impeachment manager was forced to withdraw that portion of the charges against Trump.
Impeachment party fakery fiasco
In his speech, the impeachment manager relayed that on the night of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Trump called Lee at the Capitol, thinking he (Lee) was with his close ally, freshman Republican U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican freshman U.S. senator from Alabama, was with him.
The impeachment manager, Democrat David Cicilline of Rhode Island, was in the company of his close ally, freshman U.S. Sen. David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island, said, “Unexpectedly, he (Trump) called Senator Lee, who described how he had just finished praying in the Senate.”
Cicilline implied that Lee “stayed on the sidelines” of the conference call and that Trump asked Tuberville to “further object” to the certification of the election results in order to delay the end of the day when the lawmaker was set to finish the certification overnight.
The speech allegedly portrayed Trump as cold-blooded and indifferent to the attack on the Capitol.
At the end of the impeachment manager’s speech, Lee stood up on the Senate floor and demanded that Democrats withdraw the example allegation that included him.
Lee said, “The statement that the impeachment manager just pushed on me, the statement involving what Trump and Senator Tuberville talked about on the phone, I didn’t say that, and that statement was inaccurate.”
Lee then filed a motion to strike the alleged statement about the alleged Trump phone call. Democrats tried to defeat the motion, but dropped it.
The impeachment manager admitted that the information about the calls to Lee and Tuberville came from “a newspaper account. They agreed to withdraw the statement and likely “settle” the matter when the Senate convenes on Thursday (Feb. 11) for the third day of Trump’s impeachment trial.
Utah’s Deseret News published a story on Jan. 7 quoting Lee as saying that Trump tried to contact Tuberville during the attack on the Capitol, but misdialed Lee’s phone number. The story did not include any information or quotes from Lee.
The allegations made by the impeachment managers that Trump asked Tuberville to further oppose election certification do not exist.
The impeachment side repeatedly cited left media reports as lacking an objective factual basis for their testimony
Similar citation of reports from those involved in the case as evidence is not an isolated occurrence on the impeachment side.
House Representative Joaquin Castro (D-Calif.), the impeachment manager, also cited a report in the New York Times against Trump. According to the report, which was based on unnamed sources, Trump “initially declined a request to mobilize the National Guard.
And in arguing that Trump knew his supporters were planning riots online, another impeachment manager, Stacey Plaskett, cited a story from The Independent.
The story was also based on an anonymous source who didn’t even know where the information came from, but simply made a direct accusation: a “former White House and campaign insider who has known the president for years said the Trump social media operations group would never have been unaware of the plans circulating online to attack the Capitol.”
Recent Comments