Dems Attacked Trump Over Take on Election, But Here's Their Ironic Take on Impeachment Vote

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

One of the things that was terribly ironic after President Donald Trump emerged victorious in the impeachment trial was how the Democratic House Managers and some of the media trying to spin their loss.

The very same people who argued against President Donald Trump questioning election results appeared to spin the losing vote to suggest that they had truly “won.”

Here’s Jim Sciutto saying “but it’s still a majority.”

But it’s still an acquittal because you need 2/3 vote to convict.

Listen to the lead House Manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appear with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” Raskin tried to argue it a “dramatic success in historical terms” and that they “successfully prosecuted him.”

“We won on a vote of 57-43,” Raskin claimed. Um, no, you lost on a vote of 57-43 because you need to secure 2/3 vote to convict under the Constitution.

You don’t get to make up your own rules as to what constitutes “winning” and flaunt the Constitution.

But this is what they do. It was ok for Raskin to object to the electoral count of Florida in the 2016 election of President Donald Trump. But it wasn’t ok for Trump to question and any Republican who objected to the electoral count is now a “seditionist” according to Democrats. Does that make Raskin a seditionist too?

Not to mention there was absolutely no question that Trump won Florida but Raskin was one of several Democrats who objected to more states over the 2016 than did Republicans over the 2020 election.

Here’s one of the House Managers, Rep. Stacey Plaskett.

No, you failed to prove your case when there’s an acquittal.

Democrats started out with no due process in the House, not having a hearing and denying President Donald Trump the opportunity of a defense. Then they proceeded unconstitutionally after he was already out of office for the purely political purpose of trying to block an opponent from running again in 2024, using American taxpayers’ time and money. What the Democrats showed was that they didn’t have the evidence to convict. They presented false evidence, deceptively edit video and lie about things like the very fine people hoax to make an emotional appeal because the facts didn’t support their case.

That’s why they keep spinning and that’s why ultimately they decided against the witnesses, because it would have further exposed the weakness of their case and put House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the bind of potentially having to testify about her own failure and what she knew when in terms of responding over security.

HT: Twitchy