So, you admit 47 is lying, yet you continue to support a liar. BUT, everything you post about him and what he says is truth.  You don't see some logical disparity there?

 Can you reference where I have supported or otherwise indicated what Trump says is truth?  I can reference multiple where I pointed out he has lied.

 There is a difference between acknowledging facts versus fiction and "supporting" any other human.  For instance understanding the how actual - not made up - but actual, real US law applies to treason charges has absolutely nothing to do with supporting Trump.  

 One logical disparity I see here is complaining about a liar while saying you will lie yourself.



If this were 100 years ago, Don TACO and the entire GOP leadership would have been hanged after the Jan 6 coup attempt, along with any survivors from the attack on the Capital.

 I disagree.  100 years ago was 1925 and there is no record of mass-hangings in the US during that timeframe.  At most they would have been incarcerated in my opinion.  I find it highly unlikely 100s of people would have been "hanged" for that.
 

There is no record of a coup attempt in 1925, either. I speculate that there would have been mass hangings if a coup was attempted, like on Jan 6. Thus, your whole "precedent" argument falls apart.

 There is also no requirement for a death penalty in a coup attempt.  Most humans, if we use actual US law, would not meet mandatory executions for participation.  Thus, your whole "along with any survivors from the attack on the Capital." argument falls apart.  I could see some, but not all.

 

 There is no record where I "continue to support a liar. BUT, everything you post about him and what he says is truth." either, so by your own logic that argument falls apart too.

Well, if you no longer support 47, there is no argument from me.

 Again, feel free to provide reference where I ever did.  Having an accurate assessment of legal procedures is not support of any POTUS.  It's preferring to use truth over lies.

You're expecting truth from the government you always say is lying?

 Can you reference that?  I never recall saying either of those things.


Even your imaginary legal arguments cannot hide your hero worship of Don TACO. And, you display ALL of the non-logical arguments that MAGATs love so dearly.

 You claim the US Senate requires a second Federal Court process to impeach or not impeach a POTUS.  That's imaginary - you made that up.  Your reference is nothing and mine is a multitude of analysis all coming from the US Constitution.  Not fake website, the actual Constitution.


For instance, you focus on one phrase I said in passing and keep spouting it so you can convince yourself I'm lying.

 When you state you will lie, even in passing, whatever that means, then you should expect people to think you will lie.  I think, based off your posts, you will say anything if it sounds good to you.  That's fine, but don't be surprised when someone says - hey that's not true.   You said you lie, nobody else did.


You go off on weird, not-on-topic rants, complete with FAKE evidence from MAGA propaganda sites, for which you never apologize nor explain the pro-47 editorializing has been applied, as well as your self-styled expertise in legal matters that any first year law student can tell you is just wrong

  Go ahead and point out what websites I have referenced that are FAKE MAGA websites.  You said you didn't look at them so your claim they are editorialized has zero credibility.  Are you going to apologize for posting blatantly false quotes from Pardo?


Once more, there is NO precedent for having MAGAT selected, ALLEGEDLY elected felon in the White House, so you may as well stop insisting on that. It just proves you don't know what you're talking about.

 Incorrect.  There is a process for impeachment specific to the POTUS - you just don't like the results so you are finding ways to complain about it and sound credible.  Trump can be a criminal and not require some imagined process you think should happen.  There's a reason no legal challenge from real lawyers are using the assessment you repeated from some social media post.



You now say you don't support 47 out of knee-jerk righty reflex.  I think you're trying to convince yourself that Don TACO is your savior, even in the face of his ongoing and constant failure.

 I just don't use lies and nonsense to make my arguments.  You do.  If I state Trump is in violation of law, I use actual laws.  When you can't articulate an adult response you start with the predictable insult route.  Since there is no post of me supporting Trump or his policies, you have to go the credibility and insult route, instead of using facts and "references" .  

I never said most of what you claim. You have a perceptual problem. For instance, I never said Don TACO was not impeached. I said the MAGATs refused to make him suffer the consequences.

 Agreed.  I never said you claim he was not impeached.  I said your assessment that the US Senate "IS NOT A COURT" is wrong in regard to impeachment final outcomes.  You say there is a Federal Court that decides, and this is not true.  My "FAKE MAGA" website is the text of the US Constitution.  Trump was not convicted, he by US legal definition was acquitted by Senate vote as the US Constitution mandates.

 We don't have to agree with that - but the process was legal and exact to US Constitutional standards.  Precedent is not required.


I don't have to point out your links to OAN, or the other propaganda sites that all push the same lying MAGAT spin.

 Because most of them are US Government websites.  When we can't actually show what we claim, we just say we don't have to do it.


OK, you found ONE post of mine that was not a lie; it was just outdated.

 There's multiple but I began pointing some out at that post.  She never said anything in that post, how is that "not a lie"?  If I make a post claiming you said: "I love Trump" then somebody else updates that to a different POTUS in a few years, is that situation one where we should claim it's: "not a lie; it was just outdated."?


My comment about lying was sarcasm, since you seem to be OK with MAGAT lies.

 Can you reference that?  I consistently point out inaccurate Conservative website/social media nonsense and have for years.


Your idiotic insistence that precedential impeachments and convictions are applical to NEW situations is classic MAGA

 This requires Amendments to the US Constitution.  That's literally why they exist.  You just want to do it without due process, or repeat fake cr@p from social media like that means anything at all.  I never said there shouldn't be changes to process.  


Everything you post supports 47, yet you deny it.

 The problem is you treat anything that isn't anti-Trump as Pro-Trump MAGA.  I have many posts pointing out Trump's nonsense.  If you weren't so hyper-reactive and in your emotions about this all of the time you would realize there is such a thing as a middle ground.  Trump can be a criminal without making up legal procedures that do not exist.  

 You won't even look at the part where I said he can be a criminal, you will only focus on the part where I said, accurately, that you made up legal processes that do not exist.  Nobody else thinks I support Trump because I can acknowledge there is no additional Federal court to decide impeachment outcomes.