Rep. Swalwell misrepresented a tweet during the impeachment trial. Is there a penalty?

He claims the word Calvary was a reference to the upcoming riot and to storm the Capitol. 

It was not....
Yes she was coming to the rally....that was not Swalwell point. He was claiming military support meaning. 

Also added the blue check to the tweet. How is this not falsifying evidence?

"We are bringing the Calvary" was her post.  What does bringing the Calvary mean?  You know as well as I do that it was a typo or an auto-correct mistake; that she meant they were bringing the "cavalry."  

How does Twitter adding a blue check mark falsifying evidence?  What evidence?

No. It was not a typo. Autocorrect would also remove the capitalism as well. 
She was referring to a prayer vigil that took place on Jan 5.  She brought Calvary (where Jesus was crucified) It is a common term to use when praying for a situation.  

Twitter did not add the blue check. Swalwell did. As you can see in the screenshot...she still does not have a blie check issued by Twitter.

Adding the blue check makes it seem as if she is more important than a normal user on Twitter.  As if she were the leader of a large group.   Why would Swalwell not just use the actual copy of the original tweets? 

Perhaps Swalwell should have spoke to Ms Lawrence before using her tweet improperly. This post was edited by my2cents at February 12, 2021 8:28 AM MST

Sorry - not swayed by your argument.  Mountain out of a molehill and proves nothing.

So Dems are allowed to falsify evidence and purposely misinterpret it during an impeachment trial. 

"calvary however, refers to "an open air depiction of the crucifixion," or more recently "an experience of intense suffering."

It does not mean "a common term to use when praying for a situation."

He did not use a real screenshot of her post. He faked it.  In fact they almost used the wrong date. But they caught their mistake before using it. Their original forgery had the date of Jan 2 2020. 

It was just proven in the impeachment trial by Trump's lawyers.  They showed the pict with the incorrect date...used in a news article pict.   

I believe the woman herself. And I have personally heard people use the term,  "Bringing the Calvary" as a reference to bringing prayer or calling on Jesus to come to the rescue.  It is a play on the word "cavalry" but is about peace and praying. 

How was it "proven" that they showed the picture with the wrong date.  You just said they caught the mistake before using the comment.  

If they're using that phrase as Jesus coming to the rescue or is about peace and praying, then they're using the phrase incorrectly as it refers to "an open air depiction of the crucifixion," or more recently "an experience of intense suffering."
 

The lawyers showed the image under in the article. And if you zoom in you can see the incorrect date.  It was an image of the curly black haired House lawyer looking at the "tweets" (faked reproduction of the tweets)  on his computer. 

Before the House used the images as evidence they did get the date fixed. But they added the Twitter verified user blue check to the fake tweet. 

Calvary is a proper noun naming the place Jesus was crucified. As I said it is a play on the 2 words.  No different than someone saying I will plead the Cross/Jesus. Or I will bring the Cross/Jesus. 

I cannot find it right now but I have seen the play on words used on a t-Shirt. I think it was a Kerruso shirt but it was not on their site currently.  I own shirts not currently on their site.  They often do play on words and logos on their shirts. 

"The lawyers showed the image under in the article."  There is only one picture posted by you and all the dates on the image you posted are January 3.  What are you talking about?

TRUMPs lawyer just showed the picture from the article that had the image of the House lawyer Raspin??? (Black curly hair) looking a the doctored tweets with the incorrect date (Jan 2, 2020) and fake blue check mark. 
I do not have that image but maybe I can find it. 

You didn't post any picture for me to look at.  You can't find that image, but I should just take your word for it that Trump's lawyer is absolutely correct.  I wouldn't believe anything his lawyers said any more than I would believe anything that Trump said.

Here is the video of the presentation from this afternoon.  Shows the image of Raspin?? Looking at their falsified tweets on a computer screen.  

Believe or not.  But I just proved in my orginal post that they faked the blue check because she still does not have a blue check on her account. 

Thanks for providing this.  In the side-by-side photo you first posted, the one supposedly re-tweeted by Trump, there is a blue check mark next to her name.  Are you saying that was manipulated?  I don't have a Twitter account, so I can't see if the blue checkmark is on her name.  

How would he prove that the posts were manipulated since the phrase he uses is "we have reason to believe," not "we know for a fact" that the tweets were manipulated.

Yes.  Both of the tweets with the blue checks are not the actual tweets.  Both one Trump retweeted and the response thanking Trump for retweeting it.  

I cannot explain why the lawyer worded his statement the way he did.  But I do know the tweets with the blue checks are not authentic because the users account does not have a blue check now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JenLawrence21 

You can view her page and tweets without joining Twitter. 

I am not on Twitter either. My husband is though. Personally I would never get anything else done if I tried to do Twitter. This post was edited by my2cents at February 13, 2021 12:22 AM MST

I actually did no on Twitter without having to open an account and did see that her name doesn't have the check mark.  What disturbs me about the attorneys' claims is that, if there truly has been manipulated, I would think it would be to their advantage to say how they know that instead of just saying they have reason to believe that happened.  

Were the two tweets actually on her page (without the checks) or did they manipulate the wording as well?  Is the point you're trying to make that the tweets are accurate (except for the checks) and that they were actually posted earlier than the prosecutors claim which you're saying means that she was referring to the religious meaning, not the military one?

From what I can tell the words were not changed.  In the fake tweets as presented at the trial. Just the blue checks.  They almost messed up on the date but that was fixed before the impeachment trial. 
She claims her Calvary reference was about a prayer vigil in DC. There is references to that vigil on her timeline as well. 
Impeachment lawyers claim she meant cavalry.    
I take her word for as it was her tweet and the vigil did take place the night before the protest/riot. 

OK, then.  Swalwell, if he did this, should not have made her comment more significant by adding the check mark, but the words are what are most important.  I understand that they WILL be calling witnesses now.  Maybe this woman will be one of them and she can testify under oath as to what she meant.

They back pedalled on the witnesses.  Doing closing arguments now. 

Too bad.  That would have been interesting even if it would have been a waste of time.

Lol.  Is Swalwell allowed to falsify evidence for an impeachment trial?  Is this not a crime....it would be in a court of law.