Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts


Quote

Schiff on John Bolton to the GOP: "Do you want to hear from someone who was in the meetings? Someone who decribed what the president did ... as a drug deal. Do you want to know why it was a drug deal? Do you want to ask him why it was a drug deal? ... You should want to know."

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Not too surprising. Going along with the likelihood that bringing witnesses will be voted on after opening arguments instead of upfront. After witnesses testimony, documents may be more popular with some of the GOP. But, yes it is essentially enabling McConnells plan for a cover up. 

Link to comment

We live in

1.  Parallel universes - where the Dems and the GOP just don't understand each other - just 2 ships passing in the night

or

2. Universes of Light and Darkness  - In this case, Ann Coulter not withstanding calling the Dems "Godless" , the Dems are standing for light.  The GOP for darkness. The 'party of family values' denies the opportunity to bring all facts in to the light and to judge all fact on their face value.  The argue to place all the evidence on the table to be judged by the Senate and by history.   The GOP has fallen under the spell of a cult leader.  So very sad and so very dangerous for our country. 

 

We are living in # 2. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, commando said:

trumps lawyers brought water guns to an artillary duel.  but it won't matter as the jury is already bought and paid for.

Got that right. The House representatives have had a clear, compelling, articulate, thoughtful and factual argument.   The president's lawyers, enabled by Muscow Mitch or The Turtle attack the messenger since they cannot attack the factual evidence and win.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

23 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Got that right. The House representatives have had a clear, compelling, articulate, thoughtful and factual argument.   The president's lawyers, enabled by Muscow Mitch or The Turtle attack the messenger since they cannot attack the factual evidence and win.

the factual evidence is of no consequence to this herd of republicans.   

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

Got that right. The House representatives have had a clear, compelling, articulate, thoughtful and factual argument.   The president's lawyers, enabled by Muscow Mitch or The Turtle attack the messenger since they cannot attack the factual evidence and win.

The House restricted the investigation to the witnesses that they wanted to hear.  A political sham indictment deserves a political sham trial. Finally we've found a quid pro quo.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

The House restricted the investigation to the witnesses that they wanted to hear.  A political sham indictment deserves a political sham trial. Finally we've found a quid pro quo.

you really do believe that lie...don't you

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

The House restricted the investigation to the witnesses that they wanted to hear.  A political sham indictment deserves a political sham trial. Finally we've found a quid pro quo.

 

You’re wrongly implying indictment proceedings feature irrelevant and/or defense witnesses while also admitting McConnell is running a political sham trial.
 

Giuliani would be proud of your legal acumen and admissions. 

20 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

The House restricted the investigation to the witnesses that they wanted to hear.  A political sham indictment deserves a political sham trial. Finally we've found a quid pro quo.

 

You’re wrongly implying indictment proceedings feature irrelevant and/or defense witnesses while also admitting McConnell is running a political sham trial.
 

Giuliani would be proud of your legal acumen and admissions. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

The House restricted the investigation to the witnesses that they wanted to hear.  A political sham indictment deserves a political sham trial. Finally we've found a quid pro quo.

 

You’re wrongly implying indictment proceedings feature irrelevant and/or defense witnesses while also admitting McConnell is running a political sham trial.
 

Giuliani would be proud of your legal acumen and admissions. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...