The Impeachment Trial

[JimL]

The TDS crowd ought to wonder why their news sources refused to airr the Republicans when they questioned witnesses during the circus in the House and didn't air Trump's lawyers presenting their case while not missing a millisecond of Schiff and covering the other Democrats as well.

If the case is so "overwhelming" why are they afraid to let you see/hear the evidence presented by the other side? Why would you even trust them at this point?

As usual you have it bass ackwards. Fox news barely aired the trial. MSNBC on the otherhand aired the whole thing, both sides from beginning to end.
http://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23media/f...age/index.html

[JimL]

Clearly Dershorwitz with his decades of legal experience, sharp, logical mind, and consistent, substantive arguments doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's all listen to random poster on the internet who insists he's crazy instead.

He knows what he's talking about, but he's obviously a corrupt lawyer who changes his tune depending on the case he's defending.

[JimL]

Yes, the democrats are doing everything they can to get rid of a corrupt president, to convince you of his corruption, and the republicans are doing everything they can to keep a corrupt president, to cover-up his corruption. One side wants you to see all the evidence so that you are totally informed, the other side doesn't want you to see. Common sense.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, the democrats are doing everything they can to get rid of a corrupt president, to convince you of his corruption, and the republicans are doing everything they can to keep a corrupt president, to cover-up his corruption. One side wants you to see all the evidence so that you are totally informed, the other side doesn't want you to see. Common sense.

FIFU/nc.

[One Bad Pig]

One side wants you to see all the evidence so that you are totally informed, the other side doesn't want you to see. Common sense.

Which would explain why Trump's defense team laid out all the evidence the House managers somehow failed to present.

[JimL]

FIFU/nc.

One side wants you to see all the evidence so you can make a more informed decision, the other side doesn't want you to see that evidence. Luckily for the latter, your team is more important than knowing the truth.

[lilpixieofterror]

One side wants you to see all the evidence so you can make a more informed decision, the other side doesn't want you to see that evidence. Luckily for the latter, your team is more important than knowing the truth.

[JimL]

False, but of course that's what you're handlers tell you. And btw, I don't know how many times you need to hear this before it sinks in, the president never, not once, claimed executive privilege, just an across the board denial of subpoenaed witnesses and documentary evidence. That's what you call being able to do whatever you want as president, or in othere words a king.

[lilpixieofterror]

False, but of course that's what you're handlers tell you. And btw, I don't know how many times you need to hear this before it sinks in, the president never, not once, claimed executive privilege, just an across the board denial of subpoenaed witnesses and documentary evidence. That's what you call being able to do whatever you want as president, or in othere words a king.

And my dear Jimmy, did they bother to settle the issue in the courts or did they pull the used car salesman tactic where you had to act now, before it was too late? Your democrat overlords need to give you new talking points because this one is stale.

[Mountain Man]

He knows what he's talking about, but he's obviously a corrupt lawyer who changes his tune depending on the case he's defending.

Is that why the prosecution played clips from Trump's defense team making directly contradictory arguments in the past?

Oh, wait, that was the defense playing clips of the prosecution!

I think the best moment of the trial so far is the blood draining from Shifty Schiff's face when the defense played a clip of him lying about the contents of the July 25 phone call.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, the democrats are doing everything they can to get rid of a corrupt president, to convince you of his corruption,

Too bad they had to do it in such an incredibly partisan manner, using a scoundrel like Schiff as their point man.

and the republicans are doing everything they can to keep a corrupt president, to cover-up his corruption. One side wants you to see all the evidence so that you are totally informed, the other side doesn't want you to see. Common sense.

How do you put up with the echo in that bubble -- isn't that annoying?

[RumTumTugger]

valid questions coming from the Presidents Counsel right now. I'd love ot see schiffs face during this

[Cow Poke]

valid questions coming from the Presidents Counsel right now. I'd love ot see schiffs face during this

I wonder if he got beat up a lot as a kid -- he's such a ... um... snitty... little bug-eyed individual.

[The Pendragon]

I have a simple question for all of the "Orange Man Bad" people.

If Biden was not running for President would it be alright for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate what happen with Hunter Biden's deal and Joe Biden's extortion to stop the investigation (Because it does look bad)?

Some things to think about before answering, I'd like to put these up front and give my agreements to save time. (Please no mind reading acts as proof of your agreement)

I don't want to hear that Trump would not have asked, if Biden was not running for President. None of you are mind readers and there is no other evidence to support that Trump would not have asked. Even if you use this argument I'm not asking if Trump would or would not, I'm asking would it be alright for him to ask.

Also, If you are going tell me, that as Biden and the Dems assert, that Biden has been exonerated of any wrong doing here. Give me the agencies that have investigated this (News services are nice but they can't exonerate anyone).

Also, with no exoneration the Biden's situation looks shady at best and corrupt at worse. I contend that if Biden was not running for President then there would be no problem asking Ukraine to look into this because "it looks really bad". Remember Trump never ask Ukraine "to dig up dirt on Biden", he ask for them to look into what was going on. Important: Trump never ask for an specific out come he asked for them to look into it.

And don't give me anything on the only answer Biden's team gave, that Biden wanted the prosecutor fired because he was not doing a good job investigating Baresma, because after the prosecutor was fire the case was dropped and Hunter was in the clear. This looks very much like obstruction of justice to me.

This question is an important one because it goes to a point that was made about mixed motive. If there is a another legitimate reason to do something that has to be assumed to be the reason (Under assumption of innocence we run by in the U.S.). The evidence that the motives where corrupt are all "Mind Reading" by the Dems and their witnesses.

[The Pendragon]

If that doesn't give the game away, I don't know what does. Trump is on trial for abuse of power and your interest is in the person who filed a valid whistleblower complaint that has been almost entirely corroborated by witness testimony.

You want revenge.

--Sam

Sam First "abuse of power" is only a heading to group crimes under it means nothing in it self. The articles of impeachment do not list the crimes that lead up to "abuse of power" so it is meaning less.

The whistle blower has never been challenged, so we have no way of knowing if he is a true whistle blower of just a trouble maker out to get Trump. (if the whistle blower is the one that has been name this is the third time he has tried this the first two turned out to be bogus and lies. This is important because this means that he is not a true whistle blower.

The witnesses are the worlds greatest "Mind Reading Act" 17 witnesses all know what Trump was thinking about when he was on the phone call. Only one had talked to Trump and he said that nobody told that there was a "quid pro quo" he assumed that that is what Trump was thinking. We also need to add in the Schiff and gang to that because they have based their case on what they know Trump was thinking.

They have no actual evidence that is why the want the Senate to look for more evidence that they should have gone after.