Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 


Public Radio?

 

its government radio. Just like government schools, government retirement, and government housing, among other things. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Yep.

Proof of his a-holeishness.

 

 

 

...despite it being the condescending norm today with social media, he should use it selectively and rise above the fray on the nonsensical stuff..........

 

 

 

 

 

.....uh oh......YOU'RE FIRED!!............

MSNBC's Ari Melber says Dems didn't 'provide enough evidence' to prove Trump obstructed Congress

 

By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

 

Very little criticism has been heard on MSNBC of the Democratic House managers during their opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, but anchor Ari Melber argued Friday that the managers didn't make the case for one of the two articles of impeachment.

Much of the focus on the third day of opening arguments from the House managers was on the article accusing Trump of obstructing Congress.

During a panel discussion, Melber, an attorney, said Democrats made a strong argument for Trump's abuse of power, but a weak one on obstruction.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-ari-melber-impeachment-trump-obstruction-of-congress

 

 

Edited by OldTimeAFLGuy
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was wondering if they were going to bring up all the crap Trump has had pilied on him by the Dems and do it with out being called conspiracy theorists. doing it from the perspective of, 'put youself in Trump's shoes' would appear to be how they are going to do it. not that the left and their lackey's, the MSM won't still call them that but it is a good tactical position, imo.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...DR, is there a point where a "motion to dismiss" can be offered up and Justice Roberts has to rule?................

 

Yup. They can do it when the defense rests their opening case. I think the schedule will be a vote on additional witnesses/documents (which looks likely to fail), that will be followed by a motion to dismiss more than likely. 

***************

:lol: 

 

 

******************

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yup. They can do it when the defense rests their opening case. I think the schedule will be a vote on additional witnesses/documents (which looks likely to fail), that will be followed by a motion to dismiss more than likely. 

***************

:lol: 

 

 

 

...thank you.....so I assume if Roberts denies "motion to dismiss", the nonsense continues to an eventual vote?...............

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

..is this an evidentiary proceeding where Justice Roberts plays an actual role or is he the peacemaker with Senate vote being ultimate decision?..........

 

Justice Roberts has only a minimal role in this farce; he has no real power. The Senate makes the rules and can vote to override any sustained (or even overruled) objections. Constitutionally, he just has to preside over the matter. The Senate doesn't have to give him any actual power to rule on evidentiary issues, objections, etc.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Justice Roberts has only a minimal role in this farce; he has no real power. The Senate makes the rules and can vote to override any sustained (or even overruled) objections. Constitutionally, he just has to preside over the matter. The Senate doesn't have to give him any actual power to rule on evidentiary issues, objections, etc.

 

 

...thank you Counselor......so in essence, he is the "Referee In Charge For Show Only".......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

They need to careful about making this argument too much if they don’t want any more witnesses. 

If I were the House Managers, I’d take notes every time the WH reps hint at needing to hear from direct fact witnesses.

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite talking for 24 hours in the Senate impeachment trial, Democrats failed to mention key evidence, because they know facts aren’t on the side, President Donald Trump defense attorney said in opening statements Saturday as Trump’s defense began arguments.

 

Cipollone promised that Trump’s attorneys would present the evidence that Democrats omitted, and said that those watching should ask: “Why am I just hearing about this now, after 24 hours of sitting through arguments?”:

“The fact that they came here, for 24 hours, and hid evidence from you, is further evidence that they don’t really believe in the facts of their case.”

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone: "Today, we are going to confront them on the merits of their argument. Now they have the burden of proof and they have not come close to meeting it."

Full video: https://t.co/OZkWUFBtfB pic.twitter.com/xC7nGkLafB

 

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone: "Today, we are going to confront them on the merits of their argument. Now they have the burden of proof and they have not come close to meeting it."

Full video: https://cs.pn/36qtqxx

 

 

 
 

The Democrats – not President Trump – are actually the ones trying “to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history,” Cipollone said:

“That this is, for all their talk about election interference, that they’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history. And, we cannot allow that to happen.

 

“It would violate our constitution. It would violate our history. It would violate our obligations to the future. And, most importantly, it would violate the sacred trust the American people have placed in you and have place in them.

 

“The American people decide elections.”

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dubs said:

Caught 5 minutes from Philbin and saw him demolish Schiff and the Dems.  Good efficient, effective work. 

 

I was running errands.  Caught what I think was him while driving around. 

Was he the one explaining about why the White House wouldn’t comply with subpoenas?  He was good if it was him.

56 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

Jay Sekulow needs to be kept behind the scenes.  Great content but horrible delivery.

 

He’s good during the breaks when talking to the press. I don’t think he’s got the right temperament for the hearing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dubs said:

Caught 5 minutes from Philbin and saw him demolish Schiff and the Dems.  Good efficient, effective work. 

 

...LOL...certainly agree......only problem is that "demolishing Schiff" would be a "22 second assignment for a Law Clerk".....what's even sadder is the the Califickle electorate reelects this fraud in a landslide............2020.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snafu said:

Thank God I’m watching on CSpan. 

 

 

Had thought my DVR was set to record all the proceedings (got the previous 4 days) off C-SPAN2.  Just realized the recording of this morning's session didn't happen.  ####

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Had thought my DVR was set to record all the proceedings (got the previous 4 days) off C-SPAN2.  Just realized the recording of this morning's session didn't happen.  ####

here. a little more than 2 hous and 2 minutes. it really is quite good and doesn't drone on like someone else's presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vEtnfWQops

 

 

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...