Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Big AAPL, Sep 24, 2019.

  1. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    #flipfloppingDon

    https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with...omplaining-lawyer-wasn-t-included-74199621965
    Trump retreats on impeachment: won't send lawyer to hearing after complaining lawyer wasn't included

    Trump's reportedly considering boycotting the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings as The New York Tims reports Trump knew about the whistleblower complaint before changing his Ukraine plot and released that country's military aid. Margaret Carlson argues the Trump impeachment case is "the opposite of Watergate" saying "It's as if Nixon delivered the tapes before The Supreme Court hearing."
     
    #1811     Nov 28, 2019
  2. Black_Cat

    Black_Cat

    8jfei.png
     
    #1812     Nov 29, 2019
    elderado, viruscore1 and traderob like this.
  3. UsualName

    UsualName

    I honestly don’t think trump should send a lawyer. His defense is in attacking the process and sending representation counters that argument.

    Trump doesn’t have any exculpatory evidence to provide so his strategy has to be political to prevail.
     
    #1813     Nov 29, 2019
  4. Or to state it the correct way, The outcome of house scam is known so Trump should not try to defend himself until he is before the Senate and can properly call witnesses and properly examine the dem's witnesses.

    By way of analogy to a criminal proceedings, once the government has made it clear that there is going to be an indictment, the defense does further roll in the mud with them. It only lets the government do discovery on what your defense at trial is going to be and you have nothing to gain. You are not going to talk them out of an indictment.

    Everyone knows that this has been a Star Chamber Kanagaroo Court. The dems are just offering little concessions to try to counter that image with the public. Nope. You want a trial. We can do that.
     
    #1814     Nov 29, 2019
  5. UsualName

    UsualName

    There’s no choice for a trial, I already told you Romney and Collins rebuffed dismissal. Get your eyes checked.
     
    #1815     Nov 29, 2019
  6. I see. The country is dependent on reading your posts to know whether a trial is going to occur or not. You are a legend in your own mind. I am sure that Trump follows you on Twitter.

    Speaking of Susan Collins, you and your ilk already have her counted as a vote to impeach- thinking that she is just a butthurter like Romney.

    Don't count on it. Even though she is republican she voted against impeachment for Clinton because it did not rise to an impeachable offense. Not a good sign. Not sayin it could not happen due to the pressure she has on her from outside money in her state. Just sayin, she will be doing more thinking than your ilk will be doing, just as she did with Kavanaugh as well. Versus your ilk which just look to see which way the lemmings are goings.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
    #1816     Nov 29, 2019
  7. UsualName

    UsualName

    You suck at reading and analysis.
     
    #1817     Nov 29, 2019
  8. Lay off the kool aid and it will all make sense to you.
     
    #1818     Nov 29, 2019
  9. UsualName

    UsualName

    This don’t make sense to anyone because it never happened:

    3E2C0CA7-74A5-40DD-9CC7-49B9E8B97E65.jpeg
     
    #1819     Nov 29, 2019
  10. Snarkhund

    Snarkhund

    I thought McConnell said that he was obligated to conduct a trial if the House voted to impeach. I'm not sure that dismissal is even an option.
     
    #1820     Nov 29, 2019