T
Theo520
Guest
read the article in full, which I was only quoting excerpts.
I included the source link.
==================
Good piece on why the subpoenas were invalid
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I included the source link.
==================
Good piece on why the subpoenas were invalid
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
I did, and there was no description of the actual points made by the defense. It was a commentary on style, not substance.read the article in full, which I was only quoting excerpts.
I included the source link.
T
Theo520
Guest
No, it was obviously commentary on the substance, you just don’t want to rely upon his reputation.I did, and there was no description of the actual points made by the defense. It was a commentary on style, not substance.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Who gets to decide House Rules?
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
So quote me the part of the article which specifically addresses the defenses points. I will treat a response without such a quote as a concession.No, it was obviously commentary on the substance, you just don’t want to rely upon his reputation.
T
Theo520
Guest
He was a witness called by the Dem House, who subsequently gave his assessment of the Trump response. Whether you think he has any credibility is your concern, obviously you don’t.So quote me the part of the article which specifically addresses the defenses points. I will treat a response without such a quote as a concession.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
He’s entitled to his opinion about their style, but he didn’t discuss the substance of their arguments.He was a witness called by the Dem House, who subsequently gave his assessment of the Trump response. Whether you think he has any credibility is your concern, obviously you don’t.
T
Theo520
Guest
He’s an expert who gave his assessment on the substance.He’s entitled to his opinion about their style, but he didn’t discuss the substance of their arguments.
Sorry but I don’t have a footnoted version which you are demanding.
====================
Separately, I expect the below is to turn up the pressure on this charade.
Loading…
www.theblaze.com
Last edited:
P
petra22
Guest
You need to get in touch with the truth. God loves you.
P
petra22
Guest
Yes I say let him hurry up and PROVE his innocence, even though every other American is innocent until PROVEN guilty…
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Since they’ve only accused him of being a politician rather than legal crimes, it is a tough one to prove innocence given his job.Yes I say let him hurry up and PROVE his innocence, even though every other American is innocent until PROVEN guilty…
P
petra22
Guest
I just had a thought…wonder if Nadler and Schiff really don’t want witnesses?? ? Wonder if they just want to holler cover-up for nine months. Maybe they think that will be more damaging to DT. I mean forgetting the first thing they teach you in law school…there might be a tactical reason to do just that???
D
drcube
Guest
I’d say that Republicans should call their bluff and allow witnesses. I hear Bolton has something to say.I just had a thought…wonder if Nadler and Schiff really don’t want witnesses?? ? Wonder if they just want to holler cover-up for nine months. Maybe they think that will be more damaging to DT. I mean forgetting the first thing they teach you in law school…there might be a tactical reason to do just that???
T
Theo520
Guest
Yes, I don’t think they want witnesses called where the GOP has equal/greater control to pander for sound bytes. We already know Schiff lied and misrepresented REPEATEDLY, he won’t want to testify and be presented as treasonous. Biden can’t survive it unblemished as well.I just had a thought…wonder if Nadler and Schiff really don’t want witnesses?? ? Wonder if they just want to holler cover-up for nine months. Maybe they think that will be more damaging to DT. I mean forgetting the first thing they teach you in law school…there might be a tactical reason to do just that???
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
I’d suggest you call your Senator and demand that witnesses be called. Don’t let the Democrats get away with saying they want witnesses when they really don’t. Hurry up!Yes, I don’t think they want witnesses called where the GOP has equal/greater control to pander for sound bytes. We already know Schiff lied and misrepresented REPEATEDLY , he won’t want to testify and be presented as treasonous. Biden can’t survive it unblemished as well.
T
Theo520
Guest
Nope, my suggestion is Congress get back to the business of the nation and stop the carnival side show.I’d suggest you call your Senator and demand that witnesses be called. Don’t let the Democrats get away with saying they want witnesses when they really don’t. Hurry up!
D
drcube
Guest
The Senate’s not doing much anyway. Don’t you want to own the Dems? Call your Senator and demand witnesses. Stand by what you believe.Nope, my suggestion is Congress get back to the business of the nation and stop the carnival side show.
P
PetraG
Guest
A vote to remove is theoretically possible.
Of things that are possible, that one is highly unlikely, which everyone in both parties have always known.
Of things that are possible, that one is highly unlikely, which everyone in both parties have always known.
P
PetraG
Guest
The first rule of trial attorneys is to avoid unpredictable witnesses.
I don’t see the defense wanting witnesses unless the defense felt desperate.
I don’t think this defense is feeling desperate.
I don’t see the defense wanting witnesses unless the defense felt desperate.
I don’t think this defense is feeling desperate.
M
mrad25
Guest
Lot of polls before Nov. 206 were devastating for Trump as well. If he gets re-elected in 2020 then what will you say? The Russians elected him?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.