Former President Trump’s Defense Team Comes Storming Back.

Wow.
I’m watching now as the Attorneys representing Former President Trump are using the Democrats own words, deeds and tactics to dismantle their case for impeachment.

These guys are good.

They are terrible.

So - 1b1 - One word fits all - including the Constitutional arguments presented.

of course - the Constitution matters not to you, your DPST marxist radical party, and the elected radical DPST's in teh house and Senate.



usual Hypocrisy and willful ignorance of the Constitution
Ever bothered to read it - or is it just das Kapital on the bookshelf?



socialshit paradise may well not be the happiness you and the radical marxists envision.

the Hatred of Trump, republicans, conservatives - and teh Hate speech that has declared a war on Conservatives, Republicans, and caucasians is very clear - yet taken as just teh 'Right' of teh marxist radical DPST's!


When One declares war - One does so with an expectation that the nazi pelosi 'enemy ' will fight back.

and - We will do so!

They are terrible. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The sky is blue.

Watch his response!

For the Ob11 love trump attorneys

I do find it amusing you thought the information was useful. In an actual court case these comments wouldn’t be allowed...they don’t have anything to do with the case

Even the Clinton comments missed the mark, as. A majority of Americans support impeaching trump and only 30% wanted Clinton impeached

Well - 'd' - have not seen you post - but it seems you are of teh non'right' persuasion.



Please cease and desist putting 'writing attributions' on me - that are unsupported by my posts.
A typical, and hypocritical - ploy used by the house managers.

do take some time to read the Constitution at your first opportunity - valued poster.


Otherwise - enjoy your nazi pelosi 'circus'!

"Storming back" eh? Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Theyve gotten worse.

Doesn’t matter if Elmer Fudd is the attorney, President Trump has no chance of being “convicted”. Only a quadriplegic who dropped the remote would watch this farcical nonsense.

Doesn’t matter if Elmer Fudd is the attorney, President Trump has no chance of being “convicted”. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

This is true.

Wow.
I’m watching now as the Attorneys representing Former President Trump are using the Democrats own words, deeds and tactics to dismantle their case for impeachment.

These guys are good. Originally Posted by Jackie S

It was something to see wasn't it? I've never seen a better "dressing down" of an opponent in my life. I'm mean, I think I do a pretty good job here but man, they were on fire.



I turned over to CNN to listen to their critique. I liked the one who begrudgingly said, "the Fox News people and Trump supporters got what they needed", meaning Trump's lawyers torn the Democrat's strategy to pieces with yes, their own words and tactics.


It was a masterful performance.


Let's see how many of the 6 Republicans vote to acquit based on that performance.


I had it on my DVR and transferred it to a DVD disc for posterity.


Damn that was good!

It was something to see wasn't it? I've never seen a better "dressing down" of an opponent in my life. I'm mean, I think I do a pretty good job here but man, they were on fire.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You do a great job if long windedness counted.

You're average at best....cut down on the verbiage and I'll improve your grade.

For the Ob11 love trump attorneys

I do find it amusing you thought the information was useful. In an actual court case these comments wouldn’t be allowed...they don’t have anything to do with the case

Even the Clinton comments missed the mark, as. A majority of Americans support impeaching trump and only 30% wanted Clinton impeached Originally Posted by denverdtcguy

If it were in a court of law, 99% of the 16 hours the House Managers put on, would not have been allowed. The statutory language of incitement would be read by the judge and no "evidence" that didn't speak to that statutory language would have been barred. And certainly "this what Trump said 2 years ago" wouldn't be allowed.


The lawyer that took the "Ist Amendment, free speech part was brilliant. I liked it when he looked at the House Managers and told them they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to discourage free speech which according to the Founding Fathers made a point of giving even more latitude to political officials to speak their truth no matter how uncomfortable it made anybody.


Trump's words were virtually interchangeable with previous Democrat's words. Only the result was different and that is on the crowd, not Trump.


If the crowd that Chuck Shumer was whipping up at the SC had gotten just a few feet further in their assault, we might be talking about impeaching Shumer.


https://www.vox.com/2020/3/5/21165479/chuck-schumer-neil-gorsuch-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-whirlwind-threat

The controversy over Chuck Schumer’s attack on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, explained


Sen. Chuck Schumer’s Supreme Court tirade is a symptom of America’s democratic decline.


By the end of Wednesday, even nonpartisan leaders such as American Bar Association president Judy Perry Martinez joined the pile-on with a statement saying that the ABA is “deeply troubled” by Schumer’s remarks.
Roberts, for his part, interpreted this statement as a direct threat against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and it’s easy to see why. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory,” the chief justice said in his statement rebuking Schumer. “But threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/03/10/opinion-chuck-schumer-threats-supreme-court-justices-gorsuch-kavanaugh/5002162002/
Chuck Schumer's despicable attack on the Supreme Court



Whatever the case, this is an unprecedented attack on Supreme Court justices. And by unprecedented, I mean that you won't be able to unearth an instance in modern history of a member of Congress threatening a justice — by name, no less — for ruling against his wishes. Which is why, I imagine, Chief Justice John Roberts felt the need to release this statement:
"Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."
Funny, I didn't hear a peep from Democrats.

The difference in Chuck Schumer inciting a riot and DJT is that Chuck couldn't talk a dog into pissing on a fire hydrant if he offered it a T-Bone.

Trump ss bragged about his followers letting him get away with murder....which is wtf the Senate is about to let him get away with.

And HF....you're still to long winded!

If the crowd that Chuck Shumer was whipping up at the SC had gotten just a few feet further in their assault, we might be talking about impeaching Shumer.

Not likely. He’s a democrat.