The part that sticks in my craw is that Trump has declared Bolton a liar on Twitter (along with probably every other witness), yet still resists sworn testimony. If he lies under oath, the Rs just have to prove it and he can get a jail cell next to Cohen and Manafort and etc.
Catch 'em in perjury, guys! But they won’t, because they can’t. I feel like this point should have way more prominence than it gets.
Apparently impeachments should have bipartisan support. Ken Starr should talk to Ken Starr about that.
I really do wish that the Bar Associations would take into consideration the licensing of these Trump attorneys who are saying things so obviously at odds with the facts.
I totally accept that defense attorneys should give their version of how facts are supposed to be interpreted. But for example, the repetition that Ukraine did not know about the hold on funds, which is contradicted by sworn testimony that they aren’t even challenging the veracity of, is a vivid example of why people don’t think lawyers have anything but a passing fancy in truth.
Well, today I’ve learned that the fair impeachment process can’t occur behind closed doors, but also shouldn’t happen in public. It should have first hand accounts from witnesses, but it shouldn’t have any witnesses. Also, it shouldn’t be dragged out over the course of time, but should not be done quickly.
So apparently to Ken Starr, no President should be impeached, unless it’s Bill Clinton, because impeachment disrupts the government. But not only should Clinton have been impeached, there should have been more articles against him.
Good lord, I thought Trump chose his lawyers based on who would do well on TV. This Philbin guy is killing me.
How about Alan “I’m a liberal democrat” Dershowitz. It needs to be a crime only when it’s a fucking republican huh?
Also, according to Dershowitz, Trump is “destabilizing and unpredictable”, except when he’s paid by Trump.
Nothing more than an unscrupulous, unprincipled hired mercenary.
But I’m sure that’s fine, because “but but but that’s legal, and he’s just doing his job”
He’s still scum.
Ms Bondi has totally convinced me! I move for the immediate impeachment of Hunter Biden!
All correct—which didn’t stop Pam Bondi, just a few minutes ago, from brazenly lying about it. She played the clip of Biden telling his audience how he got Shokin fired, then said something close to 'what Biden didn’t tell them was that Shokin, the man he got fired, was investigating Burisma.’
Just blatant lying, in the knowledge that there will be no consequences for it. Disgusting.
^This, so much. Why is this passing? Why don’t the bar associations to which these people are called, utter a peep about their conduct?
Yes! History’s Greatest Monster, Hunter Biden!
I can’t take much more of this. I’m dipping in and out as it is, because that’s all I can manage.
Sales of over-the-counter anti-nausea medication must be going through the roof, this week.
Sorry but I don’t follow the testimony as closely as some of you. Which witness made this claim?
Is this a defense of Trump, or a trial of the Bidens and the Democrats?
Pam Bondi was arguing that nepotism is a bad thing.
Someone should tell Trump and his family about that.
It’s very clear that some people are positioning for the post presidency business that will be booming: Interviewer Geraldo Rivera, and Attorney Alan seem to have left sanity, and their parties, behind and there has to be a $ reason for it.
Earlier today, one member of Team Trump rose in defense of Rudy Giuliani, because…not sure why. Her argument was that Rudy has been interested in Ukrainian corruption since way back (also, not clear why this was of particular interest to him) and therefore this exonerates Trump.
Truly, a display of Underpants Gnomes reasoning.
Also, Barr’s son in law is some sort of ephemeral presidential advisor. Giuliani’s son, of course, is the most qualified person for whatever it is job he does (sports liason?) in the White House.
Those hamberders aren’t going to order themselves!
I couldn’t watch it today. Reading the comments here, my simple question is: did the defense bring up Anything that was not a total non-sequitur from what Trump is accused of?