WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

No that's not what I said.

Does it really matter, seriously?

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

as the republicans are trying to demonstrate at the hearings, the law is malleable, therefore all you need is a good lawyer to hammer it to your advantage so you can say "I didn't break the law"

So you meant that we should not look in the House for a good lawyer.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

"The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton warning him against publishing an upcoming book that alleges Trump abused the power of the presidency, according to cnn"


Additionally,
According to Dershowitz, the president can do anything to get re-elected because its in the national interest for him to be re-elected.

watched Dershowitz in yesterdays hearing. It recalled to mind Williams Jennings Bryan portrayal in the
movie "Inherit the wind" (Sopes trial) Another good man bites the dust!!

Great flick. But even Fredric March in first year of acting class could write a better defense than Derse-Putz acting out on the senate floor

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by jay68802

So you meant that we should not look in the House for a good lawyer.

Oh they are good lawyers, the problem here, they are playing into a stacked court. The court suffered from the Alan Dershowitz Solution. Dershowitz redefined the rules of the game, he turned home runs into outs.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Oh they are good lawyers, the problem here, they are playing into a stacked court. The court suffered from the Alan Dershowitz Solution. Dershowitz redefined the rules of the game, he turned home runs into outs.

They never had any home runs, even before Dershowitz. The most they had was a weak foul ball into the stands. As far as a stacked court goes, the House was the same way. Dershowitz was not a game changer by any means. The game changer was the case they were trying to make, and no evidence. They knew this all along, forced the case through the House, and then tried to wait and pray something else came along.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by jay68802

They never had any home runs, even before Dershowitz. The most they had was a weak foul ball into the stands. As far as a stacked court goes, the House was the same way. Dershowitz was not a game changer by any means. The game changer was the case they were trying to make, and no evidence. They knew this all along, forced the case through the House, and then tried to wait and pray something else came along.

I'll go a little off subject here. Years ago I was involved in the construction The New York State theater at Lincoln Center . A beautiful structure.

The architect wanted to eliminate the orchestra's center isle.
The NYC building department accommodated the request, but the spacing between the rows had to be substantially increase to allow for fast egress incase of fire.

Watching the impeachment trial these past days, I thought, how wonderful it could be to eliminate congress's isles and allow everyone a bit more space.

They change the name of the theater to the David H. Koch Theater.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by fast4522

With curves.

Big fan!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

No that's not what I said. Trump type lawyers would show he did not break the law by using the allan d. solution

So you're saying Trump has no right to a defense using lawyers?

We should just assume the House is 100% correct and forego the Senate portion of the process?

I mean, that's what you're saying in oh so many words. House says he's guilty, so must be so...especially because his name is TRUMP.

They went through the motions, and you lost. Deal with it.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So you're saying Trump has no right to a defense using lawyers?

We should just assume the House is 100% correct and forego the Senate portion of the process?

I mean, that's what you're saying in oh so many words. House says he's guilty, so must be so...especially because his name is TRUMP.

They went through the motions, and you lost. Deal with it.

Hey. I would love for trump to testify. His lawyers would have none of it
They know he lies at will. But bring on anyone else, under oat

[Tom]

Not what he asked you.
A dodge by you.
Typical.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Tom

Not what he asked you.
A dodge by you.
Typical.

Ofcourse let him use lawyers let him use anyone he wants, all under oath . I dont dodge, but at times I will ignore

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Try dealing with reality .

OK No Witness 51 to 49.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

"Additionally,
According to Dershowitz, the president can do anything to get re-elected because its in the national interest for him to be re-elected."

How can a case be constructed such that the case is resolved by the supreme court. Will such a case be constructed?[/

From someone who professes words speak for themselves, you should understand Dershowitz words do not say what you claim.

[Show Me the Wire]

Words speak for themselves.


"Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation. We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent, particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue." Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority leader

Correct choice, by Senate, not to allow additional witnesses

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Correct choice, by Senate, not to allow additional witnesses

Now they will have to deal with the aftermath - 9 months worth of it until election day (just like being pregnant). Only time will tell if it was correct in the eyes of the electorate.