I have been preoccupied with work.
I did see Cippilone's summary -- a political argument -- "nothing to look at it ... does not meet the threshold to remove a successful President .... best to let the voters decide."
Just curious whether Trump's lawyers ever meaningfully challenged the House Managers' timetable and detailed factual presentation?
I will hang up and listen.
(no message)
After the Feds killed Randy Weaver's wife and kid, they arrested Weaver. At trial, they offered 50 witnesses against Weaver. Then, Weaver's defense attorney decided not to present a defense. He didn't call a single witness. The jury acquitted Weaver. Wow. The FBI ended up firing five of their own, and one of them was charged with a homicide offense by state authorities.
But, in this case, the Trump team is deciding to present a defense when they don't have to do so, because, after all, this is a political trial, not a criminal trial. Never turn down an opportunity to speak in politics.
All I heard was inadmissible hearsay and lay opinion. Otherwise, it was rhetoric filling in the huge gaps of circumstantial speculation..
(no message)
I mean if admissibility is irrelevant why not allege that he's committed treason and then argue that every things he's done was treasonous?
The illegal hold for personal political gain qualifies.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)