Trump Lawyers - Impeachment v.2

1. 89

   IslandBitesposted 3 years ago

   WTF was that?? Worst defense ever.
   
   But I really enjoyed the part that made Trump furious.
   
   
   Did you watch? What do you think about his defense team.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      But I really enjoyed the part that made Trump furious.
      
      Video
      
      ...the American people just spoke and they just changed administrations... The people are smart enough, in the light most favorable to them, they’re smart enough to pick a new administration if they don’t like the old one and they just did...
      
      And in fact, this happens all the time when there are changes in administrations from one-term presidents to others...That happens, the people get tired of an administration they don’t want, and they know how to change it. And they just did...
      
      So it seems pretty evident to me that they do know how. It has worked 100% of the time. 100% of the time in the United States, when the people had been fed up with and had enough of the occupant of The White House, they changed the occupant of the white house.
      
      

      replyreport
2. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   Worst defense ever, and the funniest defense ever. LOL
   
   Of course, Trump had to take what he could get, given that these were the only lawyers  willing to defend him after his other lawyers  quit.
   
   Yes, I watched most of yesterday's proceedings. The opening video brought me to tears. The defense brought me nothing but guffaws and snorts.
   
   Today has been quite compelling so far.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. It's been a great presentation by the impeachment managers.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I haven't watched the farce; did the "impeachment managers" do anything but play video bites in an effort to raise emotions?  Have they presented any facts at all?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Does that mean I was right not to watch an emotion laden, but fact free, demonstration of party politics?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

                  replyreport
               2. 89

                  IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, I'm sorry, no. That meant 'not worth the effort'.

                  replyreport
         2. 89

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Facts, Wilderness? The facts speak for themselves. Cops getting the crap beaten out of them. The Vice President and his family running for their lives; Mitt Romney running toward the mob and being redirected...all the while Trump standing at a podium yelling "Fight! Fight! Fight!
            Gosh, are you blind or have you closed your eyes on purpose? What does it take, anyway?
            Seriously, how would you have felt if the mob had actually killed VP Pence? I don't care for his politics, but I would not have liked it at all. I would have been sad for him and his family and very angry (angrier) at the mob.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Good point - you're following exactly that path the Democrats want you to.  Be afraid, cry real tears, and set aside any requirement for real proof of incitement.  Just assume it is true, watch the horror over and over, and you won't need anything more.  You can even change his words as you did (Trump never said "Fight! Fight! Fight!" - that's your own exaggeration) if it helps produce the desired verdict.
               
               Of course, if you limit yourself to his actual words, without "interpreting" his mysterious code, it doesn't work so well.  If you realize he used the exact same rhetoric politicians have used for centuries it doesn't work so well.  Only after you apply your own interpretation, and assume that the madmen doing the same were right in their interpretation, can you claim there was actually any incitement, intentional or otherwise.
               
               And that's the difference.  I won't do those things.  I'm not interested in what those charged with rioting have to say in their own defense, I'm not interested in "interpreting" the words to mean other than what they say.  I'm not interested in how scared Pence, Pelosi or others are for it has exactly zero to do with proving incitement.  I choose to read and listen to his words, giving appropriate consideration for political rhetoric and Trumps massive ego (Impossible that Donald Trump lost!).  And when I do I find no incitement to riot (let alone the enforcement of US law that is being called "insurrection").  That a few idiots read into Trumps statements what is not there does not mean Trump incited a riot - they did that all by themselves.
               
               I'm not even interested in the political aspects of this farce; that Democrats will do anything to prevent facing Trump again in the future only speaks ill of them, not Trump.  That the entire purpose of this trial is to prevent the people from ever again electing Trump only speaks ill of those that will vote their party line, and I trust I am correct when I predict that 100% of Democrats will vote that way.  I have too much concern over the degradation of our law, and our Constitution, to take that road.  Neither are perfect, but both have been trampled very badly, almost exclusively by Democrats trying to remove a political opponent, in the last few years.

               replyreport
3. 92

   LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago

   Every American should be watching these proceedings to witness firsthand the evidence presented by both sides and hear their arguments.
   
   This is not a time to be relying on ‘opinion journalists’ to be telling you what happened. It is impossible to imagine just what is actually being presented if you don’t see it for yourself.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with your thought if every American also watches the defense presentations.
      
      As one example; during an Impeachment manager's break a Fox pundit—a Trump administration person, came on making a big deal about them only cherry-picking the most damning soundbites. Portraying a one-sided story.
      
      Oops . . . after the break the managers did present the "Trump-saving" soundbites.
      
      GA

      replyreport
   3. 89

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Good answer LTM. There's a big difference to being fed opinionated hogwash, and watching the actions for yourself. What I liked was, although I'd seen some of it already, I wasn't sure about what I was seeing until they explained what was going on. The descriptions of the actions were factual, not opinions. It made my skin crawl when I heard the mob yelling to "kill Pence" and see how close they came to capturing him. And I'm not even a Republican.
      
      I believe that worked up bunch would have taken him out to the noose they put up on the Capitol grounds. I don't think there was anyone, cops or national guard, capable of rescuing him from that mob had they captured him. I believe they actually would have killed him. If I were a stubborn Republican, I certainly wouldn't be sitting around  making light of that.

      replyreport
4. 74

   Benoitsmidgetposted 3 years ago

   Kudos, I couldn’t agree more.

   replyreport
5. 89

   IslandBitesposted 3 years ago

   So Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz had to coach the lawyers. SMH
   
   
   'Sad!'
   
   Today should be fun. Lets see.

   replyreport
6. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   I wonder how many Trump apologists will watch the defense after ignoring the prosecution? I am watching both, torturous as it is.

   replyreport
7. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   Paraphrasing: The house managers made a mistake and fixed it before they showed it to you!
   
   LOL

   replyreport
8. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   Michael Steele, referring to the defense ( paraphrasing because I might not have it exactly right): "amazing display of stupidity. Trump shouldn't pay these lawyers, eiher."
   
   Also, Trump lawyers lied when they said the defense were not given the video footage. Do ethical lawyers lie in a legal proceeding?

   replyreport