She is basically saying 'I'm disappointed that none of you had the moral fiber to do the right thing. I was counting on you to do it because I certainly won't'
Her specious reasoning : it was never going to be a fair trial and having witnesses only prolongs an unfair trial. She claimed to be disappointed in congress but doesn't lift a finger to do anything about it.
WTF? What or who of relevance to determining the facts of Trump's actions was not subpoenaed? Only Bolton. And there is clear reason why he wasn't subpoenad at the time.
More broadly, let's assume the House fucked it all up. And here we are in the Senate where there is clearly credible evidence of a possible crime. So long as the House's fuckery didn't taint the underlying evidence and led to enough evidence to justify moving to the sentence, why does that mean the Senate should just pack up and go home without investigating? These arguments from the party who won't let Benghazi die. It's sickeningly hypocritical. If you want to find out what happened and don't have enough evidence to determine it yet, then subpoena witnesses and documents. It's that simple.
Damn shame that the Constitution keeps getting in the way of Democrats winning.
It's really sad to see such pathetic lawyering. It only tells me that they knew what the outcome was going to be so they could just make up shit as they went along and just make the case for their client and fellow chuds.The idea that it’s the House’s job to provide the evidence and the Senate is just supposed to judge it is an argument they just entirely made up for the purposes of this impeachment. It has no basis in any prior impeachment, the constitution, or any law.
As usual they just made up a convenient lie and hope people believe it.
The idea that it’s the House’s job to provide the evidence and the Senate is just supposed to judge it is an argument they just entirely made up for the purposes of this impeachment. It has no basis in any prior impeachment, the constitution, or any law.
As usual they just made up a convenient lie and hope people believe it.
IMO Pelosi has a lot to answer for in this cluster by ramming through the impeachment. I'll not forget that she singlehandedly bungled the case against a prolific serial killer in CA. It was great good luck that she wasn't fatal to the investigation and prosecution, but not by any of her own doing. She's incompetent in this case as was then.
If you saw the GOP in the Senate, you would know impeachment would never move anywhere. They could have video of Trump murdering puppies and children in broad daylight and they still would defend him.IMO Pelosi has a lot to answer for in this cluster by ramming through the impeachment. I'll not forget that she singlehandedly bungled the case against a prolific serial killer in CA. It was great good luck that she wasn't fatal to the investigation and prosecution, but not by any of her own doing. She's incompetent in this case as was then.
Still be stuck in the court of appeals, and to be appealed to the SCOTUS, otherwise.You can’t possibly be serious, she played this about as perfectly as anyone could hope for.
If you think otherwise what actions by Pelosi do you think would have led to a different result?
Yep. Anyone else surprised he only resurfaced after the news all but confirmed the demise of the opportunity to call witnesses?I have him on ignore but I see him. He always shows up when the talking points says he's (his team) winning.
Rush things? Trump has spent the better part of a year blocking subpoenas for a branch with 2 year terms. I'd hardly call it rushedPelosi should have had the elementary sense to not rush things through. The relevant and damning evidence that the GOP can ignore as not part of the impeachment is entirely on her. No the GOP would prevent witnesses and evidence but their ability to suppress would be irrelevant.
There is no mitigation or excuse in not foreseeing this outcome.
Pelosi should have had the elementary sense to not rush things through. The relevant and damning evidence that the GOP can ignore as not part of the impeachment is entirely on her. No the GOP would prevent witnesses and evidence but their ability to suppress would be irrelevant.
There is no mitigation or excuse in not foreseeing this outcome.
IMO Pelosi has a lot to answer for in this cluster by ramming through the impeachment. I'll not forget that she singlehandedly bungled the case against a prolific serial killer in CA. It was great good luck that she wasn't fatal to the investigation and prosecution, but not by any of her own doing. She's incompetent in this case as was then.
Pelosi should have had the elementary sense to not rush things through. The relevant and damning evidence that the GOP can ignore as not part of the impeachment is entirely on her. No the GOP would prevent witnesses and evidence but their ability to suppress would be irrelevant.
There is no mitigation or excuse in not foreseeing this outcome.
Pelosi should have had the elementary sense to not rush things through. The relevant and damning evidence that the GOP can ignore as not part of the impeachment is entirely on her. No the GOP would prevent witnesses and evidence but their ability to suppress would be irrelevant.
There is no mitigation or excuse in not foreseeing this outcome.
There was really no rushing. The House Committee was done. Everything else was being stonewalled by the President, and it would have taken literally years to get that through the courts. If she had waited for all the evidence it would be LONG past the election before they could put forth the articles. Truthfully The Administration (if it won the next election) would probably be able to streach out the court cases past the 2024 election.
She did foresee this outcome. She knew that no matter what evidence they had the Senate was not going to remove him. The evidence they had was extremely damning and the Senate simply ignored it, wait another 4 months to get more and they would just claim that we are too close to an election and call for a snap vote.
This was about making talking points for the upcoming election, not removing the criminal in chief.
Exdactly!! They can represent themselves!! BUT, but,but they cannot represent a codefendant on the same case as Cipollone is doing! So sorry!!Why not? A defendant can represent themselves, why couldn’t they represent a co defendant?
Pretty sure I learned that long ago. Too long, apparently.Actually, impeachment (not the farcical current abomination) was seen as an alternative to assassination by some of the Founders.
The republican feel there is strength in numbers! Yet in this case there is stupidity in numbers!! This can`t be made up!!More of "it's a shame we voted him in etc, we're just not going to do anything about it because we don't care"?
Yeah, it's pretty horrific.
Well, she's 61 years old and let's face it, and after testifying against Trump there really isn't a place for her in the State Department. There is a chance things are going to change if GOP loses in 2020, but I won't hold it against her for not waiting and retiring.Ambassador Susan Yovanovich just announced her retirement from government service. Reported by NPR on MSNBC.
Think about it.
Exdactly!! They can represent themselves!! BUT, but,but they cannot represent a codefendant on the same case as Cipollone is doing! So sorry!!
key words m-- conflict of interest!!Nope, it’s totally allowed so long as there isn’t a conflict of interest. That is a conflict between the client and the lawyers interest.
Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness - Comment
Advocate [1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.www.americanbar.org