To be clear, most Republicans claimed that was wrong as recently as September, haha. They only changed their minds when they found out he was actually guilty. It seems it's wrong so long as a Republican didn't actually do it.
Given this is the first time a president has been Impeached for it, I'd wager most wouldn't have thought that it'd be acceptable for a President to abuse his power to affect his own re-election, but now we know it is acceptable (or at least we will have our answer to that question in about 6 hours)
so you think it is okay to out the whistleblower?? Knowing full well that Trumps rabid base and I am including you in this would stop at nothing to harm the whistleblower!!Arrested for what?
Just so you know it isn't against the law to say his name in public or anywhere else.
TBH I think if they vote to acquit, it'll be the death knell of the Republican party. Next 2-3 elections will go the way of D's, and 12 years in the conservative minority will become even more of a minority, and whatever remains of the party will be forced to rebrand themselves.... this was their last chance to do so as-is and save the party, IMHO.
there really needs to be a colossal blue wave in November, otherwise I fear America is fucked for several decades.
Only when the demographics are so lopsided will the GOP cease to be relevant. But with voter suppression being what it is, it may take much longer
Yes, I think the only hope for the preservation of at least some governing norms is a catastrophic loss for the GOP in November. Given how polarized the country is though I'm not sure how feasible that is. Fingers crossed.
Beat me too it!! Good call, perhaps it will be enough to change some Republicans minds! Obviously they were being mislead!!So one of the defense attorneys was even a witness to the call... mistrial much?
Murkowski is a no on witnesses.
Just WoW!! What a bombshell -- The White Houses lead Counsel Mr. Cipollone (who was apparently in the same meeting as Bolton and Guliani with Trump concerning the Ukraine) was just implicated in the NY Times according to Adam Schift! Oh what a tangled web we weave!
His wife and Pam are bimbos?It's sickening. There are also pictures of Parnas posing with Pam Bondi, but I'm unsure if evidence of any actual relationship between the two exists. At a minimum, finding out conclusively if Cipollone was involved in the conspiracy is a must. It has to be obvious that an unknown conspirator in a crime can't serve as a defense attorney.
It's sickening. There are also pictures of Parnas posing with Pam Bondi, but I'm unsure if evidence of any actual relationship between the two exists. At a minimum, finding out conclusively if Cipollone was involved in the conspiracy is a must. It has to be obvious that an unknown conspirator in a crime can't serve as a defense attorney.
Pretty sure it's a conflict of interest if they're representing someone guilty of the same crime they're guilty of (or at least guilty of facilitating), given that they won't be acting as an an independent representative. They're essentially defending themselves without stating as such, and are more likely to lie/cheat/steal to get an acquittal.Why not? A defendant can represent themselves, why couldn’t they represent a co defendant?
The fuck kind of answer is that? 'It's a shame we've voted in someone who did illegal shit and it's a shame we can't do anything about it'?Murkowski just stated she is a no vote.
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.
Pretty sure it's a conflict of interest if they're representing someone guilty of the same crime they're guilty of (or at least guilty of facilitating), given that they won't be acting as an an independent representative. They're essentially defending themselves without stating as such, and are more likely to lie/cheat/steal to get an acquittal.
But do you have to state you're a co-conspirator? Or is it legal to represent someone and NOT inform that you're part of the investigation?Nope. So long as the defendants aren’t blaming each other, it’s perfectly legal to represent a co conspirator.
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"?The fuck kind of answer is that? 'It's a shame we've voted in someone who did illegal shit and it's a shame we can't do anything about it'?
Well, see, that's different because impeachment is politicalBut do you have to state you're a co-conspirator? Or is it legal to represent someone and NOT inform that you're part of the investigation?
You're telling me if I'm a lawyer, on the take with a mobster or whatever, I defend an extortion scheme that he was a part of and that I facilitated, that it came out later that I facilitated it, that nobody would bat an eye because 'oh, just so happens that he was involved too! welp everything here appears to be above board!'?