And for the first the first time, I'm picturing myself watching the big trial and not avoiding it.
ADDED: I should confess that I watched the entire swearing-in ritual yesterday...
I paid close attention, watching each and every Senator sign the book. I took note of who was left handed, what sort of watches they had on, wondered who the Senator with the really long hair was, gasped aloud at the low-necked, red-caped stylings of Kyrsten Sinema....
पोस्ट्स
१२९ टिप्पण्या:
The left have Avanetti.
I can’t imagine Starr and Dershowitz being able to defeat the exquisite legal minds of Schiff and Nadler. Trump is doomed!! He should probably resign this afternoon...
Heard you the first time.
The Senate "trial" is all about optics and theatrics. The Dems will try to make it another Kavanaugh hearing.
Starr is too mild mannered for this show, but Dersh could be an asset.
Ken Starr??? Trump is trolling, but I'm not sure how this works.
Ken Starr forces people to talk about the Clinton impeachment. I dunno how that helps.
The presentation should be worth watching. Questions will also be interesting. We will see how many Senators on each side vote for Witnesses. Nancy has the money spigot for House members but Senators may not all be insane.
It's going to be really big show.
Cast of thousands!
Legal knowledge of the impeachment process aside, Starr always struck me as a poor strategist.
For that reason he should not be steering the ship.
madAsHell said...
Ken Starr??? Trump is trolling, but I'm not sure how this works.
Ken Starr forces people to talk about the Clinton impeachment. I dunno how that helps.
1/17/20, 9:42 AM
Highlights the fact that the Clinton impeachment was for actual crimes, whereas this one is due to hurt feelz?
Not really sure if having Dershowitz on your defense team is good optics with all the Epstein stuff still swirling about. If for no other reason than it increases the odds of weirdly proximate 'Arkancides' at importune times.
And the Oscar for best drama goes to..................../s
I'm going to need more starr power than that to watch.
Ken Starr forces people to talk about the Clinton impeachment. I dunno how that helps.
The Clinton impeachment Senate rules were generous to the defense. Alas, I think we are beyond the Republicans just dismissing the Articles and moving on. They can fundraise on this, so it will go on for a few days or weeks. Indeed, I see watching the trial as giving them the ratings they so desperately seek. Keep doing that and their behavior will never change.
Adam Schitt should be impeached.
Not that he is important enough for impeachment.
Adam Schitt should be investigated and indicted. His phone records searched because we all know he colluded with Eric Chairamella.
You see this marketing cat Trump he's a bad orange (shut your mouth) But I'm talkin' about Trump
Pretending to be the adults in the room doesn't work as well when there are real adults in the room.
D&S bring abstraction and analysis in place of the female short-circuit to feelings that has been running things until now.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOU!) is not going to like this at all.
Chuck opposes, on principle, any and all opposition to democrats for any reason.
He's very much in the Bill Kristol/Max Boot/George Will camp which explicitly calls for complete democrat dominance at every level of government for 20 to 30 years in order to "conserve conservatism".
.....yeah, no one else believes that either....
They should give some seriousness to the proceedings that was completely lacking in Trent Lott's farce of a trial in the Clinton case.
This is why the Dem's want witnesses in the worst way. Trump has a pretty good team and Dershowitz has some serious gravitas. The defense gets the last word and the Dem's case dies unless they can muddy the waters with additional testimony, allowing the weight of the defense arguments fade away.
That's Entertainment.
I would vote for live witnesses just to see Allen examine Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and Lev Parnass.
I would vote for live witnesses just to see Allen examine Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and Lev Parnass.
It is more likely that Hunter Biden 'commits suicide' than testifies in this trial. Even if he showed up he'd take the fifth.
I am torn. Constitutionally I think dismissal is the right option. But politically I think a trial would expose the sham, and it needs exposing.
I am also torn about witnesses. I want Schiff on the stand! Alas, I think that would take us down too many byways. So currently I favour no witnesses and just dismantle the charges.
And I want Turley!
Don't fool yourself Althouse. This is going to be a big BORE. The R's have no stomach for putting Hunter Biden or Adam Schiff on the stand, and all the D witnesses have nothing interesting to say. If there's anything truly interesting, the Senate will meet behind closed doors so they can't grandstand and make speeches.
Pelosi will probably have to add 5 or 6 more democrat house members to balance the brain power. Unless she adds "The Squad" in which case she will need at least 8 more members.
If they call Hunter the Cokehead they'd better have been doing the hard investigative work all this time.
I missed the oaths yesterday; did Roberts have those nifty gold racing stripes on his robe?
This impeachment trial should be re-labeled "The Susan Collins-Mitt Romney Shampeachment trial". If those jerks had voted to dismiss, we wouldn't have to go through this clown show.
I would vote for live witnesses just to see Allen examine Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and Lev Parnass.
Yes. and quid pro Joe.
If there are witnesses, then the defense has a fundamental right to call witnesses to support the defense. The two witnesses in that defense are Joe and Hunter, who prove that there is a bona fide legitimate reason into investigating them for corruption and extortion for personal benefit.
Ken B: "But politically I think a trial would expose the sham, and it needs exposing."
ONLY if you believe Senate republicans have the guts to expose the sham.
Spoiler: They dont.
There are at least 5 to 10 republican Senators who will fight tooth and nail to protect the dems.
This is going to be fun.
I'm certain the Democrats are readying explosive new allegations to be revealed on a daily basis. Slow rolled out with the proper shock on their faces each time. All the while exclaiming, "This is beyond the pale!"
And then, as we all wait 48 hours, each new allegation is revealed for the nonsense it is and falls flat.
Rinse. Wash. Repeat.
Until something. Anything! Sticks.
People seem to forget that Dershowitz is a liberal democrat. If Trump is trusting Dersh to defend him, then it'll be another dumb Trump personnel mistake.
rcocean - Senate rules state that the doors of the Senate shall be open during impeachment trial proceedings unless classified information is being discussed.
I heard a rumor that a Trump HS acquaintance will be a surprise last minute witness for the Dems. It will lead to Schumer asking for Trump's HS yearbooks.
Susan Collins, Lisa Murky, Mittens, Gardiner and Sasse are complete traitors and cannot be trusted on anything. They will prevent the R's from calling any witnesses they should and will help the D's every chance they get. Fortunately, there are at least 34 R's who will stand by the Constitution. BTW, NPR was whining this AM about how "Republican Senators are choosing their party over their conscious" - LOL. They never stop. In their world only the R's are partisan.
I actually don't have a strong opinion one way or another about whether this "trial" is a good idea. On the one hand, I would love nothing more than to see the likes of Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff on the stand being forced to answer some hard questions. Can Hunter even plead the 5th? This isn't a criminal trial. I just don't have enough understand about what exactly an impeachment trial even is and what rules may or may not apply.
On the other hand I don't want to spin up derrangement and division that's going on in the country even more by indulging the left's delusions. And I'm loath to have regular news endlessly preempted by hours of grandstanding Senators.
he believes in presidential prorogatives, rcocean, he has challenged the conventional notion on a number of times,
"Dave Begley said...
I would vote for live witnesses just to see Allen examine Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and Lev Parnass."
Allen? Do you mean Alan as in Dershowitz?
susan Collins, did take exception with the lateness of the parnas submission for what it's worth,
When Dershowitz was part of the defense team for Claus von Bülow, accounts of the trial would describe von Bülow as a "socialite," a description that continues. The first line of his Wiki entry is, "Claus von Bülow was a Danish-British socialite."
Do you think he had business cards made up reading, "Claus von Bülow, Socialite," and did he have an office in one of those old commercial buildings with hallways having doors to the right and left, each door having frosted panes of glass on which is written "Philip Marlowe, Private Investigator"
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/25/8c/14/258c14e6a130003451af7b5fb7eaed05.jpg
or "Claus von Bülow, Socialite?"
And does a Danish-British socialite have a higher standing in the World Federation of Socialites than a mere British socialite?
Anyway, that's what I think about whenever the name Dershowitz comes up as part of a defense team, such as the one for OJ.
"Senate rules state that the doors of the Senate shall be open during impeachment trial proceedings unless classified information is being discussed."
McConnell said they are playing by the same 1998 rules.
"Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky."
Even if he showed up he'd take the fifth.
It won't look good if "Where's" Hunter Biden can takes the fifth. Technically, in a courtroom trial, taking the fifth is not evidence and cannot be considered as evidence. But this impeachment trial is for public consumption and will shape the November election.
The question I have is whether squishy Republicans like Mitt Romney can vote to hear John Bolden but block hearing from the Bidens, Schiff and the whistle blower.
Not really sure if having Dershowitz on your defense team is good optics with all the Epstein stuff still swirling about.
Dershowitz interceded with Hillary and got Epstein a reduced sentence.
Althouse; a straight question. If you are going to take your valuable time to watch the impeachment trial, would you want to see in that trial testimony from Lev Parnas, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey? That is five witnesses, four of whom were asked to testify in the House but who refused. (Parnas is the exception; but since the House impeachment inquiry, Parnas' cellphone and related data were released by the Department of Justice to Parnas, following his arrest, indictment and release on bond, and then released to Congress per request of the House. Parnas and Bolton expressed willingness to testify; Bolton only required that he be issued a subpoena to do so.)
If there is going to be a trial, Althouse, and if you are going to watch it, don't you want to see all of the relevant witnesses?
You pride yourself, Althouse, on being an independent; a swing voter whose policy preferences cut across party lines. And you seem to pride yourself on individualized, evidence-based judgments about persons in politics and public life. All of that would seem to mitigate in favor of evidence and testimony being presented to you, with cross-examination from capable trial counsel. So that you, and I, can each make up our own minds about the conduct of the President.
BTW, Collins voted NOt Guilty in 1998. Yeah that's right. Clinton lied under oath, but he was NOT Guilty. How much you want to bet she finds Trump Guilty?
Only 5 R's found Clinton "Not Guilty" of obstruction. Collins, Snowe, Jeffords (later turned D), Chaffee (later turned D), and Spector (Later turned D). Shelby a former D who voted against Bork, was the only R from the Deep South to find Clinton not Guilty of Perjury. McCain suprisingly, voted Guilty, but then he was preparing to run for POTUS in 2000.
No witnesses! It shouldn't be up to the Senate to do an investigation. The House should have to support its impeachment articles with what they have.
The question I have is whether squishy Republicans like Mitt Romney can vote to hear John Bolden but block hearing from the Bidens, Schiff and the whistle blower.
Yes. And it might happen. But more likely is that a prepackaged agreement on witnesses is prepared and voted on in a single vote. I think that the pressure for some witnesses will continue to build. Time is Trump's enemy.
yes the possums are predictable, now the dems have fusion truther dan goldman, to go with the other peach mint dancers like val demings, a legend in southern law enforcement, and other exemplars of the fusion 5 timers club,
"rcocean said...
People seem to forget that Dershowitz is a liberal democrat. If Trump is trusting Dersh to defend him, then it'll be another dumb Trump personnel mistake."
Dershowitz has been in Trumps corner on the impeachment from the start. Last night on TV he eviscerated the GAO report that was released yesterday. I think it is a smart move bringing him because of his different background and perspective.
yes McCain was the goat, then as he was with Obamacare's retention back in 2017, now his man trevor potter, is the one who arranged the parnas snipe hunt, to protect the former's interests in the Ukraine 'with my last breath I stab at thee'
Chuck at 10:24 AM
.... would you want to see in that trial testimony from Lev Parnas, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey?
I'll provide my own answer to your question.
I think that the bribing of former Vice President Biden by Ukrainians should be investigated. It should have been investigated years ago, when the bribing happened. I'm glad that President Trump took action to initiate an investigation.
President Trump could not rely on the DOJ/FBI or on the State Department to investigate the bribing. Those institutions have forfeited their reputations as non-partisan institutions. Those institutions have spent too much effort trying to prevent Trump from being the US President.
Therefore, if Trump has acted around those institutions, I consider such actions to be justified.
From this perspective, I doubt that any testimony from Parnas, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Blair or Duffey will change my mind.
Kyrsten Sinema is delightful.
I just want to suggest that whom is really on trial will be our "Elites", and I don't expect them to fair well.
Chuck at 10:24 AM
.... would you want to see in that trial testimony from ... John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney ...
Executive privilege is an important principle.
I don't think that the House should be able to violate that principle by impeaching the President on bogus charges
that interagency consensus, that saw fit not to supply Ukraine with heavy weapons in the depth of their battle with khodinkas green men, purposed through the green men, who were shellacked subsequently in deir er zour, I dubbed it the country team in shorthand, vindman, taylor jaureckas, kent, were less concerned with that,
I have that dress in fuschia. Chiffon sleeves.
I wore it to a wedding. That was tacky. I would never wear that to work.
The US House of Representatives is on trial.
The Democrat majority of the US House of Representatives is on trial.
but they did expedite that imf loan, that along with other funds, were 'lost' by privat bank, which is owned by the same proprietor as burisma, quelle surprise, William taylor is a veteran of way laid cash, from his time in Afghanistan and Iraq,
Two unrelated thoughts:
1. The presence of Dershowitz and Starr will have the biggest impact on John Roberts and constrain his involvement.
2. The Senate should send the Impeachment articles back to the House if they decide that more witnesses are needed. The House can then do their job and subpoena those witnesses. It's like a dissertation committee telling a Ph.D. student that their proposal doesn't meet their standards and the student needs to do better work before they will even consider it.
I like how Chuckles continues to pose questions to Althouse, even though she continues to ignore him.
Time is Trump's enemy.
You've been saying that but still haven't fleshed out that argument. The longer this goes on the MORE it's about politics and the 2020 election. It's always just "one more thing" that is going to do Trump in and it never happens. How many times have you been disappointed?
Remember when Trump was going down for "wire fraud" for paying Stormy Daniels? Good times.
...don't you want to see all of the relevant witnesses?
Another "How Dare You!" moment.
Can Hunter even plead the 5th? This isn't a criminal trial.
Our law professor hostess should be able to answer that but she seldom, if ever, weighs in on legal questions.
Wouldn't a list of relevant witnesses include the whistleblower, IG and Schiff's aides?
Can Hunter even plead the 5th? This isn't a criminal trial.
Interesting. If it is criminally incriminating, he would be able to invoke but Congress can give immunity, can't it?
BTW more red dress.
If it is indeed a terrific, historic process, I would wager @NPR "news" will NOT be covering it 24/7, gavel to gavel like they did Schiff's Kabuki.
Probably fill the time instead with the usual: composing more "future crisis" stories, like long-suffering immigrants with interesting accents tearfully testifying their tales of woe.
I'd rather not have Dershowitz. We already know what his arguments are. He isn't interested in exonerating the President, he just makes the case it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.
I want someone that is going to dig into Schiff's underground bunker and get those transcripts.
Sinema is the Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Thots. She has that Senate seat as long as she wants it.
Hey hey ho ho Jason Crow has got to go.
I'm disappointed he's not going with Rudy G. But still, these two shall be entertainment enough.
Blonde hair and big boobs will get you elected every time.
I said it when she was on the campaign trail-
That chick has style!
Bringing in the Big Guns!
I had heard the Democrats had a bombshell. A naked attempt to distract Trump from defending himself.
Kyrsten Sinema is not just delightful she is the most bipartisan Dem in the Senate. https://www.azmirror.com/blog/kyrsten-sinema-most-bipartisan-senate-democrat/
I have defended her before in these comments against suggestions that she would turn into a insufferable progressive once she got enough power - that is still possible, but if so, she is still moving up that ladder. Bloomberg V.P. pick? She's 4 inches shorter and might agree not to wear heels.
I'm hoping Sinema will vote against impeachment. So far, she has shown a rare degree of independence from the Dem mainstream.
Blonde hair and big boobs will get you elected every time.
Probably not. However, equal and complementary. The feminine gender is not a deficit, but women, as men, will be judged on merit, on appearance, in context.
I'm hoping Sinema will vote against impeachment. So far, she has shown a rare degree of independence from the Dem mainstream.
I suspect that she will vote against impeachment or "present". She is a liberal Dem, but she wants a career in the Senate as a bipartisan difference maker. It will not hurt her to go against the DNC. They need her more than she needs them.
I'm hoping Sinema will vote against impeachment. So far, she has shown a rare degree of independence from the Dem mainstream.
I suspect that she will vote against impeachment or "present". She is a liberal Dem, but she wants a career in the Senate as a bipartisan difference maker. It will not hurt her to go against the DNC. They need her more than she needs them.
Western District of WI Judge Barbara Crabb would toss Sinema out of her court room. Crabb has a strict no cleavage rule.
Of course it's a liberal woman judge who hates cleavage.
Milky Hemingway has it right: “Impeachment is sort of like pornography for the Trump-deranged.”
But still, these two shall be entertainment enough.
The entertainment will be watching Schifty and Waddles try to make something of the plate of roadkill they think they are going to sell the Senate and the public.
Dershowitz interceded with Hillary and got Epstein a reduced sentence.
@Bob Boyd, I thought Epstein got a suspended sentence.
I guess Trump changed his mind about Ken Starr who he called a lunatic and a disaster back when Clinton was being impeached.
I doubt Sinema votes agaisnt impeachment. I don't think she is looking for a career in the Senate- the Senate is a stepping stone to national politics. She is a real candidate for VP this cycle, but can't get there by defying the impeachment push. No candidate for 2020 Dems can be seen not supporting impeachment- if you don't understand this yet after the House vote, then you aren't paying attention.
The only Democrats who might vote against impeachment are Manchin and Jones, and Jones probably will vote for it since he has no prayer of winning in November regardless of his vote- his political future will be outside of Alabama.
yes, ther are learning curves, but he was in a new York bubble at the time,
doug jones is who went after Richard jewell and let eric Rudolph slay more people and hide out in the Carolina mountains, but roy moore!! I don't trust manchin anymore than I could throw him
https://twitter.com/TCPigott/status/1218222306952196098
Admiral Inga: "I guess Trump changed his mind about Ken Starr who he called a lunatic and a disaster back when Clinton was being impeached."
I guess the entirety of the left/LLR-lefty changed their minds when they said "move on".
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck (WHO WILL FIGHT YOU!): "Time is Trump's enemy."
LOLOLOLOL
The Walls Are Closing In!!
Nobody Knows What Mueller Knows!!
The End Is Near!!
Trump Will Never Finish His Term!!
These lefty/LLR-lefties never change, do they?
Drago said...
Ken B: "But politically I think a trial would expose the sham, and it needs exposing."
ONLY if you believe Senate republicans have the guts to expose the sham.
Spoiler: They dont.
There are at least 5 to 10 republican Senators who will fight tooth and nail to protect the dems.
There are at least 5 to 10 republican Senators who were taking foreign kickback bribes with the dems and laundering our taxes dollars given in foreign aid through companies like Burisma.
And Ukraine will be revealed to be the tip of the iceberg.
I wonder how much money Obama and Kerry made during the Iran "negotiations."
Wake me when it's over.
Hunter can plead the 5th but not after he's granted immunity.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/lev-parnas-is-julie-swetnick-and-dems-are-trying-to-kavanaugh-the-impeachment-trial/
good questions,
https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1218230553805279232?s=20
oh they left that part of the story out,
https://twitter.com/DawsonSField/status/1218233211035312131?s=20
Alan Dershowitz was referred to on one news report as “former defense lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein and O.J. Simpson.”
No, He is not. a Trojan Horse.
Nice tits, Senator.
There are at least 5 to 10 republican Senators who were taking foreign kickback bribes with the dems and laundering our taxes dollars given in foreign aid through companies like Burisma.
And Ukraine will be revealed to be the tip of the iceberg.
I agree and Romney is one. Probably, like most pols, going to his kids. Just like Kerry and Pelosi. That fact that the parent, like Pelosi and Romney, is rich is not the issue. It keeps them occupied instead of asking for money.
“Both Dershowitz and Starr were part of the 2008 legal team that helped Jeffrey Epstein secure a sweetheart deal to avoid major federal prosecution.”
Daily Mail
va va voom
"...gasped aloud at the low-necked, red-caped stylings of Kyrsten Sinema...."
The Chair recognizes Senator Cinnamon Tits.
The time for witnesses was in the House proceeding. The trial is the time for presenting and examining the evidence that the House accumulated. The House could have pursued forcing the refused witnesses to testify, they didn't because that refusal became the basis for the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.
Present the case, defend the president, ask questions relative to those two actions, take a vote, move on.
The House is just going to impeach him again anyway.
"gasped aloud at the low-necked, red-caped stylings of Kyrsten Sinema...."
Was it really a gasp?
She is a real candidate for VP this cycle, but can't get there by defying the impeachment push.
Sinema is openly bisexual and has no religious affiliation after being raised a Mormon. I am not sure if that sells on a national level. Here in AZ, it is not that much of a problem. It helps that she is attractive and a triathlete.
Even Dem voters know that the impeachment push is for show. Only the crazies believe that Trump has done anything to merit impeachment (other than getting elected) much less conviction. I think it's safe for Sinema to defy the sham.
Admiral Inga is back to simply cutting and pasting like an automaton with no real point to make.
LLR-lefty Chuck weeps.
Just listened to an interview with Reince Priebus, and he’s positive on Starr and Ray being added to the defense team. He said their presence will be reassuring to the old school Republicans, and that not one single Rep will vote for removal. He’d also like to see Hunter Biden as a defense witness to show that Trump had a very good reason to be concerned about corruption in the Ukraine.
I saw an article that claimed there is $1.6 billion (with a b) missing in Burisma's accounts.
The $3-4 million (with an m) that the Biden got is just chickenfeed, pocket money, to that kind of jack, but I somehow doubt that either Party is anxious to get into any kind of an investigation as to where it went nor how Burisma came by it in the first place.
Sinema could go either way.
You don't need Where's Hunter to prove Trump had legitimate reasons wit withhold aid to Ukraine due to corruption, one apect of which was some of that aid going to kick backs for Barisma and Biden.
Other witnesses can establish those facts without the political sideshow.
JaimeRoberto said...
Sinema could go either way.
heh.
Nice one.
Uh oh lefties/LLR-lefties, looks like Lev Parnas (The Next Guy Who Will For Sure Be The Guy Who Brings Donald Trump Down And Must Be Listened To!!!) has already walked back his earlier lies about meeting with Trump at the White House.
Cue Sad Trombone.
Of course, the Parnas walkback occurs only in print AFTER his "Bombshell!!"/"Blockbuster" lies were aired on nationwide TV on multiple networks.
Almost as if it were planned out that way simply to create pressure on weak republican Senators to cave to hack democrat impeachment demands.
Almost as if.........
How do the democrats think they are going to turn this shitshow into another Kavanaugh II hearing? The format isn't conducive for that. And it memory serves me it blew up in their faces with Kavanaugh winning confirmation, energizing the republican base which made for democrats losing more senate seats. Is this what they are hoping for my trying to extend this farce?
I get it that democrats are desperate but if there was ever a time for cutting your losses, this is one for the books.
Monica Lewinsky floored after Ken Starr joins Trump’s impeachment legal team
My initial reaction: who gives a shit?
If they are going to allow witnesses there should be an equal number, say four, selected by name in advance by the defense and the managers. If one does not testify or takes the 5th then they get to pick another. Cross only, no filibustering or into speeches. Cross limited to 2 hrs per witness for both sides plus one redirect and one rebuttal. All witnesses presumed hostile. This needs to be kept on a leash in the interest of justice.
J. Farmer: "Monica Lewinsky floored after Ken Starr joins Trump’s impeachment legal team"
Monica has always been easily "floored", if you know what I mean....
The democrats shouldn't be allowed any witnesses.
They already called their witnesses. The testimony from those witness were used as evidence to impeach Trump. The impeachment itself is on trial.
If they need more witnesses for impeachment, the impeachment is not valid.
Monica Lewinsky floored after Ken Starr joins Trump’s impeachment legal team
What? Is he supposed to retire from public life to avoid upsetting her?
Jerry "The Nads" Nadler said it quite explicitly: the dems impeachment case is completely proven and is a slam dunk.
So, that should be more than enough to do the job.......
...........................
...........................
...........LOLOLOLOL
Sinema is openly bisexual and has no religious affiliation after being raised a Mormon. I am not sure if that sells on a national level. Here in AZ, it is not that much of a problem. It helps that she is attractive and a triathlete.
Even we Conservative voters in AZ don't give a fat rat's ass about these things in candidates. What we do care about are issues and common sense. While I didn't vote for Sinema, I've grown to respect her, though disagreeing with her position on some matters, and could vote for her when she's up for reelection in 2024. It will depend a great deal on how she votes on impeachment.
“Highlights the fact that the Clinton impeachment was for actual crimes, whereas this one is due to hurt feelz?”
Highlights the fact that Clinton, uh, got off....
"Alan Dershowitz Distances Himself From Trump Legal Team: ‘I’m Not a Full-Fledged Member’":
Dershowitz said on The Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM’s POTUS Channel, that he will just provide an hourlong constitutional defense of the president before the Senate as Trump goes on trial next week.
“I think it overstates it to say I’m a member of the Trump team. I was asked to present the constitutional argument that I would have presented had Hillary Clinton been elected and had she been impeached,” Dershowitz said.
“I was asked to present my constitutional argument against impeachment,” he continued. “I will be there for one hour, basically, presenting my argument. But I’m not a full-fledged member of the defense team in any realistic sense of that term.”
Even we Conservative voters in AZ don't give a fat rat's ass about these things in candidates. What we do care about are issues and common sense. While I didn't vote for Sinema, I've grown to respect her, though disagreeing with her position on some matters, and could vote for her when she's up for reelection in 2024. It will depend a great deal on how she votes on impeachment
Agreed. We are on the same page there.
most as if it were planned out that way simply to create pressure on weak republican Senators to cave to hack democrat impeachment demands.
I saw Ted Cruz tonight saying that each party will come up with a list of witnesses. The vote will be binary, all or none.
He was supporting Rand Paul on this.
"Jerry "The Nads" Nadler said it quite explicitly: the dems impeachment case is completely proven and is a slam dunk."
A sentiment repeated, loudly, by MANY politicians (D) and most of the MSM.
But no one should be expected to remember that. It was more than two weeks ago.
Clyde said...
Nice tits, Senator
Fake news, er, boobs. Sad!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा