Dershowitz Is Insane

[CowboyTed]

Some say Dershowitz is a leftie or a rightie...

Dershowitz is playing for Dershowitz, In all honesty he is not worth considering for either side...

 

[playtime]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n bitch they don't get their witnesses?

they turned down irrelevant witness'. the inquiry was about donny et al with holding funds already approved & ready to go out the door in exchange for 'dirt' or perceived 'dirt' on a political rival. in a court of law - only witness' & evidence is allowed that directly is tied to the accused.

why did the (R)s vote down the amendment that would have allowed the chief justice to decide who was actually a relevant witness? the (D)s were willing to go with whatever roberts said, even if that meant hunter biden or anybody else that the (R)s wanted to testify? because they knew that roberts would have decided that their witness' were bogus & this way, they can keep up the charade that somehow it mattered in the case of donny the mafioso wanna be.

who determines their relevance?

now if you are claiming this can be done and part of the process and providing zero guidelines for doing this - then fine. fuck off cause the right did the same. said the witnesses were "irrelevant" so what's the problem?

well other than having to follow your own rules.

i would think that the chief justice knows all the rules... wouldn't you?

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS

 

[iceberg]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n bitch they don't get their witnesses?

they turned down irrelevant witness'. the inquiry was about donny et al with holding funds already approved & ready to go out the door in exchange for 'dirt' or perceived 'dirt' on a political rival. in a court of law - only witness' & evidence is allowed that directly is tied to the accused.

why did the (R)s vote down the amendment that would have allowed the chief justice to decide who was actually a relevant witness? the (D)s were willing to go with whatever roberts said, even if that meant hunter biden or anybody else that the (R)s wanted to testify? because they knew that roberts would have decided that their witness' were bogus & this way, they can keep up the charade that somehow it mattered in the case of donny the mafioso wanna be.

who determines their relevance?

now if you are claiming this can be done and part of the process and providing zero guidelines for doing this - then fine. fuck off cause the right did the same. said the witnesses were "irrelevant" so what's the problem?

well other than having to follow your own rules.

i would think that the chief justice knows all the rules... wouldn't you?

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS

this is as useless as what you say unless you explain why each and every one of the up to 16 witnesses were deemed "irrelevant".

you've not done that, now have you?

at this point - go back to fucking off.

 

[playtime]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n bitch they don't get their witnesses?

they turned down irrelevant witness'. the inquiry was about donny et al with holding funds already approved & ready to go out the door in exchange for 'dirt' or perceived 'dirt' on a political rival. in a court of law - only witness' & evidence is allowed that directly is tied to the accused.

why did the (R)s vote down the amendment that would have allowed the chief justice to decide who was actually a relevant witness? the (D)s were willing to go with whatever roberts said, even if that meant hunter biden or anybody else that the (R)s wanted to testify? because they knew that roberts would have decided that their witness' were bogus & this way, they can keep up the charade that somehow it mattered in the case of donny the mafioso wanna be.

who determines their relevance?

now if you are claiming this can be done and part of the process and providing zero guidelines for doing this - then fine. fuck off cause the right did the same. said the witnesses were "irrelevant" so what's the problem?

well other than having to follow your own rules.

i would think that the chief justice knows all the rules... wouldn't you?

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS

this is as useless as what you say unless you explain why each and every one of the up to 16 witnesses were deemed "irrelevant".

you've not done that, now have you?

at this point - go back to fucking off.

i'm not a fucking lawyer, dummy. but there are rules that determine the revelency & roberts.... being an EXPERT in the law & the RULES that WOULD DETERMINE them would have been the EXPERT to give a DECISION as to the REVELENCY of EACH WITNESS for BOTH the HOUSE & the SENATE. but the SENATE voted down that amendment.

why? because they knew that THEIR IRRELEVENT witness' would not have been allowed... but BOLTON would have been allowed.

that's why.

you dummy.

 

[iceberg]

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n bitch they don't get their witnesses?

they turned down irrelevant witness'. the inquiry was about donny et al with holding funds already approved & ready to go out the door in exchange for 'dirt' or perceived 'dirt' on a political rival. in a court of law - only witness' & evidence is allowed that directly is tied to the accused.

why did the (R)s vote down the amendment that would have allowed the chief justice to decide who was actually a relevant witness? the (D)s were willing to go with whatever roberts said, even if that meant hunter biden or anybody else that the (R)s wanted to testify? because they knew that roberts would have decided that their witness' were bogus & this way, they can keep up the charade that somehow it mattered in the case of donny the mafioso wanna be.

who determines their relevance?

now if you are claiming this can be done and part of the process and providing zero guidelines for doing this - then fine. fuck off cause the right did the same. said the witnesses were "irrelevant" so what's the problem?

well other than having to follow your own rules.

i would think that the chief justice knows all the rules... wouldn't you?

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS

this is as useless as what you say unless you explain why each and every one of the up to 16 witnesses were deemed "irrelevant".

you've not done that, now have you?

at this point - go back to fucking off.

i'm not a fucking lawyer, dummy. but there are rules that determine the revelency & roberts.... being an EXPERT in the law & the RULES that WOULD DETERMINE them would have been the EXPERT to give a DECISION as to the REVELENCY of EACH WITNESS for BOTH the HOUSE & the SENATE. but the SENATE voted down that amendment.

why? because they knew that THEIR IRRELEVENT witness would not have been allowed... but BOLTON would have.

that's why.

you dummy.

if you're not a "fucking lawyer" why are you dropping legal opinions?

oh - you're a fucking asswhipe.

 

[playtime]

they turned down irrelevant witness'. the inquiry was about donny et al with holding funds already approved & ready to go out the door in exchange for 'dirt' or perceived 'dirt' on a political rival. in a court of law - only witness' & evidence is allowed that directly is tied to the accused.

why did the (R)s vote down the amendment that would have allowed the chief justice to decide who was actually a relevant witness? the (D)s were willing to go with whatever roberts said, even if that meant hunter biden or anybody else that the (R)s wanted to testify? because they knew that roberts would have decided that their witness' were bogus & this way, they can keep up the charade that somehow it mattered in the case of donny the mafioso wanna be.

who determines their relevance?

now if you are claiming this can be done and part of the process and providing zero guidelines for doing this - then fine. fuck off cause the right did the same. said the witnesses were "irrelevant" so what's the problem?

well other than having to follow your own rules.

i would think that the chief justice knows all the rules... wouldn't you?

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS

this is as useless as what you say unless you explain why each and every one of the up to 16 witnesses were deemed "irrelevant".

you've not done that, now have you?

at this point - go back to fucking off.

i'm not a fucking lawyer, dummy. but there are rules that determine the revelency & roberts.... being an EXPERT in the law & the RULES that WOULD DETERMINE them would have been the EXPERT to give a DECISION as to the REVELENCY of EACH WITNESS for BOTH the HOUSE & the SENATE. but the SENATE voted down that amendment.

why? because they knew that THEIR IRRELEVENT witness would not have been allowed... but BOLTON would have.

that's why.

you dummy.

if you're not a "fucking lawyer" why are you dropping legal opinions?

oh - you're a fucking asswhipe.

because it's common knowledge that a witness & docs need to be relevant to the charges in a trial. there was a dispute as to who & why evidence & people were relevant or not. the (R)s voted down for the judge to decide.

example:

should a woman's attire be relevant in a rape case? should the defense say that a short skirt is an invitation? think real hard about that one.

 

[iceberg]

who determines their relevance?

now if you are claiming this can be done and part of the process and providing zero guidelines for doing this - then fine. fuck off cause the right did the same. said the witnesses were "irrelevant" so what's the problem?

well other than having to follow your own rules.

i would think that the chief justice knows all the rules... wouldn't you?

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS

this is as useless as what you say unless you explain why each and every one of the up to 16 witnesses were deemed "irrelevant".

you've not done that, now have you?

at this point - go back to fucking off.

i'm not a fucking lawyer, dummy. but there are rules that determine the revelency & roberts.... being an EXPERT in the law & the RULES that WOULD DETERMINE them would have been the EXPERT to give a DECISION as to the REVELENCY of EACH WITNESS for BOTH the HOUSE & the SENATE. but the SENATE voted down that amendment.

why? because they knew that THEIR IRRELEVENT witness would not have been allowed... but BOLTON would have.

that's why.

you dummy.

if you're not a "fucking lawyer" why are you dropping legal opinions?

oh - you're a fucking asswhipe.

because it's common knowledge that a witness & docs need to be relevant to the charges in a trial. there was a dispute as to who & why evidence & people were relevant or not. the (R)s voted down for the judge to decide.

example:

should a woman's attire be relevant in a rape case? should the defense say that a short skirt is an invitation? think real hard about that one.

it's common knowledge that you duck behind you're not a 'fucking lawyer" for?

so which is it? do you need to be a lawyer to answer this, or is it common knowledge?

just go the fuck away dude.

 

[playtime]

i would think that the chief justice knows all the rules... wouldn't you?

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS

this is as useless as what you say unless you explain why each and every one of the up to 16 witnesses were deemed "irrelevant".

you've not done that, now have you?

at this point - go back to fucking off.

i'm not a fucking lawyer, dummy. but there are rules that determine the revelency & roberts.... being an EXPERT in the law & the RULES that WOULD DETERMINE them would have been the EXPERT to give a DECISION as to the REVELENCY of EACH WITNESS for BOTH the HOUSE & the SENATE. but the SENATE voted down that amendment.

why? because they knew that THEIR IRRELEVENT witness would not have been allowed... but BOLTON would have.

that's why.

you dummy.

if you're not a "fucking lawyer" why are you dropping legal opinions?

oh - you're a fucking asswhipe.

because it's common knowledge that a witness & docs need to be relevant to the charges in a trial. there was a dispute as to who & why evidence & people were relevant or not. the (R)s voted down for the judge to decide.

example:

should a woman's attire be relevant in a rape case? should the defense say that a short skirt is an invitation? think real hard about that one.

it's common knowledge that you duck behind you're not a 'fucking lawyer" for?

so which is it? do you need to be a lawyer to answer this, or is it common knowledge?

just go the fuck away dude.

i'm not a fucking lawyer that can recite the exact statutes & rules - but gave you a direct link showing that there are rules to answer your very question about relevancy & how it is determined & added that the SC justice would know the exact rules; & that the senate pussied out because enough of them are lawyers to know that hunter biden et al probably wouldn't be allowed so they voted against the amendment.

why didn't you answer mine as to the layman's common knowledge?

 

[playtime]

guess the question was too hard for him.

 

[OKTexas]

No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.

.

lol... for fuck's sake, kitty - show some dignity. she is suing him for defamation & it certainly can be determined if them thar skin cells were recent (like the 3 from the photo shoot) or aged. now - if they were mango colored, you might have a point - but apparently they aren't, so that means they could have been from years ago since donny wasn't the obsessive spray tan cretin back then; & that defamation suit isn't the first one in the pipeline.

summer zervos' lawsuit is still very much active, despite donny's efforts to delay.

Trump gets woman's suit delayed until NY top court weighs in

So how does she claim this classic he said, she said has harmed her? You know she has to demonstrate financial harm to even have standing, right?

.

nice try meow meow but uh - no she doesn't.

Damages in a Defamation Case

& zervos has phone records, so it's a little more like - what she said can be confirmed & what he said was a fucking lie.

Wasn't the gold digger on his TV show?? BTW do you have anything specific to NY?

.

lol - that's a cop out. 'gold digger' ? what a antiquated term. what does NY have anything to do with it? your deflection is duly noted. speaking of 'gold digging' donny likes to marry them & they all make sure to pop out his spawn to keep that cash flowing in their direction.

Hey commie, the suit was filed in NY, their laws have everything to do with it. The generic crap you posed may not even apply.

.

 

[OKTexas]

For all anyone knows she loaned the dress to someone else, ya just never know. That's why no judge would ever issue a warrant for DNA base on that story. 25-30 years is a long time, DNA degrades over time.

.

this is a civil case, not a criminal one. the 'burden' is much lower & there is no beyond a reasonable doubt; only the preponderance of the evidence to be proven.

And? She still has to demonstrate financial harm.

.

nope. you are wrong.

Damages in a Defamation Case

fred goldman brought a wrongful death suit against OJ & won & had nothing to do with a financial hardship could occur because of ron goldman's murder.

HA! uber scum that dershowitz helped defend OJ 'cause the cash was great.

talk about money being the root of all evil.

Wow, another great commie IRRELEVANT DEFLECTION. Good job commie. LAMO

.

no it's not. a civil suit - defamation or otherwise is not contingent on how it could hurt someone financially. lordy, you are trying so hard & falling flat every time.

Poor little commie, you didn't even bother to read your own links, did ya?

.

 

[iceberg]

guess the question was too hard for him.

just got tired of talking to an idiot of epic proportions.

 

[OKTexas]

Dershowitz said as far as he knew he wasn't being paid by the Trump defense team, but he said if he was, it would go the charity.

.

who paid rudy for all his investigations into ukraine?

What does that have to do with Dershowitz?

.

dershowitz defended donny in a shake down based on conspiracy... & it just all ties in.

And there will still be a bipartisan vote for NOT GUILTY. Chaps your ass doesn't it????????? ROFL

.

what fun when all this starts to come out as the election season goes fwd... how long b4 donny loses HIS shizzle hmmmm?

He took 97% in Iowa. LMAO Do you ever get tired of being WRONG??????????

.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n bitch they don't get their witnesses?

You can call witness' til the cows come home, but most of the witness' you want called are for were for political reasons.

There is one ongoing claim from the Republicans: no first hand evidence.

Easily fixed. Call Bolton, who volunteered and who IS a first hand witness. Remember - they called witness's for Clinton right? But not this time even though McConnell claimed it would be run like the Clinton impeachment (we knew that wouldn't happen).

Are there any other witness' who have first hand knowledge of what Trump was trying to do with Ukraine? THAT is the issue.

You want to call Schiff, Biden yada yada - did they interact with Trump? Did they have any part of what went on in Ukraine at that time aid was withheld for political dirt? No.

BUT you are CONVINCED they are dirty and guilty (despite the fact you only decided this recently) - OK fine. Get a proper LEGAL and transparent investigation going. The Senate can do it. The DoJ can do it. (the fact that they haven't makes me think there is not a lot to support it but we'll see). Don't try to turn the investigation in to Trump's illegal withholding of aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a different investigation.

 

[candycorn]

I used to respect Alan Dershowitz. Not any more.

He argued that a President can do pretty much ANYTHING to get himself re-elected, as long as he thinks it's for the good of the country. Please tell me: has ANY President or Presidential candidate ever believed that his (or her) election would be bad for the country? Of course not. Therefore, Dershowitz is arguing that any President can do anything to get re-elected (or, perhaps, elected to begin with). This is utter insanity, and inanity.

No.

Dersh loves the limelight.

And he’s getting the attention he wants.

 

[iceberg]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n bitch they don't get their witnesses?

You can call witness' til the cows come home, but most of the witness' you want called are for were for political reasons.

There is one ongoing claim from the Republicans: no first hand evidence.

Easily fixed. Call Bolton, who volunteered and who IS a first hand witness. Remember - they called witness's for Clinton right? But not this time even though McConnell claimed it would be run like the Clinton impeachment (we knew that wouldn't happen).

Are there any other witness' who have first hand knowledge of what Trump was trying to do with Ukraine? THAT is the issue.

You want to call Schiff, Biden yada yada - did they interact with Trump? Did they have any part of what went on in Ukraine at that time aid was withheld for political dirt? No.

BUT you are CONVINCED they are dirty and guilty (despite the fact you only decided this recently) - OK fine. Get a proper LEGAL and transparent investigation going. The Senate can do it. The DoJ can do it. (the fact that they haven't makes me think there is not a lot to support it but we'll see). Don't try to turn the investigation in to Trump's illegal withholding of aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a different investigation.

and this isn't a political issue?

please don't try to sell me that.

and don't try to sell me trump did all the things he is accused of because so far it's ONLY speculation and heresay / circumstantial.

they could have called whoever they wanted when they had the ball. they ended their play and later it was decided to stick to rules and no NEW witnesses can be called.

if they didn't make their case before, don't blame others for wanting this farce to end.

 

[playtime]

this is a civil case, not a criminal one. the 'burden' is much lower & there is no beyond a reasonable doubt; only the preponderance of the evidence to be proven.

And? She still has to demonstrate financial harm.

.

nope. you are wrong.

Damages in a Defamation Case

fred goldman brought a wrongful death suit against OJ & won & had nothing to do with a financial hardship could occur because of ron goldman's murder.

HA! uber scum that dershowitz helped defend OJ 'cause the cash was great.

talk about money being the root of all evil.

Wow, another great commie IRRELEVANT DEFLECTION. Good job commie. LAMO

.

no it's not. a civil suit - defamation or otherwise is not contingent on how it could hurt someone financially. lordy, you are trying so hard & falling flat every time.

Poor little commie, you didn't even bother to read your own links, did ya?

.

NY.

What are the Legal Requirements of a Defamation Case?
In order to make a successful claim to obtain compensation for defamation, the victim who was defamed must prove that the false statements meet very specific legal criteria. Because defamation has a very specific legal meaning, a plaintiff who files a defamation lawsuit will need to prove, with the help of his defamation attorney, each of the legal elements of defamation. Defamation requires:

• A false and defamatory statement of fact
• Regarding the plaintiff
• Which is published to a third party and
• Which results in injury to the plaintiff.

The law doesn’t guard against just anything that is defamatory, but only genuine, serious defamation. Our NYC defamation of character attorneys will consider whether you are a public or private figure, whether there was actual malice or negligence regarding the truth of the statements, the manner of the publication, and your damages to determine whether the harmful statement meets the legal standard of defamation.

Who Can Win Defamation Lawsuits?
Anyone who was defamed, whether an individual or a business, should be able to make a successful claim for defamation. However, defamation laws provide the strongest protection for private individuals, so it is harder for public figures to make defamation claims. Public figures must prove actual malice, which is a more difficult standard – but it is a standard that our New York defamation attorneys can often help you to meet.

It is also easier to win defamation cases when intentionally false statements are made, as opposed to just negligent statements. Winning a defamation case on the basis of a negligent statement about a public figure is not typically possible because actual malice is required. However, private individuals could still successfully prevail in defamation lawsuits based on statements that were published or spoken by a speaker who was negligent in determining the truth of the statements.

Defamation Lawyer NYC: Defamation Character, Slander, Libel | My Website

nothing about any ' financial' consequences requirement.

New York and Per Se Damages
Plaintiffs in New York defamation of character cases can sue for per se damages, which means the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove economic loss or injury because the defamatory statement was inherently harmful.

Under the per se standard, plaintiff can bring civil actions against defendants for making false, injurious claims regarding sexual morality, disease status, criminality or professionalism.
New York Defamation Laws and Standards | RM Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law


awwww.... what a pity 'eh?

 

[playtime]

guess the question was too hard for him.

just got tired of talking to an idiot of epic proportions.

translation: you fell flat.

 

[playtime]

who paid rudy for all his investigations into ukraine?

What does that have to do with Dershowitz?

.

dershowitz defended donny in a shake down based on conspiracy... & it just all ties in.

And there will still be a bipartisan vote for NOT GUILTY. Chaps your ass doesn't it????????? ROFL

.

what fun when all this starts to come out as the election season goes fwd... how long b4 donny loses HIS shizzle hmmmm?

He took 97% in Iowa. LMAO Do you ever get tired of being WRONG??????????

.

<pffffft> over his 'opponent'.... gee.... with the (R)s solidly bending over & grabbing their ankles, what else did you expect from inside the basket?

outside in the sunlight - it's a whole different ball game, kitty cat.

 

[playtime]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n bitch they don't get their witnesses?

You can call witness' til the cows come home, but most of the witness' you want called are for were for political reasons.

There is one ongoing claim from the Republicans: no first hand evidence.

Easily fixed. Call Bolton, who volunteered and who IS a first hand witness. Remember - they called witness's for Clinton right? But not this time even though McConnell claimed it would be run like the Clinton impeachment (we knew that wouldn't happen).

Are there any other witness' who have first hand knowledge of what Trump was trying to do with Ukraine? THAT is the issue.

You want to call Schiff, Biden yada yada - did they interact with Trump? Did they have any part of what went on in Ukraine at that time aid was withheld for political dirt? No.

BUT you are CONVINCED they are dirty and guilty (despite the fact you only decided this recently) - OK fine. Get a proper LEGAL and transparent investigation going. The Senate can do it. The DoJ can do it. (the fact that they haven't makes me think there is not a lot to support it but we'll see). Don't try to turn the investigation in to Trump's illegal withholding of aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a different investigation.

^ ' Are there any other witness' who have first hand knowledge of what Trump was trying to do with Ukraine? THAT is the issue.'

bolton claims mick mulvaney was in the room when donny stated the quid pro quo in no uncertain terms. AND the god damn wh lawyer ciplione was as well. i hope that gets more attention & he needs to be disbarred if that is true.