And what a defense strategy trump’s legal team have thrown at the feet of sanity... even before day 1.
And actually during day 1 as well.
Seemingly, one of these crackers said: “There was no crime committed, and if there’s no crime there can be no impeachment.”
Besides every legal scholar and historian suggesting the man is wrong, he, himself, in the 90’s also said the complete opposite during the impeachment business with Clinton.
When CNN called him out on this, his retort was: “No. I wasn’t wrong back then. I’m just more correct now.”
Oh yes. This is lining up to be as hilarious as the last 3 years of US and UK politics.
On Seth Meyers’ show, the chap from Bowling for Columbine requested viewers to mass-call their senators to get them to allow witnesses. Especially Bolton.
And he called for Bolton to be asked one question: “What else is stored on the secret server?”
Ohhhhhhh...
@shavixmir
Here's what some legal experts are saying about whether a crime must have been committed in order to impeach a president:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/opinions/articles-of-impeachment-scholars-debate-zeldin-ray/index.html
@shavixmir said
And what a defense strategy trump’s legal team have thrown at the feet of sanity... even before day 1.
And actually during day 1 as well.
Seemingly, one of these crackers said: “There was no crime committed, and if there’s no crime there can be no impeachment.”
Besides every legal scholar and historian suggesting the man is wrong, he, himself, in the 90’s also said t ...[text shortened]... lled for Bolton to be asked one question: “What else is stored on the secret server?”
Ohhhhhhh...
“No. I wasn’t wrong back then. I’m just more correct now.”
I think that he regards himself as being one of the more equal people. I think the overall strategy of the Trump's legal team is going to be the Chewbacca defence. Since his speech is basically word salad they can just repeat the statement: "This does not make sense!" endlessly.
@shavixmir saidOh yes. This is lining up to be as hilarious as the last 3 years of US and UK politics.
And what a defense strategy trump’s legal team have thrown at the feet of sanity... even before day 1.
And actually during day 1 as well.
Seemingly, one of these crackers said: “There was no crime committed, and if there’s no crime there can be no impeachment.”
Besides every legal scholar and historian suggesting the man is wrong, he, himself, in the 90’s also said t ...[text shortened]... lled for Bolton to be asked one question: “What else is stored on the secret server?”
Ohhhhhhh...
Hilarious, yes, but rather sad at the same time. Hopefully the general populations of both countries will hold these jackass's to account for their actions.
It all revolves around party politics and y'all know it.
I bet y'all danced up a storm when Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" for his lying to a grand jury under oath. Go Democrats, Yes'sah
The only punishment the man ever got on any level was he lost his right to practice law in the state of Arkansas. Whoopie doo.
@earl-of-trumps saidDo you think Clinton should have been removed for perjury?
It all revolves around party politics and y'all know it.
I bet y'all danced up a storm when Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" for his lying to a grand jury under oath. Go Democrats, Yes'sah
The only punishment the man ever got on any level was he lost his right to practice law in the state of Arkansas. Whoopie doo.
@whodey saidThis is going to shock some people in here.
Do you think Clinton should have been removed for perjury?
The House NEVER should have voted in the affirmative to bring this impeachment to trial. No. Here's my reason:
What Clinton did, did not affect the federal government's operation nor did it cost taxpayers any money. A presidential tenure should not be interrupted in such cases, My Opinion! Let him finish his term and put him on trial in real court. He'd likely do some time, then.
However, when the impeachment did reach the trial phase, all senators had an obligation to vote "guilty" because it was fact, that Bill Clinton was guilty.
@earl-of-trumps saidBut what he did, did effect the Federal government. He was trying to alter the coming election in his favor by lying which had all kinds of implications for the future direction of the federal government.
This is going to shock some people in here.
The House NEVER should have voted in the affirmative to bring this impeachment to trial. No. Here's my reason:
What Clinton did, did not affect the federal government's operation nor did it cost taxpayers any money. A presidential tenure should not be interrupted in such cases, My Opinion! Let him finish his term and ...[text shortened]... , all senators had an obligation to vote "guilty" because it was fact, that Bill Clinton was guilty.
In addition, he had sex with a subordinate, again highly unethical that effected someone within the federal government.
So to say that it did not effect the federal government is not accurate. A better rebuttal was that it did not effect the federal government in a substantial way, but that is your opinion only.
@whodey
With all do respect to your opinion, Whodey, I do no think that it disrupted the flow of government anywhere near as much as what removal from office of the sitting POTUS would have. Protect the office, not the man.
Should the cure be worse than the bite? No.