Rarely do I ask questions to which I do not already know the answer. But do you believe that such a public statement from the participants should be dispositive when those statements are not made under oath?
I seem to have missed the Presidents counsel being present and asking questions and offering rebuttal Five lawyers are to bear most of the burden of President Clinton’s defense: Charles F.C. Ruff, Gregory B. Craig, Cheryl D. Mills, David E. Kendall and Dale Bumpers. Ruff handled the opening on Tuesday. On Wednesday, special White House counsel Craig will discuss the allegation that the president committed perjury before independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s grand jury last August. Deputy White House counsel Mills will rebut obstruction of justice charges related to the hiding of presidential gifts in the Paula Jones case and the alleged witness tampering of his secretary Betty Currie. And Kendall, the private attorney who has represented Clinton through most of the 4½-year Starr investigation starting with Whitewater, will handle the remaining obstruction allegations. Former Arkansas Senator Bumpers will then deliver closing remarks on Thursday. Other lawyers expected to appear at the defense table include Bruce Lindsey, deputy White House counsel and the president’s discreet friend from Arkansas, Lanny A. Breuer from Ruff’s staff at the White House and private attorney Nicole K. Seligman. https://australianpolitics.com/1999/01/08/the-presidents-lawyers.html
That's for the Senate trial, not the impeachment... check the date of the article then check when Willie was actually impeached.. Unbelievable..
Didn't Bonespurs claim that he wasn't following the testimony? It's hard to "respond" if you don't know what her testimony is.
Cry Baby Don could wear out his stubby little fingers this week if his hysterical rage at the testimony of dedicated foreign service professionals continues. This would not be happening if "Day Care" Kelly not had his fill and quit.
Don't worry. You did not miss it. Only after the inquiry is completed and it has determined that articles of impeachment are appropriate is there a trial in the Senate where such a defense is proper. If Trump stops gagging insiders in-the-know like Mulvaney and Bolton, that should greatly expedite a balanced presentation of the case.
Prove she was "intimated" and did not testify or did not tell the truth or changed it from her behind closed doors testimony, prove it was tampered with.
We're talking about the House and bring Articles of impeachment House inquiry " As I compute the timing for questioning the witness, the Democrats, including the President's counsel, have 140 minutes of questioning time; the Republicans, 135. The Democrats are permitted two separate counsel, that is to say the Democrat members, Mr. Lowell and the President's counsel. We have one. Our counsel will get a half-hour, Mr. Lowell will get a half-hour, Mr. Kendall will get a half-hour. So I do not see any imbalance there. Mr. Lowell, the Democratic counsel, will go before any of the elected members at Mr. Conyers' request, and I am happy to grant that. The President's counsel will have unlimited time to present his witnesses at the end of our hearings when they are ready to do so. So the rule that we are operating under, which is the same rule that was used in the Rodino era, Rule IV of the impeachment inquiry rule, specifically states that the President's counsel may question any witness subject to instructions from the chairman respecting the time, scope and duration of the examination." http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju53367.000/hju53367_0f.htm
His argument is consistent with the trumpers other arguments. Once they get to the point of knowing that Bonespurs did something wrong, they always resort to "well, but it didn't work! So it's OK!".
Yes... the House JUDICIARY Inquiry.... this is the House INTELLIGENCE Inquiry... Calm down, you'll get some partisan hack lawyers to be able to ask questions at some point... Personally, I can't wait to watch actual lawyers try and defend this...
How was she intimidated and into what? If someone giving their opinion about someone with no threat is now witness intimidation there's gonna lots of people charged with witness intimidation.
Because the INTELLIGENCE committee is holding the impeachment. This is where the witnesses are giving their testimony and being questioned. And you are saying we have to go through this all again in the House?
Trump attacked her while she was testifying. She testified that the attack was very intimidating. Embrace the witness intimidation.
lol poor employee felt intimidated after being reassigned for trashing her boss. Crocodile tears here no doubt, how stupid has the left become that this is a star witness?