Okay. We wouldn't be here today if someone hadn't implanted a fast-acting brain eating amoeba inside Nancy's skull. She sure went down fast.
If they wanted him impeached, he would have been impeached before this Ukraine mess. Democrats have had control of the House for over a year now. So are Presidents. Remember when Trump called Nevertrumpers "human scum"? Anyway, how is the House of Representatives not "representing ALL the people in the country"? A plurality of people (49% to 45%) want Trump impeached. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo Can you think of any House Republicans who would serve on an impeachment team? I can't. I don't begrudge Trump picking his legal team. I wouldn't be quite so certain about how this turns out. We don't know what Lev Parnas has and now the State Dept. is investigating whether our ambassador was being surveilled. Nothing that has come out since this Ukraine scandal broke has been good for Trump. Even his own megadonor EU ambassador (Sondland) testified there was a "quid pro quo" (his words). Who knows what else might come out under oath.
Not sure I see the relevance of this video to my post except to say that it further cuts against your previous point because Americans also dramatically shifted to being more in favor of impeachment.
He has added Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz the legal team that got his hero buddy Epstein such a good legal outcome in his Florida trial.
and now a majority do not want him removed after viewing the evidence that nutjobs Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler said was overwhelming.
Great team. President is being represented by the same guys that got Epstein his sweetheart deal and enabled all that sleaze to flourish. It should be fun to watch the old clips about Clinton totally contradicting the new clips in their defense of Trump.
Plurality, not majority. But great job to trump on being at a mere 46.9% in support of his outright removal from office! What's the highest level of support for impeachment for Clinton?
It might be unsavory, but no more or less unsavory then any prosecutor who knows a man is innocent, yet charges him or her anyway. It's the name of the dirty game of "justice", which this administration for better or worse with its existence has shown us the ugliness in pure form.
Nevertheless, he will be assisting the defense in a most crucial role. The House Managers are at a distinct disadvantage, that they wouldn't be if they *took it seriously*. Every disadvantage the House finds itself in, is because of Pelosi's poor excuse of leadership.
Ambulance chasers and public defenders? If you're going to slam someone, make sure you're at least partially correct before the slam backfires. The House team is made up of former prosecutors and law enforcement officers with strong legal backgrounds..
Holy ****, absolutely not the same. Even the guilty are entitled to a legal defense because the prosecution still has to prove the case. So a defense attorney is upholding their oath to defend that person vigorously. But a prosecutor who knows or even strongly suspects that the alleged is not guilty? That is a ****ing huge violation of the oath to prosecute anyways.
Pelosi before: "We gotta pass it because he's using the Courts to stall the system." Pelosi After: "Nah, we can chill for a month." What could've happened in that same month: Parnas, etc HOUSE TESTIMONY. They could've spent the time that they did doing NOTHING, on establishing more of a case. Now they're asking the Senate to do what was supposed to be their job. I'd love to hear these witnesses, don't get me wrong. I hate that it'd mean excusing Nancy Pelosi.
Similarly to the Kupperman case being decided a couple of weeks ago. It illustrates the point: The Court system can expedite cases(and should anyway, that's the whole meaning behind quick and speedy. I'm of the opinion that our trials take way too long) and the evidence could have been acquired in a reasonable time frame.(Reasonable meaning, before the 2020 elections.)