Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

robinph wrote: »

Don't think their video of Trump saying the word "fight" is making the point they think.

It's laughable. Threatening Republicans, lauding Giuliani and telling flat out lies.

I count 6 people in the chain of the question cards at least.

How can this not be a vehicle for the spread of Covid.

The Q & A session is turning up some questions the defence is fielding and not replying-to: like when did Trump first learn in the white house of the break-in by his supporters AND what steps he actually took to end the violence.

I watched a couple if questions.

My God it's interminable. Only part of the trial I've watched. You guys in here are doing the lord's work disseminating it.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I watched a couple if questions.

My God it's interminable. Only part of the trial I've watched. You guys in here are doing the lord's work disseminating it.

I watched a bit of the house managers presentation over two days but by no means did I watch all of it. I’ve seen none of trumps defence team but seeing how they invoked Charlottesville I get the impression it made the late great Lionel hutz look competent.

His defence has stated that Trump did not know that his V/P was in danger in the Capitol and stated that the trial was not about that issue.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I watched a bit of the house managers presentation over two days but by no means did I watch all of it. I’ve seen none of trumps defence team but seeing how they invoked Charlottesville I get the impression it made the late great Lionel hutz look competent.

Trumps team were asked a question from a Republican Senator.

'Does an elected official raising money for bail for a rioter lead to more rioting?

They had 5 minutes to answer.

Their answer was one word, 'Yes' and the yielded the rest of their time.

Lionel would have at least used it as an opportunity to highlight cases where Democrats had done that, which is what the question had implied.

Jesus help us. The question was simple and trumps lawyer gave an answer that made no sense and didn’t answer the question at all.

Plasken and Castro are impeccable prosecutors.
Romney, Murkowski and Collins are really turning the screw.

aloyisious wrote: »

Going back to the very start of the defence team's presentation on Trumps behalf, the first day when they were introducing themselves to the senate, the gaps were visible. The first lawyer began by saying he was there for the prosecution, then corrected his error: which was caught on A/V camera.

During the constitutional debate ? I missed that. Yeah he rambled through a question about did the president know that his VP was in danger. He’d have been Better off reading out the back of a weetabix box. These lads are amateurs. Btw, I apologised for denigrating Lionel hutz aka Miguel Sanchez by even comparing him to this lot.

Tell me how wrote: »

It is a bit galling that from next week, Republicans will be crowing that Trump did nothing wrong, was tried and acquitted.
The defence team will no doubt have a new front page on their respective websites and if there is even a hint of Justice Dept or Police investigating Trump further about this, they will say that double jeoprady exists.

There is no possibility of double jeopardy arising out of the impeachment afaik.

Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases and the impeachment despite its pretensions of justice is solely a political trial.

What’s you man pointing at the camera for ? And then congressman raskin actually answered the question for josh hawley.

'Is there a more pro Israel president than president trump?'

How in the holiest of fcuk is that a relevant question??

I don't see how his views on Israel have anything to do with what he's on trial for.

circadian wrote: »

I don't see how his views on Israel have anything to do with what he's on trial for.

i mean there is only 1 question...did trump incite a riot.

how many irrelevant questions has there been?