They don’t really want to go this route in the impeachment trial itself. The boogeyman propaganda effort works best if the boogeyman is in the shadows and you have the ability to hit with innuendo. Remember when the Republicans finally got to call up Peter Strojk and Lisa Page? Remember how they canceled Page's hearing because Strojk’s testimony blew up in their faces? With the evidence I’ve seen I think their case to prove Biden is corrupt therefore Trump is a corruption crime fighter is a really really weak case for Trumps legal team to make, and the optics will be horrible for the GOP.... that’s if Biden and his son can hold it together in the testimony which is the biggest fear....that Biden would lose his temper. Even then, I think most people would be sympathetic to Biden getting emotional which could still backfire on Team Trump.
Andrew Napolitano: Impeached Trump Should Be Removed From Office Fox News “senior judicial analyst” Andrew Napolitano saved his recommendation for the end but his FoxNews.com column asking, “What does it take to remove a president?” after impeachment, makes it very clear that Trump has “amply” qualified. Napolitano, who has been noticeably absent from Fox’s on-air coverage of Trump’s impeachment trial, openly contradicted Fox’s “nothing to see here” messaging: “His trial is not a charade or a joke or a hoax. It is deadly serious business based on well-established constitutional norms," Napolitano wrote in his column. Napolitano went on to note that that Government Accountability office concluded Trump “acted unlawfully” when he asked the president of Ukraine for a favor. “But did he act criminally?” Napolitano asked. The answer is an unequivocal “yes.” That evidence “implicates two other crimes,” Napolitano wrote. Those are bribery and contempt of Congress. Napolitano concluded that there are “valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment” and any Republican senator who may have “whispered” to him that he will be acquitted has “violated the oath of ‘impartial justice’ and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.” Finally, there is this: Apparently, that evidence was too “boring” for most of Fox News to have noticed.
The issue here is typically the strategy of the Republicans is to make hearings as belligerent as they can so people tune out and don’t listen to the facts of Trumps abuses. In this case they actually need people to tune in and make the case that Trump is a corruption fighter we should revel in delight to have as our president. The two days of calling Dems the worst people in the world does nothing for their case. Most people will just tune out and the last thing they remember is Schiffs speech.
Lol, butthurt pompeo now lying about the NPR interview. The last is hilarious, implying the knowledgeable reporter didn't correctly identify ukraine, but not saying it. Weasel.
So he did ask her to identify where Ukraine is. Jeez. The level of entitlement is amazing. He unloaded his sh*t, was abusive toward her and is offended when she reported it?
they will believe him and even if they dont they wont care. Theres a lot of people I am close with (friends, family etc) who are reluctant Trump voters because they like his tax cuts, judicial appointees etc. The real issue is the people who are SO far down the rabbit hole that they believe anything his team says or does. Evidence or consequences be damned. IMO that's going to be the biggest issue for this country moving forward
I’ve been on juries. Even the most simple-minded jurors know to see past the personality of the (often obnoxious) attorneys and try to decide cases on the factual merits. this “mean to me” excuse is the equivalent of a political flop, a la Chris Paul at his worst.
I'm watching this morning's defense arguments and about 1.5 hrs in. I think they could rest right now. I'm not sure how political trials or impeachments work but if 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is required as burden of proof this would be over now. 24 hours to allege. 1.5 hours to blow it into fragmented pieces. The only thing that can turn it around would be a bombshell from a witness. Since it is a political trial, I don't know that reasonable doubt comes into play. Jay Sekelow sucks, fwiw. He's the House team's equivalent of Nadler. Both hurt their respective teams, IMO. I'm curious, does the prosecution get to respond or rebuke, or do they move to closing arguments, and then there will be some form of rebuttal?
I was thinking same thing. He obviously knew Parnas. Denying it is going to come back and haunt him, or it least it should. I don't have a problem with Trump wanting to fire or 'take her out' as a reaction to what he's being told. It is his perogative. But clearly, he knew Parnas. It's really obvious because Parnas is the one 'reporting' this in the conversation. I haven't seen the video. I've only heard the audio, but Parnas spoke pretty comfortably for someone who would barely know the president and the president wouldn't react to have her removed based on someone he didn't know telling him that.
This is silly. None of them were going to vote for impeachment but decided not to because Schiff said they were scared to vote on the evidence against Trump.
Just watched the video....WTF is this dude doing sneaking a video? Who does that? It looks like he's some sort of 'operative' experienced in covering his ass.
Remember the stories, books, and Op-Eds that have come out saying there is a collective group on the inside trying to limit Trump's power and curtail rash decisions. ...?
