|
"It couldn't have happened because of the timeline" ... Doesn't show any evidence to contradict the timeline.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1360312254512701444?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
My client couldn't have planned a coup because he's such good friends with the state security services is also a hell of a take.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
SubG posted:My client couldn't have planned a coup because he's such good friends with the state security services is also a hell of a take. "Not to be confused with the Deep State, who hates his guts"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Oh god he's going through Brandenburg again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1360312986993385479?s=19 https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1360313692810862593?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
SubG posted:Oh god he's going through Brandenburg again. "To prove my client's innocence let me again reiterate this thing that proves he's guilty"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Sounds like we need to call some witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
This is the most bad faith that it will be the benchmark for all bad faith in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:Sounds like we need to call some witnesses. Can that still happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
At least the defense lawyers know this is all bullshit, the verdict is predetermined, and they’re phoning it in
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Whose job would it be to enforce it? Police officers, lawyers, judge and jury are all (EDIT: in theory) under the same law they work to enforce. In the scenario of being able to actually fix this hot mess of a system, the same should be true for members of Congress. If one of them breaks a law a legal trial (not a political one like this gong show) is held, and must work the same as any other legal trial. Senators can still be the jury, but the legal process should function the same as it does for anyone else otherwise. And yes I know, that would take a historically big amendment of the constitution Orthanc6 fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Can that still happen? Yup
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Cool cool cool so they're just gonna replay the same video over and over. Trump's lawyer doesn't know if he's under oath.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Then call all those Trumpists who feel like he threw them under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
He doesn’t know whether he’s under oath or not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:He doesn’t know whether he’s under oath or not? He sure as hell felt it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
So he's accusing them of lying again. I bet that's going to go real well for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Can that still happen? yeah, and it might very well happen. the defense have shown its needed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Rabble posted:Cool cool cool so they're just gonna replay the same video over and over. It's going to own when Trump's entire legal team gets charged with perjury and Trump still get's acquitted ...Did I say own? I meant suck hard
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Police officers, lawyers, judge and jury are all under the same law they work to enforce. In the scenario of being able to actually fix this hot mess of a system, the same should be true for members of Congress. If one of them breaks a law a legal trial (not a political one like this gong show) is held, and must work the same as any other legal trial. Senators can still be the jury, but the legal process should function the same as it does for anyone else otherwise. Requiring a bad actor to break a law before they can be removed from office seems like a really huge loophole that will be ripe for abuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
This dude sure doesn't know a lot about the prosecution's evidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
this argument about him "fool me once, shame on me, etc". Doesn't really hold up well for these guys since they're lying about things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Ringo Star Get posted:I’m not sure which Senator I hate the most - either Cruz or Graham for their amount of lovely weasel ness. I mean, Mitch McConnell is a given, but these two specifically seem to do the most of amount of stupid acts that would and should get anyone fired from a job. Hating Mitch McConnell is like hating entropy, or death: you can do it as hard as you want but it never made any difference to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
WHY IS THERE MUSIC! gently caress YOU
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Uhh so doesn't this go to the Brandenburg test that there was evidence that if the Rally happened then there would be violence??
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Rabble posted:This dude sure doesn't know a lot about the prosecution's evidence. That's because they were outside the Senate chamber doing Fox interviews.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
This can't be a crime, it was premeditated!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
My loving question is if this was premeditated then why didn't Trump call off the rally??
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
HE LIED ABOUT WHAT THE CALL WAS ABOUT gently caress YOUUUUUUU
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
So the entire defense is just "He didn't explicitly say 'Attack the Capitol' and therefore isn't guilty for inciting," huh? E: "Ammiters"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:So the entire defense is just "He didn't explicitly say 'Attack the Capitol' and therefore isn't guilty for inciting," huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
Honestly, if they didn't have the majority of republicans in their pocket. He would be convicted. These are the worst lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:They don't have the real tweets because TRUMP'S ACCOUNT GOT BANNED FOR INCITING VIOLENCE LOL. All of the tweets are archived.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:All of the tweets are archived. yeah but its all badfaith bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
This loving music what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
Uh, I am not a lawyer but I am very interested to hear an actual lawyer's take on this. On a scale of 1 to Incredibly Stupid, how dumb is it that a lawyer representing Trump is doubling down on the Georgia fraud arguments while there's still a pending investigation and potential litigation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
So this dude's whole argument is based on the assumption that object permanence is just a theory, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Requiring a bad actor to break a law before they can be removed from office seems like a really huge loophole that will be ripe for abuse. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, right now with a 2/3rds majority vote they can kick anyone out for literally any reason, legal or not. A good argument can be made that one would usually have to at least break some law before you could convince 2/3rds of the Senate to kick anyone out, but that's not so much an issue of functionality as it is of practicality. For anyone not in power this is a bad system, it should be proven that a person broke a law before they receive any kind of punishment. I believe those in power should be held to a higher standard, and thus higher consequence. I think a 2/3rds kick-out vote is good to keep in, but would add that political leaders at any and all levels should be subject to the same laws and process everyone else is. So when Ted Cruz met with Trump's defense today, the defense should be charged with tampering with the jury, and Cruz charged with contempt of court. The only tweak to fix the issues and maybe get these idiots out would be to reduce the vote-out to a simple majority. But other than that, if they don't break a law (they of course have broken laws) we can't punish them, or else we are being the partisan hacks that they projection accuse us to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Xaiter posted:Uh, I am not a lawyer but I am very interested to hear an actual lawyer's take on this. he is doing what trump wants but in his own way. trump wanted them to talk about fraud, so he is, but he is trying to tie it into the thesis statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:15
|
|