Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Democrats are accusing Trump of being the one that robbed the bank.
The problem Democrats are running into.... Republicans are proving without a doubt, the Bank was never robbed.
C'mon, just because the allegations against the president are factually incorrect doesn't mean that they are morally incorrect....or something like that.
When something is provided to "defend" over, then get back with us....
I'm mad because we lost the 2016 election is not constitutional nor legal....
It's worth noting the claim of “overturning the results of the 2016 election” & to "influence the next election” was made by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.
This argument was made by the defense & is not a constitutional argument, nor is it a legal argument; it's the stuff of tweets & talking points.
It's worth noting the claim of “overturning the results of the 2016 election” & to "influence the next election” was made by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.
This argument was made by the defense & is not a constitutional argument, nor is it a legal argument; it's the stuff of tweets & talking points.
So, provide something legal to defend against....until then....
I think some of you guys should read Pat Cipollone's letter:
Read the White House letter on not participating in the House impeachment hearing
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior Trump administration official said the White House will not participate in the House Judiciary Committee’s next impeachment hearing.
The decision came Friday in a letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
This President's decision not to defend himself in the House impeachment inquiry breaks with precedents established in both the Nixon & Clinton administrations, both of which sent White House counsel to question witnesses & to present a legal defense.
After they complained about being left out of House impeachment process, White House Counsel declined to participate.
This President's decision not to defend himself in the House impeachment inquiry breaks with precedents established in both the Nixon & Clinton administrations, both of which sent White House counsel to question witnesses & to present a legal defense.
After they complained about being left out of House impeachment process, White House Counsel declined to participate.
What's their legal rationale here?
The House impeachment itself broke with precedents of fairness and legitimacy...after they showed what a sham the whole thing was going to be in the early stages there was no point in dragging out a what was an entirely political process by getting involved. Just let the House Democrats embarrass themselves and then use it against them in the upcoming election.
The President making his case in the House, if it was even going to be allowed to happen properly, wouldn't have changed one vote. It would have just made the process longer.
That might work for someone who's claiming to be 'above the law' but for most folks? They need to provide a defense.
Why didn't they?
In this country, you are presumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. If there's no proof you acted illegally, there's nothing to defend against....the initial presumption is that you are innocent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
