One of Adam "Pencil Neck" Schiff's arguments is that we can't leave Trump in office expecting voters to kick him out, because Trump will cheat (again - like he did in 2016).

Of course, the 2 1/2 year long Mueller investigation said Trump did not collude with Russia or in any way interfere in a fair election,

Schiff is saying we need to impeach Trump now because after the election will be too late.  Yeah.  Because the Dems know they can't beat him!  And they also know there will be no evidence Trump did anything to cheat -- just like last time.

Schiff wants Trump removed from office NOW, because of something Trump might (or might not) do IN THE FUTURE.

Let that sink in.

Pencil neck! 

Schiff reminds me of Gollum. Especially his oogly/wide eyes. He should go jump in the flames of Mordor...

To be honest with all here, I refuse to watch the proceedings.
Frankly most Democrat rhetoric makes me ill.
But I'll say that it is very obvious America is a "house" divided.
I rather find it difficult to be civil to a people that want to deprive
me of my rights, Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We all say this is Hawaii, go with the flow.  75 years ago
a place in Poland was "liberated",  it was for years full of people
that "went with the flow", because they had no weapons to oppose
that flow. If you think Democrats today are any different from
those that funded and ran Auschwitz you are really mistaken.
The practice of the camps was all in accord with German law.
I thank God almighty that Hawaiian Democrats are so corrupt,
undisciplined, and poor that they can't enforce all their laws.
Mainland Democrats are a little better organized.
Prepare, for the worst is yet to come.
Aloha.

To be honest with all here, I refuse to watch the proceedings.
Frankly most Democrat rhetoric makes me ill.

While sitting through the House Managers can be painful, I am really watching for the counters/rebuttals. 

I haven't listened to all of the arguments in the trial but from the hours I have listened to so far it is much more bearable than the hearings in the house.

 And I have to say that they are actually making some fairly strong arguments in their case. Like them or not they are doing a pretty good job of proving their case. I am curious what the republicans will do in their rebuttals.

I am also interested in what John Bolton has to say though it sounds like he isn't going to be asked to testify. Trump's associate Lev Parnas is now starting to talk and it doesn't sound great for Trump but no official testimony from him yet so can't count anything there.

I haven't listened to all of the arguments in the trial but from the hours I have listened to so far it is much more bearable than the hearings in the house.

 And I have to say that they are actually making some fairly strong arguments in their case. Like them or not they are doing a pretty good job of proving their case. I am curious what the republicans will do in their rebuttals.

I am also interested in what John Bolton has to say though it sounds like he isn't going to be asked to testify. Trump's associate Lev Parnas is now starting to talk and it doesn't sound great for Trump but no official testimony from him yet so can't count anything there.

I don't have to hear what the dnc says. I got all my info starting back when they were screaming Russian collusion. I can make my own logical/educated decision on why the dnc is full of it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don't have to hear what the dnc says. I got all my info starting back when they were screaming Russian collusion. I can make my own logical/educated decision on why the dnc is full of it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This is separate from Russia collusion though and this isn't as empty as the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

In the senate hearings now the democrats are basically lining up the various facts of the case and presenting them together in a way that is much easier to follow than from all the interviews in the house hearings. Once you hear all the pieces lined up the picture is much clearer than hearing one piece from someone one day and another piece another day from someone else. Their case is actually fairly strong.

If this were an actual criminal trial I think Trump would have a hard time defending though he does have one possible "trump card" he could play. But it isn't a criminal trial and most politicians are probably going to vote on political lines so really it doesn't matter how strong their arguments are. However it could sway voters in the next election, who knows.

I don't have to hear what the dnc says. I got all my info starting back when they were screaming Russian collusion. I can make my own logical/educated decision on why the dnc is full of it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I have been watching as much as I can stomach. Funny thing is they are reverting back to Russia Russia Russia!    They are trying to accuse Trump of Russian collusion and Quid Pro Quo still. They keep bringing up all these accusations in the Senate even tho the articles of impeachment mention nothing of these things. I must have heard Russia mentioned a dozen times yesterday. Same for Quid Pro Quo. Their case is so weak they keep repeating the same things over and over again. And they keep saying they need more documents and witnesses to make their case even tho they claimed their case was airtight before all this started. It is SOOOOOOO boring.

The Dems are full of it with this impeachment and trial. It is so obvious that I wouldn’t be surprised that the Senators vote to acquit just to avoid the boredom. I also expect that the defense will not take all 3 days to produce their defense. If they did they would have to repeat everything over and over again like the Dems are doing. I think the Dems have lost case just by trying to fill up all 3 days with assumptions, mind reading  and repeats of the same things over and over again. I expect that the defense will not make this same mistake. If they have 3 days of material they will go 3 days but I don’t think they have to repeat anything.

I am looking forward to the defense. I want to see what they say. I would expect them to refute every lie and I would expect them to read out loud the transcripts to show that the Dems are full of shit. They will show that all of the testimony from witnesses is all 2nd hand, 3rd hand and in some cases 4th and 5th hand hearsay. And then I expect them to show that the 2 articles are not crimes by any definition. And they will certainly show that the 2 articles are not crimes per the constitution. And abuse of power is just plain made up.

This is separate from Russia collusion though and this isn't as empty as the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

In the senate hearings now the democrats are basically lining up the various facts of the case and presenting them together in a way that is much easier to follow than from all the interviews in the house hearings. Once you hear all the pieces lined up the picture is much clearer than hearing one piece from someone one day and another piece another day from someone else. Their case is actually fairly strong.

If this were an actual criminal trial I think Trump would have a hard time defending though he does have one possible "trump card" he could play. But it isn't a criminal trial and most politicians are probably going to vote on political lines so really it doesn't matter how strong their arguments are. However it could sway voters in the next election, who knows.

I mean all facts and intel starting from Russia to current date about all Trump related things.  I don't need a 1 sided report from the DNC.  Anyone who is awoke and knows said info, knows that this impeachment hearing is total BS.

I have been watching as much as I can stomach. Funny thing is they are reverting back to Russia Russia Russia!    They are trying to accuse Trump of Russian collusion and Quid Pro Quo still. They keep bringing up all these accusations in the Senate even tho the articles of impeachment mention nothing of these things. I must have heard Russia mentioned a dozen times yesterday. Same for Quid Pro Quo. Their case is so weak they keep repeating the same things over and over again. And they keep saying they need more documents and witnesses to make their case even tho they claimed their case was airtight before all this started. It is SOOOOOOO boring.

The Dems are full of it with this impeachment and trial. It is so obvious that I wouldn’t be surprised that the Senators vote to acquit just to avoid the boredom. I also expect that the defense will not take all 3 days to produce their defense. If they did they would have to repeat everything over and over again like the Dems are doing. I think the Dems have lost case just by trying to fill up all 3 days with assumptions, mind reading  and repeats of the same things over and over again. I expect that the defense will not make this same mistake. If they have 3 days of material they will go 3 days but I don’t think they have to repeat anything.

I am looking forward to the defense. I want to see what they say. I would expect them to refute every lie and I would expect them to read out loud the transcripts to show that the Dems are full of shit. They will show that all of the testimony from witnesses is all 2nd hand, 3rd hand and in some cases 4th and 5th hand hearsay. And then I expect them to show that the 2 articles are not crimes by any definition. And they will certainly show that the 2 articles are not crimes per the constitution. And abuse of power is just plain made up.

Many people out there are not as smart as you and I.

Schiff’s closing argument on article 1 included citing some news articles (I think one was WaPo) as evidence and fact. Sound familiar? 🤦🏻‍♂️

Schiff’s closing argument on article 1 included citing some news articles (I think one was WaPo) as evidence and fact. Sound familiar? 🤦🏻‍♂️

Heard there's pics of him at Epsteins place...can't wait for that to be released...#clintoncide.

Heard there's pics of him at Epsteins place...can't wait for that to be released...#clintoncide.

I saw a pic on FB yesterday. Not sure if it was photoshopped or not? It had schiff and Epstein sitting next to each other on a couch. And on the end table next to Epstein sits a fucking dildo. 

I saw a pic on FB yesterday. Not sure if it was photoshopped or not? It had schiff and Epstein sitting next to each other on a couch. And on the end table next to Epstein sits a fucking dildo. 

Pretty sure that's not part of  the real pics that was uncovered on his/Maxwell's computer.

When prosecutors don’t have solid evidence or facts, the arguments tend to expand. Now things have expanded to include questions about China and what they believe Trump would to in the future. Both largely emotional angles as opposed to facts. And where “facts” are based on opinions of people who weren’t directly involved... what a shit show.

Tomorrow, the President's defense team will begin their presentation.

The time slot is 10am - 1pm EST.  Sekulow said they'll use that time to give a preview of the defense, which they will begin to lay out in detail the next time they meet.

They have 24 hours to give their opening statement, but every team member I've heard has said they won't use the entire time -- unlike the House managers who kept hitting the "REPLAY" button, repeating what was just said 2 hours previously.   

I mean all facts and intel starting from Russia to current date about all Trump related things.  I don't need a 1 sided report from the DNC.  Anyone who is awoke and knows said info, knows that this impeachment hearing is total BS.

That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has.

Aside from the Russia issue they have their ducks in order now and the evidence is fairly compelling. I won't say anything stronger than that as I haven't seen what the defense side has to say.

Schiff’s closing argument on article 1 included citing some news articles (I think one was WaPo) as evidence and fact. Sound familiar? 🤦🏻‍♂️

Some of what they were introducing were public statements made by government officials. While such statements don't carry the same weight without testifying under oath they are still admissible as evidence.

That would be like a jury saying they don't care what evidence the prosecution has.

Jury Nullification -  when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

Jury Nullification -  when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

Indeed but that is different from just not caring what evidence there is. A jury should always care about the facts but can exercise nullification later if they think the law unjust.