Where did they drag Bruce Castor Jr. out from? This guy is terrible, what a terrible defense.
He was the District Attorney for where I live, Montgomery County Pennsylvania. He was the guy who let Cosby go without charging him back in the early 2000's. His career was thought to be over a few years ago when he lost election. I cannot believe this clown is representing the former president......actually, yeah I can. It makes perfect sense.
So weird, every time this guys takes a drink from his water bottle he puts his other hand on his head almost like he's using it to assist in tilting his head back.
So weird, every time this guys takes a drink from his water bottle he puts his other hand on his head almost like he's using it to assist in tilting his head back.
He has a lot of unusual ticks. Swaying, lick lipping, twitching and trying to hold his head from falling off when he takes a drink.
He says a lot of words without saying anything at all.
I don't think Trump is going to be very happy with his defense. On appearances, which Trump holds as most important, this is a disaster.
Why did Trump's lawyer hold his head while drinking water?
Activist and former spokesman Avi Mayer explained: “David Schoen is an Orthodox Jew. He covers his head when drinking water because that's what many observant Jews do. It is generally followed by the recitation of a blessing and is an expression of religiosity."
Why did Trump's lawyer hold his head while drinking water?
Activist and former spokesman Avi Mayer explained: “David Schoen is an Orthodox Jew. He covers his head when drinking water because that's what many observant Jews do. It is generally followed by the recitation of a blessing and is an expression of religiosity."
The reason why many observant Jews do this is pretty simple - in synagogue, we wear Kippahs, which tend to fall off one’s head if not clipped onto hair. What happens if you don’t have hair? Better hold onto your hat when you bow down to god!
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
“I thought I knew where it was going, and I really didn’t know where it was going,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Trump’s closest allies.
No surprise there from Lindsey Flimsey Flip Flop Faloozy Graham. Nothing like sticking yer finger in the air to feel the fart, eh? And Tom I’m a Warrior hear me roar Cotton couldn’t look up at the screen for 13 minutes? Seems he didn’t experience worse in Iraq, despite his “service?” And Randy Paul doodling? Makes sense. Guess there wasn’t an eye clinic for him to host? Suckers.
Not convicting him is one thing. But nearly half of the Senate (and 88% of GQP in the Senate) are literally trying to set a precedent that a president can do anything at the end of their presidency with no fear of reprisal. They're willing to risk throwing the entire country away, either for one crazy moron or to keep the support of crazy morons (i.e., "their careers"). None of these 44 is fit to serve. Because they all put one person (Trump or themselves) ahead of the good of the country, not just now but forever.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not convicting him is one thing. But nearly half of the Senate (and 88% of GQP in the Senate) are literally trying to set a precedent that a president can do anything at the end of their presidency with no fear of reprisal. They're willing to risk throwing the entire country away, either for one crazy moron or to keep the support of crazy morons (i.e., "their careers"). None of these 44 is fit to serve. Because they all put one person (Trump or themselves) ahead of the good of the country, not just now but forever.
Politically, it just makes no sense for them to continue to tie themselves to a guy who lost them the house, senate, and presidency in one single term.
Not convicting him is one thing. But nearly half of the Senate (and 88% of GQP in the Senate) are literally trying to set a precedent that a president can do anything at the end of their presidency with no fear of reprisal. They're willing to risk throwing the entire country away, either for one crazy moron or to keep the support of crazy morons (i.e., "their careers"). None of these 44 is fit to serve. Because they all put one person (Trump or themselves) ahead of the good of the country, not just now but forever.
Politically, it just makes no sense for them to continue to tie themselves to a guy who lost them the house, senate, and presidency in one single term.
It does if they can come roaring back in 2024 and start the 1000 year facist reich
Not convicting him is one thing. But nearly half of the Senate (and 88% of GQP in the Senate) are literally trying to set a precedent that a president can do anything at the end of their presidency with no fear of reprisal. They're willing to risk throwing the entire country away, either for one crazy moron or to keep the support of crazy morons (i.e., "their careers"). None of these 44 is fit to serve. Because they all put one person (Trump or themselves) ahead of the good of the country, not just now but forever.
Politically, it just makes no sense for them to continue to tie themselves to a guy who lost them the house, senate, and presidency in one single term.
It does if they can come roaring back in 2024 and start the 1000 year facist reich
Ha...well logic dictates moving in a different direction coming off all those losses.
Not convicting him is one thing. But nearly half of the Senate (and 88% of GQP in the Senate) are literally trying to set a precedent that a president can do anything at the end of their presidency with no fear of reprisal. They're willing to risk throwing the entire country away, either for one crazy moron or to keep the support of crazy morons (i.e., "their careers"). None of these 44 is fit to serve. Because they all put one person (Trump or themselves) ahead of the good of the country, not just now but forever.
What I gathered from the Trump attorneys yesterday was that Trump is now a private citizen so if a crime was committed he should be charged with a crime like a regular citizen would be. I don't disagree with that and wish that DC would grow a pair and charge him as well. The argument he brought forth focused on the grammar used in the article and mentioned that placement of the comma is what makes it unconstitutional for them to try Trump after he left office. Looks like they poached this defense from Dershowitz:
To bolster his argument, Dershowitz points to the language of Article I Section 3, which reads:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Dershowitz specifically highlights that the clause mandates senatorial judgment on removal and disqualification—not or disqualification. Thus, since a former office holder cannot be removed, that person also cannot be disqualified from office.=, the argument goes.
One example offered by Dershowitz is the non-impeachment of an obviously guilty Richard Nixon in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
“Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted,” he wrote. “For the victorious Democrats to seek revenge against Donald Trump would set a terrible precedent, distract from President Biden’s agenda, and make it hard to heal the country. Better to move on.”
Nixon, of course, resigned and was pardoned by Gerald Ford.
Dershowitz’s constitutional argument is supported by Tulane Law School lecturer and impeachment expert Ross Garber. Garber similarly asserts that the Senate only retains jurisdiction to try a sitting president, but said the case of a different Nixon might make the argument difficult for Trump.
Comments
Trump: I didn’t tell MAGA at the rally to attack the Capitol. They did that on their own.
Insurrectionists: We were doing what he asked us to do.
How’s that going to work out when they throw each other under the bus?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
At least he sounds like he could be a lawyer, unlike Mr. Castor.
He says a lot of words without saying anything at all.
I don't think Trump is going to be very happy with his defense. On appearances, which Trump holds as most important, this is a disaster.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
To bolster his argument, Dershowitz points to the language of Article I Section 3, which reads:
Dershowitz specifically highlights that the clause mandates senatorial judgment on removal and disqualification—not or disqualification. Thus, since a former office holder cannot be removed, that person also cannot be disqualified from office.=, the argument goes.
One example offered by Dershowitz is the non-impeachment of an obviously guilty Richard Nixon in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
“Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted,” he wrote. “For the victorious Democrats to seek revenge against Donald Trump would set a terrible precedent, distract from President Biden’s agenda, and make it hard to heal the country. Better to move on.”
Nixon, of course, resigned and was pardoned by Gerald Ford.
Dershowitz’s constitutional argument is supported by Tulane Law School lecturer and impeachment expert Ross Garber. Garber similarly asserts that the Senate only retains jurisdiction to try a sitting president, but said the case of a different Nixon might make the argument difficult for Trump.https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/alan-dershowitz-says-senate-lacks-jurisdiction-to-hold-trumps-impeachment-trial/