“will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal.”
Many Trump defenders assert impeachment itself is at best an anachronistic, quasi-Constitutional act. They skip over whether Trump merits it altogether, and go straight to the idea seemingly no President should ever suffer it. To hear them respond to questions you’d think the topic isn’t even to be found in the Constitution. Its very premise is invalid. The Legislative Branch has no business removing a duly elected President, regardless whatever they’ve done. The people have spoken, and will get a chance to speak again in the next election. The Founders were daft in devising impeachment in the first place.
Incidentally, and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m led to believe this is the first trial that CJ Roberts has ever presided over. And now with Dersh, Starr, Cipollone, and with possibly other lower order miscreants attendant, this isn’t going to go well, is it?
They want to do it, but the answer from Dems is no because it’s not relevant. The idea is that evidence and witnesses have to be relevant to the charges. This is where a Judge has to weigh in if a deal between the Dems/GOP on witnesses is to be struck.
It’s convenient having Starr and Dershowitz together on the same legal team. In case Dershowitz rapes any teenage girls, Starr will be right there to cover it up.
Pretty much the car full of withered old clowns that I thought it would be. Dershowitz is particularly appropriate given his track record of defending the flamingly guilty.
But who gets to make that determination? I suppose Roberts, but you know whose pocket he’s in.
I can see much of the Parnas evidence being disallowed, but Schiff, Biden and anyone else the GOP wants in order to discredit the process is very much on the agenda.
I still can’t guarantee that McConnell hasn’t convinced Roberts that this is an open and shut case, if Roberts doesn’t want his dirt out in the open.
