- Oct 19, 2004
- 12,811
- 6,012
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm watching it on MSNBC. Lots of lawyers and legalese.
So far the democrat quotes are from the 1800's. I can't say I'll watch the whole thing. Lawyers can talk forever and I don't know if I can take a marathon of that.Off and on. I can’t stomach it.
I was interested to see Trump's tweets. Although, Biden didn't call out BLM until many cities were burned to the ground. The congressmen didn't seem to care until chaos happened to them.Am I watching a different feed than the rest of you? I saw the previous rep quote a modern scholar (Kotter? I already can't remember the guy's name, but it was someone who was cited a lot in Trump's defense who said that those citations are a misreading of his position), and the current rep quote a lot of Trump's tweets.
Also, I would think that when the advocates of the impeachment trial are trying to establish precedent concerning whether or not something is to be allowed, it's probably a good thing that they can cite things from the 1800s, though I won't disagree that it makes things a bit mind-numbing to listen to.
Nope...don't care about the trial.I'm watching it on MSNBC. Lots of lawyers and legalese.
Kotter cited the opposing arguments as well as his own. So no I don't think it is accurate to say he wrongly cited kotter.Am I watching a different feed than the rest of you? I saw the previous rep quote a modern scholar (Kotter? I already can't remember the guy's name, but it was someone who was cited a lot in Trump's defense who said that those citations are a misreading of his position), and the current rep quote a lot of Trump's tweets.
Also, I would think that when the advocates of the impeachment trial are trying to establish precedent concerning whether or not something is to be allowed, it's probably a good thing that they can cite things from the 1800s, though I won't disagree that it makes things a bit mind-numbing to listen to.
Kotter cited the opposing arguments as well as his own. So no I don't think it is accurate to say he wrongly cited kotter.
Yeah I read it. Didn't hear it. Kotter said he included opposing arguments to his own. He complained that trumps lawyers did not just directly cite them. I will wait and hear all the arguments to see what's true or untrue.What? No. I'm referring to the quote of Kotter himself, who said that Trump's team's quotation of his arguments was misleading.
I apologize @Halbhh I was a jerk. Just feeling pretty raw right now. For various reasons.Just a note about one widespread idea above in the thread that is widely repeated, but incorrect.
Biden did call out and speak against the summer riot violence early
Major speech, June 2nd --
(just after the 1 minute 35 second mark, and you can slide the time slider to that if you like) --
I'm watching it on MSNBC. Lots of lawyers and legalese.
I can't watch. I think it's a show trial, but even more pointless to remove a sitting president who is no longer a sitting president. I suppose the politics of it would be fascinating but I'm too tired of politics.I'm watching it on MSNBC. Lots of lawyers and legalese.