Just look at the balance…3 for the impeachment and one against.
The one against is getting worked over for it.
How do you think this looks to the voters?
No, actually it’s not what we do. Lawyers’ job is to make a case to influence the interpretation of the law by a judge to get a desired verdict.
1 Like
what blue dress?
2 Likes
Not sure if you realize that you make my point.
Thanks!
2 Likes
He was impeached for lying under oath.
current congress? that shipped sailed decades ago
About something as serious as a hummer. Unllike Trump he actually had the balls to go beofre Congress
That’s what it has always been the two times it’s actually been done.
Hack, hack, hack… Schiff has a bad cough apparently!
Is it as bad as some here trying to interpret written law?
Perjury is perjury. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
“Balls”? Oh you mean stupidity.
Don’t we have to interpret it first to our benefit and then influence the beneficial interpretation of the law by a judge to get a desired verdict.
1 Like
No I meant the courage to not hide from one’s actions. You support a straight coward.
No, our interpretation is meaningless as the verdict is not ours to render.
It’s not exactly meaningless. I have used the interpretation at mediations and arbitrations where There is no real arbiter but yes for the most but for a judicial order, our interpretation is our own
I guess you are a great fan of Affirmative Action – got to make sure the numbers are always balanced.
1 Like
It would help nullify the Trump argument…But why do that?
Turley is making a solid enough argument all by his lonesome.
Tunley is the one who said the Trump/Zelensky call was far from perfect, right?
1 Like
He also said Congress was the entity abusing its power, not Trump.
Who had the balls to go before congress? Clinton?
Clinton didn’t go before congress when he was impeached or tried.
