Oops! “Can we rephrase that, please?”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-having-field-day-trumps-211241333.html

The problem is very solvable.

“President Donald Trump’s defense team repeatedly argued on Saturday that there isn’t enough evidence to impeach him because Congress hasn’t heard from any witnesses who had “direct contact” with the president.

Democratic lawmakers seized on those statements, saying they underscore the need to call more firsthand witnesses in Trump’s trial.”

21 thoughts on “Oops! “Can we rephrase that, please?”

  1. RE: “President Donald Trump’s defense team repeatedly argued on Saturday that there isn’t enough evidence to impeach him because Congress hasn’t heard from any witnesses who had “direct contact” with the president.”

    That’s false. The defense argued that the prosecution’s own evidence contradicts the charges it is making. That doesn’t mean “there isn’t enough evidence.” It means that that the evidence at hand fails to support the prosecution’s case.

    Do you grasp the nature of the lie you are selling, Mr. Rothman? Do you even care?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. How on earth did you reach that conclusion?

      The House has been trying to get witnesses close to Trump for months, but prevented by loopholes and court appeals about some executive privilege that doesn’t apply in abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

      The prosecution has lied, obfuscated and attacked process because they know Trump is guilty and should be canned. You know, they know…”everybody knows this” as Trump would say.

      Step outside the right wing bubble and take a nice, deep breath of fresh air.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. @Len

        I continue to appreciate the information you provide and your clear-eyed perspective, but am increasingly concerned about you setting yourself up for CTE through repeated brick wall collusions.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “Step outside the right wing bubble and take a nice, deep breath of fresh air.”

        My bubble consists of reading the trial briefs, which I posted here in the Forum, reading transcripts of testimony, some of which I have posted here, and watching the investigation and trial on TV.

        You, in contrast, admitted to not paying attention to either side. You don’t even seem to know who the sides are.

        RE: “The prosecution has lied, obfuscated and attacked process because they know Trump is guilty and should be canned.”

        Adam Schiff and the House Managers have done this?

        Gimme a break.

        Like

        1. Oops. You caught me in a typo, obviously.

          Mea Culpa.

          Break granted as per your request.

          (Don’t you just hate it when a perfect expression of outrage is deflated by a wrong choice of words. It is like covfefe all over again, but without the presidential panache.)

          Liked by 3 people

          1. “caught me in a typo, obviously”

            Such pettiness is very representative of the WH/GOP strategy to defend the indefensible.

            ANY straw that can deflect, ANY logical fallacy that can be bought by the ignorant and weak minded WILL be used to obfuscate when possible.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Well, I suppose it seems as if the Trump team is prosecuting the House managers for using facts.

            But my post was definitely a “sleep of the tongue”.

            Sorry🙊

            Liked by 3 people

        2. RE: “Don’t you just hate it when a perfect expression of outrage is deflated by a wrong choice of words?”

          I do. In fact, I have done it so many times that I have developed the habit of assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about when I give into the impulse to express outrage. It’s a sure sign.

          Like

  2. Oh please. Your side refused to let a court decide executive priviledge, your side rejected a witness swap and now your side wants the Senate to bow to your phony wishes. Your chance is over, you screwed the pooch so live with it and consider the consequences of being partisan idiots next time. My guess is nothing learned so now the sane people have to listen to this partisan garbage for another 9 months. Im getting the impression that this is part of the plan to rig the election.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’ll be sure to pass that along to my friends in Congress.

      Does that “screwed the pooch” apply to any dog? Can we spend campaign money to buy the silence of the dog or will a good bone do the trick?

      Liked by 3 people

    2. @BobR

      Nobody has asserted Executive Privilege. They have simply refused to comply with lawful subpoenas. That is a very different kettle of fish. They have not asserted Executive Privilege because it does not apply to the witnesses and documents subpoenaed. If it did, they would.

      Here is something you should consider – Trump has been impeached because of things he did. Thge Democrats shied away from this step for years. He has been begging to be impeached by his actions since day one. The Democrats under Pelosi’s leadership gave him a pass until he just went to far. And, believe it or not, holding a beleaguered strategic ally hostage to political demands was just too much. As Pelosi predicted in her defense of holding back – Trump will impeach himself. And he did.

      Liked by 3 people

    3. RE: “Your chance is over, you screwed the pooch so live with it and consider the consequences of being partisan idiots next time.”

      Fits the pattern, doesn’t it?

      First there was denial of Trump’s win on election night. Then Jill Stein’s recounts were going to change the outcome to the correct result. Then the electors were going to violate their oaths to make the election come out as it should have. None of that worked, so…

      Trump was sued over emoluments, but won. Mueller investigated Russian collusion, but exonerated the president. And now…

      Trump is impeached on fraudulent grounds, but seems certain to be acquitted.

      One might ask, Where have all the flowers gone?

      Like

      1. The flowers left when the conservatives decided that Clinton had to go from day one and investigated everything from real estate state to dresses until finally something stuck, literally and figuratively.

        In retrospect, that might have been not such a good idea.

        And the blatant GOP effort to destroy the Obama Presidency from the night of his inauguration.

        Another brilliant plan that might have been better in the trash bin.

        I seem to recall all the right wing media predicting that a Hillary win would subject her to endless scrutiny, lawsuits, prosecutions, subpoenas.

        We can look for the causes of the divide we now have in many places, but for sure the conservatives have cornered the market redirecting election results, if for no other reason than long time experience. You could possibly say that the franchise has been sold to the Democrats just recently.

        But you asked about flowers. Or was it Flowers.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Gennifer Flowers is a good example of Bill Clinton as sexual predator and liar. You may recall that her allegations against him were proved.

        Trump is a different matter. Repeated allegations against him are repeatedly disproved.

        When will they ever learn?

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          You really want to talk about sexual predators and liars? LOL!

          Flowers made allegations of Clinton being a sexual predator? Uh, no. She alleged they had an affair and apparently they did. There have been so many similar and proven allegations against your Christian hero that counting them is just about impossible. Hell, he temporarily made honest women out of two of the women he cheated with by dumping their predecessor. Or, he illegally paid them to keep quiet using – maybe – your campaign donations.

          Face it. In the area of sexual misbehavior and lying Clinton is Boy Scout when compared to Trump.

          I ask again. . . Do you really want to talk about sexual predators and liars?

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “Face it. In the area of sexual misbehavior and lying Clinton is Boy Scout when compared to Trump.”

          No thanks. I prefer to face reality, not the fantasies you make up.

          Like

  3. “ Trump is a different matter. Repeated allegations against him are repeatedly disproved.”

    You are right about Trump being different.

    Disproved? Not so much. There are still court battles going on. His charity scam was revealed and he paid.
    His school scam was revealed and he paid big time. His porn star payment was revealed and I believe it’s in the courts about illegal use of funds. McGahn’s testimony regarding obstruction is in court now and will be decided this summer I believe.

    But it makes no difference to the fans. But only the fans, which is why his approval ratings haven’t budged much since he took office. Except downward when he shut down the government.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Disproved? Not so much.”

      The examples I gave substantiate the assertion: The election night result, the recount result, the prediction of faithless electors, the emoluments court cases, the special prosecutor’s findings on Russian collusion, and now the House Manager’s impeachment case.

      Since I didn’t say every allegation against Trump has been disproved, it makes little sense for you to dispute the idea. But I can see how picking at irrelvant nits can help paint a false portrait of the president. I find that objectionable, even dishonest.

      Like

      1. Mueller did not exonerate Trump on obstruction. Barr did after the fact.

        Mueller did not exonerate Trump on collusion. He was exonerated on a conspiracy with the Russians, but that he gladly pursued and accepted Russian interference as it came along.

        Of course there was a recount. 77,000 votes out of millions is too close to ignore. You don’t think Trump would demand a recount.

        Actually he did by setting up the commission to verify the popular vote. And he did this after he was president. So he could feel better. Losing the popular vote by almost 3 million sits in his craw to this day.

        I am not sure of the status of all the emoluments cases, but we do know that foreign callers will book into the Trump Hotels because he watches that kind of stuff and they are taking no chances. Tit for tat.

        So I find your assertions pretty much bogus and objectionable. But not dishonest because I think you truly believe what you write.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s