The “140 scholars” are the ones who should be brought before the bar for discipline. The wrote an extortion letter to a group of attorneys in an attempt to prevent a person from having legal representation. Seems like there are at least very serious violations of law made by these ‘scholars”.
In conferences, this is called “talking past your point”. Nothing is added to the discussion, you are only setting yourself up for confrontation and refutation.
Any wise prosecutor already knows this. And if they have a lick of sense, any defense lawyer knows the same thing.
I was watching Newsmax, with Bob Sellers and Mark Halperin talking with others about how the impeachment vote will go.
They and others were just talking about what a great case the Repubs put on, then all of a sudden they switch to how the vote should go politically; what the repubs should do to get suburban voters, what Mc Connell will do, etc.
Not one mention of Trump’s guilt or innocence!
Who cares about future votes? Trump needs a fair vote NOW!
Everytime someone dredges up “140 scholars”, “50 former intelligence officials” or “250 ex prosecutors” to give gravitas to some absurd narrative, it is reminiscent of the “100 prominent German physicists” who signed a letter disparaging Albert Einsteins theories in the 1920’s.
I don’t know why Dershowitz wasn’t on the defense team this time.
Dude, where are all the hippie civil libertarians I grew up with? SMH
Truth be told, what the democrat sham-peachment managers did with their presentation, could have been done in one hour or less. They wanted to create the perception that there was a lot of evidence against Trump, while the reality was that there was none. Zero, Zilch, Nada. Lots of words full of emptiness.
Everything they did was very repetitive, and when one manager was done, the next came in to repeat the same rant. In fact, the whole thing was idiotic, and the American people were made to endure another episode of Trump Derangement Syndrome by the democrats.
Poor things.
This whole impeachment is 'legally frivolous'...just like their first impeachment. There is no evidence to support a charge of 'inciting an insurrection'. The First Amendment defense is unnecessary. Whether it is 'frivolous' or not is irrelevant.
One cannot 'incite' an activity which had been previously planned.
Further, 'incite' means to whip-up or spur-on others to participate in something. What is 'frivolous' is to maintain that anything President Trump said in that speech was inciting others to engage in 'insurrection'.
~George Orwell
I like Dershowitz
Sp?
He’s smart and fair minded.
That is so wrong.
It's 1,400,000 consitutional scholars.