The joke begins

[Got Stripers]

What a shock you would post it. What I hear so far is evidence vs rhetoric, how about producing documents and witnesses to make the case for the defense, no need to answer we all know why that is the GOPs biggest fear, it’s why Moscow Mitch wanted it done in two days and in the middle of the night.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

What a shock you would post it. What I hear so far is evidence vs rhetoric, how about producing documents and witnesses to make the case for the defense, no need to answer we all know why that is the GOPs biggest fear, it’s why Moscow Mitch wanted it done in two days and in the middle of the night.

They can’t because there is no defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

They can’t because there is no defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Levin laid out precisely the constitutional defense against the bogus unconstitutional charges of "obstruction of Congress" and "abuse of power".

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

What a shock you would post it. What I hear so far is evidence vs rhetoric, how about producing documents and witnesses to make the case for the defense, no need to answer we all know why that is the GOPs biggest fear, it’s why Moscow Mitch wanted it done in two days and in the middle of the night.

That's it? That's what you heard in the video? Levin laid out fact after fact after fact after fact after fact and then some more and more. And all you heard was evidence vs rhetoric (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Being as how you claim to come to an opinion by witnessing to the facts, I assume your not being biased here.

So if what you claim to have heard here is not a result of bias, then I can only assume that you're a dunce.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's it? That's what you heard in the video? Levin laid out fact after fact after fact after fact after fact and then some more and more. And all you heard was evidence vs rhetoric (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Being as how you claim to come to an opinion by witnessing to the facts, I assume your not being biased here.

So if what you claim to have heard here is not a result of bias, then I can only assume that you're a dunce.

I watched two seconds and it’s no different than all the rhetoric from the defense attorneys, the evidence is clear, the rhetoric and attempt to blur the wrong.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I watched two seconds and it’s no different than all the rhetoric from the defense attorneys, the evidence is clear, the rhetoric and attempt to blur the wrong.

Saying you watched two seconds is essentially saying you didn't watch it. So you're pontificating out of ignorance.

Levin made it clear that the impeachment rhetoric is unconstitutional. The impeachment charges do not claim any actual crimes, let alone "high" ones, nor any high misdemeanors rising to the level of treason or bribery. The reason the House majority did not charge Trump with those high constitutional crimes is because they knew the evidence, which you claim to be clear, did not support such accusations. So they concocted vague but criminally sounding rhetorical accusations which, if allowed to stand, would fundamentally create a dangerous precedent that would rewrite, AMEND, the Constitution without having to go through the rigors of constitutionally doing so.