I'm not sure how that logic works.
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."
Bilious bullshit.
Trump's "lawyers" won't offer any sort of defense.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
They will distract, deflect, distort and dissemble.
They'll engage in whataboutism and name-calling.
They'll call the trial "unconstitutional," even though the Senate decided it wasn't.
They won't engage with the facts.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
https://t.co/IKpBkDzahB
Trump's "lawyers" have said they only need one day (tomorrow) to defend Trump.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 11, 2021
My guesses for what they'll do:
Distract, lie, distort, and deflect.
1/11
Of course, he also referred to "incitement to resurrection," so it's hard to say.
There is no "due process" consideration in either a grand jury or a House Impeachment. That's not how it works. It's like saying you can't checkmate someone in chess without holding a straight flush.
https://t.co/KyCcL1HyOK
Schoen is pretending courtroom "due process" must be followed--after meeting with some of the jurors to plan strategy last night.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
More from Law
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You May Also Like
Joshua Hawley, Missouri's Junior Senator, is an autocrat in waiting.
His arrogance and ambition prohibit any allegiance to morality or character.
Thus far, his plan to seize the presidency has fallen into place.
An explanation in photographs.
🧵
Joshua grew up in the next town over from mine, in Lexington, Missouri. A a teenager he wrote a column for the local paper, where he perfected his political condescension.
2/
By the time he reached high-school, however, he attended an elite private high-school 60 miles away in Kansas City.
This is a piece of his history he works to erase as he builds up his counterfeit image as a rural farm boy from a small town who grew up farming.
3/
After graduating from Rockhurst High School, he attended Stanford University where he wrote for the Stanford Review--a libertarian publication founded by Peter Thiel..
4/
(Full Link: https://t.co/zixs1HazLk)
Hawley's writing during his early 20s reveals that he wished for the curriculum at Stanford and other "liberal institutions" to change and to incorporate more conservative moral values.
This led him to create the "Freedom Forum."
5/
His arrogance and ambition prohibit any allegiance to morality or character.
Thus far, his plan to seize the presidency has fallen into place.
An explanation in photographs.
🧵
Joshua grew up in the next town over from mine, in Lexington, Missouri. A a teenager he wrote a column for the local paper, where he perfected his political condescension.
2/
By the time he reached high-school, however, he attended an elite private high-school 60 miles away in Kansas City.
This is a piece of his history he works to erase as he builds up his counterfeit image as a rural farm boy from a small town who grew up farming.
3/
After graduating from Rockhurst High School, he attended Stanford University where he wrote for the Stanford Review--a libertarian publication founded by Peter Thiel..
4/
(Full Link: https://t.co/zixs1HazLk)
Hawley's writing during his early 20s reveals that he wished for the curriculum at Stanford and other "liberal institutions" to change and to incorporate more conservative moral values.
This led him to create the "Freedom Forum."
5/
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party