I'm surprised Trump isn't defending himself. After all, I'm sure he knows more about the law than any lawyer. He's had lawyers say to him, "Sir, how do you know so much about the law?" Perhaps it's because he's been involved in so many lawsuits like the world has never seen before and he's never lost (because he always settles before he can lose or just wears the suing party down by running out the clock or outspending them).
I was listening to much of the same thing, and when the statement "He's the kind of person that if he was in the president's ear for the past couple of years, we probably wouldn't have ended up in this place," occurred, I also laughed at the sheer idiocy of the remark, as if T**** did not have a record of firing people who told him anything he did not want to hear.
CNN reports Steve Bannon is urging Donnie to take the stand in his won defense. Problem is if he does not he is open to cross examnation the House Managers.
Now a story circulating around says that when a reporter asked why they were quitting , one of the five attroneys replied "Rex Tillision was right". referring to the ex secratary of state calling Trumpan idiota moron.
Ouch if true.
There would be the potential for a certain poetic justice....Of course Bannon wants to make Trump into a martyr - it can only help him and his crusade for Global White Supremacy.
One can applaud them up to a point for finally figuring it out, bit I'd have to question why it took them so long.Now a story circulating around says that when a reporter asked why they were quitting , one of the five attroneys replied "Rex Tillision was right". referring to the ex secratary of state calling Trump an idiot.
Ouch if true.
Now a story circulating around says that when a reporter asked why they were quitting , one of the five attroneys replied "Rex Tillision was right". referring to the ex secratary of state calling Trump an idiot.
That's Trump's intent, I'm sure (as well as having his fraud fantasies "proven"), but the moron doesn't realise that arguing justification admits the offence.I wonder if some of their fellow lawyers informed them about Trump's habit of not paying his lawyers.
Though of course ther might be other reasons.
I have to agree that they wanted to the take the course most lawyers would take...and that is argue that Trump's speech was not an incitement to riot. You can make a argument over the semantic points there. But they would not want to atgue that the election was stolen.
I have a sick feeling Trump mighh argue the insurrection was somehow justified.
Just get him to say out loud on the stand that "The Capitol invasion was a BLM / Antifa false flag operation designed to make me look stupid!" and he is toast. That is admitting it happened at his behest, even if it truly was a false flag riot (which it is easy to show it was not with all the arrests of the rioters saying they supported and were encouraged by T****).That's Trump's intent, I'm sure (as well as having his fraud fantasies "proven"), but the moron doesn't realise that arguing justification admits the offence.
“Trump doesn’t really want a lawyer, he wants someone to play a lawyer on TV.” - @shearm on @CNN just now.
“Trump doesn’t really want a lawyer, he wants someone to play a lawyer on TV.” - @shearm on @CNN just now.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but I think the allegation was that Tillerson called him a moron, not an idiot.
he can always get jim Jordan’s bitch ass up there
“Trump doesn’t really want a lawyer, he wants someone to play a lawyer on TV.” - @shearm on @CNN just now.
Well, English is not my first language. Is there any significant difference between 'idiot' and 'moron'?
Hans
Well, English is not my first language. Is there any significant difference between 'idiot' and 'moron'?