General Discussion

Nevilledog

(55,205 posts)

10. And here's what we got

Sat Feb 13, 2021, 04:05 PM

Feb 2021

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
Trump’s counsel has now twice suggested that @GOPLeader McCarthy has denied @HerreraBeutler’s description of what McCarthy told her about his call with Trump on 1/6. McCarthy has said nothing publicly to disagree with what she has said about the conversation. Nothing.
1:00 PM · Feb 13, 2021

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump counsel just said they did not stipulate to the truthfulness of @HerreraBeutler's statement. [View all] Nevilledog Feb 2021 OP

He Didn't Stipulate to Truthfulness-He Stipulated to the Admission of the Evidence Stallion Feb 2021 #1

it's practically double hearsay bigtree Feb 2021 #3

Its Not Double Hearsay Because it was Admitted without Objection Stallion Feb 2021 #11

So we got nothing. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #4

Oh! MelissaB Feb 2021 #8

Yup. I'm aggravated at the gaslighting. We got nothing. Schumer needs to go Arazi Feb 2021 #17

What did you want to GET? brooklynite Feb 2021 #22

I wanted more witnesses than that. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #25

What would the witnesses have producedm StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #35

We'll never know. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #38

So we should just keep putting on witnesses in case someone said something useful? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #39

No. We take a breath and interview people during the recess next week. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #40

And then what? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #42

I never implied this was the "end all and be all, the final chapter and only possible opportunity" Nevilledog Feb 2021 #44

We got plenty StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #28

I want to see the exact wording of the stipulation. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #29

You surely know that if a party stipulates to the admission of evidence without objecting to its StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #34

This isn't a criminal trial. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #41

Of course it's not a criminal trial StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #43

. bigtree Feb 2021 #2

OK, I'm watching Mossfern Feb 2021 #5

They don't need a defense Bettie Feb 2021 #19

Then let the defense rest and save us Mossfern Feb 2021 #21

He did! Mossfern Feb 2021 #24

Trump's attorneys could have stood there Mr.Bill Feb 2021 #23

Trump's attorneys could have simply walked out of the room Bettie Feb 2021 #30

I'm surprised they even bothered to present a defense. n/t Mr.Bill Feb 2021 #31

To be fair, it wasn't so much a defense Bettie Feb 2021 #32

I know. Mr.Bill Feb 2021 #33

We got nothing. n/t servermsh Feb 2021 #6

But "Kevin" himself talked about it after it happened FM123 Feb 2021 #7

And here's what we got Nevilledog Feb 2021 #10

Defense Counsel Has failed to Present this alleged Contradictory Evidence Stallion Feb 2021 #15

Right. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #18

They agreed that her statement would be considered as "under oath". That statement has not been Atticus Feb 2021 #9

They're saying McCarthy disavowed her statement Nevilledog Feb 2021 #12

Shocker! THEY ARE LYING! nt Atticus Feb 2021 #14

I'm sure the media will clear that up for people. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #16

-:) DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2021 #20

If only she had testified, McCarthy would not have been able to disavow what she said StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #36

And would have squirmed and looked guilty. Nevilledog Feb 2021 #37

Whatever happened to "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? rickyhall Feb 2021 #13

It's important to remember that when you're dealing with ratfuckers you get ratfucked. abqtommy Feb 2021 #26

Well, they shouldn't have agreed to its admission without objection, caveat or conditions StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #27