General Discussion

Nevilledog

(54,773 posts)

16. I'm sure the media will clear that up for people.

Reply to Atticus (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 13, 2021, 03:17 PM

Feb 2021

Link to tweet

So I'm back to we got nothing for giving up the bipartisan agreement to call witnesses.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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