Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump counsel just said t...»Reply #17