[Bob Ireland]

***Is President Trump allowed representation and permitted to show evidence to defend himself or is this going to be a straight out Nazi swamp maggot show trial?***

The way that I hear it is that he has a legal team and probably their strategy is to ask the Chief justice for immediate dismissal on constitutional grounds. Of course if the CJ is not there they would have to object to the procedure and when the tyrant Dems refuse to listen, they would have to go to SCOTUS. Either way, they might end up at the Supreme Court.

You understand that there is zero evidence against Trump; as in his first impeachment - which also had no evidence - they must make their case with much speaking - and lies of course. All the evidence exonerates Trump - as it did in the first impeachment. HOWEVER, we are talking about a time now when those rules do not apply. As I said earlier, the 'rats will tell us who is guilty and who is innocent; no problemo!

[SERKIT]

Did Q ask "How do you introduce evidence"? Is the farcical peach-mint a way to expose it all (since we have it all)?

When was/is the "first arrest" that will set all trends?

[stylin19a]

>>The way that I hear it is that he has a legal team and probably their strategy is to ask the Chief justice for immediate dismissal on constitutional grounds. Of course if the CJ is not there they would have to object to the procedure and when the tyrant Dems refuse to listen, they would have to go to SCOTUS. Either way, they might end up at the Supreme Court.>>

Nice analysis. That's how I'm seeing it. It all hinges on whether Roberts sits or not. And I take it to SCOTUS as soon as I find out he's not sitting.