Posted on 01/28/2020 2:22:46 PM PST by Red Badger
Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character.
“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”
Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”
Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.”
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
What would the DEMs deliver as a verdict if the trial was flawed? If there aren’t witnesses, if the trial is a sham, what is their verdict?
Asking for a friend.
They are indeed.
Even the most brain damaged democrats know Trump will be acquitted.
So the Dems should cut their losses here and head on into Impeachment II.
the technical term is “atonement”
Difi voted to acquit as atonement for her Kavanaugh sins
Is she truly fit serve? Either she knowingly used a Chinese spy to commit treason and enrich herself or she was too stupid to realize she was being used by a spy. Remove her and investigate.
Sounds like she wants to sound impartial before the next attempted bombshell makes her “reluctantly” change her mind.
California demcorats: “Hey Diane, that’s not the communist way. So get with the program or lose your seat.”
She must have slept through Dershowitz's whole presentation. She obviously missed his entire point.
Which has precisely NOTHING at all to do with the purely bogus sham impeachment charges. Why was that tossed in there? She could have at least written...
...despite serious concerns about the color of his hair
Or...
...despite serious concerns about the number of ice cream scoops he takes
Or even...
...despite serious concerns about the size of his salt and pepper shakers
She’s too old to be woke.
Yep, just making it up as they go along - and of course the media heartily supports their fabrications.
I’ve been saying more than one Dem will step up when they start with the witness vote. The Dems do NOT really want witnesses. This is all pre-planned.
And that’s what the voters decide on.
She will NEVER vote to acquit.
She’s already backtracking on Twitter..
The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I’d keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.
She’s since updated and says Orange Man Bad, Impeach! (ok she used different words but that is the sentiment.)
She obviously only listened to her masters, not the presentations.
Already been debunked.
There was no mind numbing boojit to water it down or cloud it over.
BTW .... has anyone seen the drunk lately ?
Nazi is missing !
Her, of all people, said “Mental fitness”.
“You may not like him” is just like “He lies all the time” or “That is debunked.”
They are like young children with their totally inane reasons. They never justify them or explain them. They just keep tossing out their vapid lines like these intending to sway the feeble-minded.
Just look at the unbelievably lame “House Managers” going up against the intellectual heavyweights on Trump’s defense team.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.