Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?

They are happy to lie about what occurred during the House inquiry, pretend "absolute immunity" is a thing, impugn the reputations of the House managers, but are not interested in disputing the facts about what happened. The testimony, timeline, and documentation included in the House manager's presentations of the admin's scheme are not being refuted. Why?

Because the logical next step to take if any of the facts are in doubt is to present more corroborating evidence. Like the myriad of documents the Dems requested be subpoenaed the Repubs don't want to see.........so they voted down amendments to allow those documents. Or the witnesses Dems want to have testify that Repubs don't want to hear from..........so they voted down amendments to allow those witnesses.

What kind of trial is conducted when available evidence to further clarify the fact pattern is rebuffed by those who appear ready to proclaim fidelity to a cult leader while turning their backs on the truth? The kind of trials conducted in third world countries. The kind where fear of who is in charge supersedes loyalty to the country and the rule of law.

 

Shady congressional hearing gets answered with a shady senate trial.
Can't have their cake and eat it too!
Karma sucks huh?

 

Yes, I've heard that false equivalence made endlessly. It doesn't get any more true because you repeat it.
The House inquiry allowed for the opposition to question witnesses during depositions, used the opposing party's rules for the inquiry, invited the defendant's legal team to participate in the proceeding, allowed for PERTINENT witnesses (pertinent as in with knowledge of the scheme Trump is being accused of) to be called by the opposition, and the prosecution published transcripts of closed door testimony.

 

Yes, it was so fair with their closed door dress rehearsal witness sessions. What a joke!

 

No one cares about facts. Supporters of the President don't care what happened as long as he stays; supporters of impeachment don't care as long as he goes. Sad.

 

Lie? After believing Schiff's nonsensical lies about almost everything to do with Trump, and your counterfactual narrative expressed here on numerous occasions regarding DJ Trump, you'd have a hell of time convincing myself and others that you have any idea at all where the truth does lie.

 

That comment ignores that the Dems view of impeachment relies on facts while Trumpette's view does not.

 

Are you again trying to claim that the democrats actually have facts???? Damn, don't you ever look at the horse puckey they throw on the table and try to tell you are apples?

 

If they don't, the fact that Trump's legal team refuses to address them makes them become facts.

Not only facts, but the facts.

So they are either stupid, or they don't have anything to counter them with.

And, to be honest, I don't think Sekulow is stupid.

 

That is an incredibly stupid statement.

 

AND that's a fact....

 

"Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?"

they can't

 

not true at all, we know the republicans in the Senate won't remove him no mater what, but we STILL want that facts out there, we want to hear from witnesses and see the docs

we already know Trump did this, but think all the facts should be out there

 

Trump would let his administration speak and the docs be released if he was innocent, heck even if he thought they would lie for him he would let them speak

 

Bad assumptions aren't proof of anything either.

 

Schiff and Nadler said they had a rock solid case that led to the impeachment in the House. They didn't say they needed more evidence. The Senate isn't where they should be looking for crimes. It's where the rock solid evidence is laid on the table for a vote by the jury. Schiff said he has rock solid evidence of Russian Collusion. Where is it? It's been 2 years.

 

You're right, that is why we should hear from these witnesses and see the docs

 

If the accusations don't amount high crimes or misdemeanors, we don't need witnesses. We need the case to be dismissed. The Senate holds the trial. Not a fishing expedition.

 

I don't either, though he clearly is locked in to the alternate reality of Trumpworld.

 

How many witnesses were Republicans allowed to call in the basement? Was Trump allowed Representation? I don't know where you get your civics, but where I come from fair trials are afforded to defendants, not witch hunters who want to convict the defendant of something, anything.

 

We, the folks who are not brainwashed, must focus on the simplicity of the calculus here. The facts are against Trump. More, corroborative facts not yet entered in to evidence make it even worse for him and for Senate Repubs. Full stop.

 

The left is asking Trump to prove his innocence, you all know that's not how it works. Trump not wanting to prove his innocence is now obstruction? Get out of here.

 

Besides the excellent arguments you made, it is extremely hazardous to argue with the truth. That is the problem facing Trump's lawyers.

That and a guilty client.

 

Tell me where you got that. You just made it up. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Trump not willing to provide witnesses with direct knowledge of his actions is consciousness of guilt.

 

In the good ol USA; where are you?; You do not have to prove your innocence, That burden falls on the prosecution.