Fox News Live: Trump defense to present arguments in Senate impeachment trial Day 5

This entry was posted in 2016 Presidential Race, 2020 Presidential Race, Current Events, Government, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Fox News Live: Trump defense to present arguments in Senate impeachment trial Day 5

  1. lovely says:

    POTUS lead attorney Cipollone is really really good, he appears to be going off script, I don’t think that he is, this is awesome arguing.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. lovely says:

    Mike Purpura co counsel pilloried the lying Adam Schiff.

    Then presented 6 key facts against the merits of the democrats charade.

    1 The transcript shows that President Trump did not condition security assistance or funds to anything.

    2 President Zelenskyy said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure.

    3 President Zelenskyy did not know security assistance was paused.

    4 ????

    5 Ukraine announced no investigations and still received security assistance and a presidential meeting.

    6 President Trump strengthened U.S. support for Ukraine

    At all times POTUS was acting in our national interests.


    Emerging argument is that this is a meritless, unconstitutional and malicious prosecution.

    That’s where we are going.



    • jeans2nd says:

      lovely, what i am hearing is an overall strategy of exposing all the bad cops, bad attorneys, and bad actors breaking the rules (and the law?), plus leaving out of exculpatory evidence, a big no-no, all in an effort to take out Pres Trump since the very beginning.

      Shades of Sidney Powell and Gen Flynn

      Liked by 1 person

      • lovely says:


        Emerging argument is that this is a meritless, unconstitutional and malicious prosecution. = an overall strategy of exposing all the bad cops, bad attorneys, and bad actors breaking the rules (and the law?), plus leaving out of exculpatory evidence, a big no-no, all in an effort to take out Pres Trump since the very beginning.

        Malicious prosecution – the wrongful institution of criminal proceedings against someone without reasonable grounds.

        I just said it a lot drier than you.

        Cipollone was the star today.


        • jeans2nd says:

          Succinct is polite. Brevity is the soul of wit.

          Cippilone was best in the law, imo, but Purpurone was my fav for delivery.
          Very inflective voice, modulated at the right times. Bet he is great reading his kids stories at bedtime.

          Felt like Team Trump had scoured the blogs and twitter threads.
          Did you hear anything new? Not me, but was great hearing all the Deplorables’ work read aloud.

          Liked by 2 people

          • lovely says:

            Nothing new, just the evidence presented meticulously and embarrassingly if the democrats could feel embarrassment which of course they cannot.

            I felt the same about Purpura – perfect attorney for juries and public consumption.

            And Sekulow is fantastic on the MSM circuit but he was a bit shaky today before the Senate. I think he enjoys the back and forth of a fight.

            Philibin is, in spite of his age, the old man on the team yelling at the kids to get off his lawn. Not a bad old man because it’s the same kids trampling his wife’s prized daffodils but the “Are you kidding me” team member.

            Cipollone was tempered perfectly in my opinion. The case is already done and won.

            I can’t wait to see Dersh, though I’ll probably be at work for the live presentation.

            They each have their area of purpose.

            And as much as I’d like to see a dismissal I believe that an acquittal is the most prudent way to go, then they can’t drag this same garbage out again. (Not that they won’t find more false accessions and diversionary trash to throw at President Trump and patriots).

            After all the Coup Crew is fighting for their own necks.

            If that fu**ing bastard wins we’ll all hang from nooses.” __H. Clinton


            • rumpole2 says:

              I was disappointed in Sekulow as I watched live… only because I know he can do a lot better than that. He was still OK… I got the points he was making… but I am not sure he would get a hit with somebody already anti?
              I thought the team as a whole certainly scored.. and demolished the Dim case already. I even wondered if many Dim Senators would vote to acquit? However I got a reality check when I saw Schiff and Naddler do a presser after today’s hearing. They remain willfully corrupt and deceitful.. and Schumer and a couple of Dim Senators remain delusional… Still claim they just need Witnesses and documents?

              Liked by 1 person

              • lovely says:

                The Democrats want witnesses for two reasons, 1) to showboat and keep their pie holes yapping and 2) process crimes, which is their go to “Indict Indict!!” chorus…..

                Not a single Rat is there to hear the truth they are there to save their own butts.

                Schumer and Schiff are both evil corrupt human garbage.

                Sekulow wasn’t on top of his game but I’ve only seen him in interviews and pressers so this is his presentation style. The team is made up of folks that all bring specifics to the table, Sekulow is very likable, almost affable as the slightly bubbly one. I agree that he could have presented better but I ain’t his market.

                Fickin’ cold and snowy here by the way!!


      • lovely says:

        PS I love Sidney. She looks like she would snap each and every one of their necks if she could.


  3. jeans2nd says:

    Kinda disappointed in Sekulow as well. He can do better.

    Would rather see Professor Richard Epstein than Dersh, but Epstein wouldn’t do it.
    Prof Epstein debated this shampeachment with Prof John Yoo, then Prof Epstein argued both sides and won each side lol.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. stella says:

    Liked by 1 person

  5. auscitizenmom says:

    I actually listened with interested today. I was aware of most of the facts up until Philbin. I found his most interesting because I didn’t realize a lot of what he talked about. I think it was very smart to do it this way to make sure people got the opportunity to hear all the rebuttal The other important detail that I had missed was that they were trying to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. rumpole2 says:

    I am listening to a replay of Trump Team….
    One point stressed is that Ukraine did not KNOW about a pause in aid at time of Phone call. Evidence is that Ukraine became aware only after a Politico article… August 28th.
    That is good evidence that there was no “quid pro quo”.
    In addition… I wonder WHO leaked the info to Politico? Was that part of the plot.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. rumpole2 says:

    Replaying Patrick Philbin talking about “Whistleblower”. OFFICIALLY the Trump legal team know nothing about whistleblower, specifically what Atkinson testimony revealed in the House Bunker, because Schiff is hiding that transcript. However… at least some on Trump legal side were in the Bunker and KNOW what Atkinson said.


  8. lovely says:

    This is going to be a beautiful week.


  9. rumpole2 says:

    REMINDER….. The name is out there and there is no requirement of anonymity anyway. MSM and Some social media are just going along with Schiff’s nonsense


  10. stella says:

    In other words, Dems who don’t like Trump still don’t like him, but don’t care about the impeachment trial.

    One of Barack Obama’s top advisers as president says voters have a ‘chilling’ lack of interest in the impeachment case, which he blames on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s ‘cynical calculation’.

    David Axelrod, Mr Obama’s former chief strategist, met with a focus group of Democratic voters in Chicago on Friday in which he says impeachment “didn’t come up” until more than an hour into the discussion.

    When it did, the voters said they were “ready to move on” because the outcome of the Senate trial – in which Mr Trump’s team began his defence on Saturday – was a foregone conclusion.

    Speaking to CNN he said: “I was in a focus group this morning for the Institute for Politics here at the University of Chicago with some Chicago Democratic voters, and it was chilling to hear them talk about this.

    “Because impeachment didn’t come up, no one volunteered it, for 80 minutes into the focus group, and we’re right in the middle of the trial.

    “When it came up, they said, you know, it’s terrible what he did, the case has been proven, but we know how it’s going to turn out, so we’re not really that interested, we’re ready to move on.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. lovely says:

    Watched it a second time.

    My notes.

    Keeping it clear in my mind through the entire process that President Trump’s team is not speaking to the Senate. The Senate’s conclusion is set in stone.

    Team Trump was speaking directly to the American people. That is who this case is being tried before.

    Cipollone ;

    Cipollone states that the process in which the democrats proceeded is compelling evidence that the democrats don’t believe in the merits of their case.

    For all their talk about election interference they’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history. And we can’t allow that to happen. It would violate our constitution, it would violate our history, it would violate our obligations to the future and most importantly it would violate the sacred trust that the American people have placed in you and in them. <<<This is the heart of everything.

    The American people decide elections.

    Concise and brutal. Devastating to the false narrative.


    Tasked with debunking the quid pro quo fallacy.

    1) The call transcript shows no link between investigation and security assistance or a presidential meeting.

    2) President Zelenskeyy and high ranking Ukrainian officials repeatedly have said there was no quid pro quo, and they felt no pressure.

    3) President Zelenskeyy and high ranking Ukrainian officials did not know security assistance was paused until more than a month after the call.

    4) None the democrats’ witnesses say President Trump linked investigations to security assistance or a meeting.

    5) Ukraine announced no investigations and still received security assistance and a presidential meeting.

    6) President Trump strengthened support for the Ukraine.


    What was discussed on the infamous call?

    President Trump’s criteria for spending the American people’s money the form of foreign aid.

    1) Burden sharing

    2) Corruption

    Purpura put the willful distortion of Javelin missiles and security assistance being one and the same to rest.

    He also made the argument that there is a clear distinction between “me” and “us.” President Trump asked President Zelensky to do “us” the United States a favor.

    A favor implies you ok with getting nothing in return.

    Purpura devastated the Coup crew’s disingenuous spin on the Sondland testimony. Purpura put into evidence that Sondland used some form of “assume, guess, presume, speculate, belief,” over 30 times.

    When did Sondland not use one of the subjective qualifiers? When Sondland was forced to admit that he never once heard anyone say, including the President, that there was any quid pro quoattached to anything.

    Ambassador Volker testified that he never saw evidence that there was any quid pro quo attacjhed to anything.


    And that lowly bastard Vindman’s concerns were about policy not legality. He never would have been allowed on the witness stand in a legitimate trial.



    Re-watching I see part of why Sekulow’s argument was more halting, than the other attorneys.

    1 He argued a lot of specifics rather than generalities. Facts and figures.

    2 He argued that there was malfeasance and systematic abuses by the FBI in the FISA warrant scandal. This is tied directly to General Flynn which is a very active and intense investigation in and of itself, so he had to be extremely careful with his argument. Walking on eggshells if you will.

    3 He argued more directly and combatively that Team Schiff willfully lied than did the other attorneys.

    4 Sekulow argued longer than anyone else and did a lot of note referral and direct reading;

    Cipollone argued for 10 minutes

    Purpura about 20 minutes when you subtract the videos of supportive argument.

    Philibin about 22 minutes when you subtract the visual and audio support.

    Sekulow argued continuously for 30 minutes with no visual or audio support.

    Sekulow did a better job than I originally thought he did.

    And again Sekulow most directly singled individuals out and called them liars.

    “You can’t look at these issues in a vacuum.” __Jay Sekulow

    Gotta hat tip Sekulow for saying that the democrats, Schiff in particular, want the American public to believe that they are mind readers.



    Gets the Obstruction and Due Process argument.

    President Trump’s arguments are rooted in the law not unlawful blanket defiance.

    Partial letter of supportive evidence.

    It was the democratic committee that deviated from protocol.

    Another devastating moment when Philibin entered into evidence a letter written by Cipollone that was delivered to Pelosi on October 8th.

    If the committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past. In manner of bipartisan well established constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

    The subpoenas were invalid because neither the impeachment or the subpoenas were voted on by the Full House in a timely manner. There is precedent set by SCOTUS and Philibin cited cases to bolster his arguement. Philibin argued the law, a committee or a head of a committee can not act independently of the body.

    Compulsory process is not at the whim of a committee head. This is established law.

    President Trump, a US citizen did not receive due process. His civil liberties were violated by the legislative branch of the government.

    President Trump was denied the ability to confront witnesses against him, call his own witnesses and to have the assistance of council.

    Pelosi order the articles of impeachment to be drafted on December fifth, after one judiciary meeting, the conclusion was set, done and over with.

    The House had no plans, other than a meeting set for December 9th, (after the articles of impeachment were already being drafted) to hear from staffers who had prepared committee reports, they had no plans to have other hearings, no plans to hear from fact witnesses, no plans to do any factual investigation. So the president was given a choice to participate in a process that already had the outcome determined…..that’s not due process.”

    Philibin tied his argument back to Cipollone’s opening argument that the process in which the democrats proceeded is compelling evidence that the democrats don’t believe in the merits of their case.

    While blower should have been dismissed.

    Schiff’s nonsense on the Whistle blower is another fatal blow to the case.

    Philibin’s argument that the democratic coup is an invalid, unlawful “impeachment” process is devastating, makes me think that maybe, just maybe the Senate might just move to dismiss.

    PS I hope Nadler gets mule kicked into a crater.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.