Trump just admitted that his conversation with McCarthy took place just as Herrera Butler described

This wrangling is fishy as hell.

This was very well-played.

They got Trump to admit he had the conversation with McCarthy and managed to do it without dragging out the proceedings.

Tuberville had a conversation with djt too. About Pence.

I do not agree that it was well played.

What do you think would be gained by having him testify? It was a four-minute conversation that he's fully detailed.

The defense called all of that RUMORS.

He hasn't given a statement. And he won't. If they want him to testify, they'll have to subpoena him, then depose him and maybe in a couple of weeks, take his testimony. And even then, we have no idea what he'll say. And, of course, if he is forced to testify, the defense attorneys may also call witnesses.

All that to try to get Tuberville to admit under oath that he told Donald Trump something that everyone already knows Trump knew at the time, that he is already known to have said publicly, and that won't make a dime's worth of difference in the outcome of this trial.

Not worth the time and effort.

Maybe it was better played than at first blush.
I remain skeptical but watching.

https://democraticunderground.com/10142694882

Trump's attorney didn't dispute that the call happened -- he called it hearsay (not rumors), but that's ridiculous.

Tuberville spoke with the president directly. That's the opposite of hearsay.

sometimes I really hate this place. Maybe it's the weekend? Too many people are way too arrogant in their belief that they know what they can't possibly know. They typical derision of Democrats is fully on display as well.

Can you tell me where I can read about it?

That won't stop the DU brain trust from insisting that they know better than everyone.

starfishsaver knows better than everyone else.
You get that right?


We can disagree and talk about this. I am absolutely not saying I know better than anyone else. But I can participate and disagree and tell you that you are saying starfishsaver knows best.

how every step of a process like this should go, and that includes House and Senate leadership, Democratic lawyers and Constitutional scholars, the president and his staff, and pretty much every other Democrat alive.

To some, nothing is ever right and every decision is always wrong. Every decision is a disaster and every minor development is an earthquake of epic proportions. One would think a portal to hell just opened.

I'm not talking about everyone, but there are plenty of them around. Always has been, spanning the entire 20 years I've been here.

You agreed with that.

You also know more according to this answer you are giving.

its in the records for posterity and we avoid a circus with the gop calling irrelevant witnesses and diluting the impact of the point the managers were trying to make.

otherwise, it would be an improper line of argument

as FYI...

attorneys want to get evidence into the record so they can make arguments concerning the importance of such evidence in closing arguments

its like putting a jigsaw puzzle together so you can see the full picture at the end

and they are now objecting to it... after the fact.

they agreed that the congresswoman would say under oath that it had not the same thing.

and they would not object to her previous statements being put into the record. In essence, they admitted that she's telling the truth.

I've edited my OP to clarify that point. Thanks.

by the jury (ie Senate) to reach a conclusion of fact. Since the jury always is the final arbiter of the credibility of a witness such UNCONTRADICTED evidence should establish the fact as a matter of law if the jury finds such testimony credible. Its not an admission though because the jury could still find the witness uncredible and therefore reject the evidence

This isn't a courtroom trial. But in a trial, even if he came out and admitted it in so many words, a jury could find her not to be credible.

And in future proceedings, his allowing that to be admitted into evidence without objection can also be treated as an admission.

Still, he'll be acquitted but it give credence to any future vote to permanently disqualify him, which only needs a majority of votes.