If you followed the threads on Louise and Claude's tweets, you'd see that other ppl are confirming parts of the story 1/2
-
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
I'm not saying I buy all of it. But there are plenty of lawyers in the threads who claim to know what they're talking about. Verify it
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rebellegrrl @chrisgeidner
Like the jury instruction says, if a witness lies about one thing, you are free to assume everything he says is a lie.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ms_Liz2 @chrisgeidner
I've seen a law article posted in the threads explaining precedent for SCOTUS involvement in impeachment
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rebellegrrl @chrisgeidner
I read & skimmed the law journal article posted. It said that criminal cases involving POTUS can be appealed to SCOTUS.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ms_Liz2 @chrisgeidner
You're a lawyer. I am not. I bow to you. I am saying there is precedent. My understanding is that refers to US v Nixon.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rebellegrrl @Ms_Liz2
Which had to do with claims of executive privilege. And went through a legal proceeding.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @Ms_Liz2
You said SCOTUS didn't get involved. I gave you a law article. I know that Sarah Smith who is a lawyer had offered to explain
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I spent 8 hours disputing Sarah's points. I'm not rehashing it. Go read the 100s of tweets.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.