Blah blah blah

Thank you for the verbatim transcript.

If you're not listening to him, you don't get to claim you know about the prosecution case.

It's been the same garbage for 3 years

They already made their case with the articles of impeachment.

Didn't Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi assure us there was enough there to justify removing the president from office?

Oh wait, we have enough to convict, but we want to really convict, so:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

No. An impeachment is akin to an indictment: that's where you argue that the charges are serious enough to warrant a trial.

The trial is where you present your actual case.

Grow the hell up.

Even when he just says Blah he lies

"The trial is where you present your actual case." Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

True, but during a trial any prosecutor worth his oats presents his arguments and evidence succinctly while being respectful of both the jury's common sense and endurance. Using monotonous diatribes, cherry-picking quotes from historical figures, exaggerations, allusions to an alleged crime that has already been debunked (in this case the Russia collusion) and repetitions of all these things is neither succinct nor respectful. It is, however, a recipe for helping the defense.

See, again, one more time for the people at the back: the Mueller report explicitly did not debunk the charges of Russian collusion.

How convenient! No proof but here's muh opinion!

Antithesis: Moronic far left extraordinaire.

Yeah, no real argument than "we hate Trump." You need to grow the f**k up you communist piece of shit.