Alan Dershowitz on he senate floor within the last hour.

[Hypothetical]

not exact wording but definitely the proper meaning of his statements. I am doing this from memory:

the founders , it seems have clearly stated that an impeachable offense must constitute a crime.

quid pro quo is not a crime, it is a diplomatic tool used by presidents for hundreds of years.

let me speak plainly, even if what is written in Bolton's manuscript DID occur, it does NOT reach the level of an impeachable offense.

how would any of you like to be held the standard of "we must understand the real reason that the president THOUGHT this was done..." etc...

 

[Slavister]

If this argument held any water, President would be free to offer Russians lifting of all sanctions (or simply refusing to implement them) in exchange for their 2020 election interference...

Oh wait, that's where we are heading anyway.

 

[Manc Skipper]

A criminal lawyer for an unconstitutional President. How apt.

 

[Hypothetical]

If this argument held any water, President would be free to offer Russians lifting of all sanctions (or simply refusing to implement them) in exchange for their 2020 election interference...

Oh wait, that's where we are heading anyway.

if he has the power to do that, he very well could do so, if he thought it a wise move. as far as I understand it, the President does set foreign policy.

if he did though he would face the consequences at the voting poll , as the founders intended.

but he would not do that.

 

[Hypothetical]

A criminal lawyer for an unconstitutional President. How apt.

best of both:

Alan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer and academic. He is a scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law. He has also been described as a noted civil libertarian. He began his teaching career at Harvard Law School where, in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history

 

[Condor060]

A criminal lawyer for an unconstitutional President. How apt.

He's a constitutional scholar so theres that. Not a criminal attorney. You should get out more.

 

[Slavister]

if he has the power to do that, he very well could do so, if he thought it a wise move. as far as I understand it, the President does set foreign policy.

if he did though he would face the consequences at the voting poll , as the founders intended.

but he would not do that.

He would not face any consequences because Russians would just hack the vote counts. OR they would interfere in other ways and noone would know what they did until AFTER the election (if ever) when it's too late anyway.

Not even close.

I see, so you have no counter argument but felt like you needed to say something anyway.

 

[Condor060]

If this argument held any water, President would be free to offer Russians lifting of all sanctions (or simply refusing to implement them) in exchange for their 2020 election interference...

Oh wait, that's where we are heading anyway.

Not even close.

 

[Chomsky]

not exact wording but definitely the proper meaning of his statements. I am doing this from memory:

After a solid hour of watching this morning, I gave up. The GOP never seemed to get to a point or any details of Trump's actions. Everything was conceptual, with nothing directly disputing Trump's actions.

 

[Hypothetical]

He would not face any consequences because Russians would just hack the vote counts. OR they would interfere in other ways and noone would know what they did until AFTER the election (if ever) when it's too late anyway.

all hearsay. where the hell was it ever reported they "hacked the vote counts?" did You read that somewhere or are you inferring something into their mostly useless attempt to run ads and **** to interfere?

 

[Hypothetical]

After a solid hour of watching this morning, I gave up. The GOP never seemed to get to a point or any details of Trump's actions. Everything was conceptual, with nothing directly disputing Trump's actions.

I've got it all recorded. I will be going back over it for days. don't worry, I'll be sure to share all the juicy nuggets here. we'll have SO MUCH FUN Chomsky!

after all I want to present good solid reasoning when I have to rebut the naysayers about his impending acquittal, right?

 

[MrPeanut]

I'll never forget when Epstein was finally arrested and Dersh had a Twitter meltdown where he tried to make an argument about age of consent. It's almost impossible for me to take the guy seriously at this point.

 

[GDViking]

After a solid hour of watching this morning, I gave up. The GOP never seemed to get to a point or any details of Trump's actions. Everything was conceptual, with nothing directly disputing Trump's actions.

Not including naps I watched it all, and I waited a d waited for a defense to be presented, and it never happened.

I heard a lot of completely debunked lies, and a whole lot of deflection but nothing to dispute the actual articles...

 

[Slavister]

all hearsay. where the hell was it ever reported they "hacked the vote counts?" did You read that somewhere or are you inferring something into their mostly useless attempt to run ads and **** to interfere?

I did not say they did it in 2016, although it would not be surprising to anyone if they did.

What I said on this thread, if you can read, is that he could ask them to do so in 2020 in exchange for no sanctions for example.

According to your OP, there would be nothing impeachable there.

 

[Hypothetical]

I did not say they did it in 2016, although it would not be surprising to anyone if they did.

What I said on this thread, if you can read, is that he could ask them to do so in 2020 in exchange for no sanctions for example.

According to your OP, there would be nothing impeachable there.

is tampering with an election a crime? then yes that could be impeachable. obviously it was with Nixon.

the problem they have now is that there is nothing definitively proving Trump wanted Ukraine investigated in order to criminally further his election bid, and quite a bit pointing against that being the case.

 

[ecofarm]

"When a man unprincipled in private life[,] desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper . . . despotic in his ordinary demeanour — known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty — when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day — It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'"

What Alexander Hamilton, Founders Said About Impeachment : NPR

(Got the link from an OP earlier today)

 

[vesper]

After a solid hour of watching this morning, I gave up. The GOP never seemed to get to a point or any details of Trump's actions. Everything was conceptual, with nothing directly disputing Trump's actions.

You watched one hour? What a sacrifice on your part. :mrgreen:

You missed a fantastic presentation and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that tonight some Democratic Senators left the chamber with a lot to think about. I thought all the presenters did a fantastic job. Lots of focus on the history of impeachment. The team was able to dissect the House managers two impeachment articles to be unconstitutional. It ended with Dershowitz who was on his A game and in his presentation he took every person in the chamber back to law school. He and Starr both did a great job on history and true intent of the Founders. Oh well your loss.

 

[Chomsky]

You watched one hour? What a sacrifice on your part. :mrgreen:

You missed a fantastic presentation and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that tonight some Democratic Senators left the chamber with a lot to think about. I thought all the presenters did a fantastic job. Lots of focus on the history of impeachment. The team was able to dissect the House managers two impeachment articles to be unconstitutional. It ended with Dershowitz who was on his A game and in his presentation he took every person in the chamber back to law school. He and Starr both did a great job on history and true intent of the Founders. Oh well your loss.

Actually, I wish I did catch Dershowitz. We've grown apart on political & legal differences the last few years, but I used to really enjoy his legal shows.

 

[GDViking]

You watched one hour? What a sacrifice on your part. :mrgreen:

You missed a fantastic presentation and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that tonight some Democratic Senators left the chamber with a lot to think about. I thought all the presenters did a fantastic job. Lots of focus on the history of impeachment. The team was able to dissect the House managers two impeachment articles to be unconstitutional. It ended with Dershowitz who was on his A game and in his presentation he took every person in the chamber back to law school. He and Starr both did a great job on history and true intent of the Founders. Oh well your loss.

Really that was your take?

They did not even try to defend trump and instead very weakly attacked the process.

They totally ignored the precedent this would set for a president to never have to declare executive privilege, all subpoenas would just automatically go to court.

That puts the power of subpoena in the hands of the courts.

That is what the founders did not want as they are not elected officials and do not represent the people.

That is why the supreme Court justice overseas impeachments.

All three bodies are represented...

 

[Chomsky]

Not including naps I watched it all, and I waited a d waited for a defense to be presented, and it never happened.

I heard a lot of completely debunked lies, and a whole lot of deflection but nothing to dispute the actual articles...

All I saw in my segment, and it was probably more like an hour & a half, was Constitutional theory and history. It didn't seem like they had anything concrete to offer.

 

[GDViking]

Actually, I wish I did catch Dershowitz. We've grown apart on political & legal differences the last few years, but I used to really enjoy his legal shows.

I'll agree it was a good show, a lot like watching a clown juggling superballs, however being well spoken as he did it...

 

[vesper]

Actually, I wish I did catch Dershowitz. We've grown apart on political & legal differences the last few years, but I used to really enjoy his legal shows.

I wouldn't call it a "show". In fact I believe his argument was a stellar argument in the sense of a true Classical Liberal in his views of the Constitution. And I think it caused senators especially Democrats to pause and discern on how far they have strayed.

 

[Chomsky]

I've got it all recorded. I will be going back over it for days. don't worry, I'll be sure to share all the juicy nuggets here. we'll have SO MUCH FUN Chomsky!

after all I want ito present good solid reasoning when I have to rebut the naysayers about his impending acquittal, right?

I bet.

 

[GDViking]

All I saw in my segment, and it was probably more like an hour & a half, was Constitutional theory and history. It didn't seem like they had anything concrete to offer.

Complete distraction and deflection.

They spent almost two hours on the Bidens.

At one point they ran out of material a d went into a trump commercial talking about unemployment, 401 ks, etc...

 

[Robertinfremont]

If this argument held any water, President would be free to offer Russians lifting of all sanctions (or simply refusing to implement them) in exchange for their 2020 election interference...

Oh wait, that's where we are heading anyway.

First, it was Obama (per Derschowitz) who made a deal like that with Russia. Was he impeached? Would you believe he should be impeached?