- Joined
- Jul 16, 2015
- Messages
- 16,665
- Reaction score
- 5,528
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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...
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.
A criminal lawyer for an unconstitutional President. How apt.
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
A criminal lawyer for an unconstitutional President. How apt.
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.
Not even close.
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.
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 exact wording but definitely the proper meaning of his statements. I am doing this from memory:
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.
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.
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.
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.
What Alexander Hamilton, Founders Said About Impeachment : NPR"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.'"
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.
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.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.
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.
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...
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.
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 bet.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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?