Agree or disagree

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection

Dershowitz's case: If Trump did abuse his power by establishing a quid pro quo — military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, in order to undermine Biden's presidential campaign — well, it's OK because Trump believes it is best for the United States if he, and not Biden, wins the 2020 election.

I Disagree NO POTUS HAS THAT POWER OR SHOULD

that’s a distortion that the left is clinging to, dershowitz cleared it up, and also made it clear if you watched his testimony.

he didn’t say the president can do
anything to get re elected. he said, just because something might help him get the elected, doesn’t mean he can’t do it because it’s of value to him.

Obama gave the order to kill Bin Laden. Obviously that helped him get re elected. No idiot said that obama should have refused to use the military on a dangerous
mission that would help him politically.

The crime trump is charged with us withholding aid for his personal benefit - the benefit being, improving his chances of being elected. What dershowitz said ( and he made obvious with examples of presidents from Lincoln to Obama) is that there’s nothing wrong with a president doing something which had the effect of helping him politically, especially if it provides some
public value.

Trump can’t transfer gold from fort knox to his personal vault. But he can get a trade deal with china that helps everybody, even if it means it helps him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s a distortion...

that the left is clinging to, dershowitz cleared it up, and also made it clear if you watched his testimony.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's a shocker


they only repeat what they see on msnbc from the likes of dumb lemon

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s a distortion that the left is clinging to, dershowitz cleared it up, and also made it clear if you watched his testimony.

hePosted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So his clearing it up is ok with you but when H. Clinton said the deplorable comment and said sorry, you still use it 6 years later?

So confusing.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So his clearing it up is ok with you but when H. Clinton said the deplorable comment and said sorry, you still use it 6 years later?

So confusing.

can you please try to focus?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

can you please try to focus?

Can you pls. try not to be so snarky. It really is not a good thing for an adult.

[Pete F.]

Floridaman can be impeached for what he has done and what he might do, as long as the Senate decides that he should be removed. There was intentionally no constraint put on the Senate to have to abide by anything other than their consciences and the political ramifications of their actions. It is not a court of law, it is the Senate.

Dershowitz claimed in his testimony that a president does not commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” unless he violates criminal statutes.

By this argument, no abuse of power could be impeachable unless it violated a criminal law.

He uses a revisionist view of the constitution and the founders to back himself up.

He says that Hamilton in Federalist 65 was writing about specified crimes and that it should not be expanded to include misconduct, abuse, or violation [of some public trust].

He selectively misses part of the essay, and I quote: can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security.

Hamilton said that the Senate was the place to try impeachments, that they do no involve just the normal application of laws and facts, but rather an "awful discretion" not bound by normal legal standards, that the Senators would have to bear political responsibility for.

As far as his gross interpretation of Madison on maladminstration, he apparently limited his reading.
Madison specifically argued that if senators feared that the president might abuse the pardon power, then the Senate could preemptively remove him from office in an impeachment trial: “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him [with pardons], the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
This contradicts Dershowitz's assertion that it needs to be a crime to remove the president, and in addition reflect's Madison's belief that a President could be removed preemptively.
Dershowitz hopes that the Senate and you fall for his false choice, that because Madison rejected maladministration therefore he has a high and somehow concrete standard of criminal acts. He ignores that high crimes and misdemeanors was intended to include an undefined category of crimes and miscarriages of public trust.

That is what "high crimes and misdemeanors" consist of.
It is not an invitation for senators to turn impeachment into whatever they want it to be, but a charge to senators to make hard legal and prudential judgments about abuses of power and violations of the public trust which are so grave that, even if not technically illegal, still merit constitutional impeachment and removal.

Just remember the other stupid stuff Dershowitz has pontificated on.

His possibly self serving argument that statutory rape should be lowered to 15.

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime," Dershowitz said on CNN in 1999. "If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
His explanation and notice that it only has to be "criminal like" not a crime: "So I have now thoroughly researched the issue and concluded that although a technical crime with all the elements may not be required, criminal like behavior akin to treason and bribery is required.
The emphasis is mine.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So his clearing it up is ok with you but when H. Clinton said the deplorable comment and said sorry, you still use it 6 years later?

So confusing.

no it’s not confusing. if you watch the original dershowitz testimony, no sane person would
conclude that he thinks Trump could
empty out Fort Knox and transfer the money to his campaign to help him get re elected. yet everyone on the left claimed that dershowitz was saying a president could do anything to help himself get re elected. his testimony was clear to any fair
minded person, he cited example after example, his point was that if public policy was designed to serve the public and also had the effect of helping the president politically, obviously that’s not a crime. the clarification would
not have been necessary if
not for the liars in the media.

Clinton’s remarks had only one possible context. You can’t take those remarks out of context, her intent wasn’t debatable or open to interpretation.

only confusing to the dim ( which you absolutely are not) or to those motivated by politics ( which in my opinion you are).
instead of honesty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s a distortion that the left is clinging to, dershowitz cleared it up, and also made it clear if you watched his testimony.

he didn’t say the president can do
anything to get re elected. he said, just because something might help him get the elected, doesn’t mean he can’t do it because it’s of value to him.

Obama gave the order to kill Bin Laden. Obviously that helped him get re elected. No idiot said that obama should have refused to use the military on a dangerous
mission that would help him politically.

The crime trump is charged with us withholding aid for his personal benefit - the benefit being, improving his chances of being elected. What dershowitz said ( and he made obvious with examples of presidents from Lincoln to Obama) is that there’s nothing wrong with a president doing something which had the effect of helping him politically, especially if it provides some
public value.

Trump can’t transfer gold from fort knox to his personal vault. But he can get a trade deal with china that helps everybody, even if it means it helps him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just like Trump he opens his mouth we all heard and read what he said.. but he was misrepresented, i guess you have heard the white house console says the same thing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device