Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 13:36:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 14:58:53 GMT
There seems to be little hope moving forward. What's to stop him from canceling the election results?! You may have a point after reading this little blurb from MSNBC... ”Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argues in the impeachment trial that a quid pro quo that benefits the president politically is fine because all politicians believe their elections are in the public's interest, and therefore, he has no corrupt motive.” trump - Its in the public interest that I donald j trump remain president so even though so and so won the election I’m negating the results. It’s in the public interest that I’m doing it.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,177
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Jan 30, 2020 15:03:15 GMT
Alan Dershowitz has jumped the shark.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 13:36:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 15:03:25 GMT
Or to be clearer trump could...
“invalidate nullify render null and void render invalid make ineffective neutralize cancel (out) undo reverse annul void revoke rescind abrogate repeal retract countermand overrule overturn avoid”
The results of the election because it’s in the public’s interest that trump remain president.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jan 30, 2020 15:10:23 GMT
Or to be clearer trump could... “invalidate nullify render null and void render invalid make ineffective neutralize cancel (out) undo reverse annul void revoke rescind abrogate repeal retract countermand overrule overturn avoid” The results of the election because it’s in the public’s interest that trump remain president. Exactly, for as long as he lives. Because that’s how it works when you’re a dictator like his mentor Vlad.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jan 30, 2020 15:17:31 GMT
Or to be clearer trump could... “invalidate nullify render null and void render invalid make ineffective neutralize cancel (out) undo reverse annul void revoke rescind abrogate repeal retract countermand overrule overturn avoid” The results of the election because it’s in the public’s interest that trump remain president. Exactly, for as long as he lives. Because that’s how it works when you’re a dictator like his mentor Vlad.this is exactly what I was thinking. It's a play right out of Putin's playbook.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 15:20:23 GMT
OPINION piece! Presenting the ludicrous 'Dershowitz Doctrine'By Paul Begala Updated 9:11 PM ET, Wed January 29, 2020 ** Professor Dershowitz is a brilliant legal advocate. But in this instance, he is not channeling Blackstone or Harlan Stone or even The Rolling Stones. He is, like so many Trump supporters, saying the quiet part out loud. Mr. Trump, who so admires Russia's soon-to-be "Supreme Leader" Vladimir Putin, as well as other autocrats like Turkey's Erdogan, Egypt's Sisi, and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, appears to want to join them in the autocrats' club. All he seeks is dictatorial power. That's all. By now we've come to expect that. But it is truly outrageous that the Republican Party, the party of limited government, seems so compliant in Trump's quest for unlimited power.During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a citizen what kind of government our new nation was to have. "A Republic," Franklin said, "if you can keep it." Trump and his enablers now openly seek to put this President above the law, turning Franklin's admonition on its head: giving us a dictatorship, if we allow it. ** www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/opinions/begala-impeachment-trial-dershowitz-doctrine/index.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 13:36:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 15:21:53 GMT
These two tweets..
CNN...
”.@jimsciutto: “You don't want to say yes or no on whether the President, if he deems reelection in the national interest, can do anything he deems necessary to get elected?” @senjohnbarrasso: “Every President believes his or her election is in the national interest.”
Jim Sciutto...
”On this remarkable new standard of presidential power, no GOP pushback so far.”
Resulted in this response from Oliver Willis that is spot on...
”there will be no pushback. they endorse it. when a republican is president, republicans believe the presidency is unquestioned. if a democrat is president, the powers of the presidency are illegitimate in their eyes. double if he's black.”
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jan 30, 2020 15:25:58 GMT
CNN... ”.@jimsciutto: “You don't want to say yes or no on whether the President, if he deems reelection in the national interest, can do anything he deems necessary to get elected?” @senjohnbarrasso: “Every President believes his or her election is in the national interest.” Jim Sciutto... ”On this remarkable new standard of presidential power, no GOP pushback so far.” Stephanie Miller said this morning, "so, if he decides to just take out- kill / imprison, whatever- his opponents, to ENSURE he gets re-elected, then that would be cool with the Republicans?" Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, etc. Whoever he thinks is/are the biggest threat to his re-election... Because that's certainly included in 'anything he deems necessary' isn't it?!? And, of course, since he's the President he couldn't be prosecuted while he's in office for any actual CRIMES committed, either, so... I sure as hell HOPE they don't actually vote FOR this type of Presidential power.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 15:27:57 GMT
I sure as hell HOPE they don't actually vote FOR this type of Presidential power. They are so very close to doing it. Little do they care about their children and grandchildren, yours, mine or anyones'! Soory, we are at the point where they need to agree to call Hunter Biden (NO I do not want that, but we must) anything to get Bolton there!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 15:33:16 GMT
Stephanie Miller said this morning, "so, if he decides to just take out- kill / imprison, whatever- his opponents, to ENSURE he gets re-elected, then that would be cool with the Republicans?" Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, etc. Whoever he thinks is/are the biggest threat to his re-election... Because that's certainly included in 'anything he deems necessary' isn't it?!? Think about this.......... dt just pardoned Gallagher, murderer, sharp shooter, killer of children, trained Navy Seal, at dt's beck and call and the damage he can do to US!!!
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jan 30, 2020 15:35:06 GMT
Soory, we are at the point where they need to agree to call Hunter Biden (NO I do not want that, but we must) anything to get Bolton there!!!!! Sadly, I agree with you. The thing is, even though it would be a complete waste of time for Biden to testify (because truly, he had nothing to do with any of this) at least the Republicans could STFU. The Democrats could then go on the record saying if what this guy did was so bad, why did they wait until now to go after him when they had YEARS to do so when they were in charge of all bodies of government and would have had zero pushback on any of their crazy inquiries?
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jan 30, 2020 16:18:49 GMT
If biden came he could just sit there and not answer the questions.. nothing can compel him to open his mouth.
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,331
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Jan 30, 2020 16:36:50 GMT
I just called both of my dumb ass Trump kissing Senators and told them what I thought. It won’t change any minds, but I did register my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 16:37:05 GMT
If biden came he could just sit there and not answer the questions.. nothing can compel him to open his mouth. The truth DOES matter!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 16:40:02 GMT
I just called both of my dumb ass Trump kissing Senators and told them what I thought. It won’t change any minds, but I did register my opinion. I got through to Booker's office, didn't try Menendez. We know where Booker sits on this one! They should ask the WH lawyers over and over again what they are really saying!! Quote Dershowitz and his weird thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jan 30, 2020 16:43:47 GMT
if the bidens were corrupt.. the dept of justice would investigate. we do not have presidents investigate private us citizens. hunter does not have to justify himself. he is not elected, he is a private citizen. he was not working for the govt.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Jan 30, 2020 16:54:12 GMT
Alan Dershowitz has jumped the shark. That slime ball jumped the shark when he helped OJ get off.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 17:04:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 13:36:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 17:04:39 GMT
This argument ABC News.. ”Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." abcn.ws/2S37weJ” Prompted this response from Southpaw.. “This principle would rule out Watergate as an impeachable offense.” Translation: If I as president determine its in the best interest of the people that I get re-elected, then I can do what I want to ensure that happens. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal or illegal if I determine it’s in the best interest of the people to be re-elected. If people really do spin in their graves, the Founding Fathers must be doing it now at hyper speeds.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Jan 30, 2020 17:05:24 GMT
Every time I open this thread I want to know who the twenty people are who believe that no witnesses should be called to testify in this cluster fuck circus of an Impeachment proceeding.
Please explain why on god's green earth you no voters do not want any more information on something that is this important to the well being of your country and your democracy. If this is a witch hunt and a hoax wouldn't you want a lot of witnesses that could exonerate trump?
Unless you can come back to this thread and explain why you voted no you are a traitor to this democracy which is founded on transparency.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 17:06:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 17:10:13 GMT
Every time I open this thread I want to know who the twenty people are who believe that no witnesses should be called to testify in this cluster fuck circus of an Impeachment proceeding. Although they are only 10%.. If only 10% of the Senate voted no, there would be no issue!
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Jan 30, 2020 17:15:12 GMT
I just called both of my dumb ass Trump kissing Senators and told them what I thought. It won’t change any minds, but I did register my opinion. I wrote and actually snail mailed a thank you to Adam Schiff yesterday. He deserves it. He has been amazing. He is not my representative but I wanted him to know his perseverance is appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Jan 30, 2020 17:18:56 GMT
Every time I open this thread I want to know who the twenty people are who believe that no witnesses should be called to testify in this cluster fuck circus of an Impeachment proceeding. Although they are only 10%.. If only 10% of the Senate voted no, there would be no issue! I don't think there would be a problem if they could have a secret vote. The repubs just don't have enough of a spine to publicly go against trump. They all know what the right thing to do is, they just don't have the balls and should be ashamed of themselves.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jan 30, 2020 17:34:11 GMT
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
If that’s the case, what kind of quid pro quo should result in impeachment?
Dershowitz said a quid pro quo that involved an illegal act, or was done for personal financial gain, would be impeachable, however.
An illegal act. Well, that’s precisely what Trump did – an illegal act. It’s right there in the Constitution – Article II, Section 4 - BRIBERY. If this was a federal criminal prosecution, the principal charge would be bribery.
Anyone can call it whatever they want – abuse of power, bribery, or Joe. At the end of the day, notwithstanding that an impeachment is not predicated on an indictable crime, Trump did commit bribery. Bribery by a public official, at its very core, IS an abuse of power. That's why Article 1 of the articles on impeachment is Abuse of Power.
And Dershowitz is wrong, so very wrong. He is assigning a mixed motive to Trump’s act – personal benefit and public interest to obscure the true intent. At no point in the hundreds of hours spent by the House had there been a testimony that Trump did this because he cared about the systemic corruption in Ukraine. This is a man who defended Paul Manafort whose corrupt dealings with Ukraine’s Yankovych and oligarchs made him a multimillionaire!
Dershowitz’s argument is nothing but another way to gaslight the public.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 17:55:23 GMT
An illegal act. Well, that’s precisely what Trump did – an illegal act. It’s right there in the Constitution – Article II, Section 4 - BRIBERY. If this was a federal criminal prosecution, the principal charge would be bribery. The republicans are CLAIMING the word BRIBERY is not written in words in the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House, therefore not a valid argument or charge. NOT my opinion, but theirs..
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jan 30, 2020 18:15:19 GMT
An illegal act. Well, that’s precisely what Trump did – an illegal act. It’s right there in the Constitution – Article II, Section 4 - BRIBERY. If this was a federal criminal prosecution, the principal charge would be bribery. The republicans are CLAIMING the word BRIBERY is not written in words in the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House, therefore not a valid argument or charge. NOT my opinion, but theirs.. Well, of course they would. I understand this is not your opinion, but I am writing the following for the purpose of clarity: A conduct that is considered impeachable does not have to be named according to statute. Like I said, anyone can call it anything they want. When all is said and done, what matters are the actual conduct and the intent behind the conduct. Article 1 clearly described the conduct and the intent: " Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations." Article 1 satisfies all elements of bribery.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 18:54:34 GMT
The republicans are CLAIMING the word BRIBERY is not written in words in the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House, therefore not a valid argument or charge. NOT my opinion, but theirs.. Well, of course they would. I understand this is not your opinion, but I am writing the following for the purpose of clarity: A conduct that is considered impeachable does not have to be named according to statute. Like I said, anyone can call it anything they want. When all is said and done, what matters are the actual conduct and the intent behind the conduct. Article 1 clearly described the conduct and the intent: " Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations." Article 1 satisfies all elements of bribery. Thanks!! I have no doubt and cannot understand how others can just shrug their shoulders and walk away!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 30, 2020 19:02:32 GMT
If you choose, you can FF to 1:15 sec to here what is quoted..
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jan 30, 2020 19:34:13 GMT
Oh, so we’re the effing idiots because we took his words literally. WTH. Dershowitz is rewriting Article II of our Constitution. That’s like someone trying to rewrite the Bible. Someone ought to tell him it’s already a done deal.
|
|