Time to get on the TRUMP train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

that doesn't explain why every other impeachment trial had witnesses though

---

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

tbh i'm not sure if bolton and mulvaney were subpoenaed or not. i know the white house ignored several subpoenas served by the house.

what the house should have done was go to court to try to enforce the subpoenas, but i'm sure they wanted this all wrapped up by the election and going to court could have taken years.

the problem with the dems' approach is what we're seeing now. the republicans control the senate and the democrats should have realized there was a chance the senate would just refuse to call anyone.

note that this is entirely semantics as trump could admit to everything the democrats are alleging and he would have no chance of being convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

This is correct, but if we are being honest he didn’t want to participate. Pleading the 5th in his own way.

---

You both are 100% wrong. The impeachment is like an indictment, meant to determine whether a trial should be conducted. That trial should open the door for more evidence to be presented if it becomes available. To say otherwise with a straight face indicates that you are either ignorant of these facts or a bald faced liar. Which is it?

While bringing the House’s impeachment case in the Senate, Nadler correctly calls out the GOP for trying to hide the damning evidence against Trump from being shown to the public in this trial’s proceedings. And the GOP expresses outrage at being appropriately accused as such on national television.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...102180?cid=apn

A bucket of crocodile tears for the criminal president-protecting GOP senators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

tbh i'm not sure if bolton and mulvaney were subpoenaed or not.

---

Bolton wasn't. I think Mulvaney was and then he sued and then dropped the suit and just ignored it or something like that.

Bottom line is it could realistically take a year or more for anyone that challenged a subpoena and Bolton changed his stance after the House vote and before the Senate trial started - if he gets a subpoena now he'll just show up. If that was the case during the House hearing, he sure as hell would've been subpoenaed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

tbh i'm not sure if bolton and mulvaney were subpoenaed or not.

---

Bolton wasn't. I think Mulvaney was and then he sued and then dropped the suit and just ignored it or something like that.

Bottom line is it could realistically take a year or more for anyone that challenged a subpoena and Bolton changed his stance after the House vote and before the Senate trial started - if he gets a subpoena now he'll just show up. If that was the case during the House hearing, he sure as hell would've been subpoenaed.

---

I understand the Bolton situation but there’s a bunch more witnesses the Dems still want to testify. Maybe they were all in the same boat.

In the end, unless there is some smoking gun evidence yet to be found, more witnesses probably wouldn’t make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

TRAINWRECKS

Embedded Tweet

---

You could just as easily say "Have a lot of evidence to enter" vs. "You don't need to prepare anything when you're not even planning to listen."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

That's what the trial is for, but the Republicans aren't allowing any witnesses.

---

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

Not true. In the analogy to criminal court, the House is the grand jury. The Senate is the trial court. There is no appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

that doesn't explain why every other impeachment trial had witnesses though

---

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

Trump ordered a whole bunch of people not to testify.

The House Democrats really should have gone through the courts to force them to testify.

The Impeachment managers should also let Trump call any witness he wants. The Bidens or whoever. He is entitled to put on the defense his lawyers want to put on. The Bidens are irrelevant to this case but if they think their best defense is "whataboutism" then let them cast their lot.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...a1&oe=5E9AA1ED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I wasn’t following the house proceedings that closely. Why didn’t the house just call everyone they wanted when the ball was in their court? I realize the Bolton situation might be different but what about the others?

---

Trump ordered a whole bunch of people not to testify.

The House Democrats really should have gone through the courts to force them to testify.

The Impeachment managers should also let Trump call any witness he wants. The Bidens or whoever. He is entitled to put on the defense his lawyers want to put on. The Bidens are irrelevant to this case but if they think their best defense is "whataboutism" then let them cast their lot.

---

i think the DNC is so scared of bernie winning that they are willing to let this whole fucking trial turn to fucking dust rather than risk sullying biden's good name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Bolton wasn't. I think Mulvaney was and then he sued and then dropped the suit and just ignored it or something like that.

Bottom line is it could realistically take a year or more for anyone that challenged a subpoena and Bolton changed his stance after the House vote and before the Senate trial started - if he gets a subpoena now he'll just show up. If that was the case during the House hearing, he sure as hell would've been subpoenaed.

---

I understand the Bolton situation but there’s a bunch more witnesses the Dems still want to testify. Maybe they were all in the same boat.

In the end, unless there is some smoking gun evidence yet to be found, more witnesses probably wouldn’t make a difference.

---

you seem to have more faith in politicians doing the right thing than me. there was never any chance that republicans would vote trump out, regardless of the evidence.

i'm 100% serious that trump could admit to holding up aid to score political points and he would not be convicted. (dems would probably protect a democrat president the same way.)

i mean, we've already heard people testify that trump would only meet with ukraine's president and deliver military aid if ukraine announced an investigation into the bidens. we also know that the aid was, in fact, held up, and that it was only released after the whistleblower complained. there were news reports that bolton was horrified by this "drug deal."

there isn't even a plausible counter narrative to what the dems are arguing. are we to believe that trump was genuinely interested in rooting out ukrainian corruption (and only ukrainian corruption -- no other country) with the secret help of....... rudy giuliani?

there's a reason no one has ever defended trump on the facts. the republicans are only: 1) attacking the process; or 2) suggesting that even if trump did what's alleged, it's not impeachable.

i totally disagree but i guess i can at least understand the legal argument that you need an actual crime before impeaching. that logic leads to ridiculous results like what we're seeing today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

This is correct, but if we are being honest he didn’t want to participate. Pleading the 5th in his own way.

---

No, Trump's lawyers wanted to attend, participate, cross-examine, and call witnesses. They were not permitted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

That’s not what the trial is for. The trial is for the senate to make a judgment on whether to convict based upon the evidence upon which the articles sent over by the house are based. The senate is not acting as a trial court. That is what the House did - without allowing trump to meaningfully participate.

---

Not true. In the analogy to criminal court, the House is the grand jury. The Senate is the trial court. There is no appeal.

---

No, your analogy is incorrect.

Educate yourselves:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Educate yourselves:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

---

Mark Levin is a right wing partisan hack with the credibility of a steaming pile of horse shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I understand the Bolton situation but there’s a bunch more witnesses the Dems still want to testify. Maybe they were all in the same boat.

In the end, unless there is some smoking gun evidence yet to be found, more witnesses probably wouldn’t make a difference.

---

i totally disagree but i guess i can at least understand the legal argument that you need an actual crime before impeaching. that logic leads to ridiculous results like what we're seeing today.

---

That’s why they should have had bribery as one of the charges as it’s undoubtedly a high crime. As is, you have abuse of power which can debated as a high crime but it’s not clear cut. Then you have obstruction of Congress which is lol. If they had subpoenaed Bolton and the courts ruled he had to testify but Trump wouldn’t let him then that would maybe to an argument of obstruction of Congress but this obviously didn’t happen.

WELP, LOOKS LIKE ITS GONNA BE SCHIFF AFTER MIDNIGHT AGAIN



:noose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

WELP, LOOKS LIKE ITS GONNA BE SCHIFF AFTER MIDNIGHT AGAIN



:noose

---

feels great to be wrong. maybe atine is onto something LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Not true. In the analogy to criminal court, the House is the grand jury. The Senate is the trial court. There is no appeal.

---

No, your analogy is incorrect.

---

I assure you it is correct.

https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/...mpeachment.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

why wouldn't the republicans vote to dismiss if they have to listen to adam Schiff at 1 am

---

Embedded Tweet

guy is seriously the biggest faggot smarmy scammer on the planet. and just so happens to represent the fakest place of all, Hollywood. cant make it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

No, your analogy is incorrect.

---

I assure you it is correct.

---

ok, please offer a citation of authority on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

I assure you it is correct.

---

ok, please offer a citation of authority on the matter.

---

i'm genuinely curious about any cites you may have. every article i'm reading says the opposite. the constitution gives the senate the sole power to "try" all impeachments. since all trials have witnesses, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that an actual trial was what was intended? why use the word "try" if not? i've never heard of a jury issuing a judgment on an entirely written record as the senate wasn't there for the house proceedings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

ok, please offer a citation of authority on the matter.

---

i'm genuinely curious about any cites you may have. every article i'm reading says the opposite. the constitution gives the senate the sole power to "try" all impeachments. since all trials have witnesses, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that an actual trial was what was intended? why use the word "try" if not? i've never heard of a jury issuing a judgment on an entirely written record as the senate wasn't there for the house proceedings.

---

My understanding.

The house presents a prima facie case, and there is no reason whatsoever to limit evidence and attempt to convict on the basis of this hearing alone.

New evidence rightly must be presented... but alas the trial should not be carried out like an investigation, and should not stray from the initial prima facie charges.
Kinda ironic he doesn't want witnesses considering he's charged with obstruction. These folks who were told to say nothing are key witnesses in proving guilt or innocence.

So much talk on what the founding fathers would be thinking.
I think they'd be turning in the graves, if a president used his position to elicit bogus dirt from a foreign country, on a political opponent. Like seriously, this would have been right up there on the list of shit they would detest, and not tolerate under any circumstance.

If he can pull off no witnesses he's a political god, and made impeachment a useless absurdity.

Are your people going to be happy with a sham trial with no witnesses?
My gut says there will be a huge blow-back on the spineless sheep voting to GOP orders.
But as everyone has noted, he runs super good and anything is possible with the right spin.

Very entertaining presidency! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

So much talk on what the founding fathers would be thinking.
I think they'd be turning in the graves, if a president used his position to elicit bogus dirt from a foreign country, on a political opponent. Like seriously, this would have been right up there on the list of shit they would detest, and not tolerate under any circumstance.

---

Teddy Kennedy did just that to try to defeat Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton and the DNC took money from the Chinese government to assist his reelection campaign. Shall i keep going. Again, educate yourselves, worst thing that happens is you disagree with this constitutional scholar:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

So much talk on what the founding fathers would be thinking.
I think they'd be turning in the graves, if a president used his position to elicit bogus dirt from a foreign country, on a political opponent. Like seriously, this would have been right up there on the list of shit they would detest, and not tolerate under any circumstance.

---

Teddy Kennedy did just that to try to defeat Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton and the DNC took money from the Chinese government to assist his reelection campaign. Shall i keep going. Again, educate yourselves, worst thing that happens is you disagree with this constitutional scholar:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

---

I don't watch that clown he's unbearable. Reads the same script as your genius president... has no credibility.

If you're cool with him and his buddies trying to get bullshit dirt on Biden I can respect that.

I guess covering it up is a basic human nature thing. Not a huge deal?

Carrying on like a poor innocent victim doesn't sit well with me though.

Your stance is yeah he's guilty but I don't care it's no big deal right?... I'm sure you've said something along these lines.... I think :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

So much talk on what the founding fathers would be thinking.
I think they'd be turning in the graves, if a president used his position to elicit bogus dirt from a foreign country, on a political opponent. Like seriously, this would have been right up there on the list of shit they would detest, and not tolerate under any circumstance.

---

Teddy Kennedy did just that to try to defeat Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton and the DNC took money from the Chinese government to assist his reelection campaign. Shall i keep going. Again, educate yourselves, worst thing that happens is you disagree with this constitutional scholar:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

---

i watched the first half but didn't see anything on whether the senate should have witnesses or not. did he touch on that?

on another note, if you think about it, the notion that a president can't be impeached for an abuse of power leads to crazy results. could trump openly tell ukraine that they're not getting military aid unless they arrest hunter biden? could he give alaska to russia? really?

the notion that you need a crime for impeachment of a president is not widely accepted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Teddy Kennedy did just that to try to defeat Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton and the DNC took money from the Chinese government to assist his reelection campaign. Shall i keep going. Again, educate yourselves, worst thing that happens is you disagree with this constitutional scholar:

https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8

---

i watched the first half but didn't see anything on whether the senate should have witnesses or not. did he touch on that?

on another note, if you think about it, the notion that a president can't be impeached for an abuse of power leads to crazy results. could trump openly tell ukraine that they're not getting military aid unless they arrest hunter biden? could he give alaska to russia? really?

the notion that you need a crime for impeachment of a president is not widely accepted

---

Sounds like your in favor of amending the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

i watched the first half but didn't see anything on whether the senate should have witnesses or not. did he touch on that?

on another note, if you think about it, the notion that a president can't be impeached for an abuse of power leads to crazy results. could trump openly tell ukraine that they're not getting military aid unless they arrest hunter biden? could he give alaska to russia? really?

the notion that you need a crime for impeachment of a president is not widely accepted

---

Sounds like your in favor of amending the constitution.

---

the problem is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a phrase used today. what is a "high crime"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Sounds like your in favor of amending the constitution.

---

the problem is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a phrase used today. what is a "high crime"?

---

I believe that refers to major crimes, rather than just general misbehavior in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

the problem is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a phrase used today. what is a "high crime"?

---

I believe that refers to major crimes, rather than just general misbehavior in office.

---

it doesn't.

great article here explaining that the phrase was a term of art, stolen from the english.

"Great Britain has never had a written constitution. And Parliament has never sat down to write an impeachment statute with a neat definition of the behavior that could get a royal minister impeached. Rather, Parliament has carefully kept impeachment open-ended, recognizing that one never knew in advance what form the royal urge to autocracy might take or what sort of devilry corrupt or ambitious officials might be up to. Over the centuries, Parliament impeached a good many people for a wide variety of misconduct. When it did, the articles of impeachment tended to describe the defendant’s behavior as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a usage that dates back to 1386. Critically, a great deal of the misconduct Parliament deemed impeachable wasn’t criminal at all, at least in the sense of violating any preexisting criminal statute or constituting any judge-created common-law crime."

I could provide examples in eye-glazing antiquarian detail. Suffice it to say that Parliament has impeached high officials for military mismanagement (Lord Latimer, 1376; the Earl of Suffolk, 1386; the Duke of Buckingham, 1626; and the Earl of Strafford, 1640), neglect of duty or sheer ineptitude (Attorney General Henry Yelverton; Lord Treasurer Middlesex, 1624; the Earl of Clarendon, 1667; Lord Danby, 1678; and Edward Seymour, treasurer of the Navy, 1680), and giving the sovereign bad advice, especially about foreign affairs (William de la Pole, 1450; Lords Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Strafford, 1715).

Parliament has also impeached a good many officers for abuse of power, sometimes criminal, but oftentimes not. When the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, the English-speaking world was riveted by the commencement of impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings, governor general of Bengal, on just such grounds. Few if any of the charges against Hastings were indictable crimes, but that was immaterial to Edmund Burke, the principal parliamentary prosecutor of Hastings. He said the charges “were crimes, not against forms, but against those eternal laws of justice, which are our rule and our birthright: his offenses are not in formal, technical language, but in reality, in substance and effect, High Crimes and High Misdemeanors.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...y-mean/600343/


the articles showing this are absolutely endless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Sounds like your in favor of amending the constitution.

---

the problem is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a phrase used today. what is a "high crime"?

---

I believe its when your stoned af and fuck a twink in the ass in a bar bathroom.

to make the case even clearer, look at what the founding fathers actually thought of impeachment:

"Moreover, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison and Wilson Nicholas said abuse of the pardon power would be impeachable. Impeachment, some founders said, would also follow from receipt of foreign emoluments or presidential efforts to secure by trickery Senate ratification of a disadvantageous treaty. During the first Congress of 1789, Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

thus, as you can see. trump literally has no defense.

-fin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Sounds like your in favor of amending the constitution.

---

the problem is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a phrase used today. what is a "high crime"?

---

AD says there’s clear evidence that the framers looked at abuse of power (among other things) as being an impeachable offense but chose not to include it because the term is too ambiguous. Many presidents have been accused of AOP in history, think if they were all impeached. Going down this road every future president that doesn’t control the House will probably be impeached. That’s why I go back to my point they should have charged Trump with bribery. That’s basically what they’re saying he did anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

the problem is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a phrase used today. what is a "high crime"?

---

I believe that refers to major crimes, rather than just general misbehavior in office.

---

There's a solid argument that 'high crimes' refers to a crime that only someone in a position of power could be guilty of - someone that has influence over the people who enforce or interpret the law (executive branch and judiciary people).

Congress makes the laws, but don't enforce or interpret them. So if they get indicted, they have no influence on being prosecuted or judged, so they can't be impeached.

Judges and Executive officials could abuse their power to avoid being indicted or found guilty or what the sentence is, so we need a way to check their power - that's why impeachment exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

the problem is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a phrase used today. what is a "high crime"?

---

AD says there’s clear evidence that the framers looked at abuse of power (among other things) as being an impeachable offense but chose not to include it because the term is too ambiguous. Many presidents have been accused of AOP in history, think if they were all impeached. Going down this road every future president that doesn’t control the House will probably be impeached. That’s why I go back to my point they should have charged Trump with bribery. That’s basically what they’re saying he did anyway.

---

dershowitz isn't just wrong, he's lying to you about what he really believes.

remember this is the guy who said abuse of power is impeachable before he joined the trump legal team. what does that tell you?

what the founders looked at was whether to include "maladministrstion" as an impeachable offense. i.e., policy differences.

they ultimately decided that maladminstration made it too easy to remove a president but wanted something less than actual crimes, so they decided on "high crimes and misdemeanors" which they understood included abuse of power.

look at it this way -- the founders specifically included two crimes as impeachable offenses -- bribery and treason. why did they do that?

if, like trump suggests, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means any crime, than why spell out bribery and treason? wouldn't "high crimes and misdemeanors" already include bribery and treason?

of course it would. the only logical conclusion is that high crimes and misdemeanors means something other than any crime.

i've pointed to what the founders actually thought. if someone has contrary authority -- something showing that they thought only crimes are impeachable offenses, i'd be interested in seeing it.

also there's a reason the democrats didn't include bribery against trump. they didn't think trump committed it. don't you think if they thought he committed bribery, it would be in the articles of impeachment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

AD says there’s clear evidence that the framers looked at abuse of power (among other things) as being an impeachable offense but chose not to include it because the term is too ambiguous. Many presidents have been accused of AOP in history, think if they were all impeached. Going down this road every future president that doesn’t control the House will probably be impeached. That’s why I go back to my point they should have charged Trump with bribery. That’s basically what they’re saying he did anyway.

---

dershowitz isn't just wrong, he's lying to you about what he really believes.

remember this is the guy who said abuse of power is impeachable before he joined the trump legal team. what does that tell you?

what the founders looked at was whether to include "maladministrstion" as an impeachable offense. i.e., policy differences.

they ultimately decided that maladminstration made it too easy to remove a president but wanted something less than actual crimes, so they decided on "high crimes and misdemeanors" which they understood included abuse of power.

look at it this way -- the founders specifically included two crimes as impeachable offenses -- bribery and treason. why did they do that?

if, like trump suggests, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means any crime, than why spell out bribery and treason? wouldn't "high crimes and misdemeanors" already include bribery and treason?

of course it would. the only logical conclusion is that high crimes and misdemeanors means something other than any crime.

i've pointed to what the founders actually thought. if someone has contrary authority -- something showing that they thought only crimes are impeachable offenses, i'd be interested in seeing it.

also there's a reason the democrats didn't include bribery against trump. they didn't think trump committed it. don't you think if they thought he committed bribery, it would be in the articles of impeachment?

---

Many of them claimed he committed bribery and still do.

My take on the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” are unforeseen crimes that they didn’t specifically look at. Abuse of power was looked at and they decided not to specifically include it.

Your take is that Alan Dershowitz is lying as to what he really thinks? I guess the question would be why would he do that. Isn’t he a life long Dem? Maybe someone is blackmailing him with Epstein tapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

dershowitz isn't just wrong, he's lying to you about what he really believes.

remember this is the guy who said abuse of power is impeachable before he joined the trump legal team. what does that tell you?

what the founders looked at was whether to include "maladministrstion" as an impeachable offense. i.e., policy differences.

they ultimately decided that maladminstration made it too easy to remove a president but wanted something less than actual crimes, so they decided on "high crimes and misdemeanors" which they understood included abuse of power.

look at it this way -- the founders specifically included two crimes as impeachable offenses -- bribery and treason. why did they do that?

if, like trump suggests, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means any crime, than why spell out bribery and treason? wouldn't "high crimes and misdemeanors" already include bribery and treason?

of course it would. the only logical conclusion is that high crimes and misdemeanors means something other than any crime.

i've pointed to what the founders actually thought. if someone has contrary authority -- something showing that they thought only crimes are impeachable offenses, i'd be interested in seeing it.

also there's a reason the democrats didn't include bribery against trump. they didn't think trump committed it. don't you think if they thought he committed bribery, it would be in the articles of impeachment?

---

Many of them claimed he committed bribery and still do.

My take on the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” are unforeseen crimes that they didn’t specifically look at. Abuse of power was looked at and they decided not to specifically include it.

Your take is that Alan Dershowitz is lying as to what he really thinks? I guess the question would be why would he do that. Isn’t he a life long Dem? Maybe someone is blackmailing him with Epstein tapes.

---

I hate this whole impeachment thing and hope it goes away. I don’t view it as productive. It’s shit for these blue state people to run on at home that will have no tangible effect on the general election imo.

That said, Dershowitz is, and has always been, someone who gets off on being a celebrity lawyer. You think he truly believes OJ was innocent? He served as an adviser to the defense team on that. Why would he do that? You think he didn’t value celebrity and staying in the news above his social circle shunning him then?

With Rudy or Dershowitz or any of these high profile guys, there is nothing worse than being out of the game after decades of being a player. This is an articulate guy who has argued cases forever, yet you saw in that cnn interview when confronted with his past statements, he was spinning because he knows he’s full of shit. He doesn’t care. He’ll argue anything for anyone to be relevant over any political views he may have held whenever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

dershowitz isn't just wrong, he's lying to you about what he really believes.

remember this is the guy who said abuse of power is impeachable before he joined the trump legal team. what does that tell you?

what the founders looked at was whether to include "maladministrstion" as an impeachable offense. i.e., policy differences.

they ultimately decided that maladminstration made it too easy to remove a president but wanted something less than actual crimes, so they decided on "high crimes and misdemeanors" which they understood included abuse of power.

look at it this way -- the founders specifically included two crimes as impeachable offenses -- bribery and treason. why did they do that?

if, like trump suggests, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means any crime, than why spell out bribery and treason? wouldn't "high crimes and misdemeanors" already include bribery and treason?

of course it would. the only logical conclusion is that high crimes and misdemeanors means something other than any crime.

i've pointed to what the founders actually thought. if someone has contrary authority -- something showing that they thought only crimes are impeachable offenses, i'd be interested in seeing it.

also there's a reason the democrats didn't include bribery against trump. they didn't think trump committed it. don't you think if they thought he committed bribery, it would be in the articles of impeachment?

---

Many of them claimed he committed bribery and still do.

My take on the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” are unforeseen crimes that they didn’t specifically look at. Abuse of power was looked at and they decided not to specifically include it.

Your take is that Alan Dershowitz is lying as to what he really thinks? I guess the question would be why would he do that. Isn’t he a life long Dem? Maybe someone is blackmailing him with Epstein tapes.

---

gee why would alan change his mind about whether abuse of process is impeachable at this time? oh i don't know.... just spitballing here but maybe cause he's a television whore who is an attorney representing trump in the impeachment case? he's actually ethically bound not to say anything to harm his client.

i appreciate your take on abuse of process, but it seems like you're ignoring everything i'm saying.