Impeachment hearings

[_canpakes]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/dershowitz-2016-trump-corruption-kfile/index.html

Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who is a member of President Donald Trump's impeachment defense team, said in 2016 that he believed Trump was more corrupt than Hillary Clinton and more likely to continue being corrupt as president.

...

Dershowitz was highly critical of Trump during the 2016 election. NBC News reported on Sunday that in a 2016 book, the law professor called him a "destabilizing and unpredictable candidate" who "openly embraces fringe conspiracy theories peddled by extremists."

Dershowitz repeatedly criticized Trump for not disavowing the alt-right movement and worried Trump would "embolden and strengthen" fascist elements in society.

"I think he's a canny politician and he knows he can't win this election without the alt right -- without getting people to vote for him, whose views he disapproves of. But he hasn't had the courage to really stand up to the alt right in the way he should," he said on The Jamie Weinstein Show in 2016. I'm adding these last three paragraphs to underscore the point that the President' supporters on this board are unlikely to read this far and thus continue cozily ensconced in their respective bubbles.

"There is a kind of fascist mentality in the world today. I don't worry that Donald Trump will try to govern that way. I do worry that he will embolden and strengthen some of the fascist elements in our society," added Dershowitz.

- Doc

“He was right.”

[Guest]

Canpakes,

I was responding to Doc's reddit post demonstrating that those deriding the Trump nonsense produce nonsense themselves. It then becomes a circle of both sides saying ridiculous things. You haven't responded to that point my post was making. You just took umbrage to one sub set and haven't responded to the general context of my post. I made that post to demonstrate the level of taking things the other side says completely out of context and to places that are unnecessary. Even hilariously dark. Ironically that is exactly what you are doing in missing my greater point.

I am not an apologist for Trump. I am not an apologist for the other side either. They are both nuts. And they both don't like hearing anything critical of itself. Both are just much more comfortable pointing out the other sides flaws when confronted with anything critical. And neither side recognizes their stupidity. It is stupid to call Trump a Russian asset and puppet. That is stupid. Defend it all you want it is insane stupidity. The things you keep pointing out about Trump are stupid. He is ridiculous.

I have been consistent on this board it is two sides that are prepared perfectly to fit cognitive blinders for each side. That is our press. It is a comedy. The press will just disengage with stories where it is proven wrong. Such as gas in Syria and the narrative created. As soon as that was proven wrong you don't see it anywhere because the press isn't going to correct itself. With Trump's nuttiness those kind of narratives get amplified and ignored by both sides and it becomes a ridiculous comedy.

I defend some Trump things because this board is more dominated by his opposition. This board continually ignores that as my position, as you are doing, and simply wants to treat me like a Trumper and have the juvenile discussion about his antics. That is too easy. It isn't even interesting. And it demonstrates my position ever more.

I am more interested in the whole paradigm not the back and forth one sided stuff. How Trump's nonsense emboldens nonsense on the other side that that opposite side can't recognize or see. That is interesting.

The bad news is and it sucks. When you do recognize what is happening on both sides, and you have both your blinders removed. Its nothing meaningful behind the curtain. Just nihilism and BS all the way down. That's why each side builds such an animosity to the other side because the other side represents the foundation of their own meaning and "truth". If it's a mirror, which it is, well the truth is too hard.

mikwut

[_mikwut]

Dershowitz is soooo right when he criticizes Trump. But his impeachment argument based on pretty substantive historical and legal interpretation is soooo wrong.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Dershowitz is soooo right when he criticizes Trump. But his impeachment argument based on pretty substantive historical and legal interpretation is soooo wrong.

mikwut

The overwhelming bulk of commentary from actual constitutional law experts, which Dershowitz is not, describes his arguments as quackery. Armed with my humble knowledge of US history I can easily tell he’s bananas wrong on the historical commentary side to the point that it’s hard to see it as anything other than dishonesty aimed at those who don’t know any better. This falls in line with his now decades long media posture as a professional contrarian. Writing your post with the implicit assumption he is offering formidable arguments is a tell. It’s the false premise you use to level a charge of partisan hypocrisy.

[_mikwut]

Hi E,

The history of impeachment is not a concrete and certain outcome where epithets like dishonest are appropriate. Constitutional law isn't like that. Interpretation is often times difficult. Dershowitz is not dishonest in relaying Justice Curtis' arguments in the Johnson impeachment. Curtis was closer than your humble understanding of history to that real history. Do you find that dishonest?

Was Dean Wright dishonest?

Is it dishonest to use the classic rule of interpretation Dershowitz utilized and taken from long legal history and quoted Scalia on how to interpret the meaning of a word in a group of words? Is that dishonest interpretation?:

Is this dishonest:

“The President of the United States shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons,” listen now, “for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” He cogently argued that if impeachment were not an offense against the United States, was not based on an offense against the United States, there would’ve been no need for any constitutional exception.

Or why don't you just point to the exact portion of Dershowitz's arguments that is just dishonest? I would like to hear that?

Heres the transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/al ... january-27

mikwut

[_canpakes]

I was responding to Doc's reddit post demonstrating that those deriding the Trump nonsense produce nonsense themselves.
...
I am more interested in the whole paradigm not the back and forth one sided stuff. How Trump's nonsense emboldens nonsense on the other side that that opposite side can't recognize or see. That is interesting.

I completely get that point and agree that the press can get carried away, and has on occasions.

in my opinion you seem to be bemoaning that the dynamic exists at all more so than how we got here. Trump’s role in this is supreme, as far back as pre-election with accusations of “fake news”, and the immediate deployment of stupid, useless lies on Day 1 in office, with the infamous Inauguration crowd size comments. He has applied this approach to virtually every subject in every setting. I’m not sure how you want the press to treat this behavioral trend given that merely laughing it off and pretending that “... it’s just Trump being Trump, ha ha!”, completely ignores the fact that his statements and rhetoric - amplified and propagated in a way made possible by his unique position - have had a disturbingly corrosive effect on this nation. And we continue down that road propelled most quickly by Trump, as opposed to the actions of ‘the press’. This is not something that he has any interest in rising above. He wallows in it; it’s his preferred tool, wielded for self-gain at the expense of the nation on the whole.

You can - and probably will - take that paragraph as being extremely partisan, or somesuch. I see it as an accurate take on the reality of this situation. I’d challenge you to tell me why it isn’t.

And there’s another consideration. As much as you complain about the press’s coverage, it still provides some light into this Administration’s actions and forces some accountability from it. Were the press to simply back off on all fronts, I do honestly believe that this Administration would more often be acting up in ways that will not be productive for this nation.

I still haven’t seen any major and legitimate press outfit call the President a legal traitor, as you allege. Maybe I missed that somewhere, but I’ll stand by my earlier opinion about the accuracy of judging him by the pejorative meaning of the word in the meantime. I would judge any past President in exactly the same way, with the same conclusion, had they done the same as Trump.

This relationship between Trump and ‘the press’, as inaccurate as that term already is, is not one of equal power or actions, and the consequences for all are graver from the President's actions than from ‘the press’. I don’t see a willingness to look at that reality, in the midst of what you find interesting.

[_canpakes]

... it’s hard to see it as anything other than dishonesty aimed at those who don’t know any better.

Pretty much this.

[_SteelHead]

When the constitution was written, there were no federal statutes. If only statutory crimes are impeachable offenses, how do we write of impeachment before there are statutory crimes?

Bribery as understood by the framers would have been some thing like:
“a public official who directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act."

Why the Democrats didn't charge Trump with bribery is beyond my ken.

[_Gunnar]

I too think Trump should have been charged with bribery.

[_MissTish]

Dershowitz is now making this argument:


"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."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/silent- ... d=68594255


He could have just gone with "L'état, c'est moi", but the rubes he's playing to -including Trump- wouldn't get the reference