Page 97 of 187
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:22 pm
by _SteelHead
We are living in la la looney land.
"Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his re-election"
Two words Richard Nixon.
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:24 pm
by _DarkHelmet
SteelHead wrote:We are living in la la looney land.
"Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his re-election"
Two words Richard Nixon.
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:26 pm
by _mikwut
Honor,
What are you saying is muddying? I was saying that the house going with bribery would have muddies the waters because the acts could all be defined as official swapping and an open door to acquittal could be made. I think it's a better answer to why the house didn't make a bribery article than you and Morley are smarter than them.
mikwut
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:36 pm
by _Morley
mikwut wrote:I think it's a better answer to why the house didn't make a bribery article than you and Morley are smarter than them.
mikwut, I'm not second guessing the House. I'm second guessing you and your reading of certain opinion pieces.
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:54 pm
by _DarkHelmet
What the hell is wrong with Rand Paul?
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.htmlChief Justice John Roberts just declined to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul.
"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted, Roberts said.
While Roberts said the question was from a Kentucky senator, he did not specify which — Mitch McConnell or Paul. At a news conference moments later, Paul said it was his question.
This is Paul's second rejected question in two days: Roberts signaled to senators earlier this week he would not read any questions that included the alleged whistleblowers name, or significant identifying information of the alleged individual.
Paul’s question last night included the name. He believes he has every right to ask it, and that Roberts has no grounds to block it. But the question ran afoul of Roberts communicated redline, and Paul was informed by GOP leadership he couldn’t ask.
He could be seen (and overheard) extremely frustrated on the Senate floor at one point.
He's obsessed with outing the whistle blower and has been trying to get his name out in the public for months. He keeps threatening to personally say the name himself, but for some reason he keeps trying to get others to do it for him. This lateest attempt to get Chief Justice Roberts to say it, despite Roberts promising to reject any questions that included the whistleblowers name, is sad and pathetic. Why is Rand Paul too scared to say the name himself?
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:58 pm
by _SteelHead
To me, "abuse power" is headed for the same type of acquittal. The GOP senators will just say - "abuse of power" does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as termed in the constitution, and their woolheaded base will agree.
Bribery is delineated in the constitution and President Trump's actions well meet the common understanding of the framers.
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:29 pm
by _Doctor CamNC4Me
Explain to me again why Trump needed to send his personal lawyer and known criminals to ‘investigate’ the Bidens when he had the full power of not only the DoJ to use, but the State department, too?
- Doc
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:56 pm
by _honorentheos
mikwut wrote:Honor,
What are you saying is muddying? I was saying that the house going with bribery would have muddies the waters because the acts could all be defined as official swapping and an open door to acquittal could be made. I think it's a better answer to why the house didn't make a bribery article than you and Morley are smarter than them.
mikwut
Why the House chose to not include bribery as a charge in the articles of impeachment is a question for them. When it comes to your assertion logrolling is routine and thus Trump's quid pro quo would be dismissable as the normal function of government is simply wrong. You failed to acknowledge that the benefit to Trump was a personal gain. It was not trading state favors between the US and Ukraine. You know that, though.
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:59 pm
by _Doctor CamNC4Me
Paul Rand tweets whistleblower’s name.
https://mobile.Twitter.com/RandPaul?ref ... r%5EauthorWelp. There you are. I don’t expect him to be held accountable by anyone, and that’s a problem. You know. For reasons.
- Doc
Re: Impeachment hearings
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:02 pm
by _Gunnar
MissTish wrote: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=68594255He could have just gone with "L'état, c'est moi", but the rubes he's playing to -including Trump- wouldn't get the reference
I am flabbergasted that any supposedly reputable attorney would seriously make such an outrageous argument. If Trump is acquitted based on this argument, it sets a precedent for him and any succeeding President to set himself up as an absolute tyrant, immune from any kind of restraint or oversight by Congress or any other entity. I can't imagine that Republicans would even begin to accept this same argument in defense of a Democrat President, nor should they. It is blazingly obvious to me that Dershowitz's main purpose or goal is to win the case he has been hired to defend, regardless of its merits or lack of merit, and everything else is subordinate to that, including reason, justice, and even democracy itself.
By that argument, a President could theoretically, and with complete impunity, arrest, imprison or even execute his political opponents and even suspend elections altogether by claiming that reelecting or retaining himself in office was in the best interests of the country. This is how Putin, for whom Trump often expresses apparently unbridled admiration, attempts to retain his power.