Impeachment hearings

[_Icarus]

Since Alan Dershowitz is big on analogies, how about this one.

Donald Trump launches a nuclear strike on Buckingham palace because the Queen called him an orange twit. According to Dershowitz's logic, this would not be impeachable since there is no specific law being violated.

[_SteelHead]

We have hit rock bottom in GOP logic, and started digging.

Lying under oath about getting a BJ in the oval office is an impeachable offense.

Using the power of the US presidency to solicit a bribe in the form of asking a foreign government to interfere with our election while withholding funds that congress approved for said nation - isn't.

I am not sure if the Framers planned on having a totally amoral party in power in the senate.

[_Markk]

Why wouldn't they, this will be the status quo.

If you do this justified thing to us in good faith, we'll do it back to you as a sham in bad faith.

Trying to impeach the President is overturning the will of the voters. It's unacceptable. Also, if the President is a Democrat, he should be impeached over a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.

Are you quoting someone? I'm not sure what your point is, kinda wide open for interpretation?

My opinion is that an impeachment needs to be bi-partisan, big time, or we will get what we are getting today...a purely partisan "event." And, it will be done again and become a SOP if not checked, but it may be too late...we will find out.

There is a lot more factual evidence that Biden is dirty, than Trump, certainly worthy of a investigation based on the Trump scenario, He commits a quid pro quo on video, for the personnel gain in helping his son, and his family, other son, brother and sister are very suspect in being dirty with Joe and Hunter. It would make a great thread if someone wants to go there, I am just starting to read about it.

[_canpakes]

There is a lot more factual evidence that Biden is dirty, than Trump ... It would make a great thread if someone wants to go there, I am just starting to read about it.

I’m sure that you’d be able to post the facts about it, should you run across any. ; )

[_mikwut]

Icarus,

Wow. Is all I can say. You can't read an argument in full context. And consider the framing of the question.

mikwut

[_SteelHead]

[_moksha]

Republicans might claim that they have been forced into being lying paper containers of excrement.

[_Icarus]

Icarus,

Wow. Is all I can say. You can't read an argument in full context. And consider the framing of the question.

mikwut

I like how you act like my take is some kind of minority view and how you pretend to be stunned that no one accepts your lame attempt to excuse Dershowitz for trying miserably to dig himself out of his own hole. All you did was peddle a Right Wing talking point and you're unable to explain how the context changes the clear meaning of his remark.

[_Icarus]

Here's his own words to the Senate Chamber:

The question is addressed to counsel for the President. As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?

Alan Dershowitz: (00:25)
Chief justice, thank you very much for your question. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the rolling out of a peace plan by the President of the United States, regarding the Israel Palestine conflict. And I offered you a hypothetical the other day, what if a democratic President were to be elected and Congress were to authorize much money, to either Israel or the Palestinians? And the democratic President were to say to Israel, “No, I’m going to withhold this money unless you stop all settlement growth.” Or to the Palestinians, “I will withhold the money Congress authorized to you unless you stopped paying terrorists.”

Please explain how the context of his hypothetical situation in which a President engages in a legal, non-corrupt quid pro quo, somehow turn the plain meaning of "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" on its head.

Alan Dershowitz: (01:08)
And the President said, “Quid pro quo. If you don’t do it, you don’t get the money. If you do it, you get the money.” There’s no one in this chamber that would regard that as in any way unlawful.

Exactly. So why is Dershowitz bringing it up? Because a straw man argument is useful to those who cannot argue the facts.

"The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal."

This is a baseless assertion that is rejected by virtually all legal scholars not named Alan Dershowitz.

"Now we talked about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure can have. One, a motive in the public interest and the Israel argument would be in the public interest. The second is in his own political interest and the third which hasn’t been mentioned, would be in his own financial interest. His own pure financial interests, just putting money in the back."

Legality and motive are both irrelevant when it comes to defining impeachable offenses. But Dershowitz is engaged in some truly twisted logic if he thinks what Trump did doesn't benefit him financially. This idea that financial benefit mustn't be a financial benefit unless it comes as direct cash deposits into a bank account with Trump's name, is hilariously wrong.

Please explain how Dershowitz's complete misrepresentation of the Democrats argument, as though they were treating quid pro quo as a de facto impeachable offense, somehow turns the plain meaning of "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" on its head.

Alan Dershowitz: (01:59)
I want to focus on the second one for just one moment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and mostly you’re right, your 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. I quoted President Lincoln. When President Lincoln told general Sherman to let the troops go to Indiana so that they can vote for the Republican party.

Comparing Lincoln allowing troops to exercise their right to vote with Trump soliciting election interference from a foreign country, is nothing short of dumb.

Alan Dershowitz: (02:42)
Let’s assume the President was running at that point and it was in his electoral interest to have these soldiers put at risk the lives of many, many other soldiers, who would be left without their company. Would that be an unlawful quid pro quo? No, because the President A, believed it was in the national interest, but B, he believed that his own election was essential to victory in the civil war. Every President believes that, that’s why it’s so dangerous to try to psychoanalyze a President

Dershowitz is begging the question. Does every President truly believe that? There is little evidence that Donald Trump cares about the benefit of anything other than himself and his family.

"And for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any President to be impeached.

Yet, another straw man. No one said they were impeaching Trump based on "mixed motives."

[_mikwut]

Icarus,

You have cognitively fixed your mind where everything from the defense side is just lies to you. But one has to allow for the backdrop of the defense when reading Dershowitz's comments not an insistence that the house managers are simply correct about everything.

It is too tedious to respond to you when your so wrapped around that and only that narrative because any response is just met with - I'm lying and dishonest, I'm willing to support trump if he murdered someone in broad daylight and the like. That isn't interesting to me. It's just an echo chamber.

Best, mikwut