Impeachment hearings

[_mikwut]

E

I just don't know how to do the mind reading of the man himself who made the argument. How are you inferring bad faith to his interviews where he doesn't change his position from the Senate floor, but rather, explains how his words were distorted?

Those who do that are guilty of the very chaos they claim from the distorting of Dershowitz in the first place. You can believe anything when you just infer bad faith and dishonesty to everyone who differs from you.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

E

I just don't know how to do the mind reading of the man himself who made the argument. How are you inferring bad faith to his interviews where he doesn't change his position from the Senate floor, but rather, explains how his words were distorted?

This is Orwellian.

[_Icarus]

Those who do that are guilty of the very chaos they claim from the distorting of Dershowitz in the first place. You can believe anything when you just infer bad faith and dishonesty to everyone who differs from you.

You're clearly the one engaging in dishonesty when you say Dershowitz must have been "distorted" just because Dershowitz says so in phone interviews after the permanent damage has already been done. There was nothing vague or ambiguous in what he said on the Senate floor. Its the oldest line in the book used by corrupt politicians who never want to own up to their own idiotic comments. "Oh I was misunderstood." Yeah, right. That certainly isn't how Republican Senators took him. They used his line of reasoning as a way out of their predicament of wanting to acquit Trump as quickly as possible without appearing like they were engaged in a cover up. They were desperate for someone, anyone to provide them a way out just so they can plausibly say they were swayed by some legal opinion. Dershowitz provided that and then suddenly the momentum shifted entirely away from the Senate voting to allow witnesses. Romney said he thinks as many as 7 would vote that way, then after Dershowitz said he didn't think a President can be rightfully impeached for doing what Trump did, we get people like Marco Rubio and Lamar Alexander basically admitting that the House proved its case, but that it doesn't matter since what he did isn't impeachable, a la 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" - Alan Dershowitz

By the way, here is FOX news legal expert agreeing with Dershowitz's argument. You know, the one he later said everyone "distorted."

[_moksha]

It's like if you lived in Chicago and were told that Capone had been freed and a new crime spree had begun. Then you find out that Eliott Ness had been replaced with William Barr.

[_Gunnar]

Quote:
That argument was never made. It is a distortion.

The argument was actually much dumber than that. The defense argued that the President can cheat to get himself reelected so long as he genuinely believes that him being reelected is the best thing for the country. And so cheating is not impeachable for that reason. How quickly they went from "he didn't do it" to "ok he did it but that's not impeachable."

That's just not true. Dershowitz has clarified on practically every network.

mikwut

What good does it do if Dershowitz "clarified" or walked back that assertion when the Republican defenders of Trump and Trump himself took it to mean precisely what nearly everyone interpreted it to mean? The damage done is still very serious. At the very least, admit that Dershowitz used a very poor choice of wording to make his point, if he did not mean it the way it was commonly interpreted (which he very probably did, in my opinion, until he got so much well deserved negative feedback, condemnation and ridicule over it from his academic peers).

[_Gunnar]

How many "jurors" in the impeachment case were running against the president this year and and has been saying he is guilty for years, and even publicly before the "trial" is over.

All of them with any sense of reality and integrity and familiarity with Trump's lifelong history of corruption and pathological dishonesty in his dealings both before and since his election.

[_mikwut]

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.”

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

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.

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, to try to get into the intricacies of the human mind. Everybody has mixed motives. And for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any President to be impeached.

Alan Dershowitz: (03:32)
How many Presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisors and their pollsters? If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisors? Just do what’s best for the country. But if you want a balance what’s in the public interest with what’s in your party’s electoral interests and your own electoral interest, it’s impossible to discern how much weight is given to one to the other. Now, we may argue that it’s not in the national interest for a particular President to get reelected, or for a particular Senator or a member of Congress.

Alan Dershowitz: (04:08)
And maybe you were right, it’s not in the national interest for everybody who’s running to be elected. But for it to be impeachable you would have to discern that he or she made a decision solely on the basis of, as the House managers put it, corrupt motives. And it cannot be a corrupt motive if you have a mixed motive that partially involves the national interest, partially involves electoral and does not involve personal pecuniary interests. And the House managers do not allege that this decision, this quid pro quo as they call it and the question is based on the hypothesis, there was a quid pro quo. I’m not [inaudible 00:04:52] the facts.

Alan Dershowitz: (04:52)
They never alleged that it was based on pure financial reasons. It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical President of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, “Unless you build a hotel with my name on it and unless you give me a million dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.” That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest. But a complex middle case is, “I want to be elected. I think I’m a great President. I think I’m the greatest President there ever was and if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.” That cannot be an impeachable offense. Thank you Chief Justice.

So where is the following found in the above:

Over the past week, we've seen a descent into Constitutional madness. The President and his team argue that any conduct is okay, as long as a president thinks it will benefit him. That's an argument of pure desperation — one you only make when you know your client is guilty.

Or this:

The argument was actually much dumber than that. The defense argued that the President can cheat to get himself reelected so long as he genuinely believes that him being reelected is the best thing for the country. And so cheating is not impeachable for that reason. How quickly they went from "he didn't do it" to "ok he did it but that's not impeachable."

mikwut

[_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.”

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

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.

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, to try to get into the intricacies of the human mind. Everybody has mixed motives. And for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any President to be impeached.

Alan Dershowitz: (03:32)
How many Presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisors and their pollsters? If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisors? Just do what’s best for the country. But if you want a balance what’s in the public interest with what’s in your party’s electoral interests and your own electoral interest, it’s impossible to discern how much weight is given to one to the other. Now, we may argue that it’s not in the national interest for a particular President to get reelected, or for a particular Senator or a member of Congress.

Alan Dershowitz: (04:08)
And maybe you were right, it’s not in the national interest for everybody who’s running to be elected. But for it to be impeachable you would have to discern that he or she made a decision solely on the basis of, as the House managers put it, corrupt motives. And it cannot be a corrupt motive if you have a mixed motive that partially involves the national interest, partially involves electoral and does not involve personal pecuniary interests. And the House managers do not allege that this decision, this quid pro quo as they call it and the question is based on the hypothesis, there was a quid pro quo. I’m not [inaudible 00:04:52] the facts.

Alan Dershowitz: (04:52)
They never alleged that it was based on pure financial reasons. It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical President of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, “Unless you build a hotel with my name on it and unless you give me a million dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.” That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest. But a complex middle case is, “I want to be elected. I think I’m a great President. I think I’m the greatest President there ever was and if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.” That cannot be an impeachable offense. Thank you Chief Justice.

mikwut

There I fixed it for you.

I think it is hilarious that Dershowitz spends all his time psychoalanyzing Trump's motives, insisting he can't be impeached because hie motives were pure. And then right after he says "it’s so dangerous to try to psychoanalyze a President, to try to get into the intricacies of the human mind." But, uh, that's exactly what he is doing. And Dershowtiz's analogies to war time Presidents is disingenuous to say the least.

[Guest]

So where is the following found in the above:

"Over the past week, we've seen a descent into Constitutional madness. The President and his team argue that any conduct is okay, as long as a president thinks it will benefit him. That's an argument of pure desperation — one you only make when you know your client is guilty."

While not verbatim, that's basically the gist what he said in the red highlighted portion.

"The argument was actually much dumber than that. The defense argued that the President can cheat to get himself reelected so long as he genuinely believes that him being reelected is the best thing for the country. And so cheating is not impeachable for that reason. How quickly they went from "he didn't do it" to "ok he did it but that's not impeachable."

Again, getting Ukraine to interfere in the election for Trump = cheating. The former is a point conceded by Dershowitz, the latter is obviously what it amounts to.

And Dershowitz's insistence that something is only impeachable if it is criminal has been roundly debunked by the entire legal community. Though Judge Napolitano, who is FOX news' senior Constitutional/Legal expert, has argued quite emphatically over the past seven months that Trump's actions do in fact violate federal law and amount to multiple felonies.

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

[_Markk]

How many "jurors" in the impeachment case were running against the president this year and and has been saying he is guilty for years, and even publicly before the "trial" is over.

All of them with any sense of reality and integrity and familiarity with Trump's lifelong history of corruption and pathological dishonesty in his dealings both before and since his election.

Well, that is certainly a "fair" trial...lol