Impeachment Hearings

[hollodero]

(01-29-2020, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I just googled it. Damn!

That's a pathetic defense


“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And mostly you’re right. Your election is in the public interest.”

“And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
The comments came in response to a question about the legality of quid pro quos.

Dershowitz added that all elected officials consider things in political terms, asking, “If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters?”
“We may argue that it’s not in the national interest for a particular president to get elected,” he said, “and maybe we’re right,” but in order for it to be impeachable, he argued, one would have to prove that the decision was based solely on “corrupt motives.”
“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,” Dershowitz concluded.

https://ktvz.com/politics/2020/01/29/alan-dershowitz-argues-presidential-quid-pro-quos-aimed-at-reelection-are-not-impeachable/

Yeah right, that was it.

One could probably justify just executing an opponent with that. Hey, he would have won otherwise, and I thought that would have been bad for the national interest. Since I believed that, there's nothing to do here.

I mean... there are arguments that are insulting to the law and whatnot, but this one is an insult to every listener's common sense.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2020, 05:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: öäüÖÄÜöäü... they make the keyboards that way in our factories. Added to the right of the keyboard.

I also have this one: ß  ...what a brag.

I completely forgot about the ß.  That's a "ss" sound in English right?

[Dill]

(01-29-2020, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And mostly you’re right. Your election is in the public interest.”

“And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
The comments came in response to a question about the legality of quid pro quos.

Dershowitz added that all elected officials consider things in political terms, asking, “If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters?”
“We may argue that it’s not in the national interest for a particular president to get elected,” he said, “and maybe we’re right,” but in order for it to be impeachable, he argued, one would have to prove that the decision was based solely on “corrupt motives.”
“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,” Dershowitz concluded.

Ok this is much more serious than Hollo's quote/paraphrase.

It is not up to the president solely to decide what really is in the national interest. 

If D. is right then we have no Constitutional protection against any narcissist who sincerely claims that election fraud in his favor is in the national interest because it would support the greatest president ever.  What if this narcissist decides treason is in the national interest?

Heretofore in the history of British and American law, it has NOT been impossible to define and discern "corrupt motive"--be it obstruction of justice or taking bribes. D.'s view would make that definitionally impossible. And alternatively define virtually any act by a president as in the national interest for the specious claim that all politicians act in the national interest just by being politicians.  And actions, like bribery or extortion, don't have to be based "solely" on corrupt motives.

Au nailed it.  The whole GOP show has been a Chewbacca defense, designed to confuse voters, and give the Senate cover.  It's like the 3% of climate scientists who deny climate change--except in this legal domain, there is much less that 3% standing with Dershowitz, not even all the president's lawyers.

My head is spinning. This is bad. So bad.  And then you add Starr, and Pam Bondi, the AG to whom Trump donated 25,000 dollars as she oversaw the Trump University suit.

[Dill]

(01-29-2020, 05:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: öäüÖÄÜöäü... they make the keyboards that way in our factories. Added to the right of the keyboard.

I also have this one: ß  ...what a brag.

Scharfes S. But the Germans dropped that back in the 90s, didn't they?

[hollodero]

(01-29-2020, 06:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Scharfes S. But the Germans dropped that back in the 90s, didn't they?

Yeah we generally dropped it, but left some exceptions in place. So, there are still those exceptions. There are quite a lot of them, actually.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2020, 06:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Scharfes S. But the Germans dropped that back in the 90s, didn't they?

Jesus and I just remembered it from my German classes in high school.  It's like when someone dies who you already thought was dead.

This ßucks.

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 03:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well let me ask it this, and I'm happy to accept your expertise.  If you were on the defense team, and the rules of evidence don't really exist, would you bring up Hunter Biden and his job for one, and two,  what Biden said about the prosecutor.  Not lie, but just present it, and let people draw any inference they want, knowing you are playing to the whole country.  

Picking up from yesterday--

If I'm on the Trump team, but also a competent lawyer, I do not bring up J. Biden's dealings with Shokin, because Biden is only carrying out the wishes of the Senate as well as the president, as part of his job. It might be difficult to explain this letter from 2016, signed by R Senators Portman, Kirk and Sheehan among others, urging the then Ukrainian president to get the AG's house in order --https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help.

Biden has set himself up for misrepresention by talking as if firing Shokin was solely his initiative, and as if he had been a one-man scourge of Ukrainian corruption.  As I said in an earlier post, this was a result of collective pressure from the US and the EU and the IMF, and the firing would have occurred if Biden had never been born.  The only thing "exposed" here would be some unjustified bragging. Unless someone can find a comparable bi-partisan letter from the Senate urging the Ukrainian President to investigate Biden and his son, Biden's action is "official," carrying out the Senate's intent, while Trump's is still illegal, under the table, hidden from Congress, an abuse of power.

Hunter Biden--here it could be proved conclusively, beyond a reasonable doubt, that H Biden got a cushy job with Burisma. Likely other board members saw an opportunity, perhaps hoping for influence, and shouted a collective "так!" when his name was floated. Possibly Hunter could have arranged phone calls and introduced other Board members to American state officials. Trump faithful get a "win" if this "raises more questions." lol

The House would not open an investigation to continue through November following "unanswered questions" about Joe Biden's involvement. But could the Senate?  Maybe Bels knows.

[Dill]

(01-29-2020, 06:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Jesus and I just remembered it from my German classes in high school.  It's like when someone dies who you already thought was dead.

This ßucks.

Ssucks?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2020, 06:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Ssucks?

You’re welcome for the work around.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2020, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I just googled it. Damn!

That's a pathetic defense


“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And mostly you’re right. Your election is in the public interest.”

“And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
The comments came in response to a question about the legality of quid pro quos.

Dershowitz added that all elected officials consider things in political terms, asking, “If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters?”
“We may argue that it’s not in the national interest for a particular president to get elected,” he said, “and maybe we’re right,” but in order for it to be impeachable, he argued, one would have to prove that the decision was based solely on “corrupt motives.”
“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,” Dershowitz concluded.

https://ktvz.com/politics/2020/01/29/alan-dershowitz-argues-presidential-quid-pro-quos-aimed-at-reelection-are-not-impeachable/

He’s always been thought of as some sort of genius and it’s like he’s trying to come up with this intricate brilliant legal argument that will just wow the world.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2020, 07:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He’s always been thought of as some sort of genius and it’s like he’s trying to come up with this intricate brilliant legal argument that will just wow the world.

and instead he presented a high school level argument that would set a terrible precedent for executive power. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2020, 05:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah right, that was it.

One could probably justify just executing an opponent with that. Hey, he would have won otherwise, and I thought that would have been bad for the national interest. Since I believed that, there's nothing to do here.

I mean... there are arguments that are insulting to the law and whatnot, but this one is an insult to every listener's common sense.

(01-29-2020, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Ok this is much more serious than Hollo's quote/paraphrase.

It is not up to the president solely to decide what really is in the national interest. 

If D. is right then we have no Constitutional protection against any narcissist who sincerely claims that election fraud in his favor is in the national interest because it would support the greatest president ever.  What if this narcissist decides treason is in the national interest?

Heretofore in the history of British and American law, it has NOT been impossible to define and discern "corrupt motive"--be it obstruction of justice or taking bribes. D.'s view would make that definitionally impossible. And alternatively define virtually any act by a president as in the national interest for the specious claim that all politicians act in the national interest just by being politicians.  And actions, like bribery or extortion, don't have to be based "solely" on corrupt motives.

Au nailed it.  The whole GOP show has been a Chewbacca defense, designed to confuse voters, and give the Senate cover.  It's like the 3% of climate scientists who deny climate change--except in this legal domain, there is much less that 3% standing with Dershowitz, not even all the president's lawyers.

My head is spinning. This is bad. So bad.  And then you add Starr, and Pam Bondi, the AG to whom Trump donated 25,000 dollars as she oversaw the Trump University suit.

Terrible precedent being set. These are the kind of arguments that must make the Senate GOP groan. They need the Trump team to present a basic defense that they can sign off on. Not a good one, just as meager of a defense as they need to give the illusion of innocence.

Throwing out things like "the President could theoretically abuse his office in anything to help him win an election because he thinks it's good for the US"  is the shit they don't want to hear, because they'd also be signing off on that.

[BmorePat87]

[Vas Deferens]

I really like Lev Parnas’ lawyer and can’t wait for this ’lingsey’ data dump.

[NATI BENGALS]

Missed most of it today. What did the enormous human sized loogie, conman's lawyer, friend of epstein, have to say today?

Oh wait. NVM. IDC what the sexual predator champion lawyer had to say.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-30-2020, 12:52 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Missed most of it today. What did the enormous human sized loogie, conman's lawyer, friend of epstein, have to say today?

Oh wait. NVM. IDC what the sexual predator champion lawyer had to say.

Well, I spoke too soon and overrated republicants by expecting even a shred of decency. Apparently they are making epstein's lawyer friend, the person who determines the rules on how our government works. 

This is the same party that would have the words on the Statue of Liberty changed. So I didn't expect them to go much lower. But wait there's more.... Allowing epsteins creepy child sexual predatory lawyer be the moral compass is a new low.. Holy shit repubs. Get your god damn heads out of your asses.

I can't wait to hear what jock strap jim, man who covers up sexual abuse, other party spokesman, has to say. Hold hands tight repubs. Wouldn't want to break those ranks... 

jeezus. how embarrassing 

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2020, 08:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Terrible precedent being set. These are the kind of arguments that must make the Senate GOP groan. They need the Trump team to present a basic defense that they can sign off on. Not a good one, just as meager of a defense as they need to give the illusion of innocence.

Throwing out things like "the President could theoretically abuse his office in anything to help him win an election because he thinks it's good for the US"  is the shit they don't want to hear, because they'd also be signing off on that.

Yup. And let's be frank about what Dershowitz said, because he gave an authoritarian's defense. The Trump defense team went authoritarian on that one.

[GMDino]

(01-29-2020, 08:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Terrible precedent being set. These are the kind of arguments that must make the Senate GOP groan. They need the Trump team to present a basic defense that they can sign off on. Not a good one, just as meager of a defense as they need to give the illusion of innocence.

Throwing out things like "the President could theoretically abuse his office in anything to help him win an election because he thinks it's good for the US"  is the shit they don't want to hear, because they'd also be signing off on that.

After, in the "interviews" outside, the gop tried to distance themselves from that one point...but when they vote for no witnesses and to acquit I hope this hangs around their necks for the rest of their lives.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-pastor-says-jesus-would-have-beat-crap-out-john-bolton-1484767

Apparently Jesus would have beat up John Bolton, just as this pastor with a fake PhD says he should have personally done.

[GMDino]

(01-30-2020, 10:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-pastor-says-jesus-would-have-beat-crap-out-john-bolton-1484767

Apparently Jesus would have beat up John Bolton, just as this pastor with a fake PhD says he should have personally done.

As an aside:  The "pastors" that support Trump seem rather unchristian.  The lawyers seem to not want to actually follow laws.  Pam Bondi get paid by a foreign country for something she has no experience in and she is on the floor of the Senate arguing for the POTUS in a case where he claims to have wanted to investigate the "corruption" of one person.

In all seriousness, while I try and try to keep an open mind about Republicans, are they really buying all of this?

Can it only be the ones that are in the deepest that I keep seeing on television and the internet?  My friends who post the same lies that Trump just told?

Is the entire republican party becoming a lost cause due to the Trump cult?