All you need to do is show Dershowitz in 1998 to quiet him

[Faun]

Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side



1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.

Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.

Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

 

[Faun]

Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.

"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

Is Dershowitze or Starr a member of the Congress, all impeachments are partisan, like the republican's went after Clinton for lying about an affair. They are attorneys and they should be at least a little honorable, but no honor among republicans. I imagine Starr wants to write another book.

Being a member of Congres is irrelevant the topic of your thread is about people having different views on impeachment now as opposed to what they did in 1998. If you want to bitch about Starr and Dershowitz having different views now from today fine then it's fair to bring up any politicans that do as well. FYI Dershowitz is a Democrat not a Republican.

Dershowitz will defend anyone that pays his very hefty legal fees. Doesn’t matter if they’re a pedophile, murderer or corrupt president. His legal opinions should be considered in this context.

Wow so the left is upset with Dershowitz for doing what you hire a lawyer to do I would say shocking but it’s not.

Lawyers are hired to lie?

 

[jc456]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to shut him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

 

[jc456]

Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side



1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.

31 second mark.

 

[The Original Tree]

The Federalist Papers say That Pelosi's COUP 2.0 is a farce and has no basis in Law or Legal Precedent.

 

[Nostra]

Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side



1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.

Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.

Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

 

[jc456]

Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side



1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.

Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.

Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

and on a video

 

[blackhawk]

Jerry Nadler also had different views on impeachment in 1998.
Both parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.

"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

Is Dershowitze or Starr a member of the Congress, all impeachments are partisan, like the republican's went after Clinton for lying about an affair. They are attorneys and they should be at least a little honorable, but no honor among republicans. I imagine Starr wants to write another book.

Being a member of Congres is irrelevant the topic of your thread is about people having different views on impeachment now as opposed to what they did in 1998. If you want to bitch about Starr and Dershowitz having different views now from today fine then it's fair to bring up any politicans that do as well. FYI Dershowitz is a Democrat not a Republican.

Dershowitz will defend anyone that pays his very hefty legal fees. Doesn’t matter if they’re a pedophile, murderer or corrupt president. His legal opinions should be considered in this context.

Wow so the left is upset with Dershowitz for doing what you hire a lawyer to do I would say shocking but it’s not.

Lawyers are hired to lie?

No more than politicians are elected to.

 

[Faun]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to shut him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

LOLOL

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime." ~ Alan Dershowitz

 

[bendog]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to quiet him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

Jesus Christ, Moses and Muhammed working together couldn't shut up that hypocrite. At one time, I thought maybe this was just about his wanting Israel doing ethnic cleansing, and he'd support Hitler for Israeli expansion, but I've decided that he's just a media whore who'd do anything for attention.

 

[Faun]

Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side



1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.

Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.

Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

What a pity you couldn't quote your imaginary 180.

 

[Nostra]

I've read that letter twice now. Put up the portions that you find are inconsistent with Schumer's stance today, please, and explain the inconsistency.

Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.

Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

What a pity you couldn't quote your imaginary 180.

That's the best ya got after getting owned?

You are an idiot. The worst troll on the board.

Run along, Kid............you are a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Richard-H]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to quiet him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

....I think most people will go with the lawyer's experience/knowledge/etc and not a USMB member named Penelope

Dershowitz's experience and knowlege is primarily in defending murderers and child rapists..so I guess defending Trump fits right in for him.

 

[Faun]

Schumer's position is nothing like Dershowitz's flip flop.

Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

What a pity you couldn't quote your imaginary 180.

That's the best ya got after getting owned?

You are an idiot. The worst troll on the board.

Run along, Kid............you are a waste of bandwidth.

LOLOL

Poor thing can't actually quote the 180 he's hallucinating.

 

[Nostra]

Agreed. Cryin' Chucky did a complete 180 based solely on the party involved. He is a hack.

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

What a pity you couldn't quote your imaginary 180.

That's the best ya got after getting owned?

You are an idiot. The worst troll on the board.

Run along, Kid............you are a waste of bandwidth.

LOLOL

Poor thing can't actually quote the 180 he's hallucinating.

In the link I provided, troll.

You have been owned.

 

[Richard-H]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to shut him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

Withholding aid to Ukraine is a crime as is attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian government for personal political gain. Obstruction of Justice by obstructing a Congressional investigation is also a crime.

The idea that Trump committed no crimes is a joke.

 

[Nostra]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to shut him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

Withholding aid to Ukraine is a crime as is attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian government for personal political gain. Obstruction of Justice by obstructing a Congressional investigation is also a crime.

The idea that Trump committed no crimes is a joke.

Cite the specific statutes.

Watch this..........................

 

[Faun]

Great, let's see you quote this imaginary 180...

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

What a pity you couldn't quote your imaginary 180.

That's the best ya got after getting owned?

You are an idiot. The worst troll on the board.

Run along, Kid............you are a waste of bandwidth.

LOLOL

Poor thing can't actually quote the 180 he's hallucinating.

In the link I provided, troll.

You have been owned.

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

 

[Nostra]

Here ya go.........always happy to educate the ignorant, and you certainly qualify.

1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

What a pity you couldn't quote your imaginary 180.

That's the best ya got after getting owned?

You are an idiot. The worst troll on the board.

Run along, Kid............you are a waste of bandwidth.

LOLOL

Poor thing can't actually quote the 180 he's hallucinating.

In the link I provided, troll.

You have been owned.

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

 

[jc456]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to shut him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

Withholding aid to Ukraine is a crime as is attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian government for personal political gain. Obstruction of Justice by obstructing a Congressional investigation is also a crime.

The idea that Trump committed no crimes is a joke.

withholding aid is a crime? cite the statute.

Name the crime in the articles?