best interest -

[NightFox]

A member of President Donald Trump's legal team argued on the Senate floor Wednesday that a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.



Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable - CNNPolitics

This is Trumpist America in all its corrupt glory folks. The degenerate Don is now arguing that committing crimes is part of the American way. A President according can commit crimes and it is unimpeachable. America is now Brazil.

America’s can only hope that the MAGAt President is either removed by the Senate or loses the election.

I saw that. The fact that that's the best they can do proves how weak their defense is.

Trump’s defense is deteriorating before our eyes. Now their defense is Trump can commit any crime. What a bunch of losers.

The resident tRumplings are doing the same thing right here right now.

They cannot come up with a defense for the lameness of the defense so they just scream obscenities.

That is true. All these dimwits have is an insult. Not one has responded to the OP. Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz. I am being generous in calling these folks dimwits by the way.

ROFLMAO! could you possibly be MORE hypocritical?

 

[Billiejeens]

I'm no fan of Alan Dershowitz, I think he's a glory seeking, elitist blowhard that puts his public image above all else, that being said; the OP along with many other sensationalists "news" outlets reporting this story are IMHO completely mis-characterizing Dershowitz's argument using deceptive parsing and insertion.

Dershowitz was providing an example of how motive cannot be used as the sole basis for impeachment where the likelihood of mixed motive exists since it cannot clearly be shown that the motive for "quid pro quo" was corrupt; in other words Congress cannot get inside the Presidents head and determine that the reason he offered a "quid pro quo" was corrupt.

Dershowitz's hypothetical where the President believes he is acting in the Nation's best interest because said President believes that his/her re-election is in the Nation's best interest is clearly not a CORRUPT MOTIVE; Personally I think it's a bad hypothetical but I do understand what he is arguing and it's NOT what all these nitwits in the biased media are claiming.

The bottom line, Dershowitz wasn't arguing that a President can do whatever he/she wants as long as he/she believes that it is in the best interests of the Nation, he's arguing that the President shouldn't be impeached based SOLELY on (corrupt) motive in a situation where it can be shown that the President may have been in acting on what that President believed was in the Nation's best interests.

Of course all the hyper-partisan lemmings will be way too lazy to listen to the whole argument with an open mind and even attempt to draw an objective conclusion... they're only interested in the headlines that feed their confirmation bias.

Of course all the hyper-partisan lemmings will be way too lazy to listen to the whole argument with an open mind and even attempt to draw an objective conclusion... they're only interested in the headlines that feed their confirmation bias

 

[Billiejeens]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

 

[NightFox]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I agree, except I don't think it's about "reasonable intelligence", I think the problem is objectivity and intellectual laziness.

If you disagree with the argument Dershowitz is trying to make what you're basically saying is that Congress can play the role of mind reader and remove the President from office whenever it feels that President made a decision based on a motive that was corrupt, whether that decision rises to the Constitutional standard of "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or not.

As Dershowitz talked about earlier in the proceedings it would be akin to British Parliamentary Democracy where all it takes to remove a Prime Minister is a vote of no confidence, something which the framers specifically where attempting to prohibit by setting the "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" standard in the first place.

 

[Billiejeens]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I agree, except I don't think it's about "reasonable intelligence", I think the problem is objectivity and intellectual laziness.

If you disagree with the argument Dershowitz is trying to make what you're basically saying is that Congress can play the role of mind reader and remove the President from office whenever it feels that President made a decision based on a motive that was corrupt, whether that decision rises to the Constitutional standard of "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or not.

As Dershowitz talked about earlier in the proceedings it would be akin to British Parliamentary Democracy where all it takes to remove a Prime Minister is a vote of no confidence, something which the framers specifically where attempting to prohibit by setting the "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" standard in the first place.

I would agree, with the caveat that if one is that adverse to objectivity and is that intellectually lazy, one would probably not end up being reasonably intelligent on these matters.

 

[colfax_m]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I disagree with Dershowitz. He says that the president is allowed to use any power of the presidency to help his election (including harming his opponent) and they cannot be considered corrupt.

It’s a very dangerous statement.

 

[Billiejeens]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I disagree with Dershowitz. He says that the president is allowed to use any power of the presidency to help his election (including harming his opponent) and they cannot be considered corrupt.

It’s a very dangerous statement.

Like I said.

 

[colfax_m]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I disagree with Dershowitz. He says that the president is allowed to use any power of the presidency to help his election (including harming his opponent) and they cannot be considered corrupt.

It’s a very dangerous statement.

Like I said.

Okay. If you are or reasonable intelligence, what did he mean and how am I wrong?

 

[NightFox]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I disagree with Dershowitz. He says that the president is allowed to use any power of the presidency to help his election (including harming his opponent) and they cannot be considered corrupt.

It’s a very dangerous statement.

You're right that would be "a very dangerous statement", but that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

 

[Brain357]

you cant make this stuff up

Dershowitz: Trump can't be impeached because he believed his reelection is in the national interest

a crooks best interest -

Trump is above the law

The most elite of the elitists.

 

[colfax_m]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I disagree with Dershowitz. He says that the president is allowed to use any power of the presidency to help his election (including harming his opponent) and they cannot be considered corrupt.

It’s a very dangerous statement.

You're right that would be "a very dangerous statement", but that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

Please tell me what he is arguing.

 

[NightFox]

"Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz"

No one of reasonable intelligence would, without twisting it to mean something that it does not mean.

I disagree with Dershowitz. He says that the president is allowed to use any power of the presidency to help his election (including harming his opponent) and they cannot be considered corrupt.

It’s a very dangerous statement.

You're right that would be "a very dangerous statement", but that's not what Dershowitz is arguing.

Please tell me what he is arguing.

I've already done that in this thread, post #80.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm no fan of Alan Dershowitz, I think he's a glory seeking, elitist blowhard that puts his public image above all else, that being said; the OP along with many other sensationalists "news" outlets reporting this story are IMHO completely mis-characterizing Dershowitz's argument using deceptive parsing and insertion.

Dershowitz was providing an example of how motive cannot be used as the sole basis for impeachment where the likelihood of mixed motive exists since it cannot clearly be shown that the motive for "quid pro quo" was corrupt; in other words Congress cannot get inside the Presidents head and determine that the reason he offered a "quid pro quo" was corrupt.

Dershowitz's hypothetical where the President believes he is acting in the Nation's best interest because said President believes that his/her re-election is in the Nation's best interest is clearly not a CORRUPT MOTIVE; Personally I think it's a bad hypothetical but I do understand what he is arguing and it's NOT what all these nitwits in the biased media are claiming.

The bottom line, Dershowitz wasn't arguing that a President can do whatever he/she wants as long as he/she believes that it is in the best interests of the Nation, he's arguing that the President shouldn't be impeached based SOLELY on (corrupt) motive in a situation where it can be shown that the President may have been in acting on what that President believed was in the Nation's best interests.

Of course all the hyper-partisan lemmings will be way too lazy to listen to the whole argument with an open mind and even attempt to draw an objective conclusion... they're only interested in the headlines that feed their confirmation bias.

Motive is and will be a major part in many, many cases. We can and must get in the head of people when deciding on the legality of their actions. The question is how do we assess the motives of a person.

I think it is beyond reasonable to consider that his motive of getting re-elected can be construed to be “in the nation’s best interest”. Any reasonable person can understand that there is a difference between those two.

Notice i didn’t say Dershowitz’s argument is that Trump can do “anything”. I said that he can use any power of the presidency, which is extensive. It is up to Congress to assess if he is abusing these powers. I don’t know how to answer the question of mixed motives. That’s a challenge for me. Part of me worries that if personal benefit is any part of the motive, it is corrupt but I can see how that might impair a president from acting in otherwise good faith.

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

 

[NightFox]

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

That's the question, because from a different perspective one can credibly argue that by withholding (delaying) aid to the Ukraine, Trump was acting to:

1. Combat U.S. Government corruption
2. Support the goal of getting other European Nations to pony up their "fair share" of aid to Ukraine
3. Both of the above

In such a situation where the motive is in question (or where mixed motive can be credibly argued) removing the President from office solely based on Congress assigning a corrupt motive (based on circumstance) would run counter to the Constitutional Standard for removal; if you started applying that type of standard then Presidents are going to be subject to removal essentially based on Congressional whim.

IMHO what is needed to make a credible case is direct evidence (i.e. not circumstantial) that Donny was acting solely to discredit a political rival for his own gain (corrupt motive) via a QPQ demand to a foreign government and thus far that evidence has not materialized (although given recent allegations, Bolton *may* be able to provide some).

 

[Billiejeens]

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

That's the question, because from a different perspective one can credibly argue that by withholding (delaying) aid to the Ukraine, Trump was acting to:

1. Combat U.S. Government corruption
2. Support the goal of getting other European Nations to pony up their "fair share" of aid to Ukraine
3. Both of the above

In such a situation where the motive is in question (or where mixed motive can be credibly argued) removing the President from office solely based on Congress assigning a corrupt motive (based on circumstance) would run counter to the Constitutional Standard for removal; if you started applying that type of standard then Presidents are going to be subject to removal essentially based on Congressional whim.

IMHO what is needed to make a credible case is direct evidence (i.e. not circumstantial) that Donny was acting solely to discredit a political rival for his own gain (corrupt motive) via a QPQ demand to a foreign government and thus far that evidence has not materialized (although given recent allegations, Bolton *may* be able to provide some).

99% of the conversation regarded corruption prior to and during a period of time where there was an election that President Trump won.
Who investigates an election that they win, other than a President dead set on keeping America at the forefront of the world.
We have a treaty with them that insists that corruption be fought, to be eligible for aid.

 

[colfax_m]

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

That's the question, because from a different perspective one can credibly argue that by withholding (delaying) aid to the Ukraine, Trump was acting to:

1. Combat U.S. Government corruption
2. Support the goal of getting other European Nations to pony up their "fair share" of aid to Ukraine
3. Both of the above

In such a situation where the motive is in question (or where mixed motive can be credibly argued) removing the President from office solely based on Congress assigning a corrupt motive (based on circumstance) would run counter to the Constitutional Standard for removal; if you started applying that type of standard then Presidents are going to be subject to removal essentially based on Congressional whim.

IMHO what is needed to make a credible case is direct evidence (i.e. not circumstantial) that Donny was acting solely to discredit a political rival for his own gain (corrupt motive) via a QPQ demand to a foreign government and thus far that evidence has not materialized (although given recent allegations, Bolton *may* be able to provide some).

Dershowitz is saying you can never claim that a president was working solely to discredit a political rival. Any attempt to discredit a political rival automatically qualifies as acing in the nations best interest (from the presidents standpoint).

And no, I don’t think you can credibly claim Trump was working to root out US government corruption. The fact that he was not working through any means by which our government could actually be held accountable means to me he was not doing so.

 

[Billiejeens]

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

That's the question, because from a different perspective one can credibly argue that by withholding (delaying) aid to the Ukraine, Trump was acting to:

1. Combat U.S. Government corruption
2. Support the goal of getting other European Nations to pony up their "fair share" of aid to Ukraine
3. Both of the above

In such a situation where the motive is in question (or where mixed motive can be credibly argued) removing the President from office solely based on Congress assigning a corrupt motive (based on circumstance) would run counter to the Constitutional Standard for removal; if you started applying that type of standard then Presidents are going to be subject to removal essentially based on Congressional whim.

IMHO what is needed to make a credible case is direct evidence (i.e. not circumstantial) that Donny was acting solely to discredit a political rival for his own gain (corrupt motive) via a QPQ demand to a foreign government and thus far that evidence has not materialized (although given recent allegations, Bolton *may* be able to provide some).

Dershowitz is saying you can never claim that a president was working solely to discredit a political rival. Any attempt to discredit a political rival automatically qualifies as acing in the nations best interest (from the presidents standpoint).

And no, I don’t think you can credibly claim Trump was working to root out US government corruption. The fact that he was not working through any means by which our government could actually be held accountable means to me he was not doing so.

He was not using corrupt officials to root out corrupt officials.
That's your argument?

 

[NightFox]

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

That's the question, because from a different perspective one can credibly argue that by withholding (delaying) aid to the Ukraine, Trump was acting to:

1. Combat U.S. Government corruption
2. Support the goal of getting other European Nations to pony up their "fair share" of aid to Ukraine
3. Both of the above

In such a situation where the motive is in question (or where mixed motive can be credibly argued) removing the President from office solely based on Congress assigning a corrupt motive (based on circumstance) would run counter to the Constitutional Standard for removal; if you started applying that type of standard then Presidents are going to be subject to removal essentially based on Congressional whim.

IMHO what is needed to make a credible case is direct evidence (i.e. not circumstantial) that Donny was acting solely to discredit a political rival for his own gain (corrupt motive) via a QPQ demand to a foreign government and thus far that evidence has not materialized (although given recent allegations, Bolton *may* be able to provide some).

Dershowitz is saying you can never claim that a president was working solely to discredit a political rival. Any attempt to discredit a political rival automatically qualifies as acing in the nations best interest (from the presidents standpoint).

That's not what he's saying, if you watch the entire presentation with an open mind it's pretty easy to discern that. Stop and consider, Dershowitz is a blowhard and an elitist but he isn't an idiot or irrational which is what he would have to be to make the argument you and others are claiming.

And no, I don’t think you can credibly claim Trump was working to root out US government corruption. The fact that he was not working through any means by which our government could actually be held accountable means to me he was not doing so.

He was on a phone call with other people listening in and transcribing it and then released that transcript to the public, seems pretty "accountable" to me.

As POTUS, Donny could have had the conversation with Zelensky completely in secret if he had wanted to hide something in which case this impeachment process wouldn't be happening.

 

[Crepitus]

A member of President Donald Trump's legal team argued on the Senate floor Wednesday that a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.



Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable - CNNPolitics

This is Trumpist America in all its corrupt glory folks. The degenerate Don is now arguing that committing crimes is part of the American way. A President according can commit crimes and it is unimpeachable. America is now Brazil.

America’s can only hope that the MAGAt President is either removed by the Senate or loses the election.

I saw that. The fact that that's the best they can do proves how weak their defense is.

Trump’s defense is deteriorating before our eyes. Now their defense is Trump can commit any crime. What a bunch of losers.

The resident tRumplings are doing the same thing right here right now.

They cannot come up with a defense for the lameness of the defense so they just scream obscenities.

That is true. All these dimwits have is an insult. Not one has responded to the OP. Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz. I am being generous in calling these folks dimwits by the way.

ROFLMAO! could you possibly be MORE hypocritical?

Not sure you know what hypocritical means....

 

[NightFox]

I saw that. The fact that that's the best they can do proves how weak their defense is.

Trump’s defense is deteriorating before our eyes. Now their defense is Trump can commit any crime. What a bunch of losers.

The resident tRumplings are doing the same thing right here right now.

They cannot come up with a defense for the lameness of the defense so they just scream obscenities.

That is true. All these dimwits have is an insult. Not one has responded to the OP. Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz. I am being generous in calling these folks dimwits by the way.

ROFLMAO! could you possibly be MORE hypocritical?

Not sure you know what hypocritical means....

K, thank you for your insightful and incredibly valuable input, it's very much appreciated.

.. .and in other news, the official word for today is "patronizing".