Dershowitz Is Insane

[playtime]

But is it impeachable? That's your whole argument. Yes Trump did something wrong, but it isn't impeachable. Impeachment isn't about actual crimes. Never has been.

investigating corruption is his responsibility and not impeachable,,,

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

lol... lame conspiracy is all you got.

regardless it doesnt take away from the fact trumps investigation started almost 2 yrs before biden started his run,,,

got unbiased credible links?

 

[Coyote]

Except it wasn't just hearsay. There were many points confirmed by texts, testimony etc. And you could have called Bolton and Mulveny to testify. Why didn't you?

Remember too - you were the guys who impeached Clinton over perjury in a civil case about a blowjob.

perjury is a crime regardless of the context,,,

But is it impeachable? That's your whole argument. Yes Trump did something wrong, but it isn't impeachable. Impeachment isn't about actual crimes. Never has been.

investigating corruption is his responsibility and not impeachable,,,

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

Here is the timeline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

It is interesting - it shows a lot of Trump "involvement" with Ukraine, involving his associates, money and a debunked conspiracy theory.

Biden officially announced his candidacy in April 2019, but it was well known for some time he was going to run.

At any time was there anything suggesting an investigation through the DoJ, as is normally done, could have been conducted on Biden were there sufficient evidence. Yet it wasn't. Instead we have this bizarre mafia-esque timeline of interaction between Trump, Trump administration people, and Ukrainian agents, including those fired for refusing to combat corruption adequately and even coaching witness' testimony on how to avoid getting prosecuted in corruption hearings.

What we have is a bunch of US taxpayer money spent on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory (why???? when there was so much unrelated evidence from multiple sources that it was Russia?) and then, a demand to investigate Biden.

But here is the bizarre thing - the demand was not necessarily to investigate Biden. Just ANNOUNCE it. A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.

 

[playtime]

 

[Siete]

A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.


KGB training.

 

[playtime]

October 23, 2019
Fact Sheet: DOD Certified that Ukraine Met Corruption Benchmarks

TRUMP-UKRAINE SCANDAL

Fact Sheet: DOD Certified that Ukraine Met Corruption Benchmarks

But DOD Had Twice Certified Ukraine’s Progress on Corruption: Long before President Trump ordered a halt to security assistance, the Secretary of Defense—in coordination with Secretary Pompeo—twice certified that Ukraine had made sufficient reforms to decrease corruption and increase accountability, and that the country could ensure accountability for U.S. provided military equipment.

Congress Mandated Corruption Certifications: In 2016, Congress began requiring a certification for a portion of the funds from the congressionally-created Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. [P.L. 114-328, FY2017 NDAA]. To spend more than half of the authorized funds, DOD, in coordination with the State Department, must certify that certain anti-corruption reforms have taken place. The eligible amount has varied based on authorizations, but, for FY2019, $125 million was subject to certification.

The Certifications: DOD’s certifications specifically noted that Ukraine had improved its ability to ensure accountability of U.S.-provided military equipment—raising the question of why Pompeo did not trust an assessment that he had twice approved. To issue the certification, DOD assessed civilian control of the military, oversight of the military, transparency and accountability in defense procurement, and inventory management in the defense industrial sector, among other things. DOD certified both times that substantial actions had been taken sufficient to comply with the law.

• On July 13, 2018, DOD certified that Ukraine had taken actions sufficient to release security assistance funds. DOD cited passage of a national security law that supported reforms for civilian control of the military, parliamentary oversight of the defense sector, and transparency in defense budgets. Notably, the assessment stated that Ukraine had improved its ability to ensure accountability for U.S. provided equipment. [DOD CN].

• On May 23, 2019, DOD again certified that Ukraine had taken substantial actions to decrease corruption, increase accountability, and sustained improved combat capability enabled by U.S. assistance. DOD recommended providing $125 million in military assistance, including for counter-artillery radars and defensive weapons. According to DOD, the U.S. had helped Ukraine advance reforms, including adopting legislation to reform defense procurement, and strengthened civilian control of the military reform. The certification further noted that Ukraine had improved its ability to ensure accountability for U.S. provided equipment. [DOD CN].

###
Fact Sheet: DOD Certified that Ukraine Met Corruption Benchmarks | United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

 

[Dragonlady]

And once again you're lying. But we're used to that.

You ARE used to LYING, you shameless, lying snowflake.

You of all snowflakes are the biggest unrepentant liar on this board.

Where is the link to the law you and Schiff claimed exists that affords 'whistle Blower's anonymity and immunity?

Schiff moronically stood before 400+ other lawyers in the House of Representatives and LIED about a NON-EXISTENT LAW.

YOU posted that SAME LIE in defense of the ALREADY PROVEN liar, Adam Schiff, and when called out for that lie, like Schiff, you retreated and have refused to admit it was a lie ever since.

And just like Schiff, Schumer, and the other Democrats, YOU now / still accuse others of what you have done....and what you still do.

Nothing you say ... until you ADMIT you lied - is worth listening to.


.

Easy thinks I'm going to play his little game of "Now I've got you, you son-of-a-bitch". I'm not that easily distracted.

Donald Trump has been impeached, and that doesn't go away because 53 corrupt Republicans will vote not to remove him from office.

Since JFK brought in the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have attempted to paint Democrats as "commies", and Republicans as "defenders of the Constitution". Since Reagan, Republicans have cobbled together an ever shrinking white coalition to rail against "free shit", "gun rights" and the destruction of your Constitutional rights by Democrats, even as they gerrymandered, suppressed the votes of the poor and minorities, and sold out to lobbyists.

This impeachment trial has exposed the Republican's total destruction of the Constitutional protections against a lawless President, because with their gerrymandering and voter suppression, Republicans have undermined the Constituion at every step, and become corrupted by power. Seeing now that white nationalist power cannot be retained by legal means, Republicans have now thrown off the mask and shown they will retain it by illegal means, if necessary.

 

[IM2]

So I'm assuming you will be fine when a Democrat president withholds aid to other countries and tries to strong arm them into digging up dirt on his political rivals. Am I right?

No, but that is not what Trump did.

Would you be fine the next time the House is majority Republican impeaching a Democrat president without evidence...just hearsay? Careful, Obama was accused of much worse and the Republicans didn't impeach him because they couldn't prove the charges. Democrats don't seem to care about proof.

That is exactly trump did. Trump was not impeached with hearsay and the fact trump refused to allow witness and documents says his ass was guilty. Your party has already impeached a president for a trivial thing that was not against the law and doctored a disingenuous legal claim to get it done because he lied about a mother fucking affair to the congress. Yet this asshole refuses to allow witnesses to testify and documents to be given to congress with information germane to the case and your fucked up retarded ass is talking about impeaching a president with hearsay.

Obama didn't do anything close to what this maggot has done. Dragonlady hit the nail straight up on the head. You racist white men are doing anything to retain and maintain power and control of this country, even if it means the end of democracy itself. You republicans are going to pay dearly for this. Starting with that punk ass bitch trump.

 

[progressive hunter]

investigating corruption is his responsibility and not impeachable,,,

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

lol... lame conspiracy is all you got.

regardless it doesnt take away from the fact trumps investigation started almost 2 yrs before biden started his run,,,

got unbiased credible links?

Rachel madcow did an interview with lev parnas that admitted as much,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

perjury is a crime regardless of the context,,,

But is it impeachable? That's your whole argument. Yes Trump did something wrong, but it isn't impeachable. Impeachment isn't about actual crimes. Never has been.

investigating corruption is his responsibility and not impeachable,,,

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

Here is the timeline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

It is interesting - it shows a lot of Trump "involvement" with Ukraine, involving his associates, money and a debunked conspiracy theory.

Biden officially announced his candidacy in April 2019, but it was well known for some time he was going to run.

At any time was there anything suggesting an investigation through the DoJ, as is normally done, could have been conducted on Biden were there sufficient evidence. Yet it wasn't. Instead we have this bizarre mafia-esque timeline of interaction between Trump, Trump administration people, and Ukrainian agents, including those fired for refusing to combat corruption adequately and even coaching witness' testimony on how to avoid getting prosecuted in corruption hearings.

What we have is a bunch of US taxpayer money spent on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory (why???? when there was so much unrelated evidence from multiple sources that it was Russia?) and then, a demand to investigate Biden.

But here is the bizarre thing - the demand was not necessarily to investigate Biden. Just ANNOUNCE it. A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY POINT,,,

 

[Coyote]

But is it impeachable? That's your whole argument. Yes Trump did something wrong, but it isn't impeachable. Impeachment isn't about actual crimes. Never has been.

investigating corruption is his responsibility and not impeachable,,,

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

Here is the timeline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

It is interesting - it shows a lot of Trump "involvement" with Ukraine, involving his associates, money and a debunked conspiracy theory.

Biden officially announced his candidacy in April 2019, but it was well known for some time he was going to run.

At any time was there anything suggesting an investigation through the DoJ, as is normally done, could have been conducted on Biden were there sufficient evidence. Yet it wasn't. Instead we have this bizarre mafia-esque timeline of interaction between Trump, Trump administration people, and Ukrainian agents, including those fired for refusing to combat corruption adequately and even coaching witness' testimony on how to avoid getting prosecuted in corruption hearings.

What we have is a bunch of US taxpayer money spent on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory (why???? when there was so much unrelated evidence from multiple sources that it was Russia?) and then, a demand to investigate Biden.

But here is the bizarre thing - the demand was not necessarily to investigate Biden. Just ANNOUNCE it. A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY POINT,,,

Explain please on why that was done

 

[progressive hunter]

investigating corruption is his responsibility and not impeachable,,,

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

Here is the timeline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

It is interesting - it shows a lot of Trump "involvement" with Ukraine, involving his associates, money and a debunked conspiracy theory.

Biden officially announced his candidacy in April 2019, but it was well known for some time he was going to run.

At any time was there anything suggesting an investigation through the DoJ, as is normally done, could have been conducted on Biden were there sufficient evidence. Yet it wasn't. Instead we have this bizarre mafia-esque timeline of interaction between Trump, Trump administration people, and Ukrainian agents, including those fired for refusing to combat corruption adequately and even coaching witness' testimony on how to avoid getting prosecuted in corruption hearings.

What we have is a bunch of US taxpayer money spent on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory (why???? when there was so much unrelated evidence from multiple sources that it was Russia?) and then, a demand to investigate Biden.

But here is the bizarre thing - the demand was not necessarily to investigate Biden. Just ANNOUNCE it. A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY POINT,,,

Explain please on why that was done

its self evident,,,

 

[Coyote]

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

Here is the timeline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

It is interesting - it shows a lot of Trump "involvement" with Ukraine, involving his associates, money and a debunked conspiracy theory.

Biden officially announced his candidacy in April 2019, but it was well known for some time he was going to run.

At any time was there anything suggesting an investigation through the DoJ, as is normally done, could have been conducted on Biden were there sufficient evidence. Yet it wasn't. Instead we have this bizarre mafia-esque timeline of interaction between Trump, Trump administration people, and Ukrainian agents, including those fired for refusing to combat corruption adequately and even coaching witness' testimony on how to avoid getting prosecuted in corruption hearings.

What we have is a bunch of US taxpayer money spent on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory (why???? when there was so much unrelated evidence from multiple sources that it was Russia?) and then, a demand to investigate Biden.

But here is the bizarre thing - the demand was not necessarily to investigate Biden. Just ANNOUNCE it. A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY POINT,,,

Explain please on why that was done

its self evident,,,

Elaborate please, or I'm calling you on your B.S.

 

[IM2]

investigating corruption is his responsibility and not impeachable,,,

not for personal gain. his own personal gain is not in america's best interest.
it isn't for any president.

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

Here is the timeline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

It is interesting - it shows a lot of Trump "involvement" with Ukraine, involving his associates, money and a debunked conspiracy theory.

Biden officially announced his candidacy in April 2019, but it was well known for some time he was going to run.

At any time was there anything suggesting an investigation through the DoJ, as is normally done, could have been conducted on Biden were there sufficient evidence. Yet it wasn't. Instead we have this bizarre mafia-esque timeline of interaction between Trump, Trump administration people, and Ukrainian agents, including those fired for refusing to combat corruption adequately and even coaching witness' testimony on how to avoid getting prosecuted in corruption hearings.

What we have is a bunch of US taxpayer money spent on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory (why???? when there was so much unrelated evidence from multiple sources that it was Russia?) and then, a demand to investigate Biden.

But here is the bizarre thing - the demand was not necessarily to investigate Biden. Just ANNOUNCE it. A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY POINT,,,

Explain please on why that was done

He can't.

 

[IM2]

not trumps fault biden thought running for office would protect him,,,

Here is the timeline:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

It is interesting - it shows a lot of Trump "involvement" with Ukraine, involving his associates, money and a debunked conspiracy theory.

Biden officially announced his candidacy in April 2019, but it was well known for some time he was going to run.

At any time was there anything suggesting an investigation through the DoJ, as is normally done, could have been conducted on Biden were there sufficient evidence. Yet it wasn't. Instead we have this bizarre mafia-esque timeline of interaction between Trump, Trump administration people, and Ukrainian agents, including those fired for refusing to combat corruption adequately and even coaching witness' testimony on how to avoid getting prosecuted in corruption hearings.

What we have is a bunch of US taxpayer money spent on investigating a debunked conspiracy theory (why???? when there was so much unrelated evidence from multiple sources that it was Russia?) and then, a demand to investigate Biden.

But here is the bizarre thing - the demand was not necessarily to investigate Biden. Just ANNOUNCE it. A pre-written note on what to say was even provided.

Explain please on why that was done.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY POINT,,,

Explain please on why that was done

its self evident,,,

Elaborate please, or I'm calling you on your B.S.

Start calling because he can't.

 

[SAYIT]

.Dershowitz is insane

He's had his moments of insanity ... he's a lifelong liberal Democrat who admits to have voted for Hillary.

That's crazy.

 

[depotoo]

That note is written by someone left handed. Trump is right handed.

 

[initforme]

He helped get OJ off but then again the evidence against him was weak.

 

[IM2]

That note is written by someone left handed. Trump is right handed.

That person was directed by trump.

 

[22lcidw]

So I'm assuming you will be fine when a Democrat president withholds aid to other countries and tries to strong arm them into digging up dirt on his political rivals. Am I right?

No, but that is not what Trump did.

Would you be fine the next time the House is majority Republican impeaching a Democrat president without evidence...just hearsay? Careful, Obama was accused of much worse and the Republicans didn't impeach him because they couldn't prove the charges. Democrats don't seem to care about proof.

That is exactly trump did. Trump was not impeached with hearsay and the fact trump refused to allow witness and documents says his ass was guilty. Your party has already impeached a president for a trivial thing that was not against the law and doctored a disingenuous legal claim to get it done because he lied about a mother fucking affair to the congress. Yet this asshole refuses to allow witnesses to testify and documents to be given to congress with information germane to the case and your fucked up retarded ass is talking about impeaching a president with hearsay.

Obama didn't do anything close to what this maggot has done. Dragonlady hit the nail straight up on the head. You racist white men are doing anything to retain and maintain power and control of this country, even if it means the end of democracy itself. You republicans are going to pay dearly for this. Starting with that punk ass bitch trump.

Trump has more of the "hood" in him then Obama. He's just in the wrong party.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

I used to respect Alan Dershowitz. Not any more.

He argued that a President can do pretty much ANYTHING to get himself re-elected, as long as he thinks it's for the good of the country. Please tell me: has ANY President or Presidential candidate ever believed that his (or her) election would be bad for the country? Of course not. Therefore, Dershowitz is arguing that any President can do anything to get re-elected (or, perhaps, elected to begin with). This is utter insanity, and inanity.

No he didn't.

Dershowitz was making the uncontroversial point that executive acts a president subjectively believes are in the national interest do not become impeachable just because the president simultaneously believes such acts will help him politically.

Dershowitz was explicit that presidents are not above the law, and that they may be impeached for criminal acts. See here

He skillfully refuted the unworkable theory advanced by Democrats — a dangerous theory because of the partisan abuse of Congress’s impeachment power that it invites, to wit: A president may properly be impeached for what objectively appear to be legitimate exercises of his constitutional prerogatives if Congress — in particular, the president’s partisan opposition — decides the president was “corruptly” motivated to achieve some personal political advantage.

The Constitution vests a president with nigh-plenary authority over the conduct of foreign relations, and all presidents who hope to be reelected execute their official duties with an eye toward their political standing just as all senators and representatives do.

On the matter of impeachment, the dispositive issue is always whether the acts in question are justifiable. If they are, a president cannot properly be impeached just because his critics think he had a dirty mind in taking them. If they are not justifiable, corrupt motive is obviously relevant, but the question of whether a president should be impeached and removed will hinge on how seriously wrong the acts are — in conception, execution, and consequence.

Historically, this high burden in the Senate has stopped the House from invoking impeachment over misconduct that is not sufficiently grave. This has prevented impeachments driven by partisan spite. We can certainly hope that the Senate’s imminent acquittal of President Trump will serve to restore that norm.

Supposedly, Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Burisma and Hunter Biden because he's concerned about corruption. Corruption exists in many countries. How many other corrupt countries has Trump expressed concern about? In fact, recently it was revealed that Trump wanted to repeal a prohibition on U.S. companies paying bribes because he believes that it puts the U.S. at a disadvantage. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't give a damn about corruption, in Ukraine or anywhere else. He just wanted to get some dirt on Joe Biden, perhaps his biggest political rival. If you want to talk about corruption, there it is.