Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like any American voter gives a damn if Ukraine investigates someone. The whole thing was a pathetic attempt to overturn a past election and strip the sitting President off the ballot in this election.No he didn't.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.
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.
One big difference here, Slick Willy committed 13 felonies. As in broke the law. Not only was Clinton impeached, he was disbarred. Honestly, what happened to Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Justice and more to do with a blue haired church lady that had it in for him. Still, Clinton would have been fine had he just not told lies. If Trump lied as much as you pretend he did, he would have been gotten. Face it, 4,more years of trump.
He should of never been under oath, tramp has lied every time he opens his mouth. Everything he says is a lie.
By the way, list Clintons 13 felonies or give a link??
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
By JENNIFER PELTZJanuary 30, 2020 GMT
NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”
Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation, saying he didn’t know and had never even met her. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found in skin cells on the outer surface of the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them male.
Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix, according to the lab report, which was obtained by The Associated Press. Their names are redacted, but the report indicates they were involved in a photo shoot where she wore the dress last year, the only time Carroll says she has donned the dress since the alleged assault.
“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday.
The White House and Trump’s lawyer have not responded to a request for comment.
[...]
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
You have to be high, SKIN CELLS??????? Walk down any NY sidewalk and you could get skin cells form a thousand contributors. Some would likely be secondary transfer. Hell you can pick up skin cells in a damn taxi. Skin cells prove nothing.
.
they would prove whether donny - who claims to not know her at all - was in close contact with her. i am not saying it was him, but he can be sued & may just hafta give up some DNA. given his track record for the last 4 decades, is it that unreasonable to think he isn't completely innocent?
c'mon...
Lie all you want. Don't change the fact. Clinton broke tha law. He deserved what he got because he was stupid and lied under oath. This is why he got thrown off the Arkansas bar, and the SCOTUS bar, well, he quit the last one before he was booted. This is why he will be remembered as the presidant who got impeached for cheating on his wife, as well as the presidant who diddled little girls on his friends private jet. Trump? He will be remembered as the presidant who killed the DNC and got impeached for it.
trump broke the law per the non partisan GAO. he with held aid without going thru the proper lawful channels.
Oh?
yes.
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
By Olivia Beavers and Rebecca Klar - 01/16/20 10:06 AM EST
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
Oct 23, 2019
Download PDF
What is the Impoundment Control Act?
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.
Why was the ICA necessary?
Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.
What does it mean to ‘impound’ funds?
An “impoundment” is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently.
How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
[...]
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
donny didn't go thru protocol.
CONCLUSION OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
And??????????? IF he violated the act, it's a civil offense, not criminal. Any more bogus claims you wish to assert?
.
it wouldn't matter, little kitten, 'cause the bar y'all deplorables set for donny is lower than a cockroach's belly.
You don't get it. Trump trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden wasn't because any American voters would care about the results. But ANY investigation would make Biden look bad, and give Trump a better chance of being re-elected. And no, the "whole thing" (I assume you mean impeachment) wasn't about overturning the last election. It was about a President abusing the power of his office in an attempt to ensure his re-election, which is what happened. But you know what? People that hate Trump vote, too.Like any American voter gives a damn if Ukraine investigates someone. The whole thing was a pathetic attempt to overturn a past election and strip the sitting President off the ballot in this election.No he didn't.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.
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.
dershowitz also defended the likes of mike tyson & jim bakker.
well now, isn't that special? looks like dershowitz is the scum that scum gets when it really gets scummy.
He should of never been under oath, tramp has lied every time he opens his mouth. Everything he says is a lie.
By the way, list Clintons 13 felonies or give a link??
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
By JENNIFER PELTZJanuary 30, 2020 GMT
NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”
Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation, saying he didn’t know and had never even met her. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found in skin cells on the outer surface of the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them male.
Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix, according to the lab report, which was obtained by The Associated Press. Their names are redacted, but the report indicates they were involved in a photo shoot where she wore the dress last year, the only time Carroll says she has donned the dress since the alleged assault.
“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday.
The White House and Trump’s lawyer have not responded to a request for comment.
[...]
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
You have to be high, SKIN CELLS??????? Walk down any NY sidewalk and you could get skin cells form a thousand contributors. Some would likely be secondary transfer. Hell you can pick up skin cells in a damn taxi. Skin cells prove nothing.
.
they would prove whether donny - who claims to not know her at all - was in close contact with her. i am not saying it was him, but he can be sued & may just hafta give up some DNA. given his track record for the last 4 decades, is it that unreasonable to think he isn't completely innocent?
c'mon...
No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.
.
Yep the dershowitz doctrine will be remembered as the beginning of totalitarianism in America.Lol.....Dershowitz will forever be remembered as the guy that dropped the final MOAB on the DUMS with the impeachment. Of course, the haters will say he is insane......because they lOsT.
Only by the k00ks.....nobody thinks that except the hyper- haters
if trump walked down the middle of 5th ave & shot somebody, would he... SHOULD he be held accountable?
Only if there was something Biden did that looked bad, and there was. Trump, just like you or me, has the freedom to think and voice that thought. The way the Left tries to criminalize disagreements, well, there is nothing even remotely Liberal about the Left.You don't get it. Trump trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden wasn't because any American voters would care about the results. But ANY investigation would make Biden look bad, and give Trump a better chance of being re-elected. And no, the "whole thing" (I assume you mean impeachment) wasn't about overturning the last election. It was about a President abusing the power of his office in an attempt to ensure his re-election, which is what happened. But you know what? People that hate Trump vote, too.Like any American voter gives a damn if Ukraine investigates someone. The whole thing was a pathetic attempt to overturn a past election and strip the sitting President off the ballot in this election.No he didn't.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.
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.
I agree that every defendant should get the best defense possible. Unfortunately, that usually means the best defense that money can buy. I wonder how much pro bono work Dershowitz does? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, too.dershowitz also defended the likes of mike tyson & jim bakker.
well now, isn't that special? looks like dershowitz is the scum that scum gets when it really gets scummy.
And the hildabitch defended a child rapist. I defended her for that, every defendant deserves the best defense they can get. That's how the system is supposed to work. Do you disagree?
.
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.
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.
it is not hearsay. vindman was a first person witness in on that not so perfect call.
why won't donny let his 'men' testify? why wont he cough up any docs? why is he afraid?
& why was cippolone who bolton said was in on the shake down allowed to be counsel for donny? why was pam bondi- who took a cash buy off - to close down donny's university lawsuit allowed on his team?
cause he is dirty dirty dirty filthy dirty & it will catch up to him & the rest of his flying monkeys.
I think history will have something to say about this that won't be good.
But I'm more worried about precedents and an awful lot of unchecked power going to the executive. Our government depends on a system of checks and balances and it's being eroded before our eyes.
Not that he SHOULD have been removed from office, after all the other two impeached presidents weren't - but we should have heard from witnesses.
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
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
By JENNIFER PELTZJanuary 30, 2020 GMT
NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”
Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation, saying he didn’t know and had never even met her. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found in skin cells on the outer surface of the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them male.
Several other people were tested and eliminated as possible contributors to the mix, according to the lab report, which was obtained by The Associated Press. Their names are redacted, but the report indicates they were involved in a photo shoot where she wore the dress last year, the only time Carroll says she has donned the dress since the alleged assault.
“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday.
The White House and Trump’s lawyer have not responded to a request for comment.
[...]
AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA
You have to be high, SKIN CELLS??????? Walk down any NY sidewalk and you could get skin cells form a thousand contributors. Some would likely be secondary transfer. Hell you can pick up skin cells in a damn taxi. Skin cells prove nothing.
.
they would prove whether donny - who claims to not know her at all - was in close contact with her. i am not saying it was him, but he can be sued & may just hafta give up some DNA. given his track record for the last 4 decades, is it that unreasonable to think he isn't completely innocent?
c'mon...
No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.
.
Dershowitz would make very short work of that if some idiot prosecutor was dumb enough to try to charge a case like that. They found 3 female DNA samples on the dress. How did they get there?
Wow! Really incisive retort! I can't dispute your logic... mainly because there isn't any. Have you got any facts or anything like that?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.
Bullshit spin. Dimms go into attack mode when they get nailed. So predictable.
I agree that every defendant should get the best defense possible. Unfortunately, that usually means the best defense that money can buy. I wonder how much pro bono work Dershowitz does? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, too.dershowitz also defended the likes of mike tyson & jim bakker.
well now, isn't that special? looks like dershowitz is the scum that scum gets when it really gets scummy.
And the hildabitch defended a child rapist. I defended her for that, every defendant deserves the best defense they can get. That's how the system is supposed to work. Do you disagree?
.
"As far as he knew"? Dershowitz must be the first lawyer in history who began working without knowing whether he was being paid or not... But I guess that you get what you pay for.I agree that every defendant should get the best defense possible. Unfortunately, that usually means the best defense that money can buy. I wonder how much pro bono work Dershowitz does? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, too.dershowitz also defended the likes of mike tyson & jim bakker.
well now, isn't that special? looks like dershowitz is the scum that scum gets when it really gets scummy.
And the hildabitch defended a child rapist. I defended her for that, every defendant deserves the best defense they can get. That's how the system is supposed to work. Do you disagree?
.
Dershowitz said as far as he knew he wasn't being paid by the Trump defense team, but he said if he was, it would go the charity.
.
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.
"As far as he knew"? Dershowitz must be the first lawyer in history who began working without knowing whether he was being paid or not... But I guess that you get what you pay for.I agree that every defendant should get the best defense possible. Unfortunately, that usually means the best defense that money can buy. I wonder how much pro bono work Dershowitz does? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, too.dershowitz also defended the likes of mike tyson & jim bakker.
well now, isn't that special? looks like dershowitz is the scum that scum gets when it really gets scummy.
And the hildabitch defended a child rapist. I defended her for that, every defendant deserves the best defense they can get. That's how the system is supposed to work. Do you disagree?
.
Dershowitz said as far as he knew he wasn't being paid by the Trump defense team, but he said if he was, it would go the charity.
.
Rachel madcow did an interview with lev parnas that admitted as much,,,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?
That note is written by someone left handed. Trump is right handed.
