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.
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 did not say thatI 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.
liberals did
Rachel madcow did an interview with lev parnas that admitted as much,,,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?
lol... not really. you have nothing to back up what you said. i gave you THE direct link from the (R) controlled intel comittee that says you are lying.
thanx for letting me easily show what a liar & fake news spreader you are. it was fun.
So you want to stick you nose in this and prove you are a liar, too, snowflake? Ok....What you claim about Schiff is a lie and you call somebody else a liar.
Dershowitz did not say thatI 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.
liberals did
Yes Dershowitz had a rare inarticulate moment
and the libs jumped on it
but as he explained later his point was about mixed motives
he said president can do things for more than one reason
and one of the reasons always is self interest
thats really just common sense
Rachel madcow did an interview with lev parnas that admitted as much,,,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?
lol... not really. you have nothing to back up what you said. i gave you THE direct link from the (R) controlled intel comittee that says you are lying.
thanx for letting me easily show what a liar & fake news spreader you are. it was fun.
View attachment 304221
View attachment 304219
View attachment 304220
View attachment 304218
Yes Dershowitz had a rare inarticulate moment...and the libs jumped on it
Dershowitz did not say thatI 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.
liberals did
Yes Dershowitz had a rare inarticulate moment
and the libs jumped on it
but as he explained later his point was about mixed motives
he said president can do things for more than one reason
and one of the reasons always is self interest
thats really just common sense
uh - huh ...guess he had an inarticulate moment back 1998 too.
As an aging warrior Dershowitz should have known the lib media would do that if he left the door open for themYes Dershowitz had a rare inarticulate moment...and the libs jumped on it
Dershowitz didn't have an 'inarticulate moment'. The Fake News Media took one sound byte, one sentence, from the entirety of what he said, and ran it out of context over and over, deceptively telling people what he meant. When he appeared on CNN right after that, Wolf Blitzer attempted to rebuke Dershowitz for the 'false narrative' the fake news media had made of the clip, and Dershowitz rebuked the hell out of Blitzer and the fake news media for spinning what he had said out of context, for once again attempting to CREATE the story / news instead of reporting it. Blitzer looked like a child who was being reprimanded by a parent.
Dershowitz also demonstrated why CNN is now the bottom-feeder of fake news media.
Libs knew exactly what he meant, too, which is why they took one sound byte out of context. They just do what they do - lie and report fake news.As an aging warrior Dershowitz should have known the lib media would do that if he left the door open for them
in sports he would be pointing to the quarterback and saying “my bad” for dropping an easy pass. but we know what he meant even if libs do not
If you can't win by making your case to the people, if you can't sell YOURSELF, you don't deserve to win.yea, you'd NEVER do that, would you?Congrats for blowing what he said WAY out of context.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.
For instance, he did not say it is ok for a candidate to collude with a known, lying, partisan, agenda-driven, foreign spy to acquire Russian-authored Counter-Intelligence propaganda to use to win an election.
He did not say it is ok to commit FISA Court abuses - to lie, withhold evidence, alter official documents, manufacture evidence, and illegally spy on candidates.
FAIL.
BREAKING NEWS man.
Democrats attempted to steal the entire 2016 election, like they stole their Primary. Now their trying to steal the 2020 election, just like their stealing their 2020 Primary again. They can't beat Trump - they know it. That's what all of this is about.
Yeah, I think the elite dems knowLibs knew exactly what he meant, too, which is why they took one sound byte out of context. They just do what they do - lie and report fake news.As an aging warrior Dershowitz should have known the lib media would do that if he left the door open for them
in sports he would be pointing to the quarterback and saying “my bad” for dropping an easy pass. but we know what he meant even if libs do not
What you claim about Schiff is a lie and you call somebody else a liar.
Rachel madcow did an interview with lev parnas that admitted as much,,,regardless it doesnt take away from the fact trumps investigation started almost 2 yrs before biden started his run,,,
got unbiased credible links?
lol... not really. you have nothing to back up what you said. i gave you THE direct link from the (R) controlled intel comittee that says you are lying.
thanx for letting me easily show what a liar & fake news spreader you are. it was fun.
View attachment 304221
View attachment 304219
View attachment 304220
View attachment 304218
^^^ meh.
silly memes don't affect me. but apparently facts do for you.
What you claim about Schiff is a lie and you call somebody else a liar.
If you need some help getting started with your research, here ya go:
"Rep. Adam Schiff has repeatedly stated in impeachment hearings in front of the House Intelligence Committee that the Ukraine whistleblower has “a statutory right to anonymity” and blocked Republican questions about him.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act establishes rules for whistleblowers to report on waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner, and it, along with presidential directives, provides legal protections against reprisals and punishment. Anonymity, however, is not one of those guarantees."
“There is no language in the statute as written — or amended — that gives a whistleblower from the intelligence community the statutory right to anonymity"
Schiff falsely claims whistleblowers are afforded anonymity and immunity. - Google Search
Someone should leak his name. Typically this would have happened. Wonder if there ain't plans for Eric?
Someone should leak his name. Typically this would have happened. Wonder if there ain't plans for Eric?
Graham announced he uis going to begin an investigation into the Bidens. Whether he follows through or not, we'll see.
my biggest problem with republicans is they never stand up to democrats and seek prosecutions when its clear a crime was committed,,,Someone should leak his name. Typically this would have happened. Wonder if there ain't plans for Eric?
Graham announced he uis going to begin an investigation into the Bidens. Whether he follows through or not, we'll see.
"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.
.
No. It depends on what part of the social spectrum he is on. The Left is always innocent and well intentioned, the Right is always guilty and malicious.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?
Depends on if it's justified or not.
.
So, she's just after money? That should convince a jury!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?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.
.
For all anyone knows she loaned the dress to someone else, ya just never know. That's why no judge would ever issue a warrant for DNA base on that story. 25-30 years is a long time, DNA degrades over time.
.
this is a civil case, not a criminal one. the 'burden' is much lower & there is no beyond a reasonable doubt; only the preponderance of the evidence to be proven.
