Dershowitz Is Insane

[Penelope]

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.

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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??

 

[Crixus]

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.

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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??

No, he shouldn't have lied under oath. That's the meat and potatos of Bill Clintons list of felonies. That's why he got impeached and thrown off the bar in Arkansas and the Supreme Court. That's the end of it. If Trump is a liar, which he is, all polititions are, but he is smart enough to not do it under oath. Oh, and I missposted. Clinton was charged with 13, and convicted of two, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Don't matter. Had he not lied he would have gotten through it.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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.

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

 

[eddiew]

Ya when he helped that thug OJ, that sealed it for me

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

the constitution says everyone has a right to a defense. i just think defense lawyers have to have something scummy in them to defend someone just for the cash & forget their own ethics.

The problem with your thought is that you immediately assign guilt when the presumption is innocent.

actually the problem with your thought is that you are conflating my opinion with actual due process. of course i think he's guilty. not because of any hatred i may harbor towards donny - but rather from evaluating the DECADES of seeing his vile behavior
( that has taken so many forms ) always ends up being for his personal benefit.

is he entitled to a defense? sure. should he be found guilty? absolutely. will he? looks like the fix was in.

All those republican punks in the senate are scared shitless of him and rightfully so No telling what the S Bag will do next

 

[Crixus]

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.

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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.

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

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.

 

[Terri4Trump]

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.

Oh man. DragonBreath and Phlegmole. Dumb and Dumber. Good luck man. LOL

 

[Mike473]

We have Adam Schiff claiming he doesn't know who the whistleblower is, while in truth, he probably filled out the complaint form on his behalf. Washington is full of liars. That is nothing new.

 

[basquebromance]

i dont mean to be Alan Dershowitz and argue against myself, but now John Bolton is gonna be blackmailed and intimidated by the White House.

Trump should be impeached for witness tampering, my friends!

I'm still fightin'! its not over! i'm still fightin' to impeach Trump!

IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45!

 

[CWayne]

Ya when he helped that thug OJ, that sealed it for me

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

the constitution says everyone has a right to a defense. i just think defense lawyers have to have something scummy in them to defend someone just for the cash & forget their own ethics.

The problem with your thought is that you immediately assign guilt when the presumption is innocent.

actually the problem with your thought is that you are conflating my opinion with actual due process. of course i think he's guilty. not because of any hatred i may harbor towards donny - but rather from evaluating the DECADES of seeing his vile behavior
( that has taken so many forms ) always ends up being for his personal benefit.

is he entitled to a defense? sure. should he be found guilty? absolutely. will he? looks like the fix was in.

guilty of what? Upsetting Democrats?

 

[CWayne]

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

the constitution says everyone has a right to a defense. i just think defense lawyers have to have something scummy in them to defend someone just for the cash & forget their own ethics.

The problem with your thought is that you immediately assign guilt when the presumption is innocent.

actually the problem with your thought is that you are conflating my opinion with actual due process. of course i think he's guilty. not because of any hatred i may harbor towards donny - but rather from evaluating the DECADES of seeing his vile behavior
( that has taken so many forms ) always ends up being for his personal benefit.

is he entitled to a defense? sure. should he be found guilty? absolutely. will he? looks like the fix was in.

On the positive side, Trump’s corruption, as well as that of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party, has been laid bare to the American people.

Even the Senators voting to acquit are saying the Democrats proved their case but they don’t think his actions warrant removal. They are voting against the Constitution for political reasons.

This won’t go well for Republicans in November.

What corruption is that?

 

[iceberg]

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

the constitution says everyone has a right to a defense. i just think defense lawyers have to have something scummy in them to defend someone just for the cash & forget their own ethics.

The problem with your thought is that you immediately assign guilt when the presumption is innocent.

actually the problem with your thought is that you are conflating my opinion with actual due process. of course i think he's guilty. not because of any hatred i may harbor towards donny - but rather from evaluating the DECADES of seeing his vile behavior
( that has taken so many forms ) always ends up being for his personal benefit.

is he entitled to a defense? sure. should he be found guilty? absolutely. will he? looks like the fix was in.

guilty of what? Upsetting Democrats?

To the point of tears.

This is quite serious.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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.

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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??

 

[Zorro!]

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.

It's not clear why this confuses you.​

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I see you have subscribed to adumb shitts interpretation. Here's a clue for you, shitt lied.

.

 

[playtime]

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.

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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.

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

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.

 

[playtime]

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

the constitution says everyone has a right to a defense. i just think defense lawyers have to have something scummy in them to defend someone just for the cash & forget their own ethics.

The problem with your thought is that you immediately assign guilt when the presumption is innocent.

actually the problem with your thought is that you are conflating my opinion with actual due process. of course i think he's guilty. not because of any hatred i may harbor towards donny - but rather from evaluating the DECADES of seeing his vile behavior
( that has taken so many forms ) always ends up being for his personal benefit.

is he entitled to a defense? sure. should he be found guilty? absolutely. will he? looks like the fix was in.

guilty of what? Upsetting Democrats?

guilty of a quid pro quo/bribery/extortion & violating the Impoundment Control Act.

 

[playtime]

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.

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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

 

[Crixus]

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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

And now we have come full circle. Back to rape. I figured it would be impeachment again.

 

[Crixus]

If you remember what Dershowitz was saying during Bill Clinton's impeachment, you would agree that he has been pretty consistent.

.

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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.

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

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?

 

[playtime]

Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
snip

Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who posses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
------------------------------------------------------

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.

Trump didn't lie in court, which is what Clinton did. Clinton did no commit 13 felonies. He was charged with one count of perjury in a trial which was dismissed as malicious prosecution.

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