Dershowitz Sez "No Case for Impeachment!"

[AntonToo]

Dershowitz is dead wrong.

Niether public, nor Congress, nor Courts will ever tollerate the swamp his legal theory of Presidential powers adds up to.

[/thread]

Learn to spell, Antosha. Dershowitz has no dog in this fight

What the fuck do you know about Dershowtz's dogs?

You seriously need to stop posting your fantasies, you have no idea what his motivations are.

You don’t even understand the idiom. Sooka

Fucking moron, let me repeat it to you again and you see if you can actually refute:

You have no idea what Dershowitz' motivations are.

And neither do you. Antosha, sooka, you’re triggered.

Stupidity is just never ending with you, is it?

I'm not the one talking about Dershowitz not having a dog in the fight, YOU ARE.

As you now conceed you have no idea about his motivations, so your claim of his impartiality is just a claim of convinience, not fact.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well, the House is the only body that can decide. Not some paid TV lawyer.

They are investigating the Ukraine Bribery Scam now.

 

[Natural Citizen]

"No Case for Impeachment!
​

I think the Democrats should go back to their own states, and leave Washington Alone.

Something that is absolutely certain is that he's challenging our system of checks and balances in broad daylight.

 

[Rigby5]

Dershowitz is dead wrong.

[/thread]

Good to know someone feels they know more than a law professor...dumbass.

Isn't it halarious how you rightwingers are suddenly so impressed by liberal professors, for no other reason than the fact that they are professors that say shit you like?

According to Dershowit a president can corruptly fire any officer of law for investigating his people with impunity.

You don't have to be a professor to understand how such legal theory leads straight to swamp.

LMAO. Go back to Russia. Trump could have fired Mueller. Probably should have.

LMAO at your inability to put togather a coherent counter argument.

what was incoherent?

Firing someone, like Comey of Mueller, is almost never a good idea or legal.
It brings up the question of obvious desire to obstruct justice, as well as why the person was hired in the first place, if they need to be fired later?
The criminal justice system can only work when it is not acted upon by executive whim.
If someone should be fired in the criminal justice system, unless there is a smoking gun, it should almost always be resolved in court instead of by executive order.

Trump investigating Biden in the Ukraine is not only legal, but required as a specific presidential responsibility.
However, firing Comey was not.
That likely was obstruction.
He should likely have waited and formulated a better rational.

 

[Rigby5]

Dershowitz has denied this

Oh...well there ya go.

A denial is all that's needed...right?

Are you innocent until proven guilty? Yes. Look at Kavanaugh. Herr Lesh, you’re dumb.

When it comes to a SCOTUS nomination, then yes you are guilty until proven innocent.
And no, everyone denies, so a denial is not sufficient.
Clearly Dershowitz has obivous motives to lie, such as rewarding Trump for illegally moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

 

[Rigby5]

Learn to spell, Antosha. Dershowitz has no dog in this fight

What the fuck do you know about Dershowtz's dogs?

You seriously need to stop posting your fantasies, you have no idea what his motivations are.

You don’t even understand the idiom. Sooka

Fucking moron, let me repeat it to you again and you see if you can actually refute:

You have no idea what Dershowitz' motivations are.

And neither do you. Antosha, sooka, you’re triggered.

Stupidity is just never ending with you, is it?

I'm not the one talking about Dershowitz not having a dog in the fight, YOU ARE.

As you now conceed you have no idea about his motivations, so your claim of his impartiality is just a claim of convinience, not fact.

Obviously Dershowitz definitely has a dog in this race.
The US embassy moved to Jerusalem, illegally.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, the House is the only body that can decide. Not some paid TV lawyer.

They are investigating the Ukraine Bribery Scam now.

And if any member of Congress were not corrupt, they would all have to recuse themselves.
It is all very contradictory.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Learn to spell, Antosha. Dershowitz has no dog in this fight

What the fuck do you know about Dershowtz's dogs?

You seriously need to stop posting your fantasies, you have no idea what his motivations are.

You don’t even understand the idiom. Sooka

Fucking moron, let me repeat it to you again and you see if you can actually refute:

You have no idea what Dershowitz' motivations are.

And neither do you. Antosha, sooka, you’re triggered.

Stupidity is just never ending with you, is it?

I'm not the one talking about Dershowitz not having a dog in the fight, YOU ARE.

As you now conceed you have no idea about his motivations, so your claim of his impartiality is just a claim of convinience, not fact.

His motivations are to protect the constitution. He said he would have the same argument if this were President Clinton and not President Trump. You cannot spell concede or convenience. You're an uneducated troll.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Good to know someone feels they know more than a law professor...dumbass.

Isn't it halarious how you rightwingers are suddenly so impressed by liberal professors, for no other reason than the fact that they are professors that say shit you like?

According to Dershowit a president can corruptly fire any officer of law for investigating his people with impunity.

You don't have to be a professor to understand how such legal theory leads straight to swamp.

LMAO. Go back to Russia. Trump could have fired Mueller. Probably should have.

LMAO at your inability to put togather a coherent counter argument.

what was incoherent?

Firing someone, like Comey of Mueller, is almost never a good idea or legal.
It brings up the question of obvious desire to obstruct justice, as well as why the person was hired in the first place, if they need to be fired later?
The criminal justice system can only work when it is not acted upon by executive whim.
If someone should be fired in the criminal justice system, unless there is a smoking gun, it should almost always be resolved in court instead of by executive order.

Trump investigating Biden in the Ukraine is not only legal, but required as a specific presidential responsibility.
However, firing Comey was not.
That likely was obstruction.
He should likely have waited and formulated a better rational.

I agree. Not a good idea but he legally could have done it. True or False?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Dershowitz has denied this

Oh...well there ya go.

A denial is all that's needed...right?

Are you innocent until proven guilty? Yes. Look at Kavanaugh. Herr Lesh, you’re dumb.

When it comes to a SCOTUS nomination, then yes you are guilty until proven innocent.
And no, everyone denies, so a denial is not sufficient.
Clearly Dershowitz has obivous motives to lie, such as rewarding Trump for illegally moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

How was it illegal when every other POTUS promised to do the same thing? Show a link that you're guilty until proven innocent.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What the fuck do you know about Dershowtz's dogs?

You seriously need to stop posting your fantasies, you have no idea what his motivations are.

You don’t even understand the idiom. Sooka

Fucking moron, let me repeat it to you again and you see if you can actually refute:

You have no idea what Dershowitz' motivations are.

And neither do you. Antosha, sooka, you’re triggered.

Stupidity is just never ending with you, is it?

I'm not the one talking about Dershowitz not having a dog in the fight, YOU ARE.

As you now conceed you have no idea about his motivations, so your claim of his impartiality is just a claim of convinience, not fact.

Obviously Dershowitz definitely has a dog in this race.
The US embassy moved to Jerusalem, illegally.

Why would he care about that. You told me that most Jews vote Democrat and hate Israel? LOL

Talking out of both sides of your mouth? Again?

 

[AntonToo]

Isn't it halarious how you rightwingers are suddenly so impressed by liberal professors, for no other reason than the fact that they are professors that say shit you like?

According to Dershowit a president can corruptly fire any officer of law for investigating his people with impunity.

You don't have to be a professor to understand how such legal theory leads straight to swamp.

LMAO. Go back to Russia. Trump could have fired Mueller. Probably should have.

LMAO at your inability to put togather a coherent counter argument.

what was incoherent?

Firing someone, like Comey of Mueller, is almost never a good idea or legal.
It brings up the question of obvious desire to obstruct justice, as well as why the person was hired in the first place, if they need to be fired later?
The criminal justice system can only work when it is not acted upon by executive whim.
If someone should be fired in the criminal justice system, unless there is a smoking gun, it should almost always be resolved in court instead of by executive order.

Trump investigating Biden in the Ukraine is not only legal, but required as a specific presidential responsibility.
However, firing Comey was not.
That likely was obstruction.
He should likely have waited and formulated a better rational.

I agree. Not a good idea but he legally could have done it. True or False?

According to Dershowitz and other unitarians it was legal and not-imeachable, because President has the firing power over those positions and can do so for even corrupt reasons. Also, Dershowitz thinks that ONLY full on criminal offenses can be grounds for impeachment.

However according to most legal experts it was illegal and impeachable, because while President has the power, he is abusing that power for a CORRUPT and therefore ILLEGAL PURPOSE of Obstructing Justice. Most experts also belive that historically "high crimes and misdemeanors" applies to crimes, but also covers general gross abuse of power that is not explicitly covered by criminal law.


There is little doubt that if we will ever have actuall case, in an actual court room with judge and jury these corrupt acts by the President will be held to account. Because people foremost understand that NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW and there is absolutely no compelling reason to effectively permit the office of Presidentcy to commit corrupt acts with impunity as Dershowitz would have.

 

[AntonToo]

You don’t even understand the idiom. Sooka

Fucking moron, let me repeat it to you again and you see if you can actually refute:

You have no idea what Dershowitz' motivations are.

And neither do you. Antosha, sooka, you’re triggered.

Stupidity is just never ending with you, is it?

I'm not the one talking about Dershowitz not having a dog in the fight, YOU ARE.

As you now conceed you have no idea about his motivations, so your claim of his impartiality is just a claim of convinience, not fact.

Obviously Dershowitz definitely has a dog in this race.
The US embassy moved to Jerusalem, illegally.

Why would he care about that. You told me that most Jews vote Democrat and hate Israel? LOL

Talking out of both sides of your mouth? Again?

Umm dummy, "most jews" does not preclude Dershowitz specifically from not being like most jews.

Logic - got any?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LMAO. Go back to Russia. Trump could have fired Mueller. Probably should have.

LMAO at your inability to put togather a coherent counter argument.

what was incoherent?

Firing someone, like Comey of Mueller, is almost never a good idea or legal.
It brings up the question of obvious desire to obstruct justice, as well as why the person was hired in the first place, if they need to be fired later?
The criminal justice system can only work when it is not acted upon by executive whim.
If someone should be fired in the criminal justice system, unless there is a smoking gun, it should almost always be resolved in court instead of by executive order.

Trump investigating Biden in the Ukraine is not only legal, but required as a specific presidential responsibility.
However, firing Comey was not.
That likely was obstruction.
He should likely have waited and formulated a better rational.

I agree. Not a good idea but he legally could have done it. True or False?

According to Dershowitz and other unitarians it was legal and not-imeachable, because President has the firing power over those positions and can do so for even corrupt reasons. Also, Dershowitz thinks that ONLY full on criminal offenses can be grounds for impeachment.

However according to most legal experts it was illegal and impeachable, because while President has the power, he is abusing that power for a CORRUPT and therefore ILLEGAL PURPOSE of Obstructing Justice. Most experts also belive that historically "high crimes and misdemeanors" applies to crimes, but also covers general gross abuse of power that is not explicitly covered by criminal law.


There is little doubt that if we will ever have actuall case, in an actual court room with judge and jury these corrupt acts by the President will be held to account. Because people foremost understand that NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW and there is absolutely no compelling reason to effectively permit the office of Presidentcy to commit corrupt acts with impunity as Dershowitz would have.

Actual has one "l".

Could he have fired Mueller. Yes or No. Not "should" but "could".

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Fucking moron, let me repeat it to you again and you see if you can actually refute:

You have no idea what Dershowitz' motivations are.

And neither do you. Antosha, sooka, you’re triggered.

Stupidity is just never ending with you, is it?

I'm not the one talking about Dershowitz not having a dog in the fight, YOU ARE.

As you now conceed you have no idea about his motivations, so your claim of his impartiality is just a claim of convinience, not fact.

Obviously Dershowitz definitely has a dog in this race.
The US embassy moved to Jerusalem, illegally.

Why would he care about that. You told me that most Jews vote Democrat and hate Israel? LOL

Talking out of both sides of your mouth? Again?

Umm dummy, "most jews" does not preclude Dershowitz specifically from not being like most jews.

Logic - got any?

Antosha, sooka. Your next rational statement will be your first.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dershowitz is dead wrong.

[/thread]

Good to know someone feels they know more than a law professor...dumbass.

Isn't it halarious how you rightwingers are suddenly so impressed by liberal professors, for no other reason than the fact that they are professors that say shit you like?

According to Dershowit a president can corruptly fire any officer of law for investigating his people with impunity.

You don't have to be a professor to understand how such legal theory leads straight to swamp.

LMAO. Go back to Russia. Trump could have fired Mueller. Probably should have.

LMAO at your inability to put togather a coherent counter argument.

You haven't put up a coherent debate at all, here is something too many democrats fail to notice, from The Last Refuge,

Finally – John Ratcliffe Explains Why Pelosi’s “Impeachment Inquiry” is Being Run From House Intel Instead of House Judiciary…

Excerpt:

Good grief it’s taking the republicans f.o.r.e.v.e.r to explain to the American electorate what is going on behind the thoroughly corrupted political impeachment process. In this interview John Ratcliffe finally explains why the “official impeachment inquiry” is not being run by the House Judiciary Committee that holds impeachment jurisdiction.

Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process. It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction. {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.

The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment, is not within the jurisdiction of either committee. So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme. WATCH:"

red bolding and size 6 letters mine

=============================

There is NO LEGAL impeachment process going on, it is political theater and nothing else.

You are falling for a FAKE impeachment process, which means you are too dumb to figure it out.

Dershowitz is correct.

 

[BS Filter]

Democrats admire and respect Professor Dershowitz......well, they used to until now.

 

[AntonToo]

There is NO LEGAL impeachment process going on, it is political theater and nothing else.

You are falling for a FAKE impeachment process, which means you are too dumb to figure it out.

Dershowitz is correct.

Ok moron, when Trump gets impeached in the House I will again quote this half-baked post to remind you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

There is NO LEGAL impeachment process going on, it is political theater and nothing else.

You are falling for a FAKE impeachment process, which means you are too dumb to figure it out.

Dershowitz is correct.

Ok moron, when Trump gets impeached in the House I will again quote this half-baked post to remind you.

If he doesn’t get impeached then what? Will you promise to get off this site and never post again?

 

[AntonToo]

Democrats admire and respect Professor Dershowitz......well, they used to until now.

Yea, used to be pretty respectable untill he took up spreading swamp for Trump.

Read up.

‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?’