Dershowitz Sez "No Case for Impeachment!"

[Sunsettommy]

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.

It is clear you are too stupid to understand that the INTELLIGENCE committee that is pushing this bogus impeachment narrative, has NO JURISDICTION on impeachment proceedings, it belongs to the JUDICIARY committee.

Wikipedia:

"Procedure
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

• First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
• Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
• Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office."

bolding mine

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

Pelosi is trying to shut out the Republicans out of the impeachment process, and ignore the FULL floor vote requirement to push the impeachment process. It will NEVER happen since it is political theater and not a true impeachment process.

by the way you didn't read my link, since you missed this part:

"Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court.

The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“. Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review."

Your inability to see this development is a sad testament to partisanship that you hold so dear.

 

[AntonToo]

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".

Any corrupt interference (or attempt thereof) in the investigations is illegal. Even for a President.

Trump commited multiple counts of Obstruction of Justice, as detailed in the Special Council's Report Volume II.

He tried to get Comey to squash Flynn investigation - thats Obstruction.
He fired Comey when he wouldn't play along with his corrupt pressure - thats Obstruction.
He tried to fire Mueller - thats Obstrution.
He tried to have WH lawyer enter false records to cover up Trump's attepts to fire Mueller - thats Obstruction.
He tried to get AG Session to unrecuse and limit Mueller's investigation to only FUTURE elections, AG refused and was also fired - that is Obstruction.
He pardon dangled Manafort, Cohen and Flynn - that is Obstruction.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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".

Any corrupt interference (or attempt thereof) in the investigations is illegal. Even for a President.

Trump commited multiple counts of Obstruction of Justice, as detailed in the Special Council's Report Volume II.

Except the primary focus was conspiracy and collusion and there was nothing there. Oh my. You keep moving those goal posts, Antosha. Leftist troll.

 

[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.

It is clear you are too stupid to understand that the INTELLIGENCE committee that is pushing this bogus impeachment narrative, has NO JURISDICTION on impeachment proceedings, it belongs to the JUDICIARY committee.

Wikipedia:

"Procedure
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

• First, the Congress investigates.

• Congress IS now investigating. mmmk moron?

 

[AntonToo]

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".

Any corrupt interference (or attempt thereof) in the investigations is illegal. Even for a President.

Trump commited multiple counts of Obstruction of Justice, as detailed in the Special Council's Report Volume II.

Except the primary focus was conspiracy and collusion and there was nothing there. Oh my. You keep moving those goal posts, Antosha. Leftist troll.

Ignoramus, Obstruction of Justice, like Perjury, is a crime of it's own.

Mueller actually talks about that in the Report, listing various not-criminal reasons people commit criminal acts of Obstruction.

He also talks about why "collusion" is not a legal concept in the criminal law. He looked specifically at Criminal Conspiracy, which has a much higher standard than just plain ol' reprehensible, unpatriotic footsie Trump campaign was playing with the Russians.

You ought to help yourself and go read the report instead of spreading your ignorance around.

And about the goal posts: I've NEVER argued that Trump should be impeached for collusion with Russians, I consistently called for impleachement based on his abuse of office to obstruct of investigations. So you saying that I'm moving the goal posts is just nonsence.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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".

Any corrupt interference (or attempt thereof) in the investigations is illegal. Even for a President.

Trump commited multiple counts of Obstruction of Justice, as detailed in the Special Council's Report Volume II.

Except the primary focus was conspiracy and collusion and there was nothing there. Oh my. You keep moving those goal posts, Antosha. Leftist troll.

Ignoramus, Obstruction of Justice, like Perjury, is a crime of it's own.

Mueller actually talks about that in the Report, listing various not-criminal reasons people commit criminal acts of Obstruction.

He also talks about why "collusion" is not a legal concept in the criminal law. He looked specifically at Criminal Conspiracy, which has a much higher standard than just plain ol' reprehensible, unpatriotic footsie Trump campaign was playing with the Russians.


You ought to help yourself and go read the report instead of spreading your ignorance around.

Yawn. Give an example of obstruction. LOL. You’re so biased. You have 13 mos and then you may vote him out, Antosha. Relax.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

It is clear you are too stupid to understand that the INTELLIGENCE committee that is pushing this bogus impeachment narrative, has NO JURISDICTION on impeachment proceedings, it belongs to the JUDICIARY committee.

Wikipedia:

"Procedure
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

• First, the Congress investigates.

Congress IS now investigating. mmmk moron?

Gee again you show that you don't debate, just spew out unsupported assertions, which are stupid. Here is what else you missed by not honestly responding to evidence I keep putting in front of your partisan face, from The Last Refuge:

"This is a carefully constructed subversion of the constitutional processes and procedures.

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.

As a result of the need to create the optics of something that doesn’t exist; and following the roadmap they outlined in 2018 [See Here and Here]; the Lawfare contractors within the committees’ needed to construct a penalty mechanism that benefits the impeachment agenda but avoids the court system. As a result we see this:"

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

This is why Pelosi will fail, as she is perverting the whole process, by shutting the LEGAL system out. The Trump team has already said they will NOT comply with bogus subpoenas, as they are not legal subpoenas in the first place.

Again from The Last Refuge:

Nancy Pelosi is “Grubering” The American Electorate on Impeachment – Committee Requests, aka “Subpoenas”, Constructed to Manufacture “Obstruction”…

Excerpt:

"Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.

In the last week you’ve probably heard the media sell a narrative that Speaker Pelosi’s House Committee teams are sending out subpoenas to the State Department and White House. However, has anyone actually looked for those “subpoenas”, or read the language of the written communication from those committees’?

Using the House Oversight Committee as the example (because that’s the one most cited and all of the letters are formatted identically), take a careful look at how they frame their undertaking.

As you read this, remember: these carefully chosen words come from the Lawfare Alliance:"

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

Sad that you are easily fooled by the obvious bogus impeachment gambit. It is why Dershowitz says it is a nothingburger...., it is why the Trump administrations isn't falling for this partisan witch hunt, as they are refusing the "pretender" subpoenas crap.

 

[AntonToo]

as they are not legal subpoenas in the first place.

Nonsence.

Congress has the power to subpoena with or without impeachment.

 

[Sunsettommy]

as they are not legal subpoenas in the first place.

Nonsence.

Congress has the power to subpoena with or without impeachment.

You are a total idiot who keeps ignoring the well supported evidence that her "subpoenas" are not real, they are non legal demands that can be safely ignored.

From Pelosi committee:

Notice the phrase “sent a letter conveying a subpoena“?

That statement is not the same as ‘sent a subpoena’; actually, it’s not even close – it is pure parseltongue. You can call any car a Ferrari, but that doesn’t make it so.

Things get a little technical and wonky but essentially the term “subpoena” literally means “under penalty“. A subpoena duces tecu, requires you to produce documents. In this example a congressional subpoena literally, and only, means: a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance....

The House has no independent enforcement mechanism, so each time the House of Representative wants to send a subpoena with an enforcement bite – they need to go to the judicial branch (court system) for an enforceable order. However, notice in these letters the enforcement mechanism is internal. It is a self-fulfilling ‘obstruction‘ scheme.

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court.

The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“. Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review."

large emphasis mine

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

I know you are going to fail to unerstand the difference between a real subpoena and a bogus one, because you are a proven partisan bigot.

 

[AntonToo]

as they are not legal subpoenas in the first place.

Nonsence.

Congress has the power to subpoena with or without impeachment.

You are a total idiot who keeps ignoring the well supported evidence that her "subpoenas" are not real, they are non legal demands that can be safely ignored.

Thats just an ignorant statement. They are real and they may have real consequences, even if in the impeachment proceedings their enforcement has much more teeth.

One of the consequences is Obstruction of Congressional Investigation, which will be a separate count in the articles of impeachment unless the Admin complies.

 

[bendog]

What say you? Is Alan Derschowitz correct or not?

He was an irrelevant media whore until he found Trump

 

[AntonToo]

What say you? Is Alan Derschowitz correct or not?

He was an irrelevant media whore until he found Trump

It's true, without this topic Dershowitz was quickly fading into obscurity.

 

[AntonToo]

Yawn. Give an example of obstruction. LOL. You’re so biased. You have 13 mos and then you may vote him out, Antosha. Relax.

While you were yawning and nononoing, I gave multiple examples

He tried to get Comey to squash Flynn investigation - thats Obstruction.
He fired Comey when he wouldn't play along with his corrupt pressure - thats Obstruction.
He tried to fire Mueller and then ordered WH lawyer enter false records to cover up his attepts to fire Mueller - thats Obstruction.
He tried to get AG Session to unrecuse and limit Mueller's investigation to only FUTURE elections, AG refused and was also fired - that is Obstruction.
He pardon dangled Manafort, Cohen and Flynn - that is Obstruction.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yawn. Give an example of obstruction. LOL. You’re so biased. You have 13 mos and then you may vote him out, Antosha. Relax.

While you were yawning and nononoing, I gave multiple examples

He tried to get Comey to squash Flynn investigation - thats Obstruction.
He fired Comey when he wouldn't play along with his corrupt pressure - thats Obstruction.
He tried to fire Mueller and then ordered WH lawyer enter false records to cover up his attepts to fire Mueller - thats Obstruction.
He tried to get AG Session to unrecuse and limit Mueller's investigation to only FUTURE elections, AG refused and was also fired - that is Obstruction.
He pardon dangled Manafort, Cohen and Flynn - that is Obstruction.

He fired Comey because Comey was incompetent. LOL

 

[BS Filter]

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?’

I agree with this line...."Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz. Maybe it’s what happened to everyone else".

Dershowitz is a classic liberal. These current Democrats aren't. Along with many in the Republican establishment, they're career political elitists that don't give a damn about the American people. Dershowitz hasn't changed.

 

[Lakhota]

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]

The Dersh has been a Trump toadie from the binning.
Course he was implicated in the Epstein thing so maybe that explains it

So is Blow Job Billy Clinton. And his lesbian wife!

That doesn't make the Dersh any less of a piece of shit

I don't believe anything Dooshawitch says.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

It is clear you are too stupid to understand that the INTELLIGENCE committee that is pushing this bogus impeachment narrative, has NO JURISDICTION on impeachment proceedings, it belongs to the JUDICIARY committee.

Wikipedia:

"Procedure
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

• First, the Congress investigates.

• Congress IS now investigating. mmmk moron?

No they are NOT investigating since there has been no vote for Impeachment investigation by the entire House, again your gross inability to understand is visible, there has been NO official vote by the whole house as REQUIRED to begin Impeachment proceedings.

Once again another link you will ignore drives this point home, from The Last Refuge

House Sends More Carefully Worded Impeachment Demand Letters (Not Subpoenas) – OMB and Pentagon…

Excerpt:

Yes, congress can issue subpoenas; however a congressional committee must meet three requirements for their investigative subpoenas to be “legally sufficient” or have “judicial authority”; meaning a subpoena that carries a legal penalty for non-compliance.

• First: “the committee’s investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
• Second: “the investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress;
• Third: the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation

These “subpoenas” from the committees do not meet the first hurdle. The “impeachment inquiry” was not authorized by its chamber. The chamber for each committee is the full house of representatives. [Again, there are constitutional processes within impeachment.]

KEY POINT – Remember, the Legislative committee intent is to pierce the constitutional firewall that creates a distinct separation of powers; and the Legislative branch is trying to force documents from the Executive branch, overriding executive privilege. This is a constitutional issue.

This level of committee intent is why judicial authority (the full house authorization to grant weight to legal subpoena power) becomes much more important.

The House must vote to authorize the committee investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial authority. A demand letter only becomes a subpoena, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial authority.

Absent judicial authority, all of these “subpoenas” are simply “letters”. That is why this latest round of letters (they are calling subpoenas) do not carry a penalty for non-compliance. The demands cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial authority…. because the investigation was not authorized by the chamber."

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

From U.S. House of Representatives website,

The Constitutional background:

"The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action."

bolding mine

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

You finally get it?

It was Pelosi who started the bogus Impeachment inquiry, NOT the House of Representatives body, who never voted to start one.

It is why Trump can ignore those bogus "subpoena's" demands.

 

[BS Filter]

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]

The Dersh has been a Trump toadie from the binning.
Course he was implicated in the Epstein thing so maybe that explains it

So is Blow Job Billy Clinton. And his lesbian wife!

That doesn't make the Dersh any less of a piece of shit

I don't believe anything Dooshawitch says.

You would if he supported Hillary or some other looney leftist.

 

[Lesh]

From the LA Times

Why Republicans may want a House vote on impeachment inquiry and Pelosi doesn't

Pelosi shot that down (a request from the Minority Leader) in a letter of her own hours later, saying that House committees already have the power needed to conduct the inquiry under current House rules and no vote is necessary. That’s true. At the time of the Clinton impeachment, committee chairs needed a formal vote to give them subpoena power. Since then the rules have changed and their regular powers have been expanded, so they don’t need the vote — though Republicans, as the minority, still would.

You don't like it?

Tough shit.

Win back the House and change the rules

 

[iceberg]

What say you? Is Alan Derschowitz correct or not?

I like the Dersch... smart dude. I don’t support impeachment, I think Trump needs to get clobbered in the next election. Thats my 2 cents

the dems would have a MUCH better shot if they focused on issues, not trump. i want to hear someone tell me how we're going to fix / improve:

1. stop the fighting and find some common ground to build on
2. education
3. cleaning up our environment (not into the global warming FUD so chill on that crap but i do want to take care of what we have)
4. immigration
5. infrastructure

and leave taxes alone and the big bad RICH boogieman who's taking your porridge.