Offical Impeachment Thread

[Billiejeens]

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...​

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

"You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum."
That was about the most true statement that I have read here.

 

[Faun]

It matters not who said it. Maybe you just misunderstood him or maybe you quoted him out of context.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...​

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

 

[g5000]

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Congress: give us what we want.
President: I am exercising my Constitutional right to have the SCOTUS decide a dispute between 2 equal branches of Govt.
Congress: Obstruction!

One small problem with that reasoning.....The Constitution says that the House shall have the SOLE power of impeachment. It does not say that they need permission from the judiciary. I will add, that while the Democrats gone to court to force compliance with subpoenas , neither has the administration go to court to ask for a ruling, because they know that the ruling could go against them

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Look, Fawn, I am not an attorney. Dershowitz is a local guy, a Harvard guy, he is a smart dude. He is not a Trump guy. I believe him over partisan politicians and news persons. You do as you wish.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ (AUTHOR): Well, first of all, I want to thank every veteran who served and protected us. Today is a day that we ought to take very, very seriously. Second, I don't know what's in the second transcript. But there are two issues: What happened on those phone calls, and is there any possibility that there is an impeachable offense? Let's get to the second one first — the answer is no. There is no possibility. Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It's not among the listed impeachable offenses. It's not a crime —

VARNEY: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

DERSHOWITZ: It's not any kind of a crime. It may be a political sin — that's a good reason for deciding who to vote for — but it's not a good reason for removing a duly-elected president. The Framers had a debate about this, and they rejected the concept of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. You need to show bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. And even in the worst-case scenario by the phone call, it's not there.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, I'm a liberal Democrat. I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is have a vote for impeachment. Then the president wins in the Senate. He then uses that to help him win the election, and the Democrats no longer have anything to hold over him for the second term — because nobody's going to go forward with a second impeachment. So it's the most foolish thing, from a Democratic point of view, to impeach the president. But the Democrats have shown that they're prepared to engage in foolishness, for minimum political advantage, so he may be impeached.

VARNEY: But once again, there is no legal basis for this impeachment?

DERSHOWITZ: It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.



Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

You’re not going to be around much longer. Thank goodness. So now you know more about basketball than Coach K and about football than Coach Saban? More about Tommy John surgery than Dr. James Andrews? You are making a fool out of yourself again. I am not a legal expert. So I listen to those who are. You should do the same.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Congress: give us what we want.
President: I am exercising my Constitutional right to have the SCOTUS decide a dispute between 2 equal branches of Govt.
Congress: Obstruction!

One small problem with that reasoning.....The Constitution says that the House shall have the SOLE power of impeachment. It does not say that they need permission from the judiciary. I will add, that while the Democrats gone to court to force compliance with subpoenas , neither has the administration go to court to ask for a ruling, because they know that the ruling could go against them

Yes but the President doesn’t have to testify before them or adhere to any subpoenas. That is his argument not the impeachment powers.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Unblock me, coward

 

[Faun]

That's laughable. Obstruction of justice is not a crime? The statute I posted earlier is not a crime?

And he's just flat out wrong, "abuse of power" is an impeachable offense even though there's no statute. This is now the third time in history abuse of power has been drawn up as an article of impeachment. Who knows why you think Dershowitz knows more than three separate Congresses?

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

You’re not going to be around much longer. Thank goodness. So now you know more about basketball than Coach K and about football than Coach Saban? More about Tommy John surgery than Dr. James Andrews? You are making a foot out of yourself again. I am not a legal expert. So I listen to those who are. You should do the same.

I didn't say I know more than any of those people in their respective fields. But unlike you, I do have a brain and can recognize an obvious mistake when I see one. If Nick Saban calls for his team to punt on the game's first down, I don't have to be a head coach to know that's wrong.

Likewise, if I see Dershowitz claim obstruction of justice is not a crime, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that's wrong.

Sadly, you need others to do your thinking for you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I believe him over you. He is no Trump lover. He is a Democrat. He taught constitutional law at the best law school in the world, Harvard. My legal credentials do not measure up to his and neither do yours. That would be like me telling a heart surgeon he was wrong about a heart condition. Do you at least see where I am coming from here?

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

You’re not going to be around much longer. Thank goodness. So now you know more about basketball than Coach K and about football than Coach Saban? More about Tommy John surgery than Dr. James Andrews? You are making a foot out of yourself again. I am not a legal expert. So I listen to those who are. You should do the same.

I didn't say I know more than any of those people in their respective fields. But unlike you, I do have a brain and can recognize an obvious mistake when I see one. If Nick Saban calls for his team to punt on the game's first down, I don't have to be a head coach to know that's wrong.

Likewise, if I see Dershowitz claim obstruction of justice is not a crime, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that's wrong.

Sadly, you need others to do your thinking for you.

Strawman as Saban would never do that. Dershowitz is the preeminent expert and he has no dog in this fight. If anything he should be anti Trump but he has always been pro constitution and even defended that scumbag OJ. So why would he be wrong here and you be right? Do tell.

 

[g5000]

Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

In todays news:

House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges | HuffPost

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

POLITICS
12/16/2019 08:50 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges
The report said President Donald Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

Lisa Mascaro and Jonathan Lemire


WASHINGTON (AP) — Bolstering its case for impeaching President Donald Trump, a House panel released a lengthy report Monday detailing its rationale for the charges and accusing Trump of betraying the nation for his own political gain.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment by House Democrats: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They point to Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate 2020 political rival Joe Biden while withholding as leverage military aid the country relies to counter Russia as well as his efforts to block the House investigation.

Last chance to become a HuffPost founding member!
Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter
Yes, I want to support HuffPost
The House will vote Wednesday on the impeachment articles approved last week by the House Judiciary panel. The vote is all but certain to result in Trump’s impeachment, though he’s expected to be acquitted in a Senate trial.

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”
They are coming for him!!

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. leaves a House Judiciary Committee markup after passing both articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abusing power and obstruction of Congress, Friday, Dec. 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The panel summarized the evidence for impeachment compiled by the House intelligence committee, and said Trump “has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

Trump, by refusing to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, violated the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, the report said.

They are coming for him - I laugh.

I laugh hardest at the Obstruction of Congress

Congress: give us what we want.
President: I am exercising my Constitutional right to have the SCOTUS decide a dispute between 2 equal branches of Govt.
Congress: Obstruction!

One has to be a total moron to believe that one.
I know that the Maddow guy didn't tell you that the President can do that- so you don't believe it.
Tis true.

The other charge is simply crazy talk.

"Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon, as president, failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply, and the Congress of that time said, 'You're taking impeachment away from us. You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you.' The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." - Lindsey Graham, 1998

 

[Faun]

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

You’re not going to be around much longer. Thank goodness. So now you know more about basketball than Coach K and about football than Coach Saban? More about Tommy John surgery than Dr. James Andrews? You are making a foot out of yourself again. I am not a legal expert. So I listen to those who are. You should do the same.

I didn't say I know more than any of those people in their respective fields. But unlike you, I do have a brain and can recognize an obvious mistake when I see one. If Nick Saban calls for his team to punt on the game's first down, I don't have to be a head coach to know that's wrong.

Likewise, if I see Dershowitz claim obstruction of justice is not a crime, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that's wrong.

Sadly, you need others to do your thinking for you.

Strawman as Saban would never do that. Dershowitz is the preeminent expert and he has no dog in this fight. If anything he should be anti Trump but he has always been pro constitution and even defended that scumbag OJ. So why would he be wrong here and you be right? Do tell.

Easy... is obstruction of justice a crime or not. Dershowitz said it's not.

Is he so infallible in your tiny, underdeveloped mind you can't actually answer that question accurately?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Breaking News!!
Giuliani drops stunning confession — and undermines Trump’s defense against impeachment again

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has undermined President Donald Trump’s defense in the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry — again.

In an interview with The New Yorker, Giuliani admitted that he got former American ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired so that he could more easily pursue his efforts to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

 

[Billiejeens]

Congress: give us what we want.
President: I am exercising my Constitutional right to have the SCOTUS decide a dispute between 2 equal branches of Govt.
Congress: Obstruction!

One small problem with that reasoning.....The Constitution says that the House shall have the SOLE power of impeachment. It does not say that they need permission from the judiciary. I will add, that while the Democrats gone to court to force compliance with subpoenas , neither has the administration go to court to ask for a ruling, because they know that the ruling could go against them

(1) You may not know what Impeachment is.
(2) is it weird that The SCOTUS has taken a case that you think doesn't exist?

 

[Billiejeens]

Breaking News!!
Giuliani drops stunning confession — and undermines Trump’s defense against impeachment again

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has undermined President Donald Trump’s defense in the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry — again.

In an interview with The New Yorker, Giuliani admitted that he got former American ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired so that he could more easily pursue his efforts to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

Raw Story
Ok
That's why you don't know anything.

 

[Billiejeens]

You do have a brain, don't you? You are capable of answering questions without legal advice from Dershowitz, can't you?

1. Is obstruction of justice a crime, yes or no?

2. Is Trump even being impeached over obstruction of justice, yes or no?

3. Is §30121 a crime, yes or no?

These are some questions I would hope you're able to answer. If not, then you're not even qualified to post on this forum.

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

You’re not going to be around much longer. Thank goodness. So now you know more about basketball than Coach K and about football than Coach Saban? More about Tommy John surgery than Dr. James Andrews? You are making a foot out of yourself again. I am not a legal expert. So I listen to those who are. You should do the same.

I didn't say I know more than any of those people in their respective fields. But unlike you, I do have a brain and can recognize an obvious mistake when I see one. If Nick Saban calls for his team to punt on the game's first down, I don't have to be a head coach to know that's wrong.

Likewise, if I see Dershowitz claim obstruction of justice is not a crime, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that's wrong.

Sadly, you need others to do your thinking for you.

Strawman as Saban would never do that. Dershowitz is the preeminent expert and he has no dog in this fight. If anything he should be anti Trump but he has always been pro constitution and even defended that scumbag OJ. So why would he be wrong here and you be right? Do tell.

Oh, he is definitely anti Trump
He's just not willing to piss all over The Constitution to prove it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

In todays news:

House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges | HuffPost

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

POLITICS
12/16/2019 08:50 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges
The report said President Donald Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

Lisa Mascaro and Jonathan Lemire


WASHINGTON (AP) — Bolstering its case for impeaching President Donald Trump, a House panel released a lengthy report Monday detailing its rationale for the charges and accusing Trump of betraying the nation for his own political gain.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment by House Democrats: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They point to Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate 2020 political rival Joe Biden while withholding as leverage military aid the country relies to counter Russia as well as his efforts to block the House investigation.

Last chance to become a HuffPost founding member!
Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter
Yes, I want to support HuffPost
The House will vote Wednesday on the impeachment articles approved last week by the House Judiciary panel. The vote is all but certain to result in Trump’s impeachment, though he’s expected to be acquitted in a Senate trial.

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”
They are coming for him!!

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. leaves a House Judiciary Committee markup after passing both articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abusing power and obstruction of Congress, Friday, Dec. 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The panel summarized the evidence for impeachment compiled by the House intelligence committee, and said Trump “has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

Trump, by refusing to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, violated the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, the report said.

They are coming for him - I laugh.

I laugh hardest at the Obstruction of Congress

Congress: give us what we want.
President: I am exercising my Constitutional right to have the SCOTUS decide a dispute between 2 equal branches of Govt.
Congress: Obstruction!

One has to be a total moron to believe that one.
I know that the Maddow guy didn't tell you that the President can do that- so you don't believe it.
Tis true.

The other charge is simply crazy talk.

"Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon, as president, failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply, and the Congress of that time said, 'You're taking impeachment away from us. You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you.' The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." - Lindsey Graham, 1998

Coward

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.

No, you're right. It was intended to protect the Republic from threats to democracy and the influence of foreign powers

Nope. That is not true either.

In todays news:

House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges | HuffPost

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

POLITICS
12/16/2019 08:50 am ET Updated 2 hours ago
House Judiciary Committee Releases Report Detailing Impeachment Charges
The report said President Donald Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

Lisa Mascaro and Jonathan Lemire


WASHINGTON (AP) — Bolstering its case for impeaching President Donald Trump, a House panel released a lengthy report Monday detailing its rationale for the charges and accusing Trump of betraying the nation for his own political gain.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment by House Democrats: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They point to Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate 2020 political rival Joe Biden while withholding as leverage military aid the country relies to counter Russia as well as his efforts to block the House investigation.

Last chance to become a HuffPost founding member!
Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter
Yes, I want to support HuffPost
The House will vote Wednesday on the impeachment articles approved last week by the House Judiciary panel. The vote is all but certain to result in Trump’s impeachment, though he’s expected to be acquitted in a Senate trial.

Detailing its case against the nation’s 45th president, the Judiciary panel released a 650-page report just after midnight. It said Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”
They are coming for him!!

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. leaves a House Judiciary Committee markup after passing both articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abusing power and obstruction of Congress, Friday, Dec. 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The panel summarized the evidence for impeachment compiled by the House intelligence committee, and said Trump “has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

Trump, by refusing to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, violated the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, the report said.

They are coming for him - I laugh.

I laugh hardest at the Obstruction of Congress

Congress: give us what we want.
President: I am exercising my Constitutional right to have the SCOTUS decide a dispute between 2 equal branches of Govt.
Congress: Obstruction!

One has to be a total moron to believe that one.
I know that the Maddow guy didn't tell you that the President can do that- so you don't believe it.
Tis true.

The other charge is simply crazy talk.

"Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon, as president, failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply, and the Congress of that time said, 'You're taking impeachment away from us. You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you.' The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." - Lindsey Graham, 1998

Coward

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I am not a lawyer. Dershowitz is and if he says no then I agree. You don’t get to decide who posts here the mods do. You’re one of the stupidest people on this forum. I am Shocked you know how to tie your shoes. Don’t ever question me about my logic and common sense. You obviously cannot have a pleasant and civil debate. You’re a dickhead leftist. Fortunately you’re old and won’t be around much longer.

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

You’re not going to be around much longer. Thank goodness. So now you know more about basketball than Coach K and about football than Coach Saban? More about Tommy John surgery than Dr. James Andrews? You are making a foot out of yourself again. I am not a legal expert. So I listen to those who are. You should do the same.

I didn't say I know more than any of those people in their respective fields. But unlike you, I do have a brain and can recognize an obvious mistake when I see one. If Nick Saban calls for his team to punt on the game's first down, I don't have to be a head coach to know that's wrong.

Likewise, if I see Dershowitz claim obstruction of justice is not a crime, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that's wrong.

Sadly, you need others to do your thinking for you.

Strawman as Saban would never do that. Dershowitz is the preeminent expert and he has no dog in this fight. If anything he should be anti Trump but he has always been pro constitution and even defended that scumbag OJ. So why would he be wrong here and you be right? Do tell.

Easy... is obstruction of justice a crime or not. Dershowitz said it's not.

Is he so infallible in your tiny, underdeveloped mind you can't actually answer that question accurately?

I just answered you. You don’t like the answer. But again you’re old and will die soon. No one will miss you, old man.

 

[MaryL]

The Law Enforcement Assistance and Cooperation Treaty with Ukraine specifies that the designated officials of the two nations are the US Attorney General and the Ukraine Minister of Justice, (3.1.d.). The treaty binds those two offices--and so the usual rules in both nations, regarding those offices: In the Treaty. So from the New York Times, about the phone--Barbarous Anti-American sentiment is apparently what the White House has documented.

"A Justice Department official said that Mr. Barr had no knowledge of the call until the director of national intelligence and the intelligence community’s inspector general sent the department the whistle-blower’s criminal referral late last month, and that Mr. Trump has not spoken with the attorney general “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son.”

Political interference is not considered cause, stated in the Treaty provisions.

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Red-Hatter waving takes on a new appearance. "Banzai! Surprise!" Attack on the USA apparently is supported--or on Ukraine, or Crimea!)

Oh, those darn lib Democrats and all those weighty & portentous accusations. Damn, they frighted me, and all I did was vote for the guy! What do they call that... gas lighting? But as usual, they (the democrats) are trolling and this is a wild goose chase. Red herring. Put it to bed. The democrats could stand being investigated themselves. Hmm, sanctuary cities could stand a good senate investigation (hint hint) , but that's another issue entirely.

 

[Faun]

And defiler appeals to authority and throws in the towel.



And dumbfuck, I didn't say I decide who posts here. I said if you aren't capable of answering those 3 questions, you're not qualified to post here. That doesn't mean you can't post here, it only means you're too flaming stupid.

Seriously, who's too dumb to answer if onstruction of just is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Who's too dumb to answer if Trump is being impeached over obstruction of justice? Of course he isn't.

Who's too dumb to determine if §30121 is a crime or not? Of course it is.

Dershowitz is not G-d. He's not perfect. He can make mistakes. Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself and feel the need to hide under Dershowitz's skirt, do him a favor while you're there and blow him because that's all you're capable of as debate is not your forte.

Oh, and I'm not that old. My mother lived 30 years past my current age and my father nearly 35 years.

You’re not going to be around much longer. Thank goodness. So now you know more about basketball than Coach K and about football than Coach Saban? More about Tommy John surgery than Dr. James Andrews? You are making a foot out of yourself again. I am not a legal expert. So I listen to those who are. You should do the same.

I didn't say I know more than any of those people in their respective fields. But unlike you, I do have a brain and can recognize an obvious mistake when I see one. If Nick Saban calls for his team to punt on the game's first down, I don't have to be a head coach to know that's wrong.

Likewise, if I see Dershowitz claim obstruction of justice is not a crime, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that's wrong.

Sadly, you need others to do your thinking for you.

Strawman as Saban would never do that. Dershowitz is the preeminent expert and he has no dog in this fight. If anything he should be anti Trump but he has always been pro constitution and even defended that scumbag OJ. So why would he be wrong here and you be right? Do tell.

Easy... is obstruction of justice a crime or not. Dershowitz said it's not.

Is he so infallible in your tiny, underdeveloped mind you can't actually answer that question accurately?

I just answered you. You don’t like the answer. But again you’re old and will die soon. No one will miss you, old man.

LOL

PussyBitch, you didn't answer. You asked me, "so why would he be wrong here and you be right?

That's not you answering my question, that's you fluffing Dershowitz and declaring whatever he says is gospel. You're simply not man enough to stand up for your convictions but instead, cower under Dershowitz's skirt.

And why am I right and he's not? He said obstruction of justice is not a crime. Of course that's not true and here's just one example someone convicted on charges of obstruction of justice because it is a crime...

GOP strategist Roger Stone convicted on 7 counts of obstruction, witness tampering, and false statements​