Trump impeachment defense team will include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz

[Sun Devil 92]

Except there is evidence (DNA and video) of Clinton lying. There is zero evidence of Trump withholding aid for political gains......ZERO!

No question he lied about a blowjob. Big deal. There is lots of evidence that Trump withheld funds for political gains. You can pretend that evidence doesn't exist if you want to.

There is? A lot of evidence? Show me one.

Sorry, but I put your request for information in the "Pearl before swine" category. A soon as you give any indication that facts or logic mean anything to you, I will consider putting you in another category, but until then, the only purpose you serve is to entertain me, and make me laugh.

Deflect. A typical strategy by the left. So you can't answer my question, can you? Of course not. You (like your ilk) are only told what to think--not why you should be thinking it. Facts don't mean anything to me? Then why not present a fact or two? Why? Because you have no facts.

Because it's a waste of time to answer your questions.

Because you have no answers.

You never have. You bring nothing to the table and everyone knows it.

You are a typical lazy assed left winger.

Keept at it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical.

Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:

Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?

That worked for the Republicans in 2016

It was the republicans who fucked Bernie Sanders ?

Don't think so.

Debbie Fatass Shultz made sure the annointed Hillary Clinton got to the nomination.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Republicans fomenting dissent within the Democratic party is what I was referencing.

And I answered.

You guys were so busy fucking each other, the GOP could not get a visible act in.

But I laugh at the fact that you somehow think the GOP can create dissention within the Demoncrats.

 

[basquebromance]

"Alan D has defended Weinstein, OJ, and Trump. Flabby, Grabby, and Stabby!"

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump is less notable than a pimple on Clinton's ass.

But much more notable than hildyke obviously [emoji849].


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

It has nothing to do with what he lied about rather than it does who he lied to. He lied to a federal grand jury. It doesn't matter if it was about a murder or jaywalking. When you lie to the FBI, a judge, a grand jury, that's perjury. You can't do that because it's a felony.

You hang on to that thought. Right wingers impeached Clinton for something as inconsequential as lying about a blowjob, but claim it's OK for trump to misdirect federal funds to bribe a foreign country for his own personal political gains. Do you even remember when the right still had integrity?

Except there is evidence (DNA and video) of Clinton lying. There is zero evidence of Trump withholding aid for political gains......ZERO!

No question he lied about a blowjob. Big deal. There is lots of evidence that Trump withheld funds for political gains. You can pretend that evidence doesn't exist if you want to.

Because it doesn’t. There is no evidence, and no witnesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right wingers defense of Trump.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colfax_m]

Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?

Is that right?

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical.

Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:

Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?

No members of the House are allowed to make up any reason to eliminate political opponents.

See? Answering hypothetical questions is easy, it just requires some abstract thought. This is an important skill for someone to have. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.

 

[colfax_m]

Good point. He only withheld taxpayer dollars to get what he wanted.

Fine. And when you can prove that, then the impeachment is justified. But to say that Democrats ability to read minds is grounds for impeachment is what makes the articles bogus charges.

I’m happy to see you admit that fact.

The accusation against Biden is that he got Shokin fired for personal reasons. How do you know that? Are you reading his mind?

No, I'm going by what Shokin said in that interview. Would you like to see it? I have it right here in my bookmarks.

So Shokin is a mind reader then?

He's not reading anybody's mind. I doubt he's even a leftist. He's explaining in his words what exactly took place. He refused to back off of Burisma, and Joe had him fired for that.

Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?

 

[colfax_m]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

 

[kyzr]

No

Nixon shouldn't have ordered the break-in, Clinton shouldn't have had the IRS investigate conservative groups.

Now, how are you going to twist it to accuse Trump of something?

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad. What law would that violate?

The answer is that it doesn’t. There is no law. Therefore it can’t be impeachable.

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

 

[colfax_m]

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad. What law would that violate?

The answer is that it doesn’t. There is no law. Therefore it can’t be impeachable.

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

 

[kyzr]

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

 

[colfax_m]

Only if you buy the very doubtful cover story.

THAT'S THE POINT. I DON'T buy the cover story that Trump did anything meriting impeachment, and the fact that the House passed two articles, neither of which is even a crime and one of them laughable and specious, and now they want to retry Trump all over again in the senate, proves it.

Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?

Is that right?

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

How is Biden a political opponent when he's not even nominated the running candidate? And what if he wasn't running? Then it would be OK? So if I want to get out of prosecution for a crime, I just run for office? Is that why all Democrats get into politics? And how is it wrong for Trump to investigate a person known to have abused the power of his office yet it is the "constitutional duty" for Sanders and Warren to sit on a panel investigating THEIR political opponent?

Biden is a front runner in the Democratic primary. Saying he’s not a political opponent is not rational. Even Trump’s campaign acknowledges this, because they’re running campaign ads against him. If they didn’t see him as an opponent, they’re violating campaign finance laws.

If Biden had no intention to run, this would likely not be an issue. As long as we are speculating, Trump would have never brought him up with Zelinsky. You think Trump actually cares about corruption? I don’t.

Biden isn’t “known to have abused his power”. If there were a rational case against him, it’d be coming from a legitimate law enforcement agency. Not Trump.

 

[pknopp]

What do all three have in common?

Epstein.

 

[colfax_m]

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

 

[DBA]

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

No, the founders clearly intended the give the Party in control of the House to impeach any President that does anything they feel is wrong, whether it is actually wrong/criminal or not. Think about all the potential impeachable offenses of past Presidents that is used as a premise. It is asinine and will destroy our country in the long term. The Democrats are spoiled, petulant adults who are still throwing a huge temper tantrum because Trump got elected. It really is that simple.

 

[Auld Phart]

THAT'S THE POINT. I DON'T buy the cover story that Trump did anything meriting impeachment, and the fact that the House passed two articles, neither of which is even a crime and one of them laughable and specious, and now they want to retry Trump all over again in the senate, proves it.

Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?

Is that right?

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

How is Biden a political opponent when he's not even nominated the running candidate? And what if he wasn't running? Then it would be OK? So if I want to get out of prosecution for a crime, I just run for office? Is that why all Democrats get into politics? And how is it wrong for Trump to investigate a person known to have abused the power of his office yet it is the "constitutional duty" for Sanders and Warren to sit on a panel investigating THEIR political opponent?

Biden is a front runner in the Democratic primary. Saying he’s not a political opponent is not rational. Even Trump’s campaign acknowledges this, because they’re running campaign ads against him. If they didn’t see him as an opponent, they’re violating campaign finance laws.

If Biden had no intention to run, this would likely not be an issue. As long as we are speculating, Trump would have never brought him up with Zelinsky. You think Trump actually cares about corruption? I don’t.

Biden isn’t “known to have abused his power”. If there were a rational case against him, it’d be coming from a legitimate law enforcement agency. Not Trump.

If he had asked them to investigate JOE Biden, you would have a point

He didn't.

and, last I heard, HUNTER Biden isn't running for office.

 

[kyzr]

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Mitch would be stupid to allow hearsay, so to improve the rationale' for acquittal I'm saying that hearsay is (or will be) gone, (no exceptions) as is the case for most trials.
Objection: Hearsay! What is the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to it?

That is the battle line, what is an impeachable offense, and what is needed to remove a president.
Agree that the House can impeach for just about anything, but the senate needs to judge if the "Articles" warrant removal.
Both current Articles are DOA, null and void, so why waste time with witnesses, just dismiss the Articles and tell Nancy to shove them.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

Completely false. Didn’t Willy take his cross dressing picture with the sweat hog??Clinton and Epstein were Asshole buddies. Keep tryin’. The fact that sweat hog liked little girls was well known by many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colfax_m]

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

No, the founders clearly intended the give the Party in control of the House to impeach any President that does anything they feel is wrong, whether it is actually wrong/criminal or not. Think about all the potential impeachable offenses of past Presidents that is used as a premise. It is asinine and will destroy our country in the long term. The Democrats are spoiled, petulant adults who are still throwing a huge temper tantrum because Trump got elected. It really is that simple.

Well, the founders only required a simple majority of the House to pass articles of impeachment. More to the point, high crimes and misdemeanors is a term used by the founders to mean abuses of office, not criminal violations.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

Completely false. Didn’t Willy take his cross dressing picture with the sweat hog??Clinton and Epstein were Asshole buddies. Keep tryin’. The fact that sweat hog liked little girls was well known by many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. We have video of Trump and Epstein having out at parties. Epstein was a member of Trump’s club for years and used it to recruit some of his underage victims. Trump visited Epstein’s house many times. They lived in the same city, ran in the same circles.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with cross dressing. Isn’t that a Giuliani reference?