Trump impeachment defense team will include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz

[rightwinger]

So Dershowitz will be convincing us that Trump is innocent the same way he convinced us that OJ was innocent?

Actually Dershowitz got Epstein off with a slap on the wrist. Since Trump. Epstein and Dershowitz all ran in the same circle, Dershowitz being retained by Trump was inevitable.

Isn't Dershowitz being investigated for screwing little girls, he got on loan from Epstein?

I think so. Just like Trump being sued for raping a 13 year old.

Had not heard about possibly raping a 13 year old. Heard rumor about Russian chicks peeing on his chest, and of course we are all familiar with some of the really good looking bimbos he cheated on his current wife with. Don't like him, but doubt he raped any 13 year old kid. Bet there is good money in suing his ass.

FYI

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

Maybe Dershowitz can defend him

 

[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?

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

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

 

[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?

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

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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?

 

[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. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad.

didn't happen.


But then, it was spin on that, that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler used to impeach Trump, wasn't it?

and you wonder why people think it a farce?

 

[colfax_m]

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. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

There’s many things that aren’t illegal that I think we’d all agree would be clear abuses of power and should be able to be impeached over.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That makes TWO impeachments then that are a farce.

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?

OMB Releases Memo on Legal Reasons to Withhold Ukraine Aid | Breitbart

 

[colfax_m]

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. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad.

didn't happen.


But then, it was spin on that, that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler used to impeach Trump, wasn't it?

and you wonder why people think it a farce?

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. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad.

didn't happen.


But then, it was spin on that, that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler used to impeach Trump, wasn't it?

and you wonder why people think it a farce?

As I stated, it’s a hypothetical. Try to remember.

 

[Auld Phart]

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad.

didn't happen.


But then, it was spin on that, that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler used to impeach Trump, wasn't it?

and you wonder why people think it a farce?

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad.

didn't happen.


But then, it was spin on that, that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler used to impeach Trump, wasn't it?

and you wonder why people think it a farce?

As I stated, it’s a hypothetical. Try to remember.

We both know better than that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

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.

There’s many things that aren’t illegal that I think we’d all agree would be clear abuses of power and should be able to be impeached over.

No, if you believe the President is within the law, and is abusing his power, that's what the courts are for. When DumBama withheld documents from the Congress, the Republicans took it to court; not impeach him.

Now if you want to go down the path of being able to impeach a President outside the constitutional requirements of high crimes, misdemeanors, and treason, then remember payback is a bitch. Because when we do the same thing to your next President, I don't want to hear any crying from the peanut gallery.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ken Starr?

The man who supported impeachment over a blow job?

Comments like that are what amazes me about how effective brainwashing is.

It wasn’t brainwashing.....it was a blowjob

Find me within the articles of impeachment where it charges Clinton with getting a BJ. Your puppet masters told you that, and you echo their lies. The crime was lying in front of a federal grand jury. He violated his presidential oath of office.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually lying under oath, but don't let the facts get in the way. You never do.

Lying under oath about having an affair. Don't let the facts get in your way. LOL.

Is tramp going under oath, or giving a sample of his blood??? Or anything, they didn't ok any witnesses and documents. And the witnesses , if they are allowed, will exert EP.

It's still a felony you ignorant slut.

He should of refused to go under oath, like tramp did and will do. Barr is protecting him. As long as tramp has his job, barr has his.

He wouldn't have went under oath, but like always, the Democrat always feels they are the smartest one in the room. Bill thought he was way too smart to be outdone by some 20 something kid. Little did he know or suspect. Otherwise, he would't have testified under oath.

You must mean the old hag Tripp.

What does she have to do with my comment?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except. . . Guarding the country against corruption is hardly tantamount to Murder.

But if it wasn't for that big huge fucking difference. . . .

Trump is corruption. He ain’t guarding us from himself.

Link?

Proof?

He was forcing Ukraine to help his election by investigating his opponent. That’s corrupt.

Ironically, Biden was the one fighting corruption.

He didn't force anybody to do anything. More Democrat lies.

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

Dershowitz is really animated by Nancy's bullshit "Impeachment Articles". The dems would all get "Fs" in Alan's Law class.

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Dershowitz: Supreme Court could overrule an unconstitutional impeachment

How Should the Senate Deal with an Unconstitutional Impeachment by the House?

Alan Dershowitz says it would be unconstitutional for President Trump to be impeached by current inquiry

You might note that the all the things proffered by Dershowitz in those four links have proven to be wrong. There will be a trial, and only an idiot would think the impeachment claims could possibly be thrown out on constitutional grounds. Great links, but unfortunately for you, given the fact that his remarks in those links have already been shown to be bullshit, they just don't help your case.

 

[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?

OMB Releases Memo on Legal Reasons to Withhold Ukraine Aid | Breitbart

The OMB describes the hold as a programmatic delay. The GAO informed them that is not what programmatic means.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ken Starr?

The man who supported impeachment over a blow job?

Comments like that are what amazes me about how effective brainwashing is.

It wasn’t brainwashing.....it was a blowjob

Find me within the articles of impeachment where it charges Clinton with getting a BJ. Your puppet masters told you that, and you echo their lies. The crime was lying in front of a federal grand jury. He violated his presidential oath of office.

He lied about getting a blow job dumb ass,

 

[colfax_m]

Trump is corruption. He ain’t guarding us from himself.

Link?

Proof?

He was forcing Ukraine to help his election by investigating his opponent. That’s corrupt.

Ironically, Biden was the one fighting corruption.

He didn't force anybody to do anything. More Democrat lies.

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Link?

Proof?

He was forcing Ukraine to help his election by investigating his opponent. That’s corrupt.

Ironically, Biden was the one fighting corruption.

He didn't force anybody to do anything. More Democrat lies.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ken Starr?

The man who supported impeachment over a blow job?

Comments like that are what amazes me about how effective brainwashing is.

It wasn’t brainwashing.....it was a blowjob

Find me within the articles of impeachment where it charges Clinton with getting a BJ. Your puppet masters told you that, and you echo their lies. The crime was lying in front of a federal grand jury. He violated his presidential oath of office.

He lied about getting a blow job dumb ass,

Great. Now find me where in the articles of impeachment he got charged with that. He got charged for lying to a federal grand jury which is perjury; a felony.