It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alan Dershowitz says Trump Impeachment Invalid Requires Criminal-like Conduct

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
Why would you represent them as the same WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT?
Why do you want to discuss something CLEARLY different than the current event?
It has NOTHING to do with this event.

What dishonesty.




posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Maybe start by defining in detail exactly what the differences of "Power" are between Judges and Presidents 😁



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Even in the UFO/Alien forums where I spend my time on ATS, you still get the "show me". It's 2020, if you don't know how to look things up on the internet, you should learn soon.

Abuse of power, office, authority, misuse of position all have laws and statutes. To deny these laws exist, is different than admitting the Senate won't let Trump get impeached. There's a big difference between the two.

Sharing one link, there's tons of them if you key the right things into Google.

Link



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Alan Dershowitz has been unfriended by the Liberals even though he voted for Hillary and also Obama twice, and I think every other Democratic President.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Abuse of Power of Contempt is an abuse of power of office. Trump is being charged with abusing his power of office.

Neither what Trump nor what Peck were impeached for are actual crimes. Peck's impeachment was not deemed invalid even though he didn't technically commit a crime that can be found in the US Code.

Dershowitz is claiming that Trump's impeachment is invalid because he didn't commit a statutory law. There are numerous politicians that have been impeached without committing a statutory law (including Peck) and none of their impeachments were deemed invalid.

Why should one impeachment based around non-statutory infractions be invalid when there are countless others that stand to this day?



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

And he's been friended by everyone on the Right just a few months after many of them called for his head due to his association with Epstein and the numerous trips he took on the Lolita Express.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xtrozero

And he's been friended by everyone on the Right just a few months after many of them called for his head due to his association with Epstein and the numerous trips he took on the Lolita Express.


I anxiously await your mockery of the complete 180 the left has done on John Bolton.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254


And he's been friended by everyone on the Right just a few months after many of them called for his head due to his association with Epstein and the numerous trips he took on the Lolita Express.


Lol it seems no matter what the left always ends up with something to smear in defense. You hit two birds my friend in calling Dershowitz a ped and saying every Republican approves...good job... now take that to the voting box and see where it gets you.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254


Abuse of Power of Contempt is an abuse of power of office. Trump is being charged with abusing his power of office.



But at the end of the day I think they got to at least 4 degrees of Kevin Bacon in trying to prove abuse of power that in two short hours Trump defense team pointed out everything the House managers failed to show within THEIR own facts that prove otherwise.

Cherry picking and saying outright false statements will not win the case for the democrats. Abuse of Power is the dossier, looking for an investigation into 2016 elections is not whether Biden's name was a part of that or not.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

I anxiously await your mockery of the complete 180 the left has done on John Bolton.


The reality is most on the right never liked Bolton, go back on ATS and compare positive statements to negative statements from the right and you will see there are a lot more negatives statements about him.

Most on the right or most libertarians see him as a NWO shill and warmonger and many were pissed Trump picked him in the first place.

The funny part is when Trump fired him the left talked about how "Bolton was the only adult in the room" so whose friend is he really?



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Dershowitz is also claiming that even if you have a crime, the crime would have to rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"

And nothing the Dems are claiming even qualifies as a crime in the first place.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Where is anyone actually going back on their derision of Bolton. That doesn't change the fact that her is important witness that deserves hous time on the stand.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Abuse of Power is a classic example of a high crime or misdemeanor. You may want to look into the history of what a high crime is before repeating White House talking points.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I was quoting Alan Dershowitz, not "White house talking points".

Why did you just misrepresent what I wrote and who I was quoting?

And I will believe constitutional legal scholar over you any day. No offense



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What are you talking about? I said that a fe months ago many Republicans were slamming Dershowitz for his connections to Epstein and Clinton. Suddenly they seem to be ignoring that shadiness simply because he's supporting Trump.

Where in all of that did I say that Republicans approve of pedophilia? I'm just calling them hypocrites.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Dershowitz is currently in the employ of the White House. So what he says are the White House's talking points. Meanwhile pretty much every other legal scholar is disagreeing with Dershowitz's assessment.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

As I said back when this whole thing started, I don't think there's enough evidence to convict. That doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives sole power to impeach to the House. They voted to impeach, therefore, per the Constitution, Trump was impeached.

At this point nothing is going to change that fact.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Abuse of Power of Contempt is an abuse of power of office. Trump is being charged with abusing his power of office.

Neither what Trump nor what Peck were impeached for are actual crimes. Peck's impeachment was not deemed invalid even though he didn't technically commit a crime that can be found in the US Code.

Dershowitz is claiming that Trump's impeachment is invalid because he didn't commit a statutory law. There are numerous politicians that have been impeached without committing a statutory law (including Peck) and none of their impeachments were deemed invalid.

Why should one impeachment based around non-statutory infractions be invalid when there are countless others that stand to this day?


Dershowitz was particular about the impact of impeaching a President when they have specific privileges they are afforded that judges are not, period. They are completely different worlds apart in terms of responsibility and accountability. A judge cannot claim Executive privilege. A judge doesn't have close advisors that are their "right hand" where they draw counsel and advise from to base their decisions and actions on. A judge doesn't determine the fate of nearly 400 million people as it applies to other nations. A judge doesn't have to work directly with 2 other branches of government on a daily basis. While impeachment may apply in a general sense to how someone is impeached and the process for it, the considerations for what determines abuse of power are completely different.

It is not the same, and using Peck as the example is not the same. This impeachment of the President is PURELY partisan, I don't think anyone can argue that. As such, what Dershowitz pointed out is that the Founders were specific about the intention of impeachment never ever being used as a political or partisan weapon to overstep the separation of powers. A judge being impeached (unless a Supreme Court judge) has no bearing on the separation of powers as most judges are not involved with the other branches of government. In the rare cases that they are, the abuse of power would be much more clear cut and well defined with infringement of rights or laws to back them. That is not the case with the impeachment of Trump as it was with Clinton and Nixon who committed actual crimes with EVIDENCE of them.

While I respect your presentation of the comparisons, I don't see the relevance and I think others are seeing it similarly. The Founders would never have allowed this to happen, and many past Presidents have been accused of abusing their position and never been impeached for it, so to most of the public... what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the House Democrats are the epitome of hypocrisy right now.

~Namaste
edit on 28-1-2020 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: toolgal462

Dershowitz is currently in the employ of the White House. So what he says are the White House's talking points. Meanwhile pretty much every other legal scholar is disagreeing with Dershowitz's assessment.


Well duh...any lawyer representing the president is "currently in the employ of"

And furthermore, everything you say is either a complete exaggeration or flat out lie.

You are not trustworthy in the LEAST.

NO, not "every other legal scholar" is disagreeing with Dershowitz. LIE

and NO,Republicans were NOT calling Dershowitz out a few months ago for his ties to Epstien and the Clintons . LIE



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785


This is waaaay too complicated for the people you're trying to explain it to.


Hmmmm... perhaps a better hypothetical example of a real and tangible abuse of power would be Trump using his executive enforcement and investigatory powers to prevent and impede the necessary and proper investigations of criminal wrongdoing to thwart proper enforcement of the law. In other words, using his power and authority to protect the guilty rather than prosecute the guilty.

Oh wait!

That's not a hypothetical... that's exactly what Biden did in Ukraine...





top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join