Alan Dershowitz says Trump Impeachment Invalid Requires Criminal-like Conduct

originally posted by: Boadicea
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...

Don't you know that's been debunked?

By who? I don't know.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Last time I checked there is only one section in the Constitution that covers impeachment for Presidents and civil officers. Can you show me the clause that lays out different requirements for Presidents to be impeached?

If not, then the impeachment of James H. Peck is a valid example.

If i remember correctly this was also highly partisan at the time. There was a major disagreement on policy involving the Louisiana purchase. In fact this is currently a very similar situation.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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...

Great example!

If he were protecting associates or guilty parties from something, that would be criminal.

But protecting our tax payer money and executing the law by investigating those that appear to have broken it and taken advantage of their public positions only to be persecuted and prosecuted by the House? That sounds a lot like the House Democrats rallying their troops to protect one of their own.

~Namaste

a reply to: toolgal462

Don't you know that's been debunked?

By who? I don't know.

So we've been told... but we're told lots of stuff and it can't all be true, so I'll just believe my own lying eyes unless and until someone proves otherwise.

I'm just ornery that way.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Abuse of Power of Contempt is an abuse of power of office.

yeah...
cause your the arbiter of articles of impeachment now......
it is not the same
not even close

no comparison

and no way there will be 67 votes to remove trump

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Exactly. The president has the legal and Constitutional power to enforce the law, including investigatory powers. The president also has the power to work with foreign leaders to that end -- especially when in accordance with duly ratified treaties, as in this case -- and to establish foreign policy in general.

And, let's be specific here, such execution and enforcement of the law should always be in the best interests of We the People.

There is no doubt at all whatsoever that it is in OUR best interests to investigate and prosecute the criminally corrupt critters in the Swamp -- whether it be our swamp, Ukraine's swamp, or any and all other swamps.

Trump was appropriately exercising the power of the office -- NOT abusing that power.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm simply going off my own research and what other legal experts have said. You're the one taking the word of the same guy that said both OJ and Epstein were innocent when he was being paid to enough to do so.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
no I read the info myself

abuse of the contempt power is not the abuse of power trump has been charged with
no matter how you wish to make it so
trump had no one jailed or disallowed from practicing law no matter how bad you think the orange man is

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

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.

I didn't see any of that, sorry.... First time I have heard of it is now from your post.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

I agree unless Roberts steps in, but anyhow, impeachment is a dangerous game to play with it looking like Americans are now board with it or pissed off it even happened in the way it did. The Left was going to impeach no matter what, that was their goal we all have known since day one he entered office and they tested the waters a half dozen of times to finally come to this.

He could be the first impeached President to get reelected and they could lose the house in the process...dangerous game indeed.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
He could be the first impeached President to get reelected and they could lose the house in the process...dangerous game indeed.

Tuesday November 3rd will be a deliciously fun evening to sit and watch the election results coming in.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I've said it in the past, is it really a dangerous game? We should already be holding our politicians to a higher standard. If they need to scared into being better with impeachments, oh well.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

I've said it in the past, is it really a dangerous game? We should already be holding our politicians to a higher standard. If they need to scared into being better with impeachments, oh well.

What? Are we just starting with Trump? lol You speaketh of this but where were you with the past presidents? What higher standard is that, seems to be a moving goal post lately. Are we basically impeaching Trump for Tweets?

It is a dangerous game for the Left to do this as a good number of swing states see either a vote Yes or No as bad for the Democratic incumbent. The best would be just to ride the threat with no vote. The Right had nothing to lose with a yes vote, but the left had everything to lose with a No vote. They did all this with 100% chance to fail in the Senate.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Obviously it started with Trump. I was 10 when Clinton was impeached. I have been a proponent for voting out incumbents though.

How can Congress have a near single digit approval rating but incumbents have like a 70% chance to get reelected?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xtrozero

Obviously it started with Trump. I was 10 when Clinton was impeached. I have been a proponent for voting out incumbents though.

How can Congress have a near single digit approval rating but incumbents have like a 70% chance to get reelected?

Because the incumbents have the $$$ from the special interest groups and you have to be wealthy to run against them.

a reply to: toolgal462

So in other words unfettered Capitalism has ruined our political system.

Therefore we either need to push for our politicians to vote for getting money out of politics (never going to happen) or push for more impeachments.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xtrozero

Obviously it started with Trump. I was 10 when Clinton was impeached. I have been a proponent for voting out incumbents though.

How can Congress have a near single digit approval rating but incumbents have like a 70% chance to get reelected?

Because the incumbents have the $$$ from the special interest groups and you have to be wealthy to run against them.

And the public are sheep

Nice user name.. happen to be a fellow skook? (462DF)

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: toolgal462

So in other words unfettered Capitalism has ruined our political system.

Therefore we either need to push for our politicians to vote for getting money out of politics (never going to happen) or push for more impeachments.

No, it's not "unfettered Capitalism" it's unfair election laws.

George Soros, the well know Socialist funds many of the Left/Dem candidates with his ill gotten money....

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xtrozero

Obviously it started with Trump. I was 10 when Clinton was impeached. I have been a proponent for voting out incumbents though.

How can Congress have a near single digit approval rating but incumbents have like a 70% chance to get reelected?

Because the incumbents have the $$$ from the special interest groups and you have to be wealthy to run against them.

And the public are sheep

Nice user name.. happen to be a fellow skook? (462DF)

I don't know what a skook is or what 462DF refers to.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xtrozero

Obviously it started with Trump. I was 10 when Clinton was impeached. I have been a proponent for voting out incumbents though.

How can Congress have a near single digit approval rating but incumbents have like a 70% chance to get reelected?

Because the incumbents have the $$$ from the special interest groups and you have to be wealthy to run against them.

And the public are sheep

Nice user name.. happen to be a fellow skook? (462DF)

I don't know what a skook is or what 462DF refers to.

Haha then I guess not. It's a regional thing here. 462 is a starting series of a phone number which denotes a town, and it turned into a slogan.