 |
Talaniman: You ith the nail on the head and I agree! We are in a constant state of evolution....and we can "get better" and we MUST get better because, otherwise, we will spin out of control.
W.G.: I get overly defensive about the Founding Fathers.....my apologies for misinterpreting what you were asking about: I was wrong!
Man that Dershowitz is one helluva defense lawyer. He is wrong in this case but that's who I would want as my lawyer defending me. Then we get one of them lying arseholes like Cipollone to close it out ARGH!!
Talaniman: Got to agree about Dershowitz and his legal prowess: He is a legal "mental giant"! I don't know why there has been such a drastic change in Dershowitz: He used to be a huge Civil Liberties advocate and was know to be very liberal and a darling of the left....not to stereotype him or anybody or any Jews, in general, but he is a New Yorker and "most" (again, not stereotyping) New York Jews are liberal or, at least Democrats.....The only thing I can come up with is that he has stated before that he is always felt a need to "help the underdog" and, maybe, he somehow feels Trump is the underdog in the Impeachment proceedings.
Maybe Dersh is trying to stand for something which transcends mere politics. Maybe he is standing for the rule of law and is willing to follow that where it leads him.
Last I heard he is still doing quite well with his pet projects and causes and in this case he is defending his client with the same zeal he always has in the past, and I have confidence he always will in the future, no matter who his client is. Defending the dufus with the line that you cannot impeach him no matter what he has done or what the evidence shows is an HUGE stretch of the imagination.
That's why he can command the big bucks though, and earns every cent of it, and MORE!
The only imagination being stretched is yours. Dersh never said that.Quote:
Defending the dufus with the line that you cannot impeach him no matter what he has done or what the evidence shows is an HUGE stretch of the imagination.
jlisenbe: Believe you are correct: Dershowitz said that anything that the President did was not of a High Crimes and Misdemeanor variety.
It was a paraphrase dude, but I'll see if I can find the quote just for you.
It also makes a lie of his Carnival of Dunces claim that there are no first hand witnesses that heard the dufus say that his hold was tied to the investigations he wanted the Ukrainians to do for him. In case you cannot see it on your own, it's also EVIDENCE of a QPQ.Quote:
"If a president, any president, were to have done what The Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. Let me repeat: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said on the Senate floor.
See how easy that was?Quote:
Democratic House managers have argued that Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden, a potential 2020 rival, and his son in exchange for the release of U.S. aid to Ukraine and a White House meeting. Democrats said he did it for his own personal gain, to "cheat" in the election.
A good lawyer will say anything to defend his client.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Key phrase is "Democrats said".Quote:
Democrats said he did it for his own personal gain, to "cheat" in the election.
Just like a good House dem will say anything to convict Trump.Quote:
A good lawyer will say anything to defend his client.
He did cheat but no repub will ever call him out no matter what because he will whoop their a$$es on twitter or Fox. Everybody knows he runs repubs with an iron fist and they better do as they are told and stay in line.
The dems have the law on their side now where as the dufus went out side of it. You do know the USA and Ukraine have treaty en force to cover an investigate an American in their country don't you, so the real question has always been why the dufus didn't just file a formal request with the Ukraine prosecutors into Biden like they told him too? That would have been LEGAL!
Must be hard for a crook to do anything the legal way huh?
How?Quote:
He did cheat
As for the treaty, I get that, but there is nothing that would prevent an American pres from requesting an investigation.
Didn't seem to bother you with HC. Why are you bothered now?Quote:
Must be hard for a crook to do anything the legal way huh?
"Do us a favor though". You have a problem seeing evidence, and you seem to have aproblem with recognizing cheating too.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
To much to ask to do it the right way without cheating?Quote:
As for the treaty, I get that, but there is nothing that would prevent an American pres from requesting an investigation
HC didn't bother us the way the dufus does so, we are dealing with what's bothering us NOW. You have a problem with that?Quote:
Didn't seem to bother you with HC. Why are you bothered now?
So asking the Uke pres to do our country a favor is illegal???Quote:
"Do us a favor though". You have a problem seeing evidence, and you seem to have aproblem with recognizing cheating too.
Now remember. You have yet to demonstrate that he cheated on anything.Quote:
To much to ask to do it the right way without cheating?
I have a problem with your selective outrage, and with the fact that you could so happily vote for someone like her, and then want to be so critical of Trump. It's the ole double standard. Correct???Quote:
HC didn't bother us the way the dufus does so, we are dealing with what's bothering us NOW. You have a problem with that?
The illegal part was asking them to announce the investigation after promises and assurances didn't work, and putting a hold on lawfully authorized funds that he previously approved without notifying congress of his intentions. That also goes for the process laid out ratified and signed for pursuing an investigation by an American working in Ukraine, that also wasn't done. # illegal acts though not hanging offenses that show a pattern of intentional wrongdoing in that he was advised of the correct procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
See above. To add the illegal notion he wanted a public announcement into investigations by a foreign government to smear Biden and influence voters, when he had a perfectly legal option, is the definition of cheating.Quote:
Now remember. You have yet to demonstrate that he cheated on anything.
The same selective outraged the right and conservative used against Obama and HC, while letting the dufus run hog wild with his big bad bully mouth and behavior. Shows we are both human and are flawed.Quote:
I have a problem with your selective outrage, and with the fact that you could so happily vote for someone like her, and then want to be so critical of Trump. It's the ole double standard. Correct???
You have a small and largely irrelevant point about the withholding of funds in violation of what the Congress wanted, but the rest is just silly. There is nothing in the law that says a pres cannot ask a foreign leader to investigate a possibly illegal act. And you certainly have not demonstrated "cheating". That's what people do on tests, or husbands do to their wives. What standing in law does that term even have?Quote:
The illegal part was asking them to announce the investigation after promises and assurances didn't work, and putting a hold on lawfully authorized funds that he previously approved without notifying congress of his intentions. That also goes for the process laid out ratified and signed for pursuing an investigation by an American working in Ukraine, that also wasn't done. # illegal acts though not hanging offenses that show a pattern of intentional wrongdoing in that he was advised of the correct procedures.
Maybe, but you have no proof of that.Quote:
he wanted a public announcement into investigations by a foreign government to smear Biden and influence voters, when he had a perfectly legal option, is the definition of cheating.
The difference is in policy. I despised Obama's welfare state, deficit spending, support of gay marriage, liberal judges, and over regulation that constrained the economy. Trump, on the other hand, became the first and only pres to speak at the annual March for Life recently. I despise his deficit spending, but in many other areas of policy he is doing well, so I tolerate his big mouth.Quote:
The same selective outraged the right and conservative used against Obama and HC, while letting the dufus run hog wild with his big bad bully mouth and behavior. Shows we are both human and are flawed.
You act like Obama and HC were saints and Trump is the devil. That's ridiculous. That's where your double standard is so obvious.
You don't want to know what Bolton wrote in his book JL? I mean how long could that take and would it make a difference if it was indeed his tesimony that the dufus told him to with hold the money until the Ukes announced publicly to investigate the Biden's and Crowdstrike?
I think it would make no difference. It would be his testimony as opposed to the testimony of both the Uke PM and FM that there was no quid pro quo at all and the testimony of Trump (and others) that it did not exist. The investigation did not take place. The Ukes got their money. The overwhelming balance of evidence and testimony swings decisively in Trump's favor.
I would like the time taken to find out then judge for myself who I beleived. 3 of every four Americans agree, so should not the majority rule?
I have no problem with witnesses. I'd love to see Schiff, Pelosi, HB, and JB called for sure. Go ahead and call in Bolden. Let's see what he actually has to say. You do realize that all we have so far is the NYT (hardly a neutral source) paraphrase of his remarks. Call in the whistle blower. Go for it.
How in the name of good sense can anyone believe Bolton? Why did he have to "WRITE A BOOK" to get his story to have any interest? Is it not obvious to all that WRITING A BOOK IS TO MAKE $$$s, that is the plan! If what he had to say had all the HONARABLE, VIRTUOUS AND CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPACTFUL QUALITIES that the Demos want to pretend this NeoCon has to say, why didn't the Demos call him up when they were doing their little IMPEACHMENT gig? If a man is so virtuous and has something so important and earth shattering to say, why does he wait so damn late in the game to say it? I can already see that this is another NOTHING BURGER!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 PM. |