Is this 2014 article going to explain your opinion in its totality? Once, I read it, can I ask you questions about it and expect you to respond? In a conversation, it is nice to hear a joke or an opinion of your interlocutor. I can't have conversations with the authors of the articles that you post. When you go to the polls, do you vote "on the fence"?
I think Dershowitz's argument would have some validity in a scenario where the administration was genuinely attempting to find legal justice here and genuinely believed Hunter and Joe did something illegal. Then the argument can apply. Yes, they did something that would benefit Trump's personal political aspirations but that was merely a side effect of finding justice through legal means. However in my earlier post I explain why I believe that argument holds no validity in this case because it's clear in the administration's actions to try to get dirt on the Bidens their motive was entirely political and for self-interest. I mean there is evidence that even on the Ukrainian side, they were merely pushed to publicly announce a investigation to the media and not carry out an actual investigation. When seeking genuine justice, the process must have a part in the machine where there is a neutral arbiter. Trump's actions to hunt for dirt on Biden had no such part. In a legal process, the administration would have the DOJ request warrants to neutral judges to start a genuine investigation. Trump didn't want a neutral arbiter because he was never genuinely trying to find justice. He was trying to find a political narrative to sell for personal political gain and extorted a foreign country by using the powers of the presidency. He used the powers of the presidency to dictate foreign policy for personal interests. Hence, Impeachable.
After ruling yesterday that he would not read out any questions that might divulge the name of the whistleblower...
I think there is a difference between acquitting while facing the facts (witness and docs) vs acquitting without facing the facts. In one case, you gave up even the idea of a congressional check on the executive by allowing the executive to block all requests. In the other case, you did not give that up, but you acquit anyway because of (make your arguments). I get that they effectively end up at the same end point, but I think future congress could said the jurors were wrong. However, if you don’t even have the dataset to make the most informed decision, you don’t get to even said that - you can only said we gave up our rights to be fully informed jurors. However, not all is lost. The court battle can still happen outside of impeachment and we will have to see where that land.
I hope John "I just call balls and strikes" Roberts enjoys being made an accessory to Rand Paul's attempts to commit a crime in order to solicit an adulatory Tweet from the President. | He gets part of the blame for this. He played a critical part, 10 years ago, in helping turn up the corruption to 11 with citizens united.
There is a high probability that the following happens: 1. Trump is acquitted, and wins re-election 2. Trump continues to seize greater and greater power towards autocracy. It is clear to me and many others that our system of checks and balances from a gov't standpoint has truly failed to stop a demagogue. In fact, the impeachment trial has actually even further eviscerated protections ironically as it is setting the precedent that the President is truly above the law. The final check in the 2020 election, but given the efforts of Trump to interfere and a strong economy, he seems likely to pass that check. I don't think the GOP is looking at any kind of war. Many Trump supporters want him to be dictator for life - they trust him far more than anyone else. And see him as far better than any democrat. They don't see themselves as the target. The target is liberals, gays, minorities, immigrants - all the people they don't like. Trump won because of the war he fought, not inspite of it - and the GOP is recognizing that is the way to hold power - through him. This country as we know it is in danger - and in the fight of its life. History will go down depending on who wins that war. If Trump wins, he will (re)write the history books for the near term future as democracy ends and we enter into a new era for this country and the world. If the dems somehow win in Nov and be the first to defeat an incumbent with a strong economy, they will inherit a country severely weakened and divided. One about to fall into economic despair - a recession coupled with a back breaking federal deficit that may only serve to usher in another right wing populist. The 2020 election will be remembered as a referendum on democracy itself for this country.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/alan-dershowitz-presidential-powers-109474 Oh yes he did. He argued that as well as making abusive of power a non-impeachable offense. Abuse of power is most definitely a crime.
Yes, if it's in the public interest to kill all your political opponents, then that's ok, right? Anything a president does can be argued to be "in the public interest" as that is a subjective qualifier. You seem to ignore that
Is there though? If the trial is rigged does it matter how you get to the end result really? "Listen, I'm going to convict you of robbery. It's already done. Feel free to call witnesses and take up our time, but just know that I'm not listening to them, don't give a hoot what they say, I'm finding you guilty even if someone else confesses."
Repost this drivel if he is still around post 2024 election , that is assuming he wins in 2020 which is highly suspect at this point .... until then , you just sound like chicken little.
I wish you would engage in thoughtful debate. He stated that every politician believes their re-election is in the public interested. Then he stated that a politician can do anything so long as it's in the public interested. Therefore basic logic dictates that he is stating that any politician can do anything to get re-elected Why do you try to deny what he is saying when it's right there in the quote???
Who is Trump to decide what is best for the public though? Or anyone? The majority of people didn't vote for him.
Regardless the argument is that any politicians re-election is in the public interest - that is the argument he is making. That's is the definition of being in the public interest. Anything Trump does to help his re-election is in the public interest - whether it is criminal or not.
