A president using an excuse that the FBI has irked him before to entirely circumvent the legal process is how fascists make their argument to bypass institutions as the sole arbiter of justice. Your excuse is frankly horrible and sets horrible precedent for fascism. The errors reported in the IG report the FBI made in their FISA applications for investigations into the Trump campaign which by the way the same IG report claims there was sufficient grounds to start a investigation is not an excuse for the president to bypass our criminal justice system to get what he wants. It's pretty evident that he wanted a political narrative as he didn't trust our own justice system that comprises neutral arbiters in our judges who issue warrants would find sufficient grounds to start an investigation. Hence his motivation was to sell a political narrative. Another piece of evidence is him pushing a QAnon level conspiracy in Crowdstirke. He literally called Crowdstirke a "secret Ukrainian server" when in in reality it's a publicly traded American company that even the GOP hires for their IT security. He's hip firing consipracy theories in order to justify extorting a foreign country and he's circumventing our justice system because he knows there isn't sufficient underlying evidence that would pass through a neutral arbiter to start a actual investigation with meat that is prosecutable.
As a good faith gesture to proceed with witnesses then the house should offer up Schiff as the first witness. The house inquiry was a joke as everyone knows so now if they want the Senate to actually be fair as they weren’t then they need to step up and show their cards. I’m tired of all this bluffing it’s time to place your bets and lay the cards on the table.
Charles Lipson argued today that it is quite likely that the Democrats actually don't want witnesses called, in part because it would extend the impeachment proceedings and harm the efforts of those running for the Democratic nomination in Iowa and New Hampshire (among other things). https://spectator.us/democrats-dirty-secret-dont-want-witnesses/ excerpt: For all their hue and cry, many Senate Democrats must secretly hate the thought of witnesses. Yes, their party would gain from John Bolton’s testimony, but they would pay a heavy price to seek it. First, the president would assert executive privilege over Bolton’s testimony and documents, which would drag out the proceedings until the Supreme Court decided the issue. While these appeals dragged on, Senators running for president would be stuck in Washington, off the campaign trail. Then, too, there is no way a Republican-majority Senate is going to permit Democrats to call Bolton unless they can call witnesses of their own. Remember, the House Democrats called 17 witnesses in their investigation and refused to allow the Republicans to call even one. The Senate will demand basic fairness, and they will get it. As the fight over testimony from Bolton and other White House aides drags on in the courts, Democrats will find it nearly impossible to press their advantage with voters on issues such as health care, which helped them win in 2018. Instead, the Democrats would be held responsible for prolonging the impeachment trial, which would serve as a giant campaign poster for the president’s attack on the ‘Do Nothing Democrats’. The Democrats would be paying all these political costs to extend a trial whose outcome is virtually certain. Trump will be acquitted.
My 'excuse' is horrible and sets a president for fascists?? ?? ?? Get a hold of yourself. You're emotions have gotten the better of you. Hey, why to YOU always resort to insults and name calling when you disagree with someone? It's a pattern. Are you filled with hate or can you not control your emotions? I offered up a plausible explanation. You respond by basically calling me a fascist. You cannot be taken seriously. You sound just like the man you hate. Donald J. Trump. Scary, isn't it. 3 months ago you knew....we all knew.... how this was going to play out in the Senate because it was partisan from the get go. And here we are and you're shocked. I'm B@ffled.
additional discussion: https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/3...-on-dershowitzs-argument-against-impeachment/ Media Continues Dishonesty On Dershowitz’s Argument Against Impeachment Of course Alan Dershowitz is not arguing that nothing a president does in pursuit of reelection can be impeachable. And the news media knows it. January 30, 2020 By David Marcus Last week when it was announced that Alan Dershowitz was joining President Trump’s legal team, I warned in these pages that his complex argument in the alternative, in which he claims that even if proven what Democrats allege regarding Ukraine does not rise to the level of impeachment, was ripe for mischaracterization. The news media has not disappointed on that score. The first misunderstanding came just hours after the announcement of his role. Many in the news media erroneously claimed that Dershowitz, and by extension Trump’s legal team, were conceding wrongdoing, and that Republicans were moving the goalposts away from a “perfect call.” This was never true, but was too attractive a narrative for many to pass up. Yesterday the deceptive coverage of Dershowitz got even worse. What these breathless accounts of Dershowitz’s words have in common is just how wrong they are. Let’s look at the quote in question. He says, “If the president does something that he thinks will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” The context here matters a lot, and in fairness Dershowitz could have been a bit clearer. In fact, he did clarify his remarks in the evening session of senators’ questions. Prior to this selection of his statements, Dershowitz laid out three types of motives the president could have had for his actions. First, one purely and solely concerned with the national interest, second one in which his motive also includes his electoral interests, and third one in which personal gain is his only motivation. In the quote in question, he was talking directly about that second possibility, which he would later describe as “mixed motives.” This is extremely important because Dershowitz is predicating his argument that the president may act in the interest of his own electoral chances but only if he believes those actions to be in the broader national interest. Dershowitz is not saying that the president could kill a political rival and it wouldn’t be impeachable if he thought that killing was in the national interest. First of all, murder is a crime, and there is no crime alleged in the impeachment, which lies at the heart of Dershowitz’s broader constitutional argument. What Dershowitz is saying is that when a president is faced with a lawful policy choice that may benefit him politically, he is not barred from making that choice on the basis that it could help him. Politicians do this all the time. What is telling about the entire way in which Dershowitz has been covered is that the same legacy media that has gotten everything imaginable dead wrong for three years can’t wait two minutes before tweeting and pushing stories that give the American people an incredibly poor analysis of what he is really saying. Moreover, the hyper-focus on Dershowitz’s argument makes no sense unless one’s purpose is to paint the president’s case in the worst possible light. While the other attorneys are making more positive arguments, saying the president did nothing wrong, Dershowitz is making a more obscure argument, one ripe for politically motivated “confusion.” When Dershowitz’s strategy was announced, I wrote, “because this is a television event, Dershowitz will need to be very careful. If even once he forgets to caveat his position, if instead of saying, ‘Even if the president was out for political gain, it’s not impeachable,’ he says, ‘The fact that the president was out for political gain does not make this impeachable,’ it will be a soundbite heard ’round the world.” Turns out that was pretty spot on. Dershowitz could have done a better job making his argument, yesterday and should be careful to do so in the future. But the news media should also stop twisting his words to make it seem like the president and his team are saying things they demonstrably are not. David Marcus is the Federalist's New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.
Dude, you literally are trying to justify the president of the United States circumventing the justice system to use the power of the presidency to extort a foreign country for his personal political ambitions because the FBI irked him before from a percieved political bias which is his own personal subjective opinion. So based on a president's subjective opinion with no check on that opinion, he can determine when it's okay to bypass our justice system. That is the precedent that is being set with your excuse. That is a fascist argument. Sorry that offends you. It's clear that Trump didn't care about corruption and justice because his approach to getting dirt on Biden had no prosecutable meat behind it. And when am I name calling you? I'm stating your excuse is stupid and your argument here is fascist. That isn't a personal insult of you. I'm referring to your argument. I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling your argument stupid.
Wouldn’t this also apply to Republicans as well? I mean, the elections are more than just the presidency, and there are only 2 Democratic Senators (and one independent) that would be affected in regards to the presidency. However, 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for grabs...many held by Republicans.
I believe the Dems want this over for far more nefarious reasons, they do not want witnesses because it will get ugly.
Yeah, it would. I do think Witnesses actually HELP the GOP more than it does the DNC, simply because whatever Bolton says won't matter. They are still going to acquit Trump. There is not a single piece of evidence that will get Trump removed simply because the GOP is complicit in the cover up here...and that's what Democrats will sell. Multiple polls are pretty clear and it's not even close. Most Americans want to see witnesses. If the GOP just acquits him tomorrow you can be prepared to hear about how the GOP helped a corrupt president keep his power and how they ran a sham trial. Bolton's testimony is going to happen, whether it be through a published book or the House going through and calling him in and I imagine a lot of people are going to wonder why the GOP wouldn't even allow to hear what he had to say under oath. I think the GOP has a lot more to lose here and my only guess is they hope the election is far enough that people will forget...but it's hard to imagine that Schiff and Pelosi will allow that to happen. GOP would be wise to allow the one week, hear what Bolton has to say, then of course twist it and lie about it and say there was nothing really there that is impeachable. As it is now it looks like a cover-up and it'll be easy to sell as a cover-up.
Thanks for clarifying and I apologize for insinuating that you personally attacked me. However, my argument is offended. I totally disagree with what you're saying. Plain and Simple. It appears that the Democratic Party agrees with you and the Republican Party agrees with me. Divided we are. I told you, I'm an idiot. I say it so don't have to....lol. C'mon people. This is not fascism. It's extreme political divide. There's dirty pool on both sides. It's ridiculous. I'm really scared for the country if Trump does get re-elected. Not because of what Trump will do, but because of what you guys will do. The suicide rate is going to sky rocket. And no, I don't think that's good thing...lol.
“I'm really scared for the country if Trump does get re-elected. Not because of what Trump will do, but because of what you guys will do.” Amen brother.
"Both sides" argument. Who woulda thunk? If a third world country had a leader bribe another country for dirt on a political opponent we would say "See, that's what to expect from a corrupt country." Now... thanks to trump, that corrupt country is the US.
Since retrumplican senator barr can't argue trump did a QPQ deal foreign country to get dirt on a political opponent anymore, he attempts the "both sides" defense. Funny thing, I don't remember Hillary Clinton becoming President in 2016.
Tbh it really doesnt matter. Peoole that have gone this far will dismiss Boltons testinony or the whistleblowers or whomever. The GOP at this point is the Trump cult. He can do no wrong. Living and working in DC I can tell you that In watxhing every GOP politican operative and voter here tap dancing as fast as possible to stick with him. No matter what happens, the Overton window moves rightward in this country. The mass suicides the posters above predict and claim that pray wont happen probably will. Because its increasingly clear- as the old poem goes- the world has no place for us. Nearly every gain from the 40s-60s has been or is in the process of being overturned. Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Malcolm X were all gunned down. As was Lincoln. Oslo accords are all but dead. The Good Friday agreement will likely die soon. Japan wants to remilitarize, theres a slew of human rights abuses all over the world. The Pax Americana is over and at the end of the day were gonna end up where it all started. A bunch of poor ppl desperately tryna survive who slave to please the rich
I skimmed and noticed "suicide" and "lol" next to it. Tasteless way to have fun, buddy. Maybe Alan Dershowitz will give you an 'atta boy' back pat though. Tasteless jokes seems to be the new stamp of approval for Trump camp
I checked in a minute ago and the Republicans literally just asked a questioned about .... wait for it.... “if Biden should be impeached”.... yes...a guy who is not in office should be impeached from the office of the presidency when he’s not the sitting presidency. This is the height of stupidity.
I want witnesses .... all of them , including the whistleblower , Schiff , Pelosi and both Bidens along with Trump , Zelinski & the Dem's entire list of witnesses. Lets get it all out there ... I want UGLY.
