Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ultimate Warrior

Impeachment inquiry

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I’ll continue to judge you from your same old repeated sarcastic bitter posts.  Don’t like it?  Eat dirt!

When it comes to trusting in someone knowing the law, I will trust a Dersh Bag over a DBag every time.  Got it?

Looks like you've got you panties in a twist.

I'll let you figure that out because I don't think I can take too many more of your triggered, off topic, personalized insults.

Your refusal to acknowledge Dershowitz's hypocritical stance on impeachment tells me all I need to know. 

Sad.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A conservative viewpoint concerning Mr. Dershowitz's "hypocrisy":  https://spectator.org/dershowitz-defends-democracy/

 

Quote

...

It has been both amusing and painful to watch videos surfacing of politicians who were speaking out at the time of the Clinton impeachment to make the exact opposite point of what they make now in the current trial. It has been refreshing to see at work, however, a true practitioner of the Socratic mode, who has exhibited the kind of consistency and principle that our Constitution deserves — Alan Dershowitz.

In his many years of teaching law at Harvard, he employed the mode of persistent, logic-based questioning to train some of America’s most brilliant students in law. His love for the political freedoms protected by the Constitution spark a constant passion the energy of which is evident in all that he does.

His motivations in the current impeachment trial come not from partisan politics. He has identified and registered as a Democrat and prominently endorsed Obama in both of his presidential runs.

His main concern was evident only a few years ago in his public statements cautioning opponents of Hillary Clinton against trying to use criminal charges to fight their political battles against her. He warned us that use of power in a democracy is almost always controversial and that we must accept the discipline of being able to effect change through public discourse, through the slow and dedicated work needed to change peoples’ minds on a large scale.

As any student of law knows, we are not far removed in time or location from settling our political controversies through force. The losers have had their head put on the chopping block or the guillotine or have been offered as a target for the firing squad or the KGB pistol. Under the threat of criminalizing politics, not one of our freedoms will survive, for supporting the wrong cause even in writing or in speech would later — but more likely sooner — become criminal as well.

Dershowitz did not support Trump in the 2016 election. But even before the inauguration, passionate calls to impeach Trump were heard, and soon Dershowitz began to teach on the same theme again.

The theme is consistent. The Framers deliberately set a very high bar for impeachment by rejecting “maladministration” as the criterion for this process and accepting treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors instead. Their point was that this process should not be like a Parliamentary vote of no confidence, in which an administration is turned out for losing policy support, but rather only for crimes against the law. And not just any law, but only laws whose violation would directly and gravely injure our political system.

Thus, the Framers reserved impeachment only for the most serious of violations of core laws, well known and gravely important for the ongoing trust of citizens in their government.

In the midst of this bombardment of modern sophistry that has been the substance of so much of this long and grinding effort to remove Donald Trump from office, I had the pleasure of watching Dershowitz on TV as part of the president’s defense team. Speaking from the well of the Senate, he called on the senators to see that their most compelling duty is to save American democracy for our future generations. Articles of impeachment that never reference defined law are not worthy of a democracy. Vigorous exercise of power by our political opponents always seems abusive. Our democratic discipline is to translate our feelings about these matters into causes that will command the minds, hearts, and votes of our fellow citizens and remedy the problem at the ballot box.

Prosecution under vague and general terms was the weapon of tyrants in our English–American law history. The long fight for democracy insisted on removing such weapons from the political fray. From the Magna Carta to the Petition of Right to the Bill of Rights, we have discarded such tools as the general warrant, the bill of attainder, and laws written after the fact to target retroactively behavior we don’t like. That we must not instantly be gratified in our political passions is the cost of freedom.

Last night, Dershowitz spoke a classic truth. Socrates sacrificed his life for it. Everyone who has fought for this country has risked his or her life for that truth. Hearing Dershowitz speak out to the future about the principles of our democracy was bracing and comforting all at once. We must reject the new sophistry and not be of those who flatter the state to grab our power. Let us hear the call and once again commit to our great principles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican Senators Say the Truth Is Irrelevant in Evaluating the Gravity of Trump's Misconduct: https://reason.com/2020/01/29/republican-senators-say-the-truth-is-irrelevant-in-evaluating-the-gravity-of-trumps-misconduct/

Quote

Donald Trump's lawyers have vigorously disputed the facts alleged in the articles of impeachment against him. But their fallback, bottom-line argument, which is especially important now that former National Security Adviser John Bolton seems prepared to confirm the aid-for-investigations quid pro quo at the heart of the House's case, is that the president's conduct would not constitute an impeachable offense even if he did everything the Democrats say he did. Leaving aside the questionable merits of proceeding with a hasty, party-line impeachment less than a year before Trump faces re-election, that position sets a dangerous precedent that Republicans may come to regret.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump's legal team who used to agree with the scholarly consensus that impeachment does not require a criminal offense, changed his mind in 2018, then changed it again this year. His current position is that impeachment requires "criminal-like behavior akin to treason and bribery," which for some reason does not include extorting the Ukrainian government into announcing an investigation of a political rival by delaying congressionally approved military aid.

Republican senators who dismiss the significance of Bolton's potential testimony are leaning hard on that dubious conclusion. "I don't think anything he says changes the facts," Majority Whip John Thune (R–Thune) told CNN. "I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is….There's already that evidence on the record." Sen Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) concurred: "I think Bolton sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don't know that he's got a lot new to add to it."

Thune and Cramer, in other words, think Democrats have already established that Trump used the military aid as leverage to obtain the "favor" he wanted from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy: "a major investigation into the Bidens," as the president himself put it. But although Trump and his lawyers have strenuously denied that nexus, Thune and Cramer say it does not matter.

Sens. Roger Wicker (R–Miss.), Roy Blunt (R–Mo.), Tim Scott (R–S.C.), John Cornyn (R–Texas), and Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) agreed that the quid pro quo is irrelevant to the question of whether Trump committed an impeachable offense. "I don't think the testimony of Ambassador Bolton would be helpful because I basically am in agreement with the very scholarly approach that Mr. Dershowitz took that there's no article there that's grounds for impeachment and removal," Wicker told CNN.

These senators' incuriosity is more than a little troubling given the details of the accusations against Trump. Here are the key alleged facts, which for the sake of this argument we have to assume are true:

1. Trump did not really care about rooting out official corruption in Ukraine or any other legitimate foreign policy goal. He pressed the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden because he hoped to improve his chances of winning another term by discrediting the Democratic presidential contender he views as the biggest threat to his re-election.

2. The claim that Biden improperly used his influence as vice president to protect his son from a Ukrainian corruption investigation, as Trump alleged in his July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy, is transparently spurious. In pressing for the removal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, Biden was simply implementing Obama administration policy, which was consistent with a widely held view that Shokin was ineffectual and corrupt. Hence there was no legitimate reason for the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden.

3. Trump was so keen on tarnishing Biden that he jeopardized Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russian aggression and compromised U.S. foreign policy goals, to the dismay of all his top advisers and members of Congress from both parties.

4. Trump was so keen on tarnishing Biden that he did not care whether his aid freeze was legal, which it wasn't, or whether he was unconstitutionally usurping the legislative branch's authority to appropriate taxpayer money, which he was.

5. To cover up this unseemly scheme, Trump lied over and over again about what he did and why, and he stonewalled the House's attempt to investigate the matter by refusing to provide relevant documents and telling current and former administration officials that they should not testify.

Some of these claims are well-established, while some rely mainly on circumstantial evidence and debatable inferences that could be reinforced by Bolton's testimony. But Thune et al. say the truth of these allegations is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether Trump's removal is constitutionally justified. Or as Dershowitz put it, "Nothing in the Bolton revelations—even if true—would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense."

Suppose Bolton testified that Trump told him, in so many words, that he was blocking the military aid to Ukraine solely because he wanted to undermine Biden as a presidential candidate by making him look corrupt. In Dershowitz's view, apparently, that would not constitute even an abuse of power, let alone an impeachable offense.

The Democrats say Trump abused his power for personal gain by encouraging a foreign government to unfairly impugn the integrity of a political rival. To further that goal, they say, he violated the law (the Impoundment Control Act), the Constitution (by disregarding the separation of powers), and his oath of office (in which he promised to "faithfully execute" his office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"). If the allegations against him are true, Trump also undermined the rule of law in Ukraine by encouraging Zelenskiy to abuse his power, since an investigation of Biden was justified only by Trump's domestic political interests.

This is the Republican response, which we should keep in mind the next time a Democrat occupies the White House: So what?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bobref said:

image.png.6b3be3d1fb4c64c09adc525c76a42994.png

😄 ... love it!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Looks like you've got you panties in a twist.

I'll let you figure that out because I don't think I can take too many more of your triggered, off topic, personalized insults.

Your refusal to acknowledge Dershowitz's hypocritical stance on impeachment tells me all I need to know. 

Sad.

Panties in a twist....I’m not the one whining about a famous Harvard attorney.

 

At the end of the day, don’t care what you think or what you think you need to know about me or anyone else. 
 

Your post about Dershowitz challenging his position about the law was beyond laughable. It was....sad.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrojanDad said:

Panties in a twist....I’m not the one whining about a famous Harvard attorney.

 

At the end of the day, don’t care what you think or what you think you need to know about me or anyone else. 
 

Your post about Dershowitz challenging his position about the law was beyond laughable. It was....sad.

You are the guy being vulgar and throwing personal insults.  Own it.  Im stating facts.  Bro.

Dershowitz has been beyond hypocritical.  Your man love of Trump has blinded you.

Really Really Sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

You are the guy being vulgar and throwing personal insults.  Own it.  Im stating facts.  Bro.

Dershowitz has been beyond hypocritical.  Your man love of Trump has blinded you.

Really Really Sad

Vulgar?  We evidently have different definitions. By all means, take it up with an admin. Or play the game you do with Muda and hand out the chronic down vote for every post.  Really, really sad.

My issue isn’t about Trump...it’s about a non attorney thinking he knows more than a pretty darn good one.  Contrary to your belief, you are not the smartest guy in the room.  Muda’s share about Dershowitz was a good read. Open your mind and take the time to digest it instead of jumping to give out another down vote.

Not your bro....not even close.  Now that was an insult. 
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

  Your man love of Trump has blinded you.

As your irrational hatred of Trump has blinded you.

Really really sad.

 

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acquit if You Must, But Don't Endorse the Dershowitz Argument: https://reason.com/2020/01/30/acquit-if-you-must-but-dont-endorse-the-dershowitz-argument/

Quote

The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump appears to be coming to its inevitable conclusion at a fairly rapid pace. The entire impeachment process has been distressing to observe, but it is time to start thinking about the fallout and how to minimize the damage to the constitutional system.

Given the legal strategy that the president's defense team has adopted, there is a particular risk that an acquittal will be framed as a repudiation of the traditional understanding of the scope of impeachable offenses and an endorsement of some version of the constitutional argument offered by Professor Alan Dershowitz. The Dershowitz argument would gut the congressional impeachment power and embolden future presidents to further abuse the powers of their office.

All high profile impeachments have legacies. To this day, we continue to argue over the lessons of the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and apparently even over the resignation of Richard Nixon. How we understand those events has consequences for how we think the constitutional system should work today. The constitutional implications of an impeachment do not turn solely on whether an officer was acquitted or convicted. They turn also on what we understand the impeachment to mean. I argued similarly after the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

The Republican senators who will be voting to acquit President Trump of the charges that have been leveled against him by the House have a responsibility not to do lasting damage to the system of constitutional checks and balances in the process. The senators will have an opportunity to go on record to explain their votes to convict or acquit, and the senators should use that opportunity to say something about what kind of precedent they are setting.

In particular, Republican senators should resist the temptation to seize on Dershowitz's argument as providing the rationale for rejecting these particular charges against this particular president. Rather than embracing a general rule that presidents cannot be constitutionally impeached for abuse of power, senators should instead try to limit their judgment to the unique circumstances of this particular case.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the charges leveled against the president are not sufficiently grave to justify his immediate removal and that the president can be safely left in office until the voters have a chance to express their judgment on his performance in November. The type of charges brought by the House might well be within the scope of the impeachment power, but senators must still exercise an independent judgment to determine whether the conduct in question is serious enough and dangerous enough to justify the immediate removal of a president. It is possible for a constitutionally conscientious senator to vote to acquit, but in casting such a vote senators should take care not to undermine the potency of the impeachment power entrusted to Congress by the constitutional framers.

Senators can put this matter in the hands of the voters, but they need not endorse a flawed understanding of the Constitution in order to do so. As they draft their statements explaining their votes, they should explicitly reject the constitutional argument put forward by the president's defense team.

I have elaborated on this argument in an op-ed now available at the Washington Post. It can be found here.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After listening to Mr. Dershowitz's comments I wonder if the deified Mr. Lincoln should be posthumously impeached:

https://books.google.com/books?id=zb71VEtR-boC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=lincoln+order+sherman+indiana+soldiers+be+released+to+vote+during+the+civil+war&source=bl&ots=Xklh1Rv3J8&sig=ACfU3U2nJ0H6sAy4adNjrAGDtuimBFM3_A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3iu2P9a3nAhUBKawKHejjDHMQ6AEwDHoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=lincoln order sherman indiana soldiers be released to vote during the civil war&f=false

Quote

In response to a frantic appeal from Governor Morton for aid,  Lincoln's faith in the support of the troops prompted him to write General Sherman and request that he release Indiana soldiers to return home and vote in the October state election.  The president told Sherman that the loss of Indiana "to the friends of the Government would go far toward losing the whole Union cause" in November.  He reminded Sherman that "Indiana is the only important State, voting in October, whose soldiers cannot vote in the field.  Any thing you can safely do to let her soldiers, or any part of them, go home and vote at the State election, will be greatly in point.  The need not remain for the Presidential election."  Lincoln made it clear to the general that "this is, in no sense, and order, but is merely intended to impress you with the importance, to the army itself, of your doing all you safely can" to aid the Union cause in Indiana.

Sherman, who thought of himself above politics, was sufficiently impressed by the president's appeal, and whether ordered or not, he permitted several thousand Indiana soldiers to return home and vote.  The furloughed soldiers, with their votes and political influence in the communities, contributed to the overwhelming victory of the National Union party in Indiana.

....

Do strongly asking Mr. Sherman to pull Indiana soldiers away from the fighting,  therefore further endangering the soldiers from other states who had to stay,  in order to assure a political victory,  is ok?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Panties in a twist....I’m not the one whining about a famous Harvard attorney.

 

At the end of the day, don’t care what you think or what you think you need to know about me or anyone else. 
 

Your post about Dershowitz challenging his position about the law was beyond laughable. It was....sad.

Dershowitz retired from Harvard a little over 6 yrs. ago. Nowadays he’s basically a quote machine in search of a microphone or camera.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/democrats-schiff-impeachment/605803/

As the final sliver of daylight faded over the Capitol dome last night, it was clear that Democrats’ long, frustrated quest for a deus to save them from Donald Trump would produce no machina after all. Instead, there was only Representative Adam Schiff, the party’s tireless point man in the impeachment trial, who stood in the well of the Senate making an 11th-hour argument that Trump’s political-dirt-for-military-aid squeeze on Ukraine was too egregious to ignore.“If you accept the argument that the president of the United States can tell you to pound sand when you try to investigate his wrongdoing, there will be no force behind any Senate subpoena in the future,” Schiff warned the senators. It was his response to a long written statement cum question from his fellow Californian Kamala Harris, who had asked how Trump’s acquittal would “undermine the U.S. system of justice.”

Since Election Night 2016, Democrats have been searching for a savior, no matter the party or rank of the individual.

First there was James Comey, the self-righteous former FBI director impervious to Trump’s attempts to co-opt his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Then there was Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to take over the Russia inquiry after Trump’s abrupt dismissal of Comey produced a furor, but whose final report was an inconclusive punt. Next came House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who said last summer that Trump deserved to be impeached because he’d “violated the law six ways from Sunday.”

 

There was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose reluctant conversion to the impeachment cause put Trump in the dock in December. There was Chief Justice John Roberts, whose stated reverence for institutions and the rule of law raised hope that he might conduct the Senate trial with a firmer hand than what he has thus far shown. There was the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, whose demand for additional witnesses and documents sparked a fleeting hope of persuading four moderate Republicans to join in seeking more evidence of Trump’s misdeeds.

Now, with the defendant’s foregone acquittal in sight as soon as tomorrow, it’s all come down to Schiff, the terminally earnest chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff’s powers, while formidable, have proved just as un-super as everyone else’s in the near-lockstep partisan loyalty that fear of Trump has produced.

In the House managers’ presentation of their case last week, Schiff spoke some 60,000 words over three days, nearly three times the amount uttered by his next-loquacious colleague, according to an analysis by National Journal Daily. Yesterday, he answered five of the first 13 questions directed to Democrats, usually with only the barest reference to prepared notes, almost always taking the full five-minute limit the chief justice has allotted—a pace he kept up as the evening dragged on.

 

One of the president’s lawyers, the former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, insisted, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected—in the public interest—that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” Schumer immediately asked Schiff to respond to the claim. “All quid pro quos are not the same,” he said. “Some are legitimate and some are corrupt, and you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.” By 6:30 p.m. ET, when he asked the senators if they really wanted a president “who can abuse his office” and “do so sacrificing national security and undermining integrity of elections and there’s nothing Congress can do about it,” Schiff had grown hoarse.

The trial’s question-and-answer phase, which continues today, has injected some new energy—or at least some new motion—into the proceedings. Young pages in blue suits ferry each small buff-colored card of written questions to the chief justice in the presiding chair by marching solemnly down the chamber’s center aisle. Roberts then reads the questions aloud.

 

But the trial’s semifinal stage has produced not a shred more bipartisan agreement on the gravity of the president’s conduct, as both Republicans and Democrats asked questions mostly of their own side in an effort to bolster arguments already endlessly rehearsed.

The format nevertheless has played to Schiff’s strengths as a former prosecutor. While his fellow managers read scripted answers from prepared three-ring binders, in response to mostly friendly questions from Democrats that feel well prepared if not outright planted, Schiff has handled even the occasional hostile query from Republicans with extemporaneous aplomb.

 

When Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz submitted a somewhat tortured hypothetical query about whether it would have been acceptable for President Barack Obama to urge the Russian government to conduct an investigation into Mitt Romney’s son if he knew the younger Romney were being paid $1 million a year by a corrupt Russian company—a not-so-veiled reference to Hunter Biden’s service on the board of Ukrainian energy company—Schiff’s bottom line was simple: Presidents asking foreign governments “to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt, period.”

 

Trump’s acquittal has been a foregone conclusion since long before the trial began, and the chance that Democrats might garner the 51 votes required to call more witnesses had all but evaporated by yesterday afternoon, despite former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s reported corroboration that Trump told him he was withholding security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigations into the president’s Democratic rival.

“Probably no” was Schumer’s own assessment of the likelihood of witnesses after one potential GOP target after another either opposed the idea or signaled they might. That reality, and the political calculation behind it, was summed up neatly by Josh Holmes, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who tweeted: “More witnesses = Hindenburg. None of it changes ultimate acquittal.”

So as the hours ticked past, and senators on both sides of the aisle stood and stretched, Schiff appeared to be speaking not only to them but to posterity, as he argued that new information about Trump’s actions on Ukraine was continuing to surface almost daily, and would keep coming in the months and years ahead. “Don’t wait for the book!” he said, referring to Bolton’s memoir.

 

Responding to a question from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island about whether senators should consider the White House’s refusal to produce witnesses an “adverse inference” against the president’s innocence, under long-standing judicial practice, Schiff was emphatic. “Should you draw an adverse inference? You’re darn right you should!” But he added, “There is no need for inference here. There is just a need for a subpoena.”

But throughout the Capitol all day yesterday, it grew ever clearer that embattled Republican senators such as Cory Gardner of Colorado would rather face the wrath of swing voters who think this truncated trial is unfair than risk prolonging it for even a week or two by calling witnesses and courting the president’s wrath.

“I think we can all see what’s going on here,” Schiff said shortly after 8. “And that’s, If you want to hear from a single witness ... we are going to make this endless; we, the president’s lawyers, are going to make this endless. We promise you, we’re going to want Adam Schiff to testify, we want Joe Biden to testify, Hunter Biden … We will make you pay for it with endless delay.” But Schiff insisted, “We’re not here to indulge in fantasy or distraction. We’re here to talk about people with pertinent and probative evidence … So don’t be thrown off by this claim … You can’t have a fair trial without witnesses.”

Indeed, the House managers have spent more than a week noting that no Senate impeachment trial has ever concluded without calling some witnesses. But in this, as in so many other matters involving the political ascendancy and presidency of Donald John Trump, Schiff and his colleagues, in invoking the power of history’s example, seem poised instead to suffer one more painful lesson in its limits.

The impeachment funeral......

Image result for funeral taps meme"

SF thinks the coffin will take a long time getting in the ground. 

Edited by swordfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Vulgar?  We evidently have different definitions. By all means, take it up with an admin. Or play the game you do with Muda and hand out the chronic down vote for every post.  Really, really sad.

My issue isn’t about Trump...it’s about a non attorney thinking he knows more than a pretty darn good one.  Contrary to your belief, you are not the smartest guy in the room.  Muda’s share about Dershowitz was a good read. Open your mind and take the time to digest it instead of jumping to give out another down vote.

Not your bro....not even close.  Now that was an insult. 
 

 

hypocrites trust hypocrites bro

46 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Dershowitz retired from Harvard a little over 6 yrs. ago. Nowadays he’s basically a quote machine in search of a microphone or camera.

A media whore.....thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

hypocrites trust hypocrites bro

Talking about your small circle of friends again I see.

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

A media whore.....thank you

That might be a little harsh ... let’s just say he tends to take positions that end up getting him in front of the camera. He’s a good enough lawyer to be able to convincingly argue for whatever side he chooses. It’s not really ideology. He’s a professional “devil’s advocate.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bobref said:

That might be a little harsh ... let’s just say he tends to take positions that end up getting him in front of the camera. He’s a good enough lawyer to be able to convincingly argue for whatever side he chooses. It’s not really ideology. He’s a professional “devil’s advocate.”

His hypocritical take on impeachment was laughable at best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bobref said:

Dershowitz retired from Harvard a little over 6 yrs. ago. Nowadays he’s basically a quote machine in search of a microphone or camera.

I know he's retired.  But does retirement mean that he must have forgot the law?

Question for you?  If you had his resume, would you turn down the opportunities to be in front of the camera?

Bottom line, he is a Democrat, he did not vote for Trump, he didn't need this job.....but he took it because he felt the process was wrong.  If his position was 180 opposite, the same people on this forum whining, would be singing his praises.  At the end of the day, they didn't like his legal stance.....and so non-lawyers feel they have the resume's to scoff.  What a joke.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

hypocrites trust hypocrites bro

 

Wow...that's so profound.  You are just so intelligent.....can I use that "bro"?

I got one for you....only the ignorant think they know more others that are professionals in their fields.  I am sorry you didn't like his answer.  But time to grow up and move on, Mr. Downvoter......

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I know he's retired.  But does retirement mean that he must have forgot the law?

Question for you?  If you had his resume, would you turn down the opportunities to be in front of the camera?

Bottom line, he is a Democrat, he did not vote for Trump, he didn't need this job.....but he took it because he felt the process was wrong.  If his position was 180 opposite, the same people on this forum whining, would be singing his praises.  At the end of the day, they didn't like his legal stance.....and so non-lawyers feel they have the resume's to scoff.  What a joke.

I was only pointing out his current lack of connection to Harvard. He’s no doubt a brilliant legal scholar. But he’s also more than just a bit of a contrarian. Appropriately, I have no idea what his personal politics are, because that’s not what drives the causes he takes up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I was only pointing out his current lack of connection to Harvard. He’s no doubt a brilliant legal scholar. But he’s also more than just a bit of a contrarian. Appropriately, I have no idea what his personal politics are, because that’s not what drives the causes he takes up.  

In this case he is a contrarian to himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I was only pointing out his current lack of connection to Harvard. He’s no doubt a brilliant legal scholar. But he’s also more than just a bit of a contrarian. Appropriately, I have no idea what his personal politics are, because that’s not what drives the causes he takes up.  

his own words.......which confirms your comments......

https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2020/01/20/harvard-law-professor-and-trump-lawyer-alan-dershowitz-prepares-for-impeachment-trial

Rath: You have to understand, I've got to ask a question like this: you can't talk about your conversations in detail, but what what is your relationship like with your client, the president of the United States?

Dershowitz: Well, I've only met him seven or eight times in my life. We're not acquaintances or friends. I voted against him in the last election. I have an open mind as to the next election and I don't generally advertise in advance who I'm voting for unless I endorse a candidate. So my relationship with him is cordial but lawyer-client, at this point.

Rath: You've represented a lot of different clients. I'm just wondering how the president compares to other clients.

Dershowitz: Well, no two clients are the same. I mean, O.J. Simpson tried to tell me how to argue the case in every respect and he insisted on taking the witness stand and all of that. Other clients, like Mike Tyson, left it in my hands completely. Different clients play different roles. President Trump is the president of the United States and therefore, he's concerned not only about the legal issues but obviously the political implications. I try very hard not to talk about any of those. He knows that I'm a liberal Democrat. He doesn't like that, but he wants my talent or my research. And I'm the only person on the "team" that strongly opposed Clinton's impeachment and is a liberal Democrat and whether there is virtue to that, I don't know. But I was asked to do it, and the president was fully aware, obviously, of my political affiliations and my political preferences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...