• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

Dershowitz is capitalizing on the conflict. He is now on a new conservative podcast. I think he is an opportunist.

You THINK? I swear I heard my dog growl "opportunist asshole" when Dershowitz came on screen.

He's arguing that SCROTUS could legally have every single Democratic presidential candidate rounded up and sent to Gitmo, or even executed. If you assume he's not a complete fucking idiot, why else would he do this?
Well, the available options for the defense boil down to
- I didn't do it (or you can't PROVE i did it)
- I did it, but circumstances are such that you can't punish me for it.


Since 'didn't do it' is clearly unsustainable...
 
If getting Ukraine to investigate political rivals is perfectly legitimate, then why aren't other politicians who are up for election in 2020 doing the same thing?
 
Dershowitz is capitalizing on the conflict. He is now on a new conservative podcast. I think he is an opportunist.

You THINK? I swear I heard my dog growl "opportunist asshole" when Dershowitz came on screen.

He's arguing that SCROTUS could legally have every single Democratic presidential candidate rounded up and sent to Gitmo, or even executed. If you assume he's not a complete fucking idiot, why else would he do this?
Well, the available options for the defense boil down to
- I didn't do it (or you can't PROVE i did it)
- I did it, but circumstances are such that you can't punish me for it.


Since 'didn't do it' is clearly unsustainable...

Might be unsustainable in general, but there's that 20-25% like halfie, who are totally satisfied and simply stop paying attention once they hear "dindooit!"
 
You know what the worst part about this impeachment is?
It's taking up ALL the bandwidth. All the quotes and counter-quotes and legal experts and the circus acts...

How is one supposed to find out about the status of Trump's attempt to purchase Greenland?
 
After Clinton's impeachment trial he was disbarred. Will all of Trump's 'lawyers' also get disbarred for their pathetic distortions of the law?
 
After Clinton's impeachment trial he was disbarred. Will all of Trump's 'lawyers' also get disbarred for their pathetic distortions of the law?
In science, logical fallacies are scorned. In law, for lawyers with no shame, fallacies are embraced. You don't need to be right, you just need to make the argument seem okay. Dershowitz's argument feels like the Cosmological Argument.
 
When FOX wants your opinion, they will tell it to you over and over and over and over again, until you think it IS your opinion.

They're the same way with their "facts," aka propaganda and talking points.

BTW those two vids posted by Zipper are worth the 16 minutes to watch. I originally thought Parnas was a hack but he is calm, articulate, informed, confident, not the person the GOP wants to take the witness stand.

You guys really are nuts sometimes. Just admit you guys can't beat Trump in an election and the only chance you have is to get Trump removed from office. You guys all know if the Senate doesn't remove him, he's going to be in office until 2025 and that scares you guys senseless.

Just look on the bright side. 5 years from now it'll finally all be over and you guys can go back to laughing at Trump's jokes on the late night talk shows again once everyone welcomes him back.

the blind trump supports are complete tools. 80% obliviously working to ensure crime does pay, and 20% working to ensure crime does pay with concerted focus and criminality.
 
After Clinton's impeachment trial he was disbarred. Will all of Trump's 'lawyers' also get disbarred for their pathetic distortions of the law?

There are arguments that have been made that should flunk a law student out of law school.. but being a defense lawyer allows for the exploration of novel defense tactics in the interest of doing every last possible thing to minimize the negative impact on your client.
But, ya, I agree that there are some tactics and arguments that should raise the attention of the Bar for ethical review.
 
After Clinton's impeachment trial he was disbarred. Will all of Trump's 'lawyers' also get disbarred for their pathetic distortions of the law?
In science, logical fallacies are scorned. In law, for lawyers with no shame, fallacies are embraced. You don't need to be right, you just need to make the argument seem okay. Dershowitz's argument feels like the Cosmological Argument.

It's not the arguments that will get them admonished, it's the blatant lying on the part of the defense lawyers.
 
After Clinton's impeachment trial he was disbarred. Will all of Trump's 'lawyers' also get disbarred for their pathetic distortions of the law?

There are arguments that have been made that should flunk a law student out of law school.. but being a defense lawyer allows for the exploration of novel defense tactics in the interest of doing every last possible thing to minimize the negative impact on your client.
But, ya, I agree that there are some tactics and arguments that should raise the attention of the Bar for ethical review.

It certainly shows they are desperately trying to find a leg to stand on.

Not to mention that Dershowitz argument admits Bonespurs did the crime.
 
I think it has fascinating implications. I think the man is awful, and I will continue to think he is awful whether his testimony damages or helps Trump, because I think he is awful.

If his testimony hurts Trump, people who a year ago thought he was awful would have what opinion about him?

He's still an awful neocon warhawk. I don't remember anyone accusing him of dishonesty or lacking in integrity.

Especially when he made the cases for invasions that have done nothing but destabilize the Middle East. There was absolutely no dishonesty there, so sir.[/sarcasm]
 
Just so we're abreast of the latest developments, Alan Dershowitz argued today that if Trump felt it was in the national interest, it cannot therefore be an impeachable offense. Seriously:

“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...If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.”


We're entering into Dear Leader territory here.
"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

If he's that mistaken then we're in 25th amendment territory. Remove him for that.
 
I think it has fascinating implications. I think the man is awful, and I will continue to think he is awful whether his testimony damages or helps Trump, because I think he is awful.

If his testimony hurts Trump, people who a year ago thought he was awful would have what opinion about him?

He's still an awful neocon warhawk. I don't remember anyone accusing him of dishonesty or lacking in integrity.

Especially when he made the cases for invasions that have done nothing but destabilize the Middle East. There was absolutely no dishonesty there, so sir.[/sarcasm]

That he believes in a stupid and dangerous philosophy doesn't make his dishonest.
 
Especially when he made the cases for invasions that have done nothing but destabilize the Middle East. There was absolutely no dishonesty there, so sir.[/sarcasm]

That he believes in a stupid and dangerous philosophy doesn't make his dishonest.

So the lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction is just a "stupid and dangerous philosophy". Got it.
 
Especially when he made the cases for invasions that have done nothing but destabilize the Middle East. There was absolutely no dishonesty there, so sir.[/sarcasm]

That he believes in a stupid and dangerous philosophy doesn't make his dishonest.

So the lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction is just a "stupid and dangerous philosophy". Got it.

I don't know that Bolton lied about WMDs. If you've got a link, I'll concede the point.
 
"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

If he's that mistaken then we're in 25th amendment territory. Remove him for that.

The 25fh requires his cabinet to initiate. So don't hold your breath.
I think the point of the 25th is not that agency heads have special powers to discern mental infirmities, but people close to Trump during decision-making, observing his process, are in a special position to observe when he's gone nutsy-fagin.
I wonder if we could gather up a shadow-cabinet of former members who will confirm that he's fully gonzo? We'd need a big room, of course...
 
So the lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction is just a "stupid and dangerous philosophy". Got it.

I don't know that Bolton lied about WMDs. If you've got a link, I'll concede the point.

 John Bolton

Weapons of mass destruction

Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 biological weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He argued that the plan would have jeopardized U.S. national security by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites.

In May 2002, Bolton gave a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil" in response to President Bush's State of the Union Address (where Bush characterized Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil"). Bolton added three more nations to be grouped with the aforementioned rogue states: Cuba, Libya, and Syria. Bolton said they were all "state sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations." During his time as Under Secretary of State, Bolton "sought to block, and often succeeded in sabotaging" the negotiations that Secretary of State Colin Powell had conducted with North Korea.

Also in 2002, Bolton is said to have flown to Europe to demand the resignation of Brazilian José Bustani, head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and to have orchestrated his removal at a special session of the organization.[69] Bustani was deemed to be an obstacle in creating the case for the invasion of Iraq. The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. Bustani had been unanimously re-elected for a four-year term—with strong U.S. support—in May 2000, and in 2001 was praised for his leadership by Colin Powell. According to Bustani, John Bolton demanded that he step down in 24 hours, adding, "We know where your children are."

He also pushed for reduced funding for the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials. At the same time, he was involved in the implementation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, working with a number of countries to intercept the trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and in materials for use in building nuclear weapons.
 
 John Bolton

Weapons of mass destruction

Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 biological weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He argued that the plan would have jeopardized U.S. national security by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites.

In May 2002, Bolton gave a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil" in response to President Bush's State of the Union Address (where Bush characterized Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil"). Bolton added three more nations to be grouped with the aforementioned rogue states: Cuba, Libya, and Syria. Bolton said they were all "state sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations." During his time as Under Secretary of State, Bolton "sought to block, and often succeeded in sabotaging" the negotiations that Secretary of State Colin Powell had conducted with North Korea.

Also in 2002, Bolton is said to have flown to Europe to demand the resignation of Brazilian José Bustani, head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and to have orchestrated his removal at a special session of the organization.[69] Bustani was deemed to be an obstacle in creating the case for the invasion of Iraq. The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. Bustani had been unanimously re-elected for a four-year term—with strong U.S. support—in May 2000, and in 2001 was praised for his leadership by Colin Powell. According to Bustani, John Bolton demanded that he step down in 24 hours, adding, "We know where your children are."

He also pushed for reduced funding for the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials. At the same time, he was involved in the implementation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, working with a number of countries to intercept the trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and in materials for use in building nuclear weapons.

I don't like him either. Can you point out a specific sentence that says he lied?
 
What gets me about the Bolton deal is that his testimony would be confirming what we've already been told. There seems to be this misimpression that the case for Impeachment hinges on Bolton's testimony. The reality is that the impeachment case hinges on Trump's own words in the transcript and the testimony of the right-wing partisan diplomat that gave Trump's Inauguration $1 million.

Bolton's testimony would be more of a confirmation for the right-wing via the truth bias created by their high esteem for the far-right wing warhawk. The GOP would be hard pressed to ignore Bolton's testimony. It would require them to shift the argument (as we've been seeing) to one of... well... okay, Quid Quo Pro, but not impeachable.

The actual case has been made and quite thoroughly so through the words of Sondland and Trump (and later confirmed via Parnas and Giuliani)... and this is ignoring Mulvaney's statement to the press. The only real question remaining is the final argument presented by the obstructionist GOP... ie... was there a wrong-doing (they were trying to get away with even saying there was never a wrong-doing) or there was a wrong-doing, but it isn't impeachable conduct.
 
Back
Top Bottom