Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.There is so little case law on what "high crimes and misdemeanours" actually means that it could in fact mean almost anything. It depends what Congress is willing to put up with at any given time. And that in turn underlines that impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.
So Dersh can say virtually anything he wants. No president has actually been impeached. Is authorizing a break-in of your rival's hotel suite at the Watergate Hotel a "high crime or misdemeanor"?.... Who knows?
Is extorting a bogus investigation of a political rival by a foreign government a "high crime or misdemeanour"?... Who knows?
Dersh is a bit senile and very closely linked with the whole Trump-Epstein clique. He's basically become a Trump house-pet. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the brilliant mind who appealed the Klaus Von Bulow conviction 40 years ago.
That's pretty much a very small minority position now, isn't it? Just you and a few of the other die-hards?Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
Exactly, it's a political process. In regards to Dershowitz' opinion, I believe he thinks that the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy in a manner he sees fit. When a President acts outside his authority, the Congress can vote to override his authority and/or challenge him in the courts.There is so little case law on what "high crimes and misdemeanours" actually means that it could in fact mean almost anything. It depends what Congress is willing to put up with at any given time. And that in turn underlines that impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.
I thought Nixon was being impeached for the cover-up of the crime. Did they ever demonstrate Nixon personally authorized the break-in?So Dersh can say virtually anything he wants. No president has actually been impeached. Is authorizing a break-in of your rival's hotel suite at the Watergate Hotel a "high crime or misdemeanor"?.... Who knows?
You have essentially tried the case in your mind with your use of dismissive words "extorting" and "bogus". When I heard the transcript, I thought it was bad form, but not an impeachable "quid pro quo", "bribe" or "extortion".Is extorting a bogus investigation of a political rival by a foreign government a "high crime or misdemeanour"?... Who knows?
We now seem to be trying not just the President, but also the defense attorneys. I wouldn't advise hiring celebrity lawyers or TV lawyers. I think having attorneys that don't draw attention to themselves would be the best course. If I had to explain why Trump chose these people, I'm guessing he knows what he is getting with these choices. Washington attorneys seem to be quite politically ambidextrous.Dersh is a bit senile and very closely linked with the whole Trump-Epstein clique. He's basically become a Trump house-pet. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the brilliant mind who appealed the Klaus Von Bulow conviction 40 years ago.
Trump says he got the idea from Putin himself, and Parnas is revealing that it was the Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs who were pissed at Biden coming down on corruption and getting in the way of their money laundering that started them wanting Trump or whoever they could pay, to get Biden out of there.Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
Yet, no mention of "corruption" in his phone call to the Ukrainian President. Only "do us a favour" and "announce the reopening of the Biden investigation"!!Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
We now seem to be trying not just the President, but also the defense attorneys. I wouldn't advise hiring celebrity lawyers or TV lawyers. I think having attorneys that don't draw attention to themselves would be the best course. If I had to explain why Trump chose these people, I'm guessing he knows what he is getting with these choices. Washington attorneys seem to be quite politically ambidextrous.
I don't know, is it a good idea to have Adam Schiff on the impeachment team?
Dersh has gone Full Rudy! LOL...How much longer do you think it will be before Dersh gets indicted?There is so little case law on what "high crimes and misdemeanours" actually means that it could in fact mean almost anything. It depends what Congress is willing to put up with at any given time. And that in turn underlines that impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.
So Dersh can say virtually anything he wants. No president has actually been impeached. Is authorizing a break-in of your rival's hotel suite at the Watergate Hotel a "high crime or misdemeanor"?.... Who knows?
Is extorting a bogus investigation of a political rival by a foreign government a "high crime or misdemeanour"?... Who knows?
Dersh is a bit senile and very closely linked with the whole Trump-Epstein clique. He's basically become a Trump house-pet. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the brilliant mind who appealed the Klaus Von Bulow conviction 40 years ago.
You are completely incorrect. Trump unlawfully withheld funds approved by Congress. He broke the law.Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
Parnas is under indictment. You can't believe anything he says.Trump says he got the idea from Putin himself, and Parnas is revealing that it was the Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs who were pissed at Biden coming down on corruption and getting in the way of their money laundering that started them wanting Trump or whoever they could pay, to get Biden out of there.
They never found any dirt and even Parnas says Biden was clean now.
That is not a violation of the law. If it was why doesn't that appear in the Articles of Impeachment?You are completely correct. Trump unlawfully withheld funds approved by Congress. He broke the law.
Biden threatened to withhold aid but the aid was never withheld. Had Obama decided to do so, he would have had to return to Congress and ask them to withdraw or suspend the aid.
Trump broke the law. Obama did not break the law.
Had Trump genuinely been concerned about Ukrainian corruption he could have returned to Congress and asked that the aid be withdrawn...but he didn’t. He committed an illegal act by unilaterally ordering the aid suspended.
Give it up on the Putin bullshit already. That train left the station last year.Trump says he got the idea from Putin himself, and Parnas is revealing that it was the Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs who were pissed at Biden coming down on corruption and getting in the way of their money laundering that started them wanting Trump or whoever they could pay, to get Biden out of there.
They never found any dirt and even Parnas says Biden was clean now.
That is not a violation of the law. If it was why doesn't that appear in the Articles of Impeachment?
The aid was never withheld because Biden got his wish - the prosecutor looking into Burisma was fired. It was a clear quid pro quo.
Why was Hunter Biden hired by a Ukrainian gas company to sit on their board and paid $83K per month? We need answers to that.
Parnas is under indictment. You can't believe anything he says.
If I recall correctly, Nixon only learned of the break-in after the fact. His crime was in his efforts to cover it up. Nixon actually could have said that he “never knew and never met” G Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt and he probably wouldn’t have been lying...LOL!In any event, the Congress can impeach and remove the President for almost any disagreement. Being a political process though, the Congress has to sell it to the American public.
I thought Nixon was being impeached for the cover-up of the crime. Did they ever demonstrate Nixon personally authorized the break-in?
Trump is all about optics and how things play on TV. Having a lawyer of Dersh’ stature enthusiastically arguing his case looks good. It also plays well on Fox and makes Liberal “heads explode”. Trump is the master of creating these theatrical scenes and making them into reality.We now seem to be trying not just the President, but also the defense attorneys. I wouldn't advise hiring celebrity lawyers or TV lawyers. I think having attorneys that don't draw attention to themselves would be the best course.
I think it would look bad if he was not on the team. It would be spun as a tacit admission that Schiff had done something wrong in his management of the impeachment hearings. It would look weak.I don't know, is it a good idea to have Adam Schiff on the impeachment team?