Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

duploelabs

Christy42 wrote: »

I would stick a time limit as opposed to an age limit.

However it is a great idea to push for how they will roll back Trump's excesses and stop such blatant abuse of power from being the norm.

Enforcement of emoulents clause, and further to that, extensive financial auditing to ensure that they are not susceptible to corruption due to financial insecurity (or maybe I've been watching too much Line of Duty for the latter part)

Varik

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would like to see the Democratic candidates pressed on what, if any, measures they would take to roll back Trump's egregious expansion of Presidential power.

Which powers are these exactly, those instituted by Bush which were not subsequently not rescinded by former constitutional professor Obama and instead expanded upon.

everlast75

Christy42 wrote: »

I would stick a time limit as opposed to an age limit.

However it is a great idea to push for how they will roll back Trump's excesses and stop such blatant abuse of power from being the norm.

Hopefully the Courts will have laid down established case precedent to stop a lot of this nonsense. That'll be a start.

Compulsory disclosure as opposed to optional of business and financial records also.

Increase in number of Supreme Court Judges.

StringerBell

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would like to see the Democratic candidates pressed on what, if any, measures they would take to roll back Trump's egregious expansion of Presidential power.

If it were me I would not roll back any, in fact I would use what trump has done as justification for my own policy plans re climate control, gun control etc

What's good for the goose and all that. If you want to play the short sighted game and not be bothered by what your guy is doing simply cause he's your guy and you agree with him then I would very happily abuse that precedent for my own goals.

I see not value in seeking compromise with the likes of McConnell, ride roughshod over him and his ilk as they gleefully do when they have the advantage.

Quin_Dub

Varik wrote: »

Which powers are these exactly, those instituted by Bush which were not subsequently not rescinded by former constitutional professor Obama and instead expanded upon.

Yes - any and all of them that allow a President to act outside the law or Constitution without being held to account.

However , none of that works without changing how the Judiciary and Congress work either.

Bush made the changes so he could have his war and Obama made those changes to get around an intransigent Congress driven by utter partisan behaviour - They blocked everything he put forward , not because they were bad or whatever , but simply because it was him and as McConnell put it "Our job is to make sure he's a one term President".

I'd roll back Citizens United for a start to get the Dark money out of there. I'd make significant changes to how PAC's are allowed to operate as well.

ALL elected officials , political appointees and the judiciary to be subject to an in-depth financial audit prior to taking office to determine any potential conflicts of interest or areas of risk/exposure.

I'd also have an independent panel confirm the Judiciary (along with term limits for all Judicial appointments) - It has been politicised beyond all recognition over the last few decades.

Bottom line - ALL of American politics is badly broken and no one thing is going to fix it.

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd roll back Citizens United for a start to get the Dark money out of there.

AFAIK this would take a constitutional amendment and it seems as if the US Constitution is now frozen in time, with Amendments very unlikely to pass.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I’d also have an independent panel confirm the Judiciary

But who would appoint the “Independent” panel?!

Quin_Dub

serfboard wrote: »

AFAIK this would take a constitutional amendment and it seems as if the US Constitution is now frozen in time, with Amendments very unlikely to pass.

It didn't take an amendment to bring it in, just an interpretation , given that everything that those in opposition to it were worried about has come to pass why not have a second swing at it (not with the current Supreme court sadly)?

serfboard wrote: »

But who would appoint the “Independent” panel?!

I know I know, not an easy task - But something has to be done to fix it.

Maybe restore the 2/3rds majority requirements? Something , Anything..

everlast75

Interesting article showing the fall out for the supporters of Nixon

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1222596135749128192?s=19

Outlaw Pete

sid waddell wrote: »

Oh look, a Trump supporter portrays himself as a victim, how twee.

For somebody whose entire worldview is dedicated to the shameless maintenance of power of the rich and corrupt and the wholesale desire to sneer at and silence the marginalised and the traditionally marginalised, you do have a very ironic line in wallowing in victimhood.

Like all Trump supporters.

You genuinely do believe that traditionally marginalised groups having a voice and using it makes you, the white male, the victim, don't you?

Where to even start.

Let me guess, your response will include the word "woke", thinking it constitutes some form of a point.

Oh look. You got called out for speaking down about people, just based on who it is that they vote for, and your response is to go further in on the attack, doubling down, insulting them even more, when the truth is you know little or nothing about them, clearly. Other that is, than who it is that they chose to vote for, and you haven't even got the self awareness to realise that to think that way is abhorrent.

As for suggesting I sneer at, and try to silence, the marginalised, would you like to explain yourself? As with regards to my job, it involves looking after people who can't even fend for themselves, and socially I have no pursuits which would result in anyone I encounter being silenced, so interesting to know where you pulled that nonsense from, although I could take a good guess no doubt.

Also, you don't know what colour I am, but interesting all the same for you to act like you do and also to imply as you do so, that all Trump supporters are white. It's quite common for people who express the kind of views you do to say such nonsense of course. Pretending to be on the side of the oppressed as if you have some kind of monopoly on compassion is quite common for those who lean to the left.

Indeed your remarks reminded me of the comments made by one girl in the following clip recently (around 1m20s in) about how people use division so they can try and control people, and of course, how they vote:


https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1219391014529654785


But more and more people of colour are catching on to that now and they're are not falling for what you're trying to pull here. You were caught out sneering at people, suggesting that because they voted for Donald Trump, that they mustn't be well informed, and indicative of them being obedient and passive, but it's hogwash. You, and most of those on this thread (hence the backslaps your reply received) choose to see Trump voters the way you do because it suits you to. It means that you don't have to consider the fact that your views might be wrongheaded. It's just those other folk that have an issue .. voting for Trump cause they don't know no better. Yeah, and like I said, all that attitude will result in is four more years for DT as the people voting for him are nowhere near as docile and uninformed as you appear to think they are.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh look. You got called out for speaking down about people, just based on who it is that they vote for, and your response is to go further in on the attack, doubling down, insulting them even more, when the truth is you know little or nothing about them, clearly. Other that is, than who it is that they chose to vote for, and you haven't even got the self awareness to realise that to think that way is abhorrent.

As for suggesting I sneer at, and try to silence, the marginalised, would you like to explain yourself? As with regards to my job, it involves looking after people who can't even fend for themselves, and socially I have no pursuits which would result in anyone I encounter being silenced, so interesting to know where you pulled that nonsense from, although I could take a good guess no doubt.

Also, you don't know what colour I am, but interesting all the same for you to act like you do and also to imply as you do so, that all Trump supporters are white. It's quite common for people who express the kind of views you do to say such nonsense of course. Pretending to be on the side of the oppressed as if you have some kind of monopoly on compassion is quite common for those who lean to the left.

Indeed your remarks reminded me of the comments made by one girl in the following clip recently (around 1m20s in) about how people use division so they can try and control people, and of course, how they vote:


https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1219391014529654785


But more and more people of colour are catching on to that now and they're are not falling for what you're trying to pull here. You were caught out sneering at people, suggesting that because they voted for Donald Trump, that they mustn't be well informed, and indicative of them being obedient and passive, but it's hogwash. You, and most of those on this thread (hence the backslaps your reply received) choose to see Trump voters the way you do because it suits you to. It means that you don't have to consider the fact that your views might be wrongheaded. It's just those other folk that have an issue .. voting for Trump cause they don't know no better. Yeah, and like I said, all that attitude will result in is four more years for DT as the people voting for him are nowhere near as docile and uninformed as you appear to think they are.

everlast75 wrote: »

This is absolutely insane stuff.

Regardless of whether the president is Democrat or Republican.

The GOP position:

— Presidents can only be impeached for indictable crimes
— DOJ can’t *investigate* possible presidential crimes (never mind charge)
— Neither can state or local officials
— If Congress tries to investigate, presidents can mass refuse all subpoenas for witnesses and documents
- if the president thinks it's in the national interests, he can get the assistance of foreign countries to investigate his rival
- executive privilege is without limitation
- you can't impeach on an election year
- they insist the public must decide in an election, whilst opening asking for foreign interference so it won't be a fair election
- that impeachment is the same as a coup!?


How the **** are people okay with this?

Any chance you could comment on the reasonableness of Trump's defence as outlined above?

sid waddell

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh look. You got called out for speaking down about people, just based on who it is that they vote for, and your response is to go further in on the attack, doubling down, insulting them even more, when the truth is you know little or nothing about them, clearly. Other that is, than who it is that they chose to vote for, and you haven't even got the self awareness to realise that to think that way is abhorrent.

As for suggesting I sneer at, and try to silence, the marginalised, would you like to explain yourself? As with regards to my job, it involves looking after people who can't even fend for themselves, and socially I have no pursuits which would result in anyone I encounter being silenced, so interesting to know where you pulled that nonsense from, although I could take a good guess no doubt.

Also, you don't know what colour I am, but interesting all the same for you to act like you do and also to imply as you do so, that all Trump supporters are white. It's quite common for people who express the kind of views you do to say such nonsense of course. Pretending to be on the side of the oppressed as if you have some kind of monopoly on compassion is quite common for those who lean to the left.

Indeed your remarks reminded me of the comments made by one girl in the following clip recently (around 1m20s in) about how people use division so they can try and control people, and of course, how they vote:


https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1219391014529654785


But more and more people of colour are catching on to that now and they're are not falling for what you're trying to pull here. You were caught out sneering at people, suggesting that because they voted for Donald Trump, that they mustn't be well informed, and indicative of them being obedient and passive, but it's hogwash. You, and most of those on this thread (hence the backslaps your reply received) choose to see Trump voters the way you do because it suits you to. It means that you don't have to consider the fact that your views might be wrongheaded. It's just those other folk that have an issue .. voting for Trump cause they don't know no better. Yeah, and like I said, all that attitude will result in is four more years for DT as the people voting for him are nowhere near as docile and uninformed as you appear to think they are.

That's some load of inoherent, imagined victim raimeis.

You do a neat line in simultaneously talking down to people too.

83% of African Americans say Trump is a racist, by the way.

But obviously you know better than they do.

Know your place, women and minorities and all that, eh.

sid waddell

The guy whose argument Dershowitz claims to cite callls Dershowitz and his interpretation of his scholarship "a joke".

'Nuff said.

https://twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1222907970989838338

sid waddell

September 11th, 2001 was the first time I heard Dershowitz speaking. Right from the start, it was obvious to me that he was a preening narcissist, a moron, a lunatic and an absolute cancer on public discourse. My opinion of him has never wavered one jot at any point since.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/memoirs-war-correspondent

Early meetings with Osama bin Laden gave Fisk a premonition of the fateful events which were to follow. There is a pungent account of Fisk confronting Alan Dershowitz on the Eamon Dunphy program from Dublin. Dershowitz is a law professor from Harvard, notorious for his advocacy of torture. Fisk tried to explain that the events of 9/11 must have had a reason. Dershowitz became uncontrollable in his hysterical, fenzied anger. Fisk was a bad man, a dangerous man, a Nazi, anti-American, which is the same as anti-Semitic. He also shouted at Dunphy until the latter took him off the air.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

The GOP position:

— Presidents can only be impeached for indictable crimes

From what I have seen this past month or so, they don't all think the same at all. I have seen many republicans expressing different views on the issue. Dershowitz seems to think somewhat differently than he did back when Clinton was being impeached, as do quite a few democrats, as well as republicans. Chris Wallace challenged him on that here. Same goes for impeachment in general and I'm sure you saw the clips of how many democrats now think differently to how they did back in the day also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7O0e0p-Eo

— DOJ can’t *investigate* possible presidential crimes (never mind charge)
— Neither can state or local officials
— If Congress tries to investigate, presidents can mass refuse all subpoenas for witnesses and documents

Have you a link where all this is being said or something? What's the context?

- if the president thinks it's in the national interests, he can get the assistance of foreign countries to investigate his rival

In certain contexts as I don't see what is inherently wrong with it. I note Schiff was posed a hypothetical yesterday from Lindsey (a version of which I have posed a few times myself on Boards - only using Cheney instead) where he was asked if Mitt Romney and his son engaged in the same behavior as Biden and Hunter have in Ukraine, where his son sat on the board of a corrupt gas company, Romney withholding $1billion in aid until a prosecutor was fired (a prosecutor who had been investigating the owner of the gas company, his son's boss) and there was the same sort of fall out (articles in NY Times, Washington Post, ABC reports etc) suggesting there be a degree of corruption going on given the fact that the son had been lobbying the state to see if they could get the gas company seen in a better light internationally ... would he feel it should be within Obama's rights to ask the president of that country to look into it .. he of course sidestepped the question and only marginally addressed a sliver of it.

- executive privilege is without limitation

Nobody believes that.

- you can't impeach on an election year

Stop listening to Adam Schiff. Defense lawyers calling out the democrats for trying to take Trump off the ballot doesn't mean they feel that that is what would always be the case should there be an attempted impeaching of a president in an election year. Those comments were specific to this clearly partisan bunch of democrats. Even Pelosi said that impeachment should be a bipartisan endeavour. When it's not. You can be sure it's just an attempt at stealing an election.

- they insist the public must decide in an election, whilst opening asking for foreign interference so it won't be a fair election

Trump did not ask for interference in an election. That's just a talking point, and one without evidence to back it up. If there was any, y'all wouldn't be wishing Bolton would come and save the day. A man you all usually speak of as nothing but a blood thirsty war monger with zero credibility. In fact Adam Schiff thinks exactly that of him and has pretty much said as much in interviews.

On the call Trump said exactly why he wanted the Biden-Burisma matter looked into, you don't need to guess. He said: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son.. Biden stopped the prosecution .. he was bragging about it .. whatever you can do with AG Barr would be great .. it sounds horrible to me" So no head scratching necessary, if you come wit an alternate and corrupt reason for why he asked for this, well then I'd suggest that's down to how you already seen Trump before July and has very little to do with what he did since then.

- that impeachment is the same as a coup!?

The GOP do not think impeachment is the same as a coup. They just think this one is and I agree with them.

How the **** are people okay with this?

How the **** are people okay with the fact that the DNC paid a firm to effectively fabricate a dossier of lies about a presidential candidate just so the electorate would be less likely to vote for them if they falsely believed that they had an alliance with the Kremlin and were into paying prostitutes to perform golden showers on beds, if that is they thought Obama had slept in it? A dossier by the way which had Russian and Ukrainian sources? Or with FBI leaking information to the media to make trouble for this same candidate? Or altering emails after he was elected so they could continue? As I sure as hell don't see no outrage over it but I know damn well it would be front page news world wide if this had happened Obama and the GOP and the FBI had done this to try and prevent him being elected.

Democrats / liberals have been talking about impeaching since the day after Trump was inaugurated and so if you think for one minute that I buy that this time the outrage is genuine, you'd be sorely mistaken because I most certainly do not. It's just the latest episode in 'Get Trump anyway, anyhow' which is why we even have people wishing for recessions if it would result in the end of his tenure. To say there is an irrational hated for the man would be the understatement of the millennium

Itssoeasy

So it appears that Rand Paul the senator from Kentucky(imagine your two US senators are rand paul and Mitch McConnell) walked out because the Chief Justice wouldn't read out his question about naming the whistleblower. I'll be honest the way it's reported on NBC news on the alert, it's not clear in what way senator Paul was trying to get the whistleblower named but the Chief Justice wasn't going to do it.

sid waddell

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So it appears that Rand Paul the senator from Kentucky(imagine your two US senators are rand paul and Mitch McConnell) walked out because the Chief Justice wouldn't read out his question about naming the whistleblower. I'll be honest the way it's reported on NBC news on the alert, it's not clear in what way senator Paul was trying to get the whistleblower named but the Chief Justice wasn't going to do it.

You could easily substitute the words "naming" and "named" for "killing" and "killed" and it would be pretty much as accurate.

Because let's face it, that's what all this is about - hanging the constant threat of death over the whistleblower's head in a similar way to what happened to Salman Rushdie in Iran.

Ben Done

Sky was reporting that the Dems don't have the votes for witnesses, and that the impeachment is all but over.
Has anyone seen similar?

Sean.3516

sid waddell wrote: »

The guy whose argument Dershowitz claims to cite callls Dershowitz and his interpretation of his scholarship "a joke".

'Nuff said.

https://twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1222907970989838338

This just further demonstrates that either almost nobody understands what Dershowitz was saying or they're deliberately taking him out of context.

Dershowitz did not argue that anything a president does in office in order to be re-elected can be seen as acting in the national interest and therefore anything a president does to be re-elected is not impeachable.

Just to be clear, the question Dershowitz was asked (by Mitt Romney) is essentially as follows: If a president acts with dual purposes, one toward the national interest and the other toward being re-elected, is this abuse of power? In other words, is it or is it not impeachable for a president to act with an eye toward the next election so long as they also continue to act in the national interest?

Dershowitz said no. This isn't impeachable. It's not abuse of power to act in your own political interest while in office if you're also acting in the national interest.

People are reading this answer as "A president can do anything they want as long as they're acting in the national interest and this includes efforts to help their re-election campaign." This isn't what he said.

What is impeachable is if a president essentially disregards the national interest or acts against it in an effort to help their re-elect effort. This is why Trump's intent is so important. For the umpteenth time, to prove abuse of power, you need to hear from either Trump or someone who spoke to Trump that his sole purpose here was to go after Joe Biden to help his 2020 campaign.

This is also what makes the potential testimony of Hunter Biden/Joe Biden relevant. Because if there was corruption or even the appearance of corruption with regard to the Bidens and Burisma, then Trump would have had legitimate cause to push for an investigation. The Democrats' case appears to be that there was no corruption and that Trump had the Ukrainians make it all up. This point of contention renders the testimony of the Bidens relevant.

sid waddell

Ben Done wrote: »

Sky was reporting that the Dems don't have the votes for witnesses, and that the impeachment is all but over.
Has anyone seen similar?

I'm not sure why anybody would ever have even entertained the notion that it would be otherwise. This whole thing has a been a sham since the start, a Republican show trial against the democratic and judicial process with a predetermined outcome.

And Pelosi was an idiot to go along with it, because she more than anybody should have known the outcome.

You don't go into the house of the mobilised forces of kleptocracy and beat them with evidence, even if it's overwhelming, which it is.

Right from the start, clued in people said Trump would run the US like Russia is run - that's the way the Republicans have been operating for decades. And the outcome of this sham "trial" is as rigged as what you'd get in Russia.

sid waddell

Sean.3516 wrote: »

This just further demonstrates that either almost nobody understands what Dershowitz was saying or they're deliberately taking him out of context.

Dershowitz did not argue that anything a president does in office in order to be re-elected can be seen as acting in the national interest and therefore anything a president does to be re-elected is not impeachable.

Dershowitz's words were very clear.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1222600255369359362?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1222600255369359362&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flawandcrime.com%2Fimpeachment%2Ftop-5-moments-during-impeachment-trial-grilling-of-trump-legal-team-and-house-managers%2F

“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."

That is a call for the powers of an absolute king.

Bear in mind that Dershowitz already argues that Trump could and should not be impeached if he let Russia actually invade the US.

The man is a nutcase.

Sean.3516

sid waddell wrote: »

Dershowitz's words were very clear.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1222600255369359362?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1222600255369359362&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flawandcrime.com%2Fimpeachment%2Ftop-5-moments-during-impeachment-trial-grilling-of-trump-legal-team-and-house-managers%2F

“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."

That is a call for the powers of an absolute king.

Bear in mind that Dershowitz already argues that Trump could and should not be impeached if he let Russia actually invade the US.

The man is a nutcase.

You've quoted him precisely and you still fail to comprehend what he's saying.

Yes, what you're saying he said would call for the president to have dictatorial powers. It also assumes a baseline level of stupidity for the man who helped get OJ Simpson off the hook. No lawyer in their right mind would make this argument because it's insanely stupid.

I'll break it down:

“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."

He's saying here if the president does something. A. thing. in. the. public. interest.

This is important. He's saying the thing that is being done is being done in the public interest. And the president also believes that doing this thing will help them get elected. The fact that it will help them get elected doesn't mean an abuse of power is happening, provided the action is being done in the public interest.

I actually don't believe people are taking Dersh out of context here but rather misunderstanding due to the unfortunate way he structured the statement.


Dershowitz said “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest..." Dershowitz is not saying that it can be considered in the public interest for a president to be elected if the president himself happens to believe so.

"that he believes will help him get elected", this is a belief/opinion/observation about the consequences doing the thing will have for the president. It is of no consequence whatsoever with regard to the legality of the action
itself.

"in the public interest" tells us the rationale for why the president is doing a thing. This is what tells us if abuse of power is happening or not.


Let's considered this:

Dersh said, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest..."

Now imagine he said, “If a president does something in the public interest which he believes will help him get elected..."

In terms of meaning, these two sentences are precisely the same. There's not a shred of difference between them.

looksee

Oh. I heard that as “If a president does something which he believes will help him (get elected in the public interest)..." ie, it was in the public interest that he get elected, which is a bit subjective. Anyone who would put such a klutzy sentence together does not really have a clear thinking legal mind.

Sean.3516

looksee wrote: »

Oh. I heard that as “If a president does something which he believes will help him (get elected in the public interest)..." ie, it was in the public interest that he get elected, which is a bit subjective.

Yeah. It would be broad as hell and entirely subjective (which is what would make that such a terrible argument.) It's such an insanely terrible argument that it's inconceivable that a lawyer like Dershowitz who's regarded by many as one of the most talented trial lawyers on Planet Earth would come up with it.

looksee wrote: »

Anyone who would put such a klutzy sentence together does not really have a clear thinking legal mind.

I think Dershowitz knew exactly what he was trying to say here. He's made this exact argument before on news shows long before he joined the president's defence team. He just unfortunately structured the sentence in a way that ensured maximum misunderstanding (even though the sentence does make sense when you read it carefully).

Worth noting that Dershowitz was responding to a question that had just been read aloud to him be the Chief Justice. It's not like this was prepared statement or something.

Outlaw Pete

Dershowitz haswritten an article on his remarks given that they have been misrepresented by so many over the last few days.

Not just here but in the Senate also:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/480720-dershowitz-i-never-said-president-could-do-anything-to-get-reelected


Good to see the defense in the Senate just there tackle that 'Ukraine not Russia' nonsense narrative that Schiff keeps repeating over and over, suggesting that this is what republicans mean every time they reference Ukraine's efforts to interfere in 2016.

ghost of ireland past

There is subtlety here.

It is not unlawful for Trump to engage in acts in the public interest which also happen to assist him, or his re-election effort, as an incidental effect. For example, Trump is entitled to order his Justice Dept. to investigate corruption generally, even if it has the effect of removing some of his opponents. Trump shouldn't be naming individuals to be investigated but he can name categories of crime to be prioritised.

What Trump cannot do is make a judgement that his own re-election is in the public interest. He is not entitled to make that judgement. The people decide who is best to lead them, not the current leader.
If Trump was entitled to decide that his own re-election was in the public interest then he could legitimately take loads of actions to impede his opponents and to frustrate their chances. That cannot be legal.


I think Dersh meant what he said, that Trump can decide his own re-election is in the public interest, and then, having decided that, he can impede his opponents. In fairness though, if Trump genuinely believes that his political opponent would destroy America then the interest's of America, and the interest's of Trump would coincide, they'd be the same, and Trump could legitimately attempt to destroy his opponents, in the same way as Trump attempts to destroy criminal gangs for example.

Say El Chapo ran in the election. I'm not being completely facetious. Could Trump attempt to take him out?

edit. Actually, no, Trump cannot treat his political opponents as if they're gangsters and cartel members. There has to be limits.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

I can't help but think political interference is at play here.

For two years it has been said repeatedly (by myself and a couple of other users) that this case was absurd and Flynn was badly treated, but the replies were tantamount to fingers in the ears 'He plead guilty ffs!!' almost every single time. Now that it's looking like the case will go the way the people you all disagreed with said it would, instead of maybe considering that perhaps you all got it wrong, nah, instead you jump to 'it must be political interference'!

I have to wonder what will it ever take for the regular contingent on here to see that their views of Trump clouds almost ever single judgement they take on any issue that has even the remotest connection to Donald Trump. If only those people suggesting that Vindman deserved respect because he was a military man, had even an ounce of the same respect for Michael Flynn, who damn sure has earned it.

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You've quoted him precisely and you still fail to comprehend what he's saying.

Yes, what you're saying he said would call for the president to have dictatorial powers. It also assumes a baseline level of stupidity for the man who helped get OJ Simpson off the hook. No lawyer in their right mind would make this argument because it's insanely stupid.

I'll break it down:

“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."

He's saying here if the president does something. A. thing. in. the. public. interest.

This is important. He's saying the thing that is being done is being done in the public interest. And the president also believes that doing this thing will help them get elected. The fact that it will help them get elected doesn't mean an abuse of power is happening, provided the action is being done in the public interest.

I actually don't believe people are taking Dersh out of context here but rather misunderstanding due to the unfortunate way he structured the statement.


Dershowitz said “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest..." Dershowitz is not saying that it can be considered in the public interest for a president to be elected if the president himself happens to believe so.

"that he believes will help him get elected", this is a belief/opinion/observation about the consequences doing the thing will have for the president. It is of no consequence whatsoever with regard to the legality of the action
itself.

"in the public interest" tells us the rationale for why the president is doing a thing. This is what tells us if abuse of power is happening or not.


Let's considered this:

Dersh said, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest..."

Now imagine he said, “If a president does something in the public interest which he believes will help him get elected..."

In terms of meaning, these two sentences are precisely the same. There's not a shred of difference between them.

Alan Dershowitz avoided asking what was the intent of the president, what was in the presidents mind then, when he asked for the Quid Pro Quo of Ukraine's president. He chose not to ask himself what was the motivation there, instead he chose to follow the presidents various statements as to the action. That is what has just being done by one of Dons defence team answering a question from the senators. People can continue to follow the pied piper all they want in respect of the veil Don has drawn over his action but that won't take away from the intent he had in mind when he asked for the quid pro quo. The president is responsible for his actions the same as any other adult. No amount of "but the president..." will take away from that fact.

One point to be taken from the GOP position as set out by Mitch McConnell in respect of the trial is that the GOP senators sitting in judgement of Don Trump must see him as a GOP party member, and not a person facing trial for abuse of powers given him to faithfully use in the interests of the US, not in or for the interests of Donald John Trump. They have done what Alan Dershowitz has done, all voluntarily, toed the line and swallowed the party line as given them by Don and Mitch.

I'll put it simply in a term from out of Richard Nixon's own mouth "I am not a crook" and ascribe that to the person on impeachment trial. No amount of credulity will wash away the stain that Mitch McConnell is throwing over the title and record of the party he is responsible to.

In respect to what Sean wrote above, what acts and deeds does he think Don should be forgiven and let away with under the understanding Alan and He are prepared to accept in respect to Alan's understanding of presidential accountability in respect of what is a "make it so" belief?

droidus

Dershowitz helped a brutal murderer get away scot free, was close friends with one of the world's foremost serial paedophiles whom he also helped escaped justice for a decade, is a regular apologist for appalling war crimes, and one of the most despicable me in America. Hs role in this fiasco is simply to provide a patina of legality to a repulsive parody of an impeachment trial. It's entirely possible he meant exactly what he said.

Sean.3516

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

It is not unlawful for Trump to engage in acts in the public interest which also happen to assist him, or his re-election effort, as an incidental effect. For example, Trump is entitled to order his Justice Dept. to investigate corruption generally, even if it has the effect of removing some of his opponents. Trump shouldn't be naming individuals to be investigated but he can name categories of crime to be prioritised.

This is correct. And it happens to be exactly what Dershowitz said:

“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."

In one of my posts above I break down this statement and why it doesn't mean what most people think it means.

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

What Trump cannot do is make a judgement that his own re-election is in the public interest. He is not entitled to make that judgement. The people decide who is best to lead them, not the current leader.
If Trump was entitled to decide that his own re-election was in the public interest then he could legitimately take loads of actions to impede his opponents and to frustrate their chances. That cannot be legal.

Agreed.

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I think Dersh meant what he said, that Trump can decide his own re-election is in the public interest, and then, having decided that, he can impede his opponents. In fairness though, if Trump genuinely believes that his political opponent would destroy America then the interest's of America, and the interest's of Trump would coincide, they'd be the same, and Trump could legitimately attempt to destroy his opponents, in the same way as Trump attempts to destroy criminal gangs for example.

Well we know that Dershowitz didn't mean what everyone's saying he meant.

Source 1). Derhsowitz's actual statement (though badly structured when read carefully and properly).

Source 2.) The article he wrote for "The Hill" today, he goes into great detail on this and clarifies that he did not say a president could do anything to get elected if he/she believes it in the national interest.

Dershowitz did say that he believes that virtually every politician believes their election to be in the national interest but also stipulated that a candidate cannot use this as a lone justification to act however they wish. The act must have benefits for the national interest that go beyond the candidate simply being re-elected.

Sean.3516

aloyisious wrote: »

Alan Dershowitz avoided asking what was the intent of the president, what was in the presidents mind then, when he asked for the Quid Pro Quo of Ukraine's president. He chose not to ask himself what was the motivation there, instead he chose to follow the presidents various statements as to the action. That is what has just being done by one of Dons defence team Pwople can continue to follow the pied piper all they want in respect of the veil Don has drawn ove his action but that won't take away from the intent he had in mind when he asked for the quid pro quo.

Dershowitz's purpose on the defence team is to make the constitutional argument as to what is impeachable conduct and what isn't. He never made arguments as to whether the president was acting in the national interest or acting to take out Joe Biden for 2020. This wasn't his job. Trump's other lawyer addressed this.

There've been multiple accounts saying that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. The Dems have yet to produce a witness saying Trump's sole purpose was to get Biden.

It's tiresome to hear people continually saying that we can read intent from the action alone. We can't. You need to hear from either Trump or someone who spoke to him.