Alan Dershowitz Explains Why There’s No ‘Possible Criminal Conduct’ In Trump-Ukraine Story

I just have no faith in anything he says.

 

Promises, promises. It could also be the response to Mueller failing to find evidence of "conspiracy." Trump's counter-punch. Impeachment and removal from office upon conviction on impeachment is a "political process," not a criminal one. As Gerald Ford once said, when he was Speaker of the House, "the grounds for impeachment are whatever we have the votes for." [I believe that was in conjunction with a judicial impeachment.] Trump involved Barr by mixing him with his "personal lawyer Giuliani, in the tel-con with Zelenskyy. And, Giuliani has now dragged Pompeo into the witness line-up. The few good people Trump may still have around him are going to shortly grow tired of playing Trump's game of musical chairs, with Trump controlling when the music stops and letting everyone run for a chair. To solve one problem, he creates a larger one.

 

Of course Ukraine is not going to contradict him, they need the weapons lol

 

Corruption? Not wanting Europe to pay more?
What changed in regards to corruption to get the money released?
Are you sure you don’t mean corrupt concerns?

 

DailyCaller? Not worth the wait, but thanks...

Don't forget next time... hard to respond to a thread without some context, with the exception being DailyCaller...

 

You can be impeached for both " HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS".

 

So he'll have been impeached...

So then the Senate R's have to decide if they even want to hold a Senate Trial... Either way they go on that decision, they lose...

And then you have to wonder how Jeff Flake's 35 Senate GOP'ers will be feeling at that point, since it's highly likely by then, the public polling will be for impeachment... it's about 50/50 simply with the release of the complaint...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeff-flake-35-gop-senators-impeach-trump

 

Again, so he’s impeached? That just shows what Americans already know; that House Republicans hate Trump.
Unless a senate supermajority votes to convict, it’s simply fodder for political posturing.
If, the senate tries Trump, weighing evidence against the charges, it may be that the charges will be seen as nothing more than the product of trumped (pun intended) up political puffery, fails to convince a supermajority to convict, in which case the Dems lose, because their only 2020 strategy is based on anything anti Trump.
Once articles of impeachment are published, if they are solely based on the Ukraine call, the Executive will have opportunity to submit a case to the SCOTUS on whether there was a violation of Presidential powers... which, IMO, won’t go as Dems would like, and again they look foolish. I suspect Trump and a few in the GOP, secretly hope for impeachment... then the war begins. Think it wasn’t anticipated? Really.
As for American polls... Hillary should be President; she’s not. I think Americans, already losing confidence in the Mainstream media, the Dem supported Russian Collusion Hoax, and fears of the Dem ‘Socialist’/Leftist agenda, coming reveals of on-going investigations, a new investigation of Biden (based on his boasting), potential criminal indictments of Comey, Clapper, and more, will not go as hoped by the Dems. BTW, recent polls showed the majority of Dems thought pushing for impeachment a bad strategy.
The Dems would have had a better play, to have dropped investigation madness, continued to impute the Mueller report without taking action, letting opinions simmer without coming to a head, counter the GOP with a more substantive platform than just being anti-Trump.
There’s a lot of time between now and the 2020 elections, a lot of time... and justification for investigations of impropriety of key Dem players that may have significant impact on elections a more than a year off. As for whistle blowers... think time might not find one among the Obama admin?
There are more deplorable out there than most realize, and the Hillary, Mr. Adam Parody, the SQUAD, and other current voices of the Dems aren’t doing the Dems any favors.
As a Civil Libertarian, I am enjoying the pealing back the onion of the Washington Culture of politics in this political civil war.

 

Way too much there to respond to or care about... I don't generally read manifestos...

I highlighted the interesting things (not much)

Bold 1 - Many do hate him too, but I think you meant D's
Bold 2 - The call will just be part of the article(s)... the complaint will be a larger part, I'm sure
Bold 3 - SCOTUS has no role on impeachment issues... https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-has-no-role-impeachment
Bold 4 - I think both sides figured it was inevitable... Great strategy by the R's.... Their entire presidential term is planning for impeachment.

As you were (assuming hiding under a table)...

 

Dershowitz is preening for a job defending Trump. He hasn’t got a scumbag off since OJ.

 

Nah, why hide? History is happening. Humor is happening. I have lived through worse times.

 

I'd probably accept his legal creds above yours.

 

Attack the man rather than the argument. It's called ad hominem and it's where leftists go when they have no argument, or debating skills.

 

Orwell is standing in his grave... saying, ‘See’.

 

Yep, and if you don’t agree you are an ______ ist.

 

Leftists complain about Trump lying about crowd size while overlooking Hillary Clinton lying about her governmental emails under oath to the House.

Bill was also disbarred, fined $25,000, and personally lost $750,000 for sexual harassment. Nothing Trump ever did compares with that.

 

What about them, indeed - the only thing they care about is power.



"Trump stole my PRECIOUS! IMPEACH!!!"

 

There is something Schiff-like about that photo. That's the same guy who said he has some clear and hard evidence on the Russia Hoax. These people have no pride, or sense of shame

 

You got that right... Trump likes to go big AND go home...

 

As for the SCOTUS having no role in the impeachment process, that would generally be true, except in this case, if the Ukraine call is the basis for charges leveled in the articles of impeachment, then it will raise the question of the scope and limits of the Executive’s Constitutional powers, questions than can be placed for review by the SCOTUS by either the Executive or the Senate. I would argue, despite the Dems spinning the phone call to their narrative that nothing in the call falls outside the preview of Executive power. The narrative is an implied threat/extortion bid was made, but proving it was and that the context of the call can’t be alternatively explained by the President operating within the bounds of his enumerated powers will be a difficult thing to prove, it being a subjective interpretation of Trump’s motives. Proving someone’s motives to the level of scrutiny required for conviction under our tradition of jurisprudence is not an easy thing.
As for other charges in articles of impeachment, what would be credible enough to get a supermajority in the Senate to agree with?
This is all political grandstanding and both parties are complicit for their own ends. The losers are the American people... who grow more entrenched and hardened in their existing partisan thinking day by day, unlikely to be persuaded by the opposition.

 

There is.

The character Gollum from The Lord of the Rings was also consumed by the lust for power and lost his humanity.

I'm also beginning to notice a physical resemblance between the two...

True, because they're playing from a rulebook that contains the following epigraph:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

— Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals


The ends (power and control) justify the means, and by any means necessary...

 

Based on what and you realize the conspiracy that there would have to be for this release to be fake? Career CIA employees transcribe and consolidate those transcripts and others listen in. Has ANYONE come forward who has first hand knowledge said those transcription or false. And let me guess you are going to claim Zelenskiy is part of some grand conspiracy.

 

An interesting concept but the problem being how does it get to the Scotus. There is no provision or mechanism for a President or anyone being impeached to appeal to the Supreme Court. That being said as I recall during the Clinton impeachment the Democrats wanted to instead censure him. They all knew he was guilty of the crimes of which the Starr OIC had charged him. He had no defense it was prima facie evidence. But I believe it was Rienquest in his role as the "judge" ruled that the Constitution does not allow for House to censure a President. And once impeached the Senate has only one judgement to make, remove or not remove (not even guilty of the offenses for which he was impeached, that is not their judgement, just remove or not remove). So could the Chief Justice in his role as the arbiture in the impeachment process declare the articles do not meet the constitution standard for an impeachment and in fact violated the separation of powers and infringe on Presidential powers................that would be a tough one.

 

Durham is investigating remember?

 

Yes it is what happens they have several CIA career employees typing out the conversation in real time. like a court reporter does, and also now a voice recognition software transcribing in real time and they compare all the transcriptions for any conflicts and resolve them and then they have the official transcript.

There seems to be this strange notion being desparately floated that transcriptions only come from audio recordings, that is laughable.

How involved in that process or otherwise heard the conversation has said it is inaccurate. When did the Ukraine government say that that is not an accurate transcription of the conversation.