best interest -

[Crepitus]

Trump’s defense is deteriorating before our eyes. Now their defense is Trump can commit any crime. What a bunch of losers.

The resident tRumplings are doing the same thing right here right now.

They cannot come up with a defense for the lameness of the defense so they just scream obscenities.

That is true. All these dimwits have is an insult. Not one has responded to the OP. Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz. I am being generous in calling these folks dimwits by the way.

ROFLMAO! could you possibly be MORE hypocritical?

Not sure you know what hypocritical means....

K, thank you for your insightful and incredibly valuable input, it's very much appreciated.

.. .and in other news, the official word for today is "patronizing".

That's nice kid.

Still don't think you know what it means.

 

[NightFox]

The resident tRumplings are doing the same thing right here right now.

They cannot come up with a defense for the lameness of the defense so they just scream obscenities.

That is true. All these dimwits have is an insult. Not one has responded to the OP. Not one has said they disagree with Dershowitz. I am being generous in calling these folks dimwits by the way.

ROFLMAO! could you possibly be MORE hypocritical?

Not sure you know what hypocritical means....

K, thank you for your insightful and incredibly valuable input, it's very much appreciated.

.. .and in other news, the official word for today is "patronizing".

That's nice kid.

Still don't think you know what it means.

Oh, you're thinking now are you? Excellent!

Next step in your quest to become a rational adult; try doing it on your own instead of letting the Democratic Crime Family do it for you.

Best of luck, later.

 

[colfax_m]

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

That's the question, because from a different perspective one can credibly argue that by withholding (delaying) aid to the Ukraine, Trump was acting to:

1. Combat U.S. Government corruption
2. Support the goal of getting other European Nations to pony up their "fair share" of aid to Ukraine
3. Both of the above

In such a situation where the motive is in question (or where mixed motive can be credibly argued) removing the President from office solely based on Congress assigning a corrupt motive (based on circumstance) would run counter to the Constitutional Standard for removal; if you started applying that type of standard then Presidents are going to be subject to removal essentially based on Congressional whim.

IMHO what is needed to make a credible case is direct evidence (i.e. not circumstantial) that Donny was acting solely to discredit a political rival for his own gain (corrupt motive) via a QPQ demand to a foreign government and thus far that evidence has not materialized (although given recent allegations, Bolton *may* be able to provide some).

Dershowitz is saying you can never claim that a president was working solely to discredit a political rival. Any attempt to discredit a political rival automatically qualifies as acing in the nations best interest (from the presidents standpoint).

That's not what he's saying, if you watch the entire presentation with an open mind it's pretty easy to discern that. Stop and consider, Dershowitz is a blowhard and an elitist but he isn't an idiot or irrational which is what he would have to be to make the argument you and others are claiming.

And no, I don’t think you can credibly claim Trump was working to root out US government corruption. The fact that he was not working through any means by which our government could actually be held accountable means to me he was not doing so.

He was on a phone call with other people listening in and transcribing it and then released that transcript to the public, seems pretty "accountable" to me.

As POTUS, Donny could have had the conversation with Zelensky completely in secret if he had wanted to hide something in which case this impeachment process wouldn't be happening.

That’s precisely the argument Dershowitz is making. He is saying you cannot use Trump’s motive at all in this trial because his motive can never be considered solely for political benefit.

Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders always take place with people listening in. I don’t think he could have rationally kicked everyone else off, even the limited number of people that were on it. The phone call transcript was immediately made very difficult for anyone to look at. The whistleblower’s attempt to make this known were squelched at first. He went through the CIA counsel who referred it to DoJ. It died there. NSC went to the lawyers who took it to DoJ. That died too. The whistleblower went to the IG, who went to the DNI. DNI gave it again to the DoJ who again tried to kill it. Only at this last phase did it become public that there was a report and they couldn’t hide it anymore. I don’t call that accountability.

But I was actually referring to holding Biden accountable. Trump didn’t go through any US law enforcement. If he wanted to root out US corruption, he wasn’t going through any US agencies that could actually do anything about it.

 

[NightFox]

The problem with this instance, is I don’t see how the president can credibly say he was acting in the nations best interest when the entirety of his actions seems to be to hurt the public perception of Joe Biden rather than actually investigate and prosecute corruption. The only way he can claim he was acting in the nations best interest is by saying that it reduces Joe Biden’s chances of getting elected which is good for the country and I don’t think any reasonable person accepts that is a justifiable rationale.

That's the question, because from a different perspective one can credibly argue that by withholding (delaying) aid to the Ukraine, Trump was acting to:

1. Combat U.S. Government corruption
2. Support the goal of getting other European Nations to pony up their "fair share" of aid to Ukraine
3. Both of the above

In such a situation where the motive is in question (or where mixed motive can be credibly argued) removing the President from office solely based on Congress assigning a corrupt motive (based on circumstance) would run counter to the Constitutional Standard for removal; if you started applying that type of standard then Presidents are going to be subject to removal essentially based on Congressional whim.

IMHO what is needed to make a credible case is direct evidence (i.e. not circumstantial) that Donny was acting solely to discredit a political rival for his own gain (corrupt motive) via a QPQ demand to a foreign government and thus far that evidence has not materialized (although given recent allegations, Bolton *may* be able to provide some).

Dershowitz is saying you can never claim that a president was working solely to discredit a political rival. Any attempt to discredit a political rival automatically qualifies as acing in the nations best interest (from the presidents standpoint).

That's not what he's saying, if you watch the entire presentation with an open mind it's pretty easy to discern that. Stop and consider, Dershowitz is a blowhard and an elitist but he isn't an idiot or irrational which is what he would have to be to make the argument you and others are claiming.

And no, I don’t think you can credibly claim Trump was working to root out US government corruption. The fact that he was not working through any means by which our government could actually be held accountable means to me he was not doing so.

He was on a phone call with other people listening in and transcribing it and then released that transcript to the public, seems pretty "accountable" to me.

As POTUS, Donny could have had the conversation with Zelensky completely in secret if he had wanted to hide something in which case this impeachment process wouldn't be happening.

That’s precisely the argument Dershowitz is making. He is saying you cannot use Trump’s motive at all in this trial because his motive can never be considered solely for political benefit.

You're switching back and forth here ... first you said "Dershowitz is saying you can never claim that a president was working solely to discredit a political rival. " and then you said "He is saying you cannot use Trump’s motive at all in this trial because his motive can never be considered solely for political benefit.".

We're going around in circles here, I watched the entire presentation (over an hour) and came away with the conclusion that I've presented based on the reasons that I've given.

IMHO what you're asserting would require that Dershowitz is either an idiot, insane or both, which isn't supported by the available evidence.

Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders always take place with people listening in. I don’t think he could have rationally kicked everyone else off, even the limited number of people that were on it.

Are you saying that the POTUS cannot have a completely private conversation with a foreign leader if he/she so chooses? That doesn't sound credible to me.

But I was actually referring to holding Biden accountable. Trump didn’t go through any US law enforcement. If he wanted to root out US corruption, he wasn’t going through any US agencies that could actually do anything about it.

I guess it's possible that Donny could have went that route (FBI perhaps?); however one might also argue that Trump wasn't sure that Biden had done anything wrong and wanted to see if the Ukraine had/could produce evidence of wrongdoing by Biden prior to referring a case to the FBI.

It's all supposition since I really don't have enough details to comment on why this whole Biden-Ukraine "affair" wasn't referred straight to federal law enforcement or the GAO/IG.

 

[Crepitus]

Oh, you're thinking now are you?

Well yeah, I'm not a tRumpling.

 

[NightFox]

Oh, you're thinking now are you?

Well yeah, I'm not a tRumpling.

LOL, well aren't you special....congratulations are in order; I guess.

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that" -- George Carlin

 

[Crepitus]

Oh, you're thinking now are you?

Well yeah, I'm not a tRumpling.

LOL, well aren't you special....congratulations are in order; I guess.

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that" -- George Carlin

I actually think about that often when I visit here. It's an apt description of a tRumpkin.

 

[NightFox]

Oh, you're thinking now are you?

Well yeah, I'm not a tRumpling.

LOL, well aren't you special....congratulations are in order; I guess.

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that" -- George Carlin

I actually think about that often when I visit here. It's an apt description of a tRumpkin.

Uh-huh, whatever you have to do keep your self esteem from complete collapse I suppose.

Anyways, while it pains me to put on a cork into the fountain of laughs you've become, Romper Room time is over.

Dasvidaniya Comrade

 

[dblack]

Oh, you're thinking now are you?

Well yeah, I'm not a tRumpling.

LOL, well aren't you special....congratulations are in order; I guess.

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that" -- George Carlin

I actually think about that often when I visit here. It's an apt description of a tRumpkin.

It's a non-partisan observation.

But it does raise an obvious question: Given the ignorance and short-sightedness of TV watching voters, why do liberals want more democracy?

 

[Crepitus]

Oh, you're thinking now are you?

Well yeah, I'm not a tRumpling.

LOL, well aren't you special....congratulations are in order; I guess.

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that" -- George Carlin

I actually think about that often when I visit here. It's an apt description of a tRumpkin.

It's a non-partisan observation.

But it does raise an obvious question: Given the ignorance and short-sightedness of TV watching voters, why do liberals want more democracy?

So, not a big fan of the Constitution then?

 

[dblack]

Oh, you're thinking now are you?

Well yeah, I'm not a tRumpling.

LOL, well aren't you special....congratulations are in order; I guess.

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that" -- George Carlin

I actually think about that often when I visit here. It's an apt description of a tRumpkin.

It's a non-partisan observation.

But it does raise an obvious question: Given the ignorance and short-sightedness of TV watching voters, why do liberals want more democracy?

So, not a big fan of the Constitution then?

Not sure what that's supposed to mean. The Constitution imposes many roadblocks and limitations on democracy, and it was deliberate. Liberals have been working to undermine that, to remove the limitations and make more and more of our social decisions "democratic". I think that's a mistake.