Dershowitz Is Insane

[iceberg]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

hmmmmm - if they should sit it out due to the PERCEIVED 'bias', then that would mean every (R) senator that said publicly they are biased should as well, including ms lindsey & turtleboy, right?

in that light this would end because everyone is biased and we move on.

good. let's go.

and funny how you want to try and sell that the 4 running for democratic nomination are only PERCEIVED bias but the other side is DEFINITELY biased.

idiot.

 

[colfax_m]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

Because that’s what the Constitution says.

 

[iceberg]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

Because that’s what the Constitution says.

and our laws say innocent til proven guilty.

HOWEVER, we're dismissing that for trump time and time again.

care to step on yourself again?

 

[JLW]

Dershowitz is ******* idiot. Anyone who argues the president can do whatever he wants during an election years has to be.

yet here is the house saying they can do whatever they want with impeachment powers.

and you're cool with that.

First only a few rogue house members made a statement about the Hose impeachment powers; second, it is Trump’s legal position that he can do whatever he wants as president to get re-elected. If you agree that a president, well, that is your position.

only a few rogue house members...

who are they again and what position do they hold in said house?

don't blow off your sides bullshit as just a few while you expand on "just a few" from the other side. you can't be more dishonest if you tried.

You’re deflecting. Do you agree that a president can commit any crime if he runs for re-election? Yes or no

no.

but then i don't agree he's committed a crime at this point so your fishing for something not there in my eyes.

i've asked more times than i can count - show me the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trumps intent was to get dirt on biden.

nothing.
less than nothing.
speculation only.

none of that would fly in a court of law so you start doing another dance where what people say can be used in court. great, then we've just reduced ourselves to what people say being taken as fact with no other form of proof.

you seem to see no danger in that and i can only think it's because you are doing it to get rid of trump. yet what will you do when that standard is then adopted by the right and comes back at you? i know already. you'll ***** and moan and demand they show proof, not simply name calling.

and for some strange reason you don't see the hypocrisy in these actions.

so to me, i'm not deflecting; i'm staying on the target. that being the standard used to judge others and applying that standard to all. at that point you squeal like a stuck pig and cry foul because it's not fair.

yet it is when YOU do it for YOUR emo-self.

now - do you agree that the house can do whatever they want with impeachment proceedings or are there rules to follow there also?

should i brace for your "deflections" now or wait a bit?

First you did not answer my question whether a president can commit crimes to get reelected? Yes or no.

Do not deflect just write yes or no.

As far as Biden goes, read the White House’s own released transcript for starters. Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

 

[iceberg]

yet here is the house saying they can do whatever they want with impeachment powers.

and you're cool with that.

First only a few rogue house members made a statement about the Hose impeachment powers; second, it is Trump’s legal position that he can do whatever he wants as president to get re-elected. If you agree that a president, well, that is your position.

only a few rogue house members...

who are they again and what position do they hold in said house?

don't blow off your sides bullshit as just a few while you expand on "just a few" from the other side. you can't be more dishonest if you tried.

You’re deflecting. Do you agree that a president can commit any crime if he runs for re-election? Yes or no

no.

but then i don't agree he's committed a crime at this point so your fishing for something not there in my eyes.

i've asked more times than i can count - show me the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trumps intent was to get dirt on biden.

nothing.
less than nothing.
speculation only.

none of that would fly in a court of law so you start doing another dance where what people say can be used in court. great, then we've just reduced ourselves to what people say being taken as fact with no other form of proof.

you seem to see no danger in that and i can only think it's because you are doing it to get rid of trump. yet what will you do when that standard is then adopted by the right and comes back at you? i know already. you'll ***** and moan and demand they show proof, not simply name calling.

and for some strange reason you don't see the hypocrisy in these actions.

so to me, i'm not deflecting; i'm staying on the target. that being the standard used to judge others and applying that standard to all. at that point you squeal like a stuck pig and cry foul because it's not fair.

yet it is when YOU do it for YOUR emo-self.

now - do you agree that the house can do whatever they want with impeachment proceedings or are there rules to follow there also?

should i brace for your "deflections" now or wait a bit?

First you did not answer my question whether a president can commit crimes to get reelected? Yes or no.

Do not deflect just write yes or no.

As far as Biden goes, read the White House’s own released transcript for starters. Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

god damn dude -

what was the VERY FIRST WORD OF MY REPLY TO YOU????

since you're comprehension sucks as bad as it does, it's time for you to **** off. you ignore my very clear and stated NO and run to bitching at me for deflection and not answering YOUR question by not answering mine and declaring i deflected when it's painfully clear to anyone successfully passing the 2nd grade i said

NO

in very clear terms, first word of the reply. seems you're doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing.

and don't give me vague links to dig through and guess what your proof is. copy / paste it right here.

or kindly go screw yourself for hiding behind being vague while demanding everyone else is very specific.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I used to respect Alan Dershowitz. Not any more.

He argued that a President can do pretty much ANYTHING to get himself re-elected, as long as he thinks it's for the good of the country. Please tell me: has ANY President or Presidential candidate ever believed that his (or her) election would be bad for the country? Of course not. Therefore, Dershowitz is arguing that any President can do anything to get re-elected (or, perhaps, elected to begin with). This is utter insanity, and inanity.

I believe Trump may have some Epstein related dirt on Al. I can't imagine someone like him would make such arguments otherwise.

 

[playtime]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

hmmmmm - if they should sit it out due to the PERCEIVED 'bias', then that would mean every (R) senator that said publicly they are biased should as well, including ms lindsey & turtleboy, right?

in that light this would end because everyone is biased and we move on.

good. let's go.

and funny how you want to try and sell that the 4 running for democratic nomination are only PERCEIVED bias but the other side is DEFINITELY biased.

idiot.

well, they sure weren't stooooooooooopid enough to say it out loud.

sorry - but once impeachment passed the senate had to try. oh well... nobody is expecting the tribblhead to be removed, but only his base will still see him as the chosen one.

you go boy!

 

[colfax_m]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

Because that’s what the Constitution says.

and our laws say innocent til proven guilty.

HOWEVER, we're dismissing that for trump time and time again.

care to step on yourself again?

What does that even mean? He’s innocent until proven guilty in criminal court. The Senate, as far as I know, can adopt whatever burden of proof they want and hasn’t said he’s one way or the other.

People can say whatever they want about someone’s guilt or innocence. Certainly Trump has no problem declaring Biden guilty of corruption and neither do many of his supporters.

 

[IM2]

Dershowitz has been gone for quite a while.

Ya when he helped that thug OJ, that sealed it for me

OJ was one of yours. Like Ben Carson or Candice Owens.

 

[Terri4Trump]

I used to respect Alan Dershowitz. Not any more.

Then you're a dumb ******* moron. End of subject.

OJ was one of yours. Like Ben Carson or Candice Owens.

You're such a punkass crying ***** its pathetic

 

[JLW]

First only a few rogue house members made a statement about the Hose impeachment powers; second, it is Trump’s legal position that he can do whatever he wants as president to get re-elected. If you agree that a president, well, that is your position.

only a few rogue house members...

who are they again and what position do they hold in said house?

don't blow off your sides bullshit as just a few while you expand on "just a few" from the other side. you can't be more dishonest if you tried.

You’re deflecting. Do you agree that a president can commit any crime if he runs for re-election? Yes or no

no.

but then i don't agree he's committed a crime at this point so your fishing for something not there in my eyes.

i've asked more times than i can count - show me the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trumps intent was to get dirt on biden.

nothing.
less than nothing.
speculation only.

none of that would fly in a court of law so you start doing another dance where what people say can be used in court. great, then we've just reduced ourselves to what people say being taken as fact with no other form of proof.

you seem to see no danger in that and i can only think it's because you are doing it to get rid of trump. yet what will you do when that standard is then adopted by the right and comes back at you? i know already. you'll ***** and moan and demand they show proof, not simply name calling.

and for some strange reason you don't see the hypocrisy in these actions.

so to me, i'm not deflecting; i'm staying on the target. that being the standard used to judge others and applying that standard to all. at that point you squeal like a stuck pig and cry foul because it's not fair.

yet it is when YOU do it for YOUR emo-self.

now - do you agree that the house can do whatever they want with impeachment proceedings or are there rules to follow there also?

should i brace for your "deflections" now or wait a bit?

First you did not answer my question whether a president can commit crimes to get reelected? Yes or no.

Do not deflect just write yes or no.

As far as Biden goes, read the White House’s own released transcript for starters. Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

god damn dude -

what was the VERY FIRST WORD OF MY REPLY TO YOU????

since you're comprehension sucks as bad as it does, it's time for you to **** off. you ignore my very clear and stated NO and run to bitching at me for deflection and not answering YOUR question by not answering mine and declaring i deflected when it's painfully clear to anyone successfully passing the 2nd grade i said

NO

in very clear terms, first word of the reply. seems you're doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing.

and don't give me vague links to dig through and guess what your proof is. copy / paste it right here.

or kindly go screw yourself for hiding behind being vague while demanding everyone else is very specific.

I missed your no. I admit it. Reading texts on a phone you can miss a word or two.

Going back to your post I linked to the white house transcript. Rather than quote a part of it, I thought you may wish to read the entire transcript, I’ll quote the relevant parts when I have the time. I have to leave now.

 

[iceberg]

only a few rogue house members...

who are they again and what position do they hold in said house?

don't blow off your sides bullshit as just a few while you expand on "just a few" from the other side. you can't be more dishonest if you tried.

You’re deflecting. Do you agree that a president can commit any crime if he runs for re-election? Yes or no

no.

but then i don't agree he's committed a crime at this point so your fishing for something not there in my eyes.

i've asked more times than i can count - show me the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trumps intent was to get dirt on biden.

nothing.
less than nothing.
speculation only.

none of that would fly in a court of law so you start doing another dance where what people say can be used in court. great, then we've just reduced ourselves to what people say being taken as fact with no other form of proof.

you seem to see no danger in that and i can only think it's because you are doing it to get rid of trump. yet what will you do when that standard is then adopted by the right and comes back at you? i know already. you'll ***** and moan and demand they show proof, not simply name calling.

and for some strange reason you don't see the hypocrisy in these actions.

so to me, i'm not deflecting; i'm staying on the target. that being the standard used to judge others and applying that standard to all. at that point you squeal like a stuck pig and cry foul because it's not fair.

yet it is when YOU do it for YOUR emo-self.

now - do you agree that the house can do whatever they want with impeachment proceedings or are there rules to follow there also?

should i brace for your "deflections" now or wait a bit?

First you did not answer my question whether a president can commit crimes to get reelected? Yes or no.

Do not deflect just write yes or no.

As far as Biden goes, read the White House’s own released transcript for starters. Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

god damn dude -

what was the VERY FIRST WORD OF MY REPLY TO YOU????

since you're comprehension sucks as bad as it does, it's time for you to **** off. you ignore my very clear and stated NO and run to bitching at me for deflection and not answering YOUR question by not answering mine and declaring i deflected when it's painfully clear to anyone successfully passing the 2nd grade i said

NO

in very clear terms, first word of the reply. seems you're doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing.

and don't give me vague links to dig through and guess what your proof is. copy / paste it right here.

or kindly go screw yourself for hiding behind being vague while demanding everyone else is very specific.

I missed your no. I admit it. Reading texts on a phone you can miss a word or two.

Going back to your post I linked to the white house transcript. Rather than quote a part of it, I thought you may wish to read the entire transcript, I’ll quote the relevant parts when I have the time. I have to leave now.

ok - fair enough. we can all miss things at times, esp if we have multiple conversations going. that one just hit me cause, like you, i've got a lot going on.

one of my issues with people saying Mueller found something, for example, is that he didn't. not that i ever saw. so many of the "Radical Left" simply say there was proof of the collusion and when i ask where, they say "go read the report, it's in there.

to me that is a complete cop out and it means they don't know where it is in that report either. if we're going to deal in specifics, then be specific also. time and again i ask someone to be specific and they are not yet they keep on as if they proved something by saying to look in a huge document for a sentence.

i can look through the report, sure. but i would like to ask you - what specific evidence or testimony do we have that proves "beyond reasonable doubt" trump was looking for dirt on biden for the election?

*everything* i have seen to date can be interpreted as that, yes. but it could also be interpreted as him wanting to know if biden was in fact acting improperly in the ukraine. it seems pretty convenient to me to say trump is guilty of anything everything and worthy of countless investigations yet biden is clean and go away.

i am not an "absolute" person who sees, thinks or feels in binary terms. you have black and white as extremes then billions of shades of gray in between. so very few take the time to dig into the gray; esp if it involves something they love, care about or currently believe.

example - if i don't question trump as others do, then he's my idol or god or something. totally not the case but where we end up far too quickly and so fast that it would have been impossible to understand the nuances of a situation and simply go "orange man bad".

in any event - i appreciate now understanding that i did answer your question and apologize for over-reacting to your missing it. that's on me.

 

[iceberg]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

Because that’s what the Constitution says.

and our laws say innocent til proven guilty.

HOWEVER, we're dismissing that for trump time and time again.

care to step on yourself again?

What does that even mean? He’s innocent until proven guilty in criminal court. The Senate, as far as I know, can adopt whatever burden of proof they want and hasn’t said he’s one way or the other.

People can say whatever they want about someone’s guilt or innocence. Certainly Trump has no problem declaring Biden guilty of corruption and neither do many of his supporters.

he didn't say biden was guilty now did he? he said "look into it".

and here we are.

care to mis-state things again so you can go from 0 to 100 and ignore everything in between?

 

[bendog]

I used to respect Alan Dershowitz. Not any more.

He argued that a President can do pretty much ANYTHING to get himself re-elected, as long as he thinks it's for the good of the country. Please tell me: has ANY President or Presidential candidate ever believed that his (or her) election would be bad for the country? Of course not. Therefore, Dershowitz is arguing that any President can do anything to get re-elected (or, perhaps, elected to begin with). This is utter insanity, and inanity.

Actually he said that if a president thinks HIS REELECTION in necessary to solve an issue for the benefit of the county, anything he does cannot be illegal. That's not a new argument.

And he's not insane, but Lawrence Tribe is correct that is the path to dictatorship. It doesn't matter whether you're liberal or Trumpeteer or conservative. If anyone's remotely interested in history, the lesson of Rome is one of Republic to Imperial Empire to Dictatorship.

 

[CWayne]

Dershowitz has been gone for quite a while.

Ya when he helped that thug OJ, that sealed it for me

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

 

[Brain357]

I agree, completely insane. Are repubs gonna clear trump on the idea presidents are all powerful? That sure isn’t constitutional....

 

[iceberg]

Dershowitz has been gone for quite a while.

Ya when he helped that thug OJ, that sealed it for me

when he defended hedda nussbaum - that did it for me.

You don't believe everyone has a right to defense? OR just those you have already deemed, 'guilty'.?

this would be defined as a "rhetorical question".

it's pretty plain he doesn't believe people he hates should be afforded "due process".

 

[colfax_m]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

Because that’s what the Constitution says.

and our laws say innocent til proven guilty.

HOWEVER, we're dismissing that for trump time and time again.

care to step on yourself again?

What does that even mean? He’s innocent until proven guilty in criminal court. The Senate, as far as I know, can adopt whatever burden of proof they want and hasn’t said he’s one way or the other.

People can say whatever they want about someone’s guilt or innocence. Certainly Trump has no problem declaring Biden guilty of corruption and neither do many of his supporters.

he didn't say biden was guilty now did he? he said "look into it".

and here we are.

care to mis-state things again so you can go from 0 to 100 and ignore everything in between?

Trump has said a lot more than “look into it”, don’t you agree? He’s had no problem declaring a lot of people guilty. This isn’t a useful point.

 

[iceberg]

so let me ask this question -

if trump is in trouble for trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent and this is a nono, how do 4 senators running for president get to vote on his impeachment, flinging their own suppositions and dirt in the process, thereby getting rid of their own political opponent?

what a quandrious dilemma.

Because that’s what the Constitution says.

and our laws say innocent til proven guilty.

HOWEVER, we're dismissing that for trump time and time again.

care to step on yourself again?

What does that even mean? He’s innocent until proven guilty in criminal court. The Senate, as far as I know, can adopt whatever burden of proof they want and hasn’t said he’s one way or the other.

People can say whatever they want about someone’s guilt or innocence. Certainly Trump has no problem declaring Biden guilty of corruption and neither do many of his supporters.

he didn't say biden was guilty now did he? he said "look into it".

and here we are.

care to mis-state things again so you can go from 0 to 100 and ignore everything in between?

Trump has said a lot more than “look into it”, don’t you agree? He’s had no problem declaring a lot of people guilty. This isn’t a useful point.

problem is - when i ask what else he's specifically said that implicates him and makes the left correct in what they say - it gets very cloudy from there and supposition reigns.

let me show you an example:

please link me to what else he has said that would show he is guilty of these charges.

 

[IM2]

Dershowitz is ******* idiot. Anyone who argues the president can do whatever he wants during an election years has to be.

yet here is the house saying they can do whatever they want with impeachment powers.

and you're cool with that.

the house didn't say that. Stop listening to Hannity.