 |
12-04-2017, 08:54 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,760
|
Dershowitz says no charges for Trump
|
|
|
|
12-04-2017, 09:05 PM
|
#2
|
|
Resurrectionist
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Cheyenne, Wy
Posts: 3,615
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
|
Really? A Trump supporter? Can you please show me where Mr. Dershowitz has publicly supported The POTUS other than on his stance with Israel? 
__________________
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.
|
|
|
|
12-05-2017, 12:00 AM
|
#3
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,912
|
Dershowitz is a long-time liberal.
However, when it comes to the law, he shoots pretty straight and calls them as he sees them. (meaning: he is unbiased when it comes to constitutional law.)
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2017, 12:14 AM
|
#4
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Washoe County, Nevada
Posts: 2,253
|
This is a bit of sophistry.
By definition, a President can’t commit obstruction of justice in the exercise of his office. The question then becomes, was the specific action in the exercise of his office?
The arbiter of that last question is Congress. Three times in our history, a President has been charged with that specific crime. One time, he most assuredly was facing conviction and resigned rather than face that prospect.
So score one for Alan Dershowitz making the rounds here at PA on an argument as cogent as this one. He’s undoubtably right on a very narrow well defined point.
But it’s one that ignores the actual history of our country and the political reality of how an impeachment would play out.
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2017, 07:41 AM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,760
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jocko699
Really? A Trump supporter? Can you please show me where Mr. Dershowitz has publicly supported The POTUS other than on his stance with Israel? |
he told my friend he voted for him, and was ecstatic when he won
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2017, 08:57 AM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,985
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by _______
This is a bit of sophistry.
By definition, a President can’t commit obstruction of justice in the exercise of his office. The question then becomes, was the specific action in the exercise of his office?
The arbiter of that last question is Congress. Three times in our history, a President has been charged with that specific crime. One time, he most assuredly was facing conviction and resigned rather than face that prospect.
So score one for Alan Dershowitz making the rounds here at PA on an argument as cogent as this one. He’s undoubtably right on a very narrow well defined point.
But it’s one that ignores the actual history of our country and the political reality of how an impeachment would play out.
|
But liberals do not know what the term very narrow well defined point means. The Constitution and laws to Democrats are very broad and open to any interpretation they see fit. I would be willing to bet the Democrats believe they have grounds for impeachment on over a 100 different offenses in their mind.
__________________
You will never achieve 100% if 99% is okay!
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2017, 11:26 AM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
|
No he's not. But is he a very, very rare honest liberal. And he knows how to properly interpret the Constitution. For example, he said from the git go on Trump's six-nation Muslim immigration ban that all the lower courts' decisions to block or ban implementation was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court proved him right.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2017, 11:29 AM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by _______
This is a bit of sophistry.
By definition, a President can’t commit obstruction of justice in the exercise of his office. The question then becomes, was the specific action in the exercise of his office?
The arbiter of that last question is Congress. Three times in our history, a President has been charged with that specific crime. One time, he most assuredly was facing conviction and resigned rather than face that prospect.
So score one for Alan Dershowitz making the rounds here at PA on an argument as cogent as this one. He’s undoubtably right on a very narrow well defined point.
But it’s one that ignores the actual history of our country and the political reality of how an impeachment would play out.
|
Sadly, the rules for congressional impeachment have a much lower judicial bar that the Law of the Land does, since the former is often driven by politics. Apples and oranges.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
