It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Doug]

Everything Trump is accused of doing has been declared normal operating procedure by the previous administration.

Quid pro quo is legal because Joe Biden did it to get the prosecutor fired. He has declared his actions were fully investigated and he did nothing wrong.

Obstruction of Congress is the simple exercise of constitutionally protected rights. It is analogous to a police officer saying. "I want to search your house," and you saying, "Get a warrant." Adam Schiff could have sought a court order for testimony, but, instead, he just claims obstruction because Trump exercised his rights.

Democrats: Billions for election interference, not one cent for legislation to help the country.

 

[jamil]

I believe Dershowitz was making the case that it could also be in the national interest to call for an inquiry if the candidate was compromised by a potential conflict.

That's how I took it. The part that's in the nation's best interest is to get to the bottom of what might potentially be an actual crime. So just because it's possible to gain from this, if there is a further porpose, it is in the nation's best interest.

About the other part, I thought he wasn't saying that reaching out to a foreign nation to get information on a political rival to help his presidential campaign was "perfectly acceptable". I thought he was saying that it wasn't breaking a law. It is his opinion that impeachment should be about actual laws broken. I agree with that. I'd prefer impeachment should be used for objective purposes that have a legitimacy through bipartisan support. "High crimes and misdemeanors", I think imply literal crimes crimes committed. If the president is doing something that's not acceptable, but is not breaking the law, they should make a law.

 

[jamil]

That's redundant.

Wait. What are you saying? That the real John Bolton isn't really John Bolton?

 

[jamil]

I am ignorant of those instances, and would appreciate a link or information pertaining to.

Obviously, he's talking about the Steele dossier. While it's not clear that it was reaching out to foreign governments for dirt, there was some reporting that foreign government insiders were involved. Not quite an equivalence though.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Everything Trump is accused of doing has been declared normal operating procedure by the previous administration.

Quid pro quo is legal because Joe Biden did it to get the prosecutor fired. He has declared his actions were fully investigated and he did nothing wrong.

Obstruction of Congress is the simple exercise of constitutionally protected rights. It is analogous to a police officer saying. "I want to search your house," and you saying, "Get a warrant." Adam Schiff could have sought a court order for testimony, but, instead, he just claims obstruction because Trump exercised his rights.

Democrats: Billions for election interference, not one cent for legislation to help the country.

Wait, I thought there wasn’t quid pro quo? First it wasn’t, then it might have, now it did happen... but it’s ok?

 

[Dead Duck]

Do your own research and follow the money.



Hint: It all goes back to Hilary.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's how I took it. The part that's in the nation's best interest is to get to the bottom of what might potentially be an actual crime. So just because it's possible to gain from this, if there is a further porpose, it is in the nation's best interest.

About the other part, I thought he wasn't saying that reaching out to a foreign nation to get information on a political rival to help his presidential campaign was "perfectly acceptable". I thought he was saying that it wasn't breaking a law. It is his opinion that impeachment should be about actual laws broken. I agree with that. I'd prefer impeachment should be used for objective purposes that have a legitimacy through bipartisan support. "High crimes and misdemeanors", I think imply literal crimes crimes committed. If the president is doing something that's not acceptable, but is not breaking the law, they should make a law.

That's not how I took it:

Dershowitz's exact words: "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. 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"

The fact that he cites "public official(s)," and what they "believe," not know, and using that to help justify the president's actions is troubling. Obviously not every public official has the ability to "get to the bottom of what might potentially be a crime." And yet, whatever they deem to be in the "public interest" (i.e. getting re-elected), whatever steps they take, short of criminality, aren't impeachable... and of course he's applying that to the president. Short of him being flummoxed, and not understanding the notion he is conveying, I don't see any other way to read it. INGO Legal Eagles?

 

[Alpo]

Dershowitz.....Trump must have Epstein's fotos of the Big D in action.

 

[Doug]

Wait, I thought there wasn’t quid pro quo? First it wasn’t, then it might have, now it did happen... but it’s ok?

I DID NOT say "everything Trump did," I said "everything Trump is ACCUSED of."

Basically, Trump is accused of acting like a Democrat. The double standard will not tolerate such.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Dershowitz.....Trump must have Epstein's fotos of the Big D in action.

That's exactly what I thought.

 

[KG1]

There seems have been a pattern of the Biden family benefiting in a number questionable ways off of Joe Biden’s political status.

Why would it not be in the public’s interest to inquire about that?

 

[Doug]

There seems have been a pattern of the Biden family benefiting in a number questionable ways off of Joe Biden’s political status.

Why would it not be in the public’s interest to inquire about that?

Joe Biden is a Democrat. Any investigation of Democrat corruption is termed election interference by the Democrat/Media complex.

 

[KG1]

Joe Biden is a Democrat. Any investigation of Democrat corruption is termed election interference by the Democrat/Media complex.

Especially if it’s the current President doing the inquiring.

 

[jamil]

That's exactly what I thought.

But that's irrational. There are plenty of reasonable interpretations that don't require thinking that he is being blackmailed. While I don't think Dershowitz is a big Trump fan, I do think he believes that this impeachment is a partisan hackary that is not what the founders had in mind with impeachment. I think he laid out a pretty good case for that. But anyway, I did not catch the part you quoted. I'll need to go back and review that in context.

 

[Alpo]

Everything Trump is accused of doing has been declared normal operating procedure by the previous administration.

Quid pro quo is legal because Joe Biden did it to get the prosecutor fired. He has declared his actions were fully investigated and he did nothing wrong.

Obstruction of Congress is the simple exercise of constitutionally protected rights. It is analogous to a police officer saying. "I want to search your house," and you saying, "Get a warrant." Adam Schiff could have sought a court order for testimony, but, instead, he just claims obstruction because Trump exercised his rights.

Democrats: Billions for election interference, not one cent for legislation to help the country.

The point is lost on the distinction attributable to motivation and benefit.

If you believe Trump was acting in the national interests because his election is in the national interest, then there is no further need to argue the point. Trump is a constitutional monarch, his utterances are law.

However, if you can see the difference between a quid pro quo to replace a corrupt prosecutor and a quid pro quo to embarrass a political opponent, then there is something worth talking about. Frankly, I think 20/trump vision is too resident to allow for such a dialectic.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The point is lost on the distinction attributable to motivation and benefit.

If you believe Trump was acting in the national interests because his election is in the national interest, then there is no further need to argue the point. Trump is a constitutional monarch, his utterances are law.

However, if you can see the difference between a quid pro quo to replace a corrupt prosecutor and a quid pro quo to embarrass a political opponent, then there is something worth talking about. Frankly, I think 20/trump vision is too resident to allow for such a dialectic.

What national interest was the Steele Dossier protecting? Just curious. Because it seems to me that it was solely for the reason I highlighted. And yes, I realize it wasn't an example of quid pro quo, but if you believe that embarrassing a political opponent was the goal of one (bad), then it follows that the other would also be bad.

 

[Dead Duck]

....and follow Hillary's money.

 

[Alpo]

Not relevant to the acts of a sitting president, DD. If you want to discuss Steele vis a vis federal election law, that's another subject and thread, methinks.

 

[Doug]

The point is lost on the distinction attributable to motivation and benefit.

If you believe Trump was acting in the national interests because his election is in the national interest, then there is no further need to argue the point. Trump is a constitutional monarch, his utterances are law.

However, if you can see the difference between a quid pro quo to replace a corrupt prosecutor and a quid pro quo to embarrass a political opponent, then there is something worth talking about. Frankly, I think 20/trump vision is too resident to allow for such a dialectic.

In order to have a Trump quid pro quo, he would have had to say, during the phone call, that he was going to withhold the aid. Trump did not say that. The only place that happens is in Adam Schiff's lying summary of the call.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not relevant to the acts of a sitting president, DD. If you want to discuss Steele vis a vis federal election law, that's another subject and thread, methinks.

But I thought it was initiated at the behest of the sitting administration at the time. The only difference is that Obama wasn't running for re-election, but a member of his party was.