• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Guys, guys!
Starr and Dershowitz are only temporarily making **** up.
The moment a Democrat gets impeached, they'll claim they never meant what they said in defense of Trump.
 
Were you around in 1974?

I was. There wasn't an impeachment trial. Nixon wasn't impeached. The House committee was due to vote on articles of impeachment two days after Nixon resigned. But the writing was on the wall. Nixon was going to not ony be impeached, but convicted. Back then, the Senate did its job.
 
In 1974, half the people in this country weren't brainless ********.

They aren't today, either. It's well worth remembering that, even *if* one were to be quite unfair and call all Republicans brainless (most of them aren't even close, though they are way too weak to their party's propaganda), Republicans aren't remotely close to half the population. You could go for the almost half of voters statistic, but, again, the portion of non-voting eligible people is unfortunately huge.
 
The naivete about this matter is mindblowing. Trump has been running for reelection since the day he got in office. He may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier but he can definitely smell the coffee. Forget all of his BS. This is reality and nobody knows it better than Donnie knows it-

  • He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
  • He won the electoral college by virtue of less than 200,000 votes in two states.
  • His approval ratings have been below 50% since the day he got into office.
  • His disapproval rates have been above 50% since his second week in office.
  • His election was tainted in a way no other presidential election has ever been.
  • The media portrays him as a cheat and a liar and he really has no way to counteract that.
  • Many people believe he is totally unfit for office, including some Republicans. Many of the Republicans who are 'on his side' now, made it clear during the primaries that they loathed him.

His best bet to getting reelected is to cheat. So he tries to create an aura of corruption around the man he knows is a major rival in 2020. He has a bunch of flunkies and wannabes helping him.

He may get away with another sleazy move because the rules were not made with someone like Trump in mind. For two hundred and thirty-one years it worked. Only now we have the kind of low life in office the Founding Fathers didn't believe could get elected.

Two hundred seventy-eight days and counting.

Really. To me it looks like everyone understands reality better than President Trump.


We are talking about

The guy who used to call up newspapers pretending to be John Baron, a new hire in the Trump Organixation, so he could talk about how awesome Mr. Trump was.

The guy who never met a cosiracybtheory he didn’t like.

The guy who said that he was absolutely confident that Russia didn’t interfere in the election because he looked Putin in the eye when Putin said he didn’t do anything.

Th guy who drew a line on a weather map to provide evidence that he was too perfect to have ever made a mistake during a hurricane press conference.

The guy who still claims to this day that he won the popular vote.

The guy who spent seven years insisting that President Obama was not a US citizen.

The guy who claimed that the sound of windmills causes cancer.


I’m going to need to see a lot of evidence that that guy understands reality.
 
https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1222574326358183939

BREAKING: House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel says Bolton told him on a Sept. 23 call that “the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch” and “strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.”

Quote embedded in first tweet, and article in subsequent tweet.
 
Rand Paul thought he was a clever boy by putting the name of the Whistleblower into a question.
Roberts refused to read it.
 
By Dershowitz‘s argument, would it be legal for Trump shoot Biden, or any political rival, on 5th Avenue because it would increase his likelihood of being re-elected and that’s in the public interest because, in his mind, Trump being president is for the good of the US?

What’s the limit of “when the President does it, it’s not illegal”?
 
By Dershowitz‘s argument, would it be legal for Trump shoot Biden, or any political rival, on 5th Avenue because it would increase his likelihood of being re-elected and that’s in the public interest because, in his mind, Trump being president is for the good of the US?

What’s the limit of “when the President does it, it’s not illegal”?

In this example, intent would not be a criteria for guilt.
 
So the latest Trump defense:

According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with 'Quid pro quo' because the president thought it was in the country's best interest to get himself re-elected.

From: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html
...a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

Trump's defense must be some sort of elaborate dare... "Lets put out the dumbest possible argument and see how the GOP reacts".
Somewhere else it got labeled the Sunking defense.
 
So the latest Trump defense:

According to Dershowitz, there is nothing wrong with 'Quid pro quo' because the president thought it was in the country's best interest to get himself re-elected.

From: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html
...a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

Trump's defense must be some sort of elaborate dare... "Lets put out the dumbest possible argument and see how the GOP reacts".

In a way it's unfortunate that impeachment don't set precedents for future impeachments, because the Republicans would never dare set a precedent that would benefit future Democratic presidents (I hope).
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom