Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Impeachment Standards: Dershowitz and Philbin
Collapse
X
-
"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostRead the OP, perhaps for the first time, and you will see that I accurately described Dershowitz's theory of mixed motive.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAt this point, I think it's best if we just quote them directly rather than taking your word for it.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
I think there’s a problem in trying to view impeachment proceedings through a common law lens. The conduct that’s impeachable can’t be viewed in isolation. It requires an understanding of their character as-well as the history surrounding the conduct to evaluate whether they pose an ongoing threat and needs to be considered case by case as it will rarely be a right or wrong situation.
I would even say a president could do the exact same thing another president was impeached for and not be impeached due to the different circumstances behind it.
Impeachments don’t create precedents like common law does.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYou quoted Dershowitz directly, who validated my explanation of "mixed motive" in the OP.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnd then you went on to stuff the words "stolen emails or false allegations" into his and Philbin's mouths, so you really don't have a lot of credibility here. The phrase "You made your bed; now sleep in it" comes to mind.
You are, to be plain and short, trolling incessantly. Please refrain from posting in this thread until you comply with my request and detail exactly how I mischaracterized either attorney in the OP. Do not respond with an assertion: demonstrate it or don't post.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View Post...their arguments applied to categories of information like stolen emails and disinformation.
Your exact words: "[T]he President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election." In fact, they didn't argue that at all.
As Mr. Dershowitz said, "Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack."Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostI think there’s a problem in trying to view impeachment proceedings through a common law lens. The conduct that’s impeachable can’t be viewed in isolation. It requires an understanding of their character as-well as the history surrounding the conduct to evaluate whether they pose an ongoing threat and needs to be considered case by case as it will rarely be a right or wrong situation.
I would even say a president could do the exact same thing another president was impeached for and not be impeached due to the different circumstances behind it.
Impeachments don’t create precedents like common law does.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostNope. And the reasoning is very simple: neither one of them referenced "stolen emails and disinformation". That's something you literally plucked out of thin air -- or pulled out of another unmentionable place -- and then deceptively presented as if it were an example they themselves had given.
Your exact words: "[T]he President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election." In fact, they didn't argue that at all.
As Mr. Dershowitz said, "Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack."
I have described Philbin's criteria: the thing being received has to be "mere information" and "credible". Both stolen emails and disinformation-believed-to-be-credible fit that criteria. And Dershowitz argues that if the President takes and uses those kind of things for "mixed motives", including the perceived national interest of his reelection, such use is not impeachable. Your job is to show that the application is incorrect -- that neither fit the criteria of being "mere information" and "credible".
You continue to refuse to even attempt that because you cannot. All that's left to do is troll.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAs Dershowitz said elsewhere, a quid pro quo is only illegal if the "quo" itself is illegal. Since seeking reelection is not illegal, then a quid pro quo that might benefit a candidate's reelection chances is not illegal.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/o...ine/index.html
What’s Trump got on Dershowitz that he gives Trump legal carte blanch to do whatever he likes with impunity?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostBut don't things like "common law" provide necessary guidance for understanding the intent of the Framers in the language they either used or eschewed in writing the Constitution?
The system also doesn’t work in impeachment proceedings since there is only one ‘court’ so nothing outside the constitution can be binding to it anyway.
I don’t believe that the framers intended to make the process as difficult as the defense claims since the only distinction for a presidential impeachment is the presiding of the Chief Justice in the trial. Is that distinction enough to claim special conditions are needed for a president?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostWhich brings us right back to the point being made above, namely “What Dershowitz is saying is that if a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal”.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/o...ine/index.html
What’s Trump got on Dershowitz that he gives Trump legal carte blanch to do whatever he likes with impunity?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostFalse, Dershorwitz never said "anything [a politician] does in pursuit of his re-election is legal". What he actually said:
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Note the implication: there are other kinds of quid pro quos that should result in impeachment, but this is not one of them.
Seems Dersh made a solid argument if people are having to twist his words to answer it.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYou continue to refuse to even attempt that because you cannot.
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYour argument is that if Obama received information from a foreign source, he should send it to the FBI for investigation. That's not what happened -- Obama was not involved with any FBI decision to investigate the Trump campaign -- but you're arguing that if Obama received such information, that's what he should do instead of using that information -- not the results of a lawful investigation -- for campaign purposes.
seer is arguing that a candidate should do both -- send the info over to the FBI while [i]simultaneously[i] using that uninvestigated information for campaign purposes.
So you're arguing, in effect, that 1) what the Obama administration did in 2016 regarding Trump's purported Russian ties was appropriate and 2) that what Trump said he might do with such information (not turn it over to FBI) is inappropriate. I agree with that.
--Sam
Comment
-
Alan Dershowitz:
"[I]f you have mixed motives, if you are in the public interest, and you’re trying to help the public, but you’re also trying to get re-elected, according to Schiff and Nadler, that’s a crime. If you have any inkling of motive to help yourself get re-elected, they call that corrupt, and they say, even a tiny amount of motive to help yourself makes you into a criminal and makes you impeachable. And I turned to all the senators, and I said, everybody in this room, every senator, every politician everywhere always has one eye toward re-election, another eye toward the public interest. They almost always think it’s the same. They also think their own election is in the public interest. You can’t make that an impeachable offense ... the same theory could have — could put Joe Biden in jail. If somebody could claim that 99% of Biden’s motivation in getting the prosecutor fired was the public interest and preventing corruption, but 1%, in the back of his mind, he was thinking, maybe this could help my son a little bit because he works for the company that’s being investigated, according to Nadler and Schiff, that would be enough. According to Nadler and Schiff, Lincoln gets impeached."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...peach-lincoln/
Of course to those like Sam who are afflicted with a virulent case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, they read the above and come to the absurd conclusion that Dershowitz is saying that "mixed motives" makes it okay for politicians to engage in illegal or criminal-like conduct, such as accepting illicitly procured emails, or acting on false allegations.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
63 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
361 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
389 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
440 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 12:45 PM |
Comment