Posted on 01/31/2020 6:45:00 AM PST by RummyChick
Donald Trump's most famous and flamboyant lawyer vanished from his trial Thursday - turning up in Miami to fight back against a tidal wave of criticism for his extraordinary defense that anything a president does to get re-elected is unimpeachable.
The Harvard professor surfaced in Florida as other academics and attorneys reacted with astonishment to his position, which he then said he had never actually said.
On CNN he told Wolf Blitzer that he had a commitment in the state Thursday and it was difficult to change his flight because the Super Bowl is on this weekend in Miami.
He also complained about how CNN had reported what he said, prompting Blitzer to say: 'We were playing what you said.'
But his main thrust was a rearguard action against a legal theory which Trump's own defense spent time walking away from Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I am not characterizing it as radical
I am telling you what PHILBIN said.
Last Night
Schiff pounced it on it as I knew he would
“ RADICAL”
Dershowitz was noticeably absent. He had indeed gotten somewhat overly emotional we’d evening after days of Dem attacks on his arguments and abilities. He appeared to be on the verge of anger that he had to continue to repeat his position.
My 2 cents.
What the Liberals appear to be saying and Dershowitz agrees they are and says it is wrong is that a President may not take any action to protect, defend or otherwise benefit the nation if said action in any way benefits him politically.
So why aren’t they screaming about the new trade deals he has just completed?
Stuff happens in a trial. You have to adapt.
They did.
It is an interesting strategy to say RADICAL. I get why he did it. I get why they sidelined one of their guys.
It will be interesting to see any fallout from the Nadler/Schiff dustup. You know he is pissed.
Better scrape off yer boots after that post.
Philbin distanced himself from Dershowitz simply because the “optics” of Dershowits’s statement were bad but in fact made perfect sense to anyone with a bit of reading comprehension.
Try DC to Miami...not the reverse.
You convinced me about the flight.
On Wednesday, he was interviewed by the View witches. He said he voted for hillary. When in 2016 deplorables started chanting "lock her up" he decided to write the book about hillary and impeachment. He said that he used the same tactic for President Trump as he had written in his book for hillary.
I did . I have tried it both ways. Different days
Not a problem
And as someone said- there are other airports
The flight excuse was to save face for what was clearly a trial strategy designed by Trump or Philbin or Jay or all of them. The RADICAL strategy
With Alan saying the team begged him to stay
Maybe they did
Maybe it was Alan’s idea after getting smashed in the media.
I saw his testimony. What ratical ideas are you talking about?
Could take the train..Ny to Miami is around $350 with a berth. Of course it takes 24 hours to get there.
“”””””””””’He didn’t quit. He had no role to fulfill. We know he was only there “part time” and there is notice of the same someplace.”””””””
Well before the trial he said he had to give a speech about the history and reasons for impeachment. That was his sole role.
He did it.
He left.
I am not offering an opinion of Alan’s arguments.
I am telling you the word Philbin said.
You can read the transcript.
He should have been there for the both days of the question period as Senators might have had questions.
I give him credit for hanging in there on the first day. It is a tough thing to sit for that long at 81.
Wouldn't any veto or threat of veto be considered Abuse of Power under their current claim?
yes, but we won't know about the flights on Wed/Thursday.
Grasping at straws here...Maybe he can fly only at certain times due to his religion? Maybe he couldn't get a flight back to DC in time for the trial.
Anyway, he was on the Trump Team and knew how long this sham was going to go on so he shouldn't have made any commitments during this time.
I have wondered repeatedly why they even had him present and even more so each time he said he is not really a part of the team. When somebody acts loopy I don’t subscribe to any theory that he is just too smart for us.
What he said was radical and even unnecessary. The defense case is made without going into some statement that is inflammatory and wrong headed on the face of it without a bunch of explanation or qualification.
If you can fly out today and tomorrow both ways ..it very likely wasn’t a problem
can’t speak to the religion part of it.
His argument was not that political consideratons justify presidential action. His argument was that political interpretation cannot be used as a bludgeon to impeach a president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.