Posted on 01/31/2020 6:45:00 AM PST by RummyChick
BS.
I just tried to book a flight for today to see.
Miami to DC.
No problem.
He appeared on Hannity last night, and didn’t seem to have anything bad to say about his experience. Lacking any statement from the Trump defense team, why should we assume there was anything other than a prior commitment that required his presence elsewhere?
Ah..that might be it.
But the flight excuse is bogus.
“Do something for me and I will do something for you...“
That IS politics and management. That IS social life:
“Do your chores for me and you’ll get a treat.”
“Do well for me and you’ll get a raise.”
“Spend lots on me and you’ll get sex.”
“Elect me and you’ll get more free stuff.”
Because Trump’s main lawyer distanced their defense from him last night.
Did you watch it???
Perhaps there was an agreement that they were getting killed over his radical ideas so the compromise was to remove him and strategy was to distance themselves.
But the plane excuse is ridiculous.
I thought adding Dershowitz was a good move
1-He is a Liberal
2-He has the credibility as a recognized legal expert
3-House hold name
4-Was for Nixon, against Clinton Impeachments
5-Defended the point that this Impeachment is a sham political event where the charges do not rise to the impeachable level.
Now Dershowitz is ruined and can retire.
If he was going to Miami for a massage of his ego, then maybe he went to that place Robert Kraft recommended.
Daily Mail fake news. Explosive headline then when you read the actual article, no reference or evidence to support it.
I didn’t say I believed it; just that he wasn’t saying he was going to the Superbowl.
I don’t care for Dershowitz. Just the fact he flew the Epstein Express has always concerned me but Trump chose him not me.
If the defense asked him to leave, that’s the opposite of what the headline suggests. That the lawyers had a disagreement over legal concepts isn’t alarming. In any case, he was kind of a specialist, made his case, and wasn’t needed for the Q & A.
He only had a cameo appearance.
SO..you believe the ridiculous story that he can’t get a flight.
Try booking one.
Easy.
Even going beyond that, a second level, the theory of abuse of power that they have alleged--put aside whether or not it is a crime, the thory of abuse of power that they have asserted is not something that conforms with the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. It depends entirely on subjective intent, and it is subjective intent alone.As Professor Dershowitz explained, and as I have explained--and I don't mean in the more radical portion of his explanation of his theory, I mean just in terms of what is high crimes and misdemeanors. He explained that something that is based entirely on subjective intent is equivalent to maladministration. It is equivalent to exactly the standard that the Framers rejected because it is completely malleable. It doesn't define any real standard for an offense. It allows you to take any conduct that on its face is perfectly permissible, and on the basis of your projection of a disagreement with that conduct, a disagreement with the reasons for it to attribute a bad motive, to try to say there is a bad subjective motive for doing that and will make it impeachable, that doesn't conform to the constitutional standard.
Dershowitz doesn't know how to regulate his delivery so as to keep to the case at hand. he rambles and gets into more vague and general theories. This approach, finding a vague and general theory (unified theory of law) is troublesome, difficult, and destined to fail, to break down in some hypothetical case.
So while on his rambling, Dershowitz lays up that a literal crime must be committed, or some other absolute that (like all absolutes) fails to fit all hypos.
Schiff, as he always does (oops, there I go with an absolute), misrepresented Philbin's argument.
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, it has been a long couple of days, so let me be blunt about where I think we are. I think we all know what happened here. I think we all understand what the President did here. I don't think there is really much question at this point about why the military aid was withheld or why President Zelensky couldn't get in the door of the Oval Office. I don't think there is any confusion about why he wanted Joe Biden investigated or why he was pushing the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. I don't think there is really much question about that. I don't think there is any question about what we could expect if and when John Bolton testifies, although the details of which we certainly don't know. I don't think there is really much question about that. But what is extraordinary is, although they can claim that this was a radical mistake or notion of Professor Dershowitz that they seem to be distancing themselves from right now, I guess they think they are accusing Dershowitz now of some maladministration in his argument of the defense--they are still embracing that idea.What they just told you admittedly in outline of A, B, and C, what they just told you is: accept everything the House said, accept the President withheld the military aid to coerce Ukraine into helping him cheat in the election, accept that these investigations are a sham, accept that he obstructed all subpoenas and witnesses, accept all of that. Too bad. There is nothing you can do. That is not impeachable.
I personally believe they were getting killed over his radical ideas.
So their strategy was to sideline him. He either quit or was fired or was sidelined for strategy.
Then Philbin made sure Trump’s team distanced themselves from the more radical ideas . He is the one that used the word
Then Schiff pounced on it next time he was up.
I don’t know what went on..but something did.
And they are using the plane nonsense as an excuse.
Dershowitz did a great job giving his prepared speeches on the legal history of impeachment during the 9 hours of Trump’s defense team presentations.
When it came to the Senator questioning time, I felt Dershowitz was not up to his normal capabilities in explaining complex legal issues. What Dershowitz said could have been expressed better.
On balance, Dershowitz did not hurt the Trump defense team.
With all due respect, you are giving your interpretation of events which again does not have any support within the article, which also does not support the headline.
All I am saying, it’s like the impeachment witnesses, assumptions, opinions, etc, etc. Stuff like this is what spreads fake news far and wide.
The problem with Dersh is not what he said. ...it’s that he didn’t finish. Like all profs, he is long winded and 2 1/2 or 5 minutes is not enough time for him. ..all during the Q&A I was screaming. ..hurry up Dersh. ..hurry up.
Because of this. Schiff and the rats had a field day with his comments yesterday. Dersh is just not good at staying focused.
“This is another example of the media not even able to understand a moderately complex argument.”
The older I get the more and more convinced I am that the world is mostly made up of people who have never encountered the notion of taking facts and applying them to rules to arrive at a conclusion. It’s not just that they don’t do this. They do not know that it is a thing that can be done.
Quid quo pro is done all the time when negotiating deals either with Presidents and other foreign leaders and also within Congress. If you vote with me on this bill, I will vote on your bill.
Or, if you vote yes, we will support your election if you don’t support your party we will with hold funds for your re-election campaign.
I really WISH the defense had used these examples of what happens all the time especially in election periods.
Reps and Senators are always threatened with financial support for campaigns.
Dershowitz is right about quid pro quo. We use aid all the time to get countries to do certain things. As long as its in the US national interest its OK. If its to get your kid on the board of a company not OK.
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.