Posted on 02/02/2020 11:58:31 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Alan Dershowitz, one of President Trump’s attorneys, defended himself on Sunday after sparking controversy with one of his arguments justifying the president’s pursuit of investigations in Ukraine.
The former Harvard Law professor triggered a wave of backlash after appearing to argue that whatever a president does for reelection could be justified as part of the national interest.
It fanned the flames of those who believed Mr. Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine was an abuse of power.
Mr. Dershowitz explained on Fox News Sunday that his comments were “deliberately wrenched out of context” and that he was trying to explain there were multiple motivations at play.
“If the president did something completely lawful, the fact that part of his motivation may have been about his election, cannot be quid pro quo,” he said.
“I don’t believe that a president can do anything if he thinks it’s in the national interest.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
His fellow liberals are triggered? Something tells me they would be defending him if he made the same argument on behalf of a Democrat President.
Talk about hypocrisy from his critics on steroids.
Dems are beginning to panic because Trump isn’t going to be impeached and they have one of the weakest group of candidates in history. They have been lied to for three years and their rage is starting to turn away from the POTUS and onto each other. This should be fun.
People hear what they want to hear.
Chris Wallace kept kicking up liberal dogma he and his old man shared and Dershowitz shot them all down with Constitutional law or conservative precedence. Then Alan said he’s a Liberal Democrat. Sorry, professor. You may HAVE been but that party has moved so far left you are now a conservative centrist against your will.
...and disregard the rest.
Dersh is like Scalia in that his devotion is to the law and constitution. Scalia would have defended a liberal idea or law so long as it was based on original principles and that’s how it should be.
What is the line where “prosecution” becomes “persecution”?
The President was given NO due process when the question of his “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” were being parlayed by Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and Comany into a highly specious declaration of “articles of impeachment”.
This was what Professor Dershowitz was concerned with, when he appeared to be defending the President’s actions (which he was), in face of the serious allegations made against him, which were not allowed to be challenged.
So it was a very BAD bill of particulars that was put before the Senate, and the Senate was not to supposed to be advised of this deficiency?
The case put forth by the prosecution may seem to be airtight, until it is held up to cross-examination.
And man, did it get the wind taken out when it got punctured.
The facts speak for themselves in this case. Everything President Trump did were within the parameters of the law.
He was bound under the US Ukraine Mutual Aid Agreement to root out corruption before any money was transmitted and he was allotted a certain amount of time to transfer the money to Ukraine. He did both.
The only people who were guilty of enlisting a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent was Hitlery Clinton and Baraq Soetoro. Ever heard of the Steele Dossier, Alan? Look into it. Maybe you and Hedley Lamarr could have coffee and discuss the matter.
The Democrats would be calling this type of opposition to asking the Ukraine to investigate potential corruption by a Republican “xenophobia”.
Who else can investigate in the Ukraine? Do people think US prosecutors can subpoena people in the Ukraine?
Modern Liberals aren’t classical liberals.
Dershowitz escaped the democrat ghetto just like blacks leave the democrat plantation, and they’re not pleased.
The House had 18 witnesses, all selected by the Democrat ‘prosecution’ with little in the way of cross examination. One would assume that would be the high point of their case, and yet it didn’t come close to a crime, much less an impeachable one. Bolton’s testimonial would not seem to call into question whether Biden’s actions could reasonably be seen as corrupt.
“People hear what they want to hear.”
Reminds me of a Farside cartoon:
What a republican says:
“I’d like a smaller federal government and reduced taxes.”
What a liberal hears:
“Sieg Heil, bring back slavery! Starve children, Kill old people!!”
Liberal Democrats are pretty much extinct these days.
In fact American Liberalism and American Conservatism are actually more alike then different, you can research this out and will discover that both share a lot of fundamentals and common beliefs. The problem is Liberal is misapplied to these scum bag commie leftist democrats, they are NOT Liberals.
If you research Classical Liberalism, it is basically American Conservatism of today. Also the terms don’t always mean what they mean here and lets say European countries. Over there (Europe) conservatives could mean conserving the power of the government/state, where as here conservative means conserving the liberties of the individual.
The Democrat party of today are just leftists, they are not liberals, they wish they were liberals because overall liberals are kind fuzzy sweater wearing professors who teach at University. They want you to confuse their hard core leftist commie ways with that group.
Yes, good people, I understand that the terms have altered over time and what’s occurring now is unprecedented. I just FELT for Dershowitz who’s love for America is on his sleeve while those who hijacked his party reject truth, honesty and God Himself. He’d be far better off calling himself Classic Liberal and not even mentioning Democrat.
Professor Dershowitz’s party has left him behind-most old-style liberals respected the constitution-today’s democrats are socialists/communists-I’m pretty sure in today’s world, JFK would have been a centrist/RINO-today’s DNC wouldn’t have let him in...
“Dems are beginning to panic because Trump isn’t going to be impeached...”
He’s already been impeached. But he won’t be convicted and removed.
Yep - I was surprised when the Defense team didn’t respond with that when the Dems started whining that he said that, if it was to get reelected, he could commit any crime and treason he wanted to with impunity...
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.