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 ...
the article states the defense team asked him to stay...
if that’s the case then the radical theory doesn’t hold water...
prior knowledge of his schedule conflict does...
I didn’t catch his location. Sorry.
Maybe there’s a utube vid.
Gee, you would think he would have access to a private jet to get to the big game.
____________________________________
He USED to have access to a private jet to get to the ... something.
But I think the Lolita Express is no longer flying.
uh huh...because Alan would never try to save face...
and the Defense Team did need to distance themselves from one of the Star Players and Philbin didn’t mean to use the word Radical...
alrighty then...
Well once again what is said by a supporter of the president is spun by the media and turned into what was not said. Dershowitz simply claimed that if a president (or any politician) took into account whether his political actions would also personally benefit him, that was not an impeachable offense unless their was actual criminal activity.
I wish someone would tell me where a quid pro quo is impeachable or even such a horrible concept. Isn’t that how foreign policy has been conducted for ages? As long as it does not involve illegal requests or compensation there is nothing wrong with putting conditions on releasing large sums of money,or other support to other countries.
it’s all good... don’t intend to watch any of this anyway...
it’s one of a couple things in life you don’t want to see the process of being made, you just want to see the final outcome...
sausage is one, your car being repainted is another...
Who said he’s going to the game?
The segment of him on the view last night was pretty awful and embarrassing for him.i think it was on Tucker.
you’re the one twisting this all out of shape without knowing the facts of both sides of the story...
not me...
see ya...
Yes, that was my take on it as well.
I may be wrong but doesn’t one get penalized money wise if you change a flight at the last minute?
It was not total nonsense. It was hard for the ninny brained press and Democrats to grasp as it involved a rather complex idea. But it was factual and an absolute defense against the reasoning behind the article of impeachment.
Thanks. I wish more people would get this.
I am quite sure Trump used a quid pro quo to get Mexico to guard the damn borders, HOWEVER he was right over the target with Ukraine these BASTARD legislators (some on our side also) were RAPING funds from Ukraine!!! In other words they were STEALING our tax dollars!!! NOW they will get away with it and the beat goes on!!!
It was Dershowitz on the VIEW for Gods sake the BIMBO on the view was OUT OF CONTROL wouldn’t let Dershowitz get a word in!!!
I think Dershowitz had some trouble with the very small area of behavior where non-criminal behavior would be appropriately addressed by Impeachment. He acknowledged it at times, but other times skipped over it.
The woman on The View, though absurd in both her interpretation of his argument and in her further extrapolations, did hit an example of where an impeachment need not be an actual crime - though I think we can say the fraud of running for President and then *completely* disregarding its duties by moving to Moscow and playing golf all day every day is still crime-like (I have used this example for decades now, though the destination was Tahiti).
Dershowitz’s argument that the behavior has to be either criminal, or crimelike, at the level of Treason or Bribery. I think that it a perfectly good position.
Dershowitz shouldn’t have even considered that nest of Hollywood has beens....he got what he asked for by going there. Those snakes always bite and never listen to anyone.
Tucker’s spin on it with Mark Stan was awesome. But I’m sure Alan was cringing.
ANY republican that goes on The View is just plain STUPID!! Those hackling women don’t let their guests get a word in, it is a moot point to even be seen there!!!
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.