M
Maximus1
Guest
Or vindictive bullies
- Status
K
KMC
Guest
But this is your opinion. You argue that others are wrong and you are right. Is it possible, that there are two arguments out there, and due to no nefarious reason, your opinion (the democratic opinion) is just not persuasive?mrad25:
Nope. Dershowitz argument is dangerous. It puts the president above the law.
Bowie gave a very clear account as to why Dershowitz’s fundamental argument is fatally flawed, not only in principle, but also in the very practice of the law in the US. I happy to find the link and repost it if that helps.
Or are you completely persuasive / true and its just a defect in others (either mental or nefarious) that causes them to reject your superior argument?
D
dvdjs
Guest
And? I assume that you realize that Dershowitz didn’t either.
Dershopwitz’s argument is considered wrong not only by essentailly all coConstitutional scholars, but even by the very one whom he calimed , undre oath, agreed with him.
Bowie’s article includes accounts of convictions of this so-called “fake crime”. And also give a good simple schooling on the matter of what is a “crime”.
Who is willing to stop them?
Especially now, we seem to have abandoned the very idea of checks and balances.
Again,
M
Maximus1
Guest
I was about 10 years old when I learned the tradition was hand the speech to and shake the hand of the speaker. It was quite deliberate. That is actually more complimentary than dotard moment. I assume his basic faculties
S
Sirach2
Guest
Did you misunderstand my words?
. . . nothing I contribute will change your mind. So why bother?
D
dvdjs
Guest
I can’t speak to that.
But the name-the-crime argument has, however common it is among partisan pundits and their followers, has no traction among constitutional scholars. Even Dershowitz has backed away from some of the extreme interpretations attached to his defense argument.
I understood them as not responding to the question asking you to back up your attack on the veracity of the House Managers.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
She has spent the last several months trying to get him ousted from office when she, herself, said she didn’t think it was right to do it on a one-party-only basis, knowing full well that the senate wouldn’t convict. She herself said she did it in order to tarnish his name in the history books; which was just pure hate. Then she leaves out most of the introduction in order to be a jerk.
I realize it might have been an inadvertence on his part, but I wouldn’t have shaken her hand either.
But the abortion lobby will be proud of her.
M
Maximus1
Guest
When you have GOP SENATORS saying Trump did what was alleged, and I am voting to aquit because he won’t do it again, the," she did it to tarnish his name argument flies bye bye. He is guilty. And as she said," she had no choice."
R
RuthAnne
Guest
They are a huge pile of corruption. They won’t check themselves. The people should be cleaning house on a regular basis, but for whatever reason, we just keep putting them back in office. Shame on us.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
That’s not what they said.
But Pelosi did say exultantly that Trump will “forever be impeached”; a sort of attainder proclamation.
M
mrad25
Guest
Did I say Dershowitz wrote it? Your statement that Dershowtiz argument is considered wrong by essentially ALL Constitutional scholars is quite frankly in plain English BS. Now if you want to say considered wrong by some politically biased scholars then we can show that to be a fact. If you listened to Dershowitz and I’m assuming you really didn’t you’d see what exactly he said about Bowie and where they agreed and disagreed.
Again there were no convictions of ANY President of the fake crime Abuse of Power in our nation’s history. There was however a lot of arguments against convicting a President on Abuse of Power in our history and by many, including SC justices.
Bowie’ doesn’t need to tell anyone what he considers to be a crime or not a crime, we have our criminal statue for that.
Last edited:
R
RuthAnne
Guest
I think he snubbed her. And I cheered when he did.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
No need to get nasty and spout prejoratives .Not very Christians
Last edited:
H
Horton
Guest
You have this backward. Trump was impeached in a sham House setting then exonerated by the Senate.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
But no matter what, that document belongs to the people. It will be the only one in the national archives that’s torn in half, and that’s what the awful woman intended.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Fixed my typo I meant prejoratives
S
Sirach2
Guest
I doubt that was the one and only copy for posterity. Most people make copies of their work, and it will be easy to replace. I agree with all of you who have contributed thoughts on her audacity. It was a malevolent act that she deliberately intended to create a tumult.
M
mrad25
Guest
M
marybobo
Guest
I have not listened to Rush in quite a while, but he has never said he is a news person, thus he cannot be a serious reporter. He analysis the news of the day, although many liberals don’t like his analysis. I don’t like some of the liberal commentators but I would not deny them the right to speak. And as far as being a role model for conservatives, I believe most of them are glad to have had him expressing what most of them already thought.
- Status