Should be “not Alaska and Ukraine.”
Is appeal to authority all you have? He’s so clearly wrong in this piece. Congress determines what is impeachable, as spelled out in the constitution.
Like I said, he sold out the Crimea, why not Alaska.
I don’t care if he sells out Alaska. One less Red state whose populated with people dumb enough to elect Sarah Palin Governor. Putin can have it. The Jews there will move to the lower 48.
Who’s not whose.
I hate that there is no edit!!!
Putin will do just fine as long as he doesn’t cut off the PFD checks.
1 Like
That’s what I said, “what does he know about the law”? This is regarding the Constitution, not the law.
Has he ever seen a potential defendant that he didn’t think was not guilty?
1 Like
Obama may have let him take Alaska, but Trump would go to war over it. Heck, Obama admin was politically attacking Ukraine at the time he let Putin take Crimea… Obama was just being more flexible.
Rrriiiiiggggghhhhtttt. Just like he was super tough on NK.
This is such a weird talking point given that Obama imposed significant sanctions over the Crimea invasion while Donald is busy saying hey actually it totally makes sense that it would belong to Russia. Like we can say for an absolute fact that Donald would not have gone to war over it because he’s defended Putin’s invasion on multiple occasions.
Do you ever read a real newspaper or listen to real news on TV?
I sure hope you don’t say the things you write on this board in real life.
anonymity encourages conservative ridiculousness. He would never say these things to a live person who knows his name.
Well… when anyone claims that he is one of the finest legal minds around… they will be slapped down pretty hard now.
It’s all intentional. Trump knows his only chance is political. He’s screwed legally. He needs to move the window on what is impeachable to make it as small as possible. Dershowitz will soon be paid enough to claim that Trump could shoot the Chief Justice on the floor of the senate during the impeachment trial and it really wouldn’t be an impeachable event because reasons and Clinton and stuff and things.
He’s wrong on this one, his mistake stems from this common misconception of the actual meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors as it was understood at the time the constitution was drafted and adopted.
from Dershowitz: President Donald Trump Should Not Be Impeached Even If He Colluded With Russia | Opinion
The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime.
from http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
What trough do you feed from?
It seems like Dershowitz has gone nuts.
He was already gone when he was floating “torture warrants” lo these many years ago.
Seems it’s getting close to the time to get the man a drool bucket.
They can always fall back on Rudy G.
Wait, what?
