magnet
6381
This is the Dershowitz quote:
If a president does something that he thinks will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
So technically he didn’t say that a president could do anything that furthers his re-election. What he said is that the president could take any sort of quid pro quo, aka bribe, that furthers his re-election.
Still wrong, though.
I think I am being unbiased and fair when I say that the House managers sound like well-informed adults, and the defense lawyers sound like babies and crooks. Just now, one of the lawyers for the defense said that it has been clear from the moment the president stepped down that escalator that he has wanted to make sure that every tax dollar is spent wisely on the national interest.
He said that and somehow locusts didn’t begin to pour from his mouth.
Clearly there is no god.
Why are they all in on this crooked ratfucker?? It defies reason.
Gold star post.
Murkowski just asked a very pointed question.
Because their base only listens to Fox News and they are terrified of their own base.
Timex
6386
Question to trumps team:
The revelations in Bolton’s book contradict your suggestion that there was no quid pro quo. Given this contradiction, why shouldn’t we question Bolton as a witness?
Trump’s team literally says that it’s only alleged that Bolton days 3 such things in his manuscript, and Bolton has not confirmed it.
Which would be another reason to subpoena Bolton.
Oh, now trumps team is complaining that Trump was denied witnesses.
“If we call witnesses today, we may have to start calling witnesses in the future, and that sets a terrible precedent.”
antlers
6388
What Dershowitz meant is:
It is possible to punctuate the actual quote so it kinda reads that way:
So to get his intended meaning across you have to interpret the public interest as applying to the action that the president took, rather than to the election.
I’m just happy with all the outraged headlines his garbled syntax is earning him.
In any case, a President can’t do what Trump did even if it were in some sense in the public interest. The President should recuse himself from any sort of law enforcement activity against particular individuals who might be political rivals; any such action should take place in the Justice Department without the President’s knowledge or supervision. I wish the House Managers would make that point forcefully.
Not to mention if Ukraine is so corrupt why should they be the ones to investigate?
I don’t really grasp the distinction. He said the President could commit a particular crime if it furthered his re-election. If he can commit that crime, why not other crimes?
So they lose the presidency for 4 years or 8 years or whatever but they can sleep at night. In beds instead of hanging upside down in caves.
garin
6393
I don’t think this generous interpretation holds up. The line immediately preceding it was:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right.
And - in that trade-off, sleeping at night loses every time.
