Impeachment

How many of them try to exploit it to get politically correct job preferences at prestigious law schools?

 

That’s a mischaracterization. Is that the best you got?

 

I didn't see what Dershowitz said, but the way the Charlottesville lie gets pitched by the media, I assume that they're lying about what he said. I'll listen to his comments and decide for my own, but my initial presumption is that their characterization is a lie. It's sad that our media has become this.

 

Then any president can try get out of anything by parroting "national interest" the way that people can try and justify anything as Constitutional by parroting "general welfare".

 

Murkowski tapped out
Sover

 

Nancy not taking this news well
Hit the bar a little earlier today than the usual

 

Hmmmm, just sex? Bubba, that's the poor man's lame argument. Your smarter than that.

Clinton? what was it, ~ 12 ~ felony convictions? Grand Jury contempt conviction. Dis-barred from practicing law in Ark.?

Impeachable, yes, clearly.

Trump? No felony convictions, no bribery, no treason, no collusion, no contempt convictions... no other high crimes or misdemeanors.

Impeachable? No.

 

Then THAT is the argument. The argument has to be pinned somewhere, but your point doesn’t negate Dershowitz.

 

If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment

 

I need to read or hear that in context. They had a quote on the Charlottesville controversy too, and I bought it for awhile. Then I read the whole thing, and the entire controversy was completely fraudulent.

 

His crawdadding is trying to say that he said if the President's interests and the national interests align...

methinks he should be careful with language.

 

Please show me those 12 felony convictions. I never voted for Bill.

 

It won't stop the fake attacks. Dems may try to impeach him for failure to put his phone in airplane mode on AF1 next. And as others have stated he hasn't exactly helped himself out with his low class comments.

 

Is that the extent of what Dershowitz said? I know your OU education was better than that.

 

I agree RunP, this isn’t over even though it’s over. Huh? Well you know what I mean. The Dems will not go away and will not quit.

 

Got it from here: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...egins-day-n1123371/ncrd1124386#liveBlogHeader

 

Which highlights the need to retake the House

 

Is that a meaningful gesture? I don't get it.

 

My analysis of what Dershowitz said is not based on any "media" save that which broadcast the words directly from his mouth. He said that a president can take action in the "national interest" and his perception of "national interest" can include getting himself reelected. Seems to cover Nixon's perception of what he was doing. In fairness to Jackhammer, his remarks perhaps conveyed narrower immunity than did the more extensive remarks of the OJ dream steamer.
I meant mchammer. Damn autocorrect.

 

Bear with me here.
So........, because an impeachment trial is not a criminal case, an acquittal does not necessarily settle the question as double jeopardy does not apply (only applies to criminal cases). If that is the case what’s stopping the presidents opponents from starting this all over again next Spring? Same charges, same witnesses, same testimony. Like calling this attempt a mulligan and calling for a do-over.
And if this does indeed happen, can’t the House then call all the witnesses they are being denied by the vote this evening?
Sorry, I’m tired and probably not expressing myself adequately, but I would like the more learned posters here to enlighten me (that includes pretty much everybody who posts here).

 

The State of the Union will set viewing records.

 

Rumor is there will be an intermission and Paul Boesch will interview congressional leadership.

For those of you scratching your head because you did not grow up in the Houston area in the 1970s:
Paul Boesch - Wikipedia

 

Yeah... We kept on having Beghazi hearings.

 

Every corporation I've worked for, if the CEO rec'd a blow job from a subordinate (esp in his office), he'd have been fired. No questions asked. If the proof is there, he'd hit the door

I think it's laughable you don't see the problem getting sexual favors from subordinates at work on site (or off). Predictable, yet laughable. Clinton wasn't some manager at the 7-11. Get real

 

Dershowitz: I never said president could do anything to get reelected

 

Don’t let the door hit ya: