As Republicans seem poised to reject calling witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, early predictions of no convictions come true, and leave the accused stronger in the run up to reelection in November…what’s left of the Democrats strategy. Do they stand a chance?
to see the best memes on the internet.
Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members. If you’re not one of us yet, join today .
We’d love to meet you in the Caribbean sailing toward the Bahamas. Find out more and book your cabin for the 3-night Bill Whittle cruise.
11 replies on “No Witnesses. No Convictions. No Chance for Democrats in November.”
Can we break it down this way… If the President was only asking them the invstigate only Joe Biden then that may be a crime but Only if it there is no other inking of a crime. To simplify if the president only only wants to investigate joe biden because he is a political candidate that is a crime but if there is any inkling of wrongdoing or hight crimes lets say blackmail( fire the prosecutor or you don’t get one billion dollars of aid and my plane leaves in six hours. That sounds like extortion to me or at least blackmail Extortion sounds worse to me. But If I withhold aid because I want an audit trail of where that money is going or without that I would at least like a warm fuzzy that your not take that aid and “fuck me”…
and I say “me” as in the country cause i’m president you know.
Dershowitz’s second argument is what the left believes and that was his point. All voters & Senators on the left would nod to the point and are thus stuck. Republicans don’t believe it but he’s not there to convince them. Trump does not believe it but the left believes it implicitly. It is a genius argument. Right and wrong at the same time.
Answering Scott’s Question on how the Democrats prove “it was a matter of grave constitutional import”. First they call for charges to be laid against Hillary, Biden and others connected to them. Proving that they take the crimes they charge Trump with are taken seriously.
Then they back one of the moderates Democrat candidates that have already dropped out of the race.
While preparing to move to California or New York or Cuba. If Trump wins; California allows North and east California to secede and creating a new nation the Peoples Republic of California in the south west. On the east coast they allow most of rural New York state to secede From Manhattan becoming the state of Hudson. Then forming the Peoples Republic of Manhattan from the rest.
Then we take them seriously.
The second argument is not what Dershowitz was actually arguing. What he was arguing was this:
If a politician is doing his job, then he will do what he believes is best for the country, and that is what he will be running on for reelection. As long as he is doing what he believes is best for the country, whether or not he’s wrong, he is doing his job even if that thing also helps him get reelected.
He was not arguing that a politician believes his own reelection would be best for the nation, but that doing what he thinks is best (even if the other party strenuously disagrees, and even if it turns out later on that he was wrong), he will be making his strongest case for his reelection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbbYLyOK2vo
Don’t quite get the connection, but it brought back great memories and got me up out of my chair dancing w the troll! Great exercise, dancing!
Just my way of throwing raspberries to Pelosi 😛
Id have to go back and look, but if that is what liberals are complaining Dershowitz said, I would have a sneaking suspicion he actually said something else.
He did. Even Scott and Bill have misunderstood him.
Maybe I saw different portions of Dershowitz’s speeches from Scott, but in his hour-long defense speech he did not say that whatever abuse of power a President commits, he can’t be impeached for it. That is certainly how Schiff spinned it (and I heard that with my own ears), but that is NOT what Dershowitz said.
What he said was that “an abuse of power” is not by itself an impeachable charge. It is too broad, too vague and completely undefined.
Now, if a President’s abuse of power is represented by a crime or some other definable offense, then that is different.
But an “Abuse of Power” is not something with which somebody can be constitutionally charged.