Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today during Q & A Alan Dershowitz proffered a brilliant rebuttal to House's claims of quid pro quo: "During the Civil War Lincoln instructed soldiers to vote for him in the next election. Lincoln's reason for doing this was to assure he'd be reelected so that he could draw the Civil War to an end. Donald Trump's solicitation from Ukraine for help with his reelection was not done solely for his own political benefit; it was done so Trump could benefit politically AND by extension the American people would benefit as well by allowing Trump to continue his fight for reformation of the political swamp he promised to drain in 2016."
Let no one say Dershowitz doesn't earn his hourly rate.
If Trump had multiple reasons for withholding aid in exchange for the announcement of a Biden investigation and some of them were not self-serving then technically he'd be off the hook. Murkowski, Collins and Romney asked this together.
He isn’t denying the accusations. He’s saying it’s okay because trump thinks it’s in the nations best interest he is re-elected. If I was a repub senator that alone would cement my vote for witnesses and pursing more information. That’s more damning than any witness so far.
The precedent that sets is pretty dangerous. Basically says it’s okay had Obama used the government to directly monitor the trump campaigns (vs whatever that aids name was) phones and computers because he felt he was in the best interest of the nation the next president was a Democrat and used whatever he gathered to aid them.
The simple counter argument is it’s not up to the pres if it’s in the best interest of the nation if he gets re-elected, it’s up to voters. Therefore, that’s not a defense to excuse any actions he takes.
Today during Q & A Alan Dershowitz proffered a brilliant rebuttal to House's claims of quid pro quo: "During the Civil War Lincoln instructed soldiers to vote for him in the next election. Lincoln's reason for doing this was to assure he'd be reelected so that he could draw the Civil War to an end. Donald Trump's solicitation from Ukraine for help with his reelection was not done solely for his own political benefit; it was done so Trump could benefit politically AND by extension the American people would benefit as well by allowing Trump to continue his fight for reformation of the political swamp he promised to drain in 2016."
Let no one say Dershowitz doesn't earn his hourly rate.
You might want to take a little lesson on history.
Lincoln campaigning and telling soldiers to vote for him is no way relatable to what trump is accused of. People will vote however they want. Nobody knows how you vote.
Of course, I’ve seen no proof Lincoln said this.
What is there is factual data of massive voter fraud perpetrated by Republicans for Lincoln. They were repeatedly caught stuffing ballots for soldiers. It was a new thing at the time for soldiers to be able to vote absentee. 19 states had that. Those that needed to go home to vote who were republican were granted furloughs, Democrats were denied.
Officers who were deemed to not vote for Lincoln were dismissed using intimidation to secure votes. Basically what the soviets did, only instead they shot those officers.
I’m not one that often looks to tarnish Lincoln’s reputation. IMO he was the right man for the job at the time. However, the corruption around his re-election is truly disgusting. IMO he could’ve won re-election without it.
Cipollone and Sekulow have flat-out lied about several provable facts. Schiff’s choice of words should be pretty far down on your list of outrages, frankly.
I legit thought you made that up, I had to look it up.
That's unreal. If I were writing a script for a movie and I wrote this monologue, I'd probably throw it away because it seems so unbelievable that a lawyer would actually say that.
Why? It's pretty obvious. This rote Democrat talking point of "personal political gain" is retarded. There's no such thing.
Impeachments aren't voidable. They are forever, acquittal or not.
Not this time. No grounds for fake impeachment. Get over it, just like Hillary losing! LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
