Dershowitz is such a Dershowitz https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...transcript-trump-impeachment-trial-january-27 excerpt: In our long history, many presidents have been accused of abusing their power. I will now give you a list of presidents who in our history have been accused of abusing their power, who would be subject to impeachment under the House Manager’s view of the Constitution. George Washington, refusal to turn over documents related to the Jay Treaty. John Adams signing and enforcing the alien and sedition laws. Thomas Jefferson purchasing Louisiana without congressional authorization. I’ll go on. John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Bern, John Tyler, arbitrary despotic and corrupt use of the veto power. James Polk, here I quote Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln accused Polk of abusing his power of his office, contemptuously disregarding the constitution, usurping the role of Congress and assuming the role of dictator. He didn’t seek to impeach him. He just sought to defeat him. Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was accused of abusing his power for suspending the writ of habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Alan Dershowitz: (41:31) President Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan quote, “Concerning Iran contract… And now I say Professor Laurence Tribe said the following quote, “There in lies what appears to be the most serious breach of duty by the president, a breach that may well entail an impeachable abuse of power.” George H.W. Bush. The following was released today by the Clinton Gore campaign. In the past weeks, Americans had begun to learn the extent to which George Bush and his administration have abused their governmental power for political purposes. That’s how abuse of power should be used, as campaign rhetoric. It should be in statements issued by one political party against the other. That’s the nature of the term. Abuse of power is a political weapon and it should be leveled against political opponents. Let the public decide. That’s true. Barack Obama, the House committee on the judiciary, held an entire hearing entitled Obama Administration’s abuse of power. Now by the standards applied to earlier presidents, nearly any controversial act by a chief executive could be denominated abuse of power. For example, past presidents have been accused of using their foreign policy, even their war powers, to enhance their electoral prospects. Presidents often have mixed motives that include partisan personal benefits along with the national interest. . . .
clearly no Democrat in the world would take anything Dershowitz says seriously, so this has got to be disinformation (propaganda)
Turley defends Dershowitz. What a maroon. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/...cal-representation-and-intellectual-opinions/ excerpt: However, what concerns me most about the commentary is the ad hominem attacks on Dershowitz. Commentators attack him for taking famous, high-profile cases and portray him as only motivated by the press. They do not make the same objections to liberal professors and commentators who routinely take such cases and make media appearances from Laurence Tribe to Neil Katyal to Noah Feldman. They agree with their opinions so their motivations are not questioned. The fact is that none of their motivations should be questioned. They are all insightful and influential thinkers. I fail to understand why defenses in cases like OJ Simpson or Von Below is an indictment of Dershowitz as an attorney. He is an unabashed and iconic defense attorney. He has earned respect for his advocacy on behalf of some of the most despised individuals. We have had our strong disagreements. However, I still respect his career and his intellect. Rather than “ineffective,” Dershowitz’s argument laid out the best possible case for a highly challengeable theory. He showed that there is a defensive basis for theory and last night certainly showed the Dershowitz has not diminished in his skills or intellectual prowess. I would not obviously have made this theory the center of the Trump defense. However, if the President wanted to make such a case, Dershowitz gave him the best possible presentation of its merits. Again, Alan Dershowitz needs no defense, but he deserves a modicum of respect for erudite and elegant argument.
The court's decision in the Kupperman case was to dismiss the case after the House withdrew the subpoena and both the House and the White House promised no further action against Kupperman so he agreed to drop his case. That's the case Bolton was waiting on and it didn't get resolved until after the impeachment vote. I guess my objection to the tweet is that it makes it sound like the risks Bolton had faced with the prospect of House testimony are now gone and he can testify in the Senate carefree. That's not true. The White House's objection to his testimony has not been resolved by the courts, so the court non-decision does not explain why he wasn't willing to testify for the House but is willing to testify for the Senate.
discussion of what Warren's proposal actually means https://reason.com/2020/01/29/eliza...t-a-crime-to-give-out-fake-info-about-voting/
Why am I not surprised the right wing fox talking head is citing the right wing federalist columnist (lol, married to mollie hemingway)...
this article accuses the Democrats of being dumb (I paraphrase). Which automatically makes it disinformation (propaganda): "What About Amy Klobuchar? The Democrats would do well to nominate Klobuchar. Naturally, they won’t." https://arcdigital.media/what-about-amy-klobuchar-470c5a06831a excerpt: In our media ecosystem, which allows an electorally sufficient number of Americans to custom-create their newsfeeds so that they only ever hear from sources they agree with, it’s entirely possible that no amount of fact-checking could ever trouble the narrative, promoted by Trump and his breathless defenders, that he’s the real victim in all this. Plus, Trump will be tougher to deal with in the coming presidential debates than many Democrats expect. There is naive but persistent myth that smart candidates can “run circles around” more intellectually challenged candidates. She was a professor, so of course she’ll smoke Trump in the debates; if only we back this candidate with significant congressional experience, he’ll expose Trump’s lack of legislative knowledge; etc. But Trump shines in these moments because few Americans use an English teacher’s essay rubric as their scorecard; instead, Trump’s boisterous, swaggering, soundbite-or-nothing debate technique can easily overcome the most polished, policy-rich approach the other side might muster. For all the above reasons, the Democratic Party is under considerable pressure to get this right.
You've made your point - you are the master propagandist. I think you've also managed to get a lot of people to put you on ignore.
Nancy either doing the Lord's work or working overtime on the disinformation (propaganda). Need a ruling.
