Impeachment Standards: Dershowitz and Philbin

[Sam]

I told you, I will gladly answer the question in the OP if you can accurately present the defense team's argument.

I accurately portrayed both and even went back to check on Philbin's argument. If you think either are in error, feel free to cite them when making your argument.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

I accurately portrayed both and even went back to check on Philbin's argument.

False. Philbin said nothing about the president receiving "stolen emails or false allegations", so, no, you did not accurately present his argument. What he said is that if the president received credible information from a foreign source that someone running for public office was guilty of wrongdoing, then it is no violation of the law for the president to accept and act on that information. That was his argument, and, no, I don't think it's absurd.

[Sam]

False. Philbin said nothing about the president receiving "stolen emails or false allegations", so, no, you did not accurately present his argument. What he said is that if the president received credible information from a foreign source that someone running for public office was guilty of wrongdoing, then it is no violation of the law for the president to accept and act on that information. That was his argument, and, no, I don't think it's absurd.

As I've pointed out, Philbin's argument directly implies that "mere information", like stolen emails or false allegations, would be legal to receive if they are believed to be "credible" by the candidate. So, no, I did not mischaracterize him. Philbin's criteria are "mere information" and "credible"; that's it. Stolen emails and false allegations believed to be be true fit those criteria.

So how would you differentiate between Philbin's idea of Credible Mere Information and a tranche of emails, handed from a FSB agent to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and information illegally obtained from a foreign source?

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

As I've pointed out, Philbin's argument directly implies that "mere information", like stolen emails or false allegations...

He implied nothing of the sort, neither directly nor indirectly.

[Sam]

He implied nothing of the sort, neither directly nor indirectly.

Then make the logical argument how stolen emails and false but believed allegations don't fit Philbin's criteria. Cite him, use his argument but do the work. Stop the lazy nay-saying.

--Sam

[Sparko]

That's not a question on the topic. The issue is whether a President can receive information from foreign sources and use that information for electoral purpose.

--Sam

What if the information is true? Such as a candidate is working as a Russian Agent. Shouldn't the President use that information to try to eliminate that candidate from running, whether or not it benefited him personally also? Or should he just let a Russian spy become President if they won the election?

[Sparko]

That is false Sam, that is exactly what the DNC did, they funded the Steele dossier that used foreign sources in Russian and Ukraine. And we should investigate it to bring it to light, whether it is illegal or not is another story. Never mind the fact that Adam Schiff was willing to use a foreign source (Russian) to get dirt on Trump. So get off your high horse - like I said politics is not bean bag...

Steele himself was a foreign agent.

[Sam]

What if the information is true? Such as a candidate is working as a Russian Agent. Shouldn't the President use that information to try to eliminate that candidate from running, whether or not it benefited him personally also? Or should he just let a Russian spy become President if they won the election?

What would be the appropriate course of action, in your mind, if a President receives such information? Run campaign ads on it or inform the FBI?

--Sam

[Sparko]

What would be the appropriate course of action, in your mind, if a President receives such information? Run campaign ads on it or inform the FBI?

--Sam

Start an investigation.

I don't recall Trump using this in any campaign ads, do you?

[seer]

What would be the appropriate course of action, in your mind, if a President receives such information? Run campaign ads on it or inform the FBI?

--Sam

Both...

[Sam]

Start an investigation.

I don't recall Trump using this in any campaign ads, do you?

The question put to Philbin directly quoted Trump as justifying using such information for his election and rebuffing a reporter who asked if it would be necessary to give that information to the FBI, saying "Give me a break". Philbin's answer was not that such information must be handed over to the FBI but that a candidate could legally receive such information without it being a campaign violation, implying its use in the campaign.

--Sam

[Sam]

Both...

Your position, then, is that Obama should have started an investigation into Trump's connections to Russian mobsters as early as 2015 and used any information he received from foreign sources in that regard as campaign material?

I do not find this consistent with the last several years of your criticisms.

--Sam

[seer]

Your position, then, is that Obama should have started an investigation into Trump's connections to Russian mobsters as early as 2015 and used any information he received from foreign sources in that regard as campaign material?

I do not find this consistent with the last several years of your criticisms.

--Sam

Sam, Sparko's example suggested that the person was a Russian agent. If that was credible it should be used - there was no such evidence suggesting that Trump was a Russian agent. And I'm sure Trump dealt with mobsters in NY, that is how business is done - I know from experience. Same same with Russia.

[Mountain Man]

Then make the logical argument how stolen emails and false but believed allegations don't fit Philbin's criteria. Cite him, use his argument but do the work. Stop the lazy nay-saying.

--Sam

You want me to cite what he didn't say?

[Sam]

Sam, Sparko's example suggested that the person was a Russian agent. If that was credible it should be used - there was no such evidence suggesting that Trump was a Russian agent. And I'm sure Trump dealt with mobsters in NY, that is how business is done - I know from experience. Same same with Russia.

Plenty of people were saying Trump was a Russian agent and your position (now) is that if Obama believed that to be credible information, he not only legally could be should use information gleaned from foreign sources to propagate that charge through a campaign.

You've argued vociferously for the opposite principle in the past, complaining that what you allege Obama did -- directly or indirectly siccing the FBI on Trump in 2016 -- was highly inappropriate, if not illegal.

--Sam