Impeachment Standards: Dershowitz and Philbin

[Sam]

At this point, I'll allow Mr. Dershorwitz to speak for himself since we can't trust Sam to honestly speak for him:


This last remark may as well have been directed at Sam:

"Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...ation-n2560398

Read the OP, perhaps for the first time, and you will see that I accurately described Dershowitz's theory of mixed motive.

[Mountain Man]

Read the OP, perhaps for the first time, and you will see that I accurately described Dershowitz's theory of mixed motive.

At this point, I think it's best if we just quote them directly rather than taking your word for it.

[Sam]

At this point, I think it's best if we just quote them directly rather than taking your word for it.

You quoted Dershowitz directly, who validated my explanation of "mixed motive" in the OP. If you can't/won't contribute to the discussion in a useful way, you're asked to refrain from posting. If you want to contribute, do so in a manner that advances your point instead of proving mine.

--Sam

[Watermelon]

[Mountain Man]

You quoted Dershowitz directly, who validated my explanation of "mixed motive" in the OP.

And then you went on to stuff the words "stolen emails or false allegations" into his and Philbin's mouths, so you really don't have a lot of credibility here. The phrase "You made your bed; now sleep in it" comes to mind.

[Sam]

And then you went on to stuff the words "stolen emails or false allegations" into his and Philbin's mouths, so you really don't have a lot of credibility here. The phrase "You made your bed; now sleep in it" comes to mind.

I made it plain in my OP, and clarified further in subsequent posts, after describing Dershowitz's and Philbin's arguments, that their arguments applied to categories of information like stolen emails and disinformation. You have done nothing but falsely assert that I mischaracterized their arguments, each time without even trying to demonstrate where I did.

You are, to be plain and short, trolling incessantly. Please refrain from posting in this thread until you comply with my request and detail exactly how I mischaracterized either attorney in the OP. Do not respond with an assertion: demonstrate it or don't post.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

...their arguments applied to categories of information like stolen emails and disinformation.

Nope. And the reasoning is very simple: neither one of them referenced "stolen emails and disinformation". That's something you literally plucked out of thin air -- or pulled out of another unmentionable place -- and then deceptively presented as if it were an example they themselves had given.

Your exact words: "[T]he President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election." In fact, they didn't argue that at all.

As Mr. Dershowitz said, "Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack."

[NorrinRadd]

But don't things like "common law" provide necessary guidance for understanding the intent of the Framers in the language they either used or eschewed in writing the Constitution?

[Sam]

Nope. And the reasoning is very simple: neither one of them referenced "stolen emails and disinformation". That's something you literally plucked out of thin air -- or pulled out of another unmentionable place -- and then deceptively presented as if it were an example they themselves had given.

Your exact words: "[T]he President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election." In fact, they didn't argue that at all.

As Mr. Dershowitz said, "Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack."

This will be my last request for you to A) stop quoting snippets of posts and B) respond in detail to what I've written. I'm not kicking you out but you will hopefully be seen for the insufferable troll you are making yourself out to be here.

I have described Philbin's criteria: the thing being received has to be "mere information" and "credible". Both stolen emails and disinformation-believed-to-be-credible fit that criteria. And Dershowitz argues that if the President takes and uses those kind of things for "mixed motives", including the perceived national interest of his reelection, such use is not impeachable. Your job is to show that the application is incorrect -- that neither fit the criteria of being "mere information" and "credible".


You continue to refuse to even attempt that because you cannot. All that's left to do is troll.

--Sam

[Tassman]

As Dershowitz said elsewhere, a quid pro quo is only illegal if the "quo" itself is illegal. Since seeking reelection is not illegal, then a quid pro quo that might benefit a candidate's reelection chances is not illegal.

Which brings us right back to the point being made above, namely

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/o...ine/index.html

[Watermelon]

But don't things like "common law" provide necessary guidance for understanding the intent of the Framers in the language they either used or eschewed in writing the Constitution?

[Mountain Man]

Which brings us right back to the point being made above, namely

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/o...ine/index.html

You're just going to pretend I didn't already kick this nonsense to the curb, aren't you? To save time, I'll just quote my earlier post:

False, Dershorwitz never said "anything [a politician] does in pursuit of his re-election is legal". What he actually said:

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

Note the implication: there are other kinds of quid pro quos that should result in impeachment, but this is not one of them.

Seems Dersh made a solid argument if people are having to twist his words to answer it.

[Mountain Man]

You continue to refuse to even attempt that because you cannot.

Translation: "You refuse to answer a question based on my false premise. Therefore, I'm right."

[Sparko]

Your argument is that if Obama received information from a foreign source, he should send it to the FBI for investigation. That's not what happened -- Obama was not involved with any FBI decision to investigate the Trump campaign -- but you're arguing that if Obama received such information, that's what he should do instead of using that information -- not the results of a lawful investigation -- for campaign purposes.

seer is arguing that a candidate should do both -- send the info over to the FBI while [i]simultaneously[i] using that uninvestigated information for campaign purposes.

So you're arguing, in effect, that 1) what the Obama administration did in 2016 regarding Trump's purported Russian ties was appropriate and 2) that what Trump said he might do with such information (not turn it over to FBI) is inappropriate. I agree with that.

--Sam

And if Obama did start an investigation in this case, it would not have helped HIM be reelected, but it would help his political party, and someone who worked for him and he endorsed. So it would still benefit him personally. I don't think you feel that would be wrong though do you?

[Mountain Man]

Alan Dershowitz:

"[I]https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...peach-lincoln/

Of course to those like Sam who are afflicted with a virulent case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, they read the above and come to the absurd conclusion that Dershowitz is saying that "mixed motives" makes it okay for politicians to engage in illegal or criminal-like conduct, such as accepting illicitly procured emails, or acting on false allegations.