Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greebo

Greebo

Greebo

Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,690
Location
Co Durham
plasmahal said:
He's a politician...... :D:D:D

It was you guys stating this in the SC thread a while back. I'm guessing the next trope will be 'It's a cover up!!!' via the CNN/MSNBC script.
Click to expand...

We only stated it cause your illustrious great leader said he was going to do it and then pass it down to his daughter so she would have 12 years or more as Empress. Thats why it got discussed.
 

plasmahal

plasmahal

plasmahal

Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2006
Posts
5,170
Greebo said:
We only stated it cause your illustrious great leader said he was going to do it and then pass it down to his daughter so she would have 12 years or more as Empress. Thats why it got discussed.
Click to expand...

Welcome to fantasy island where nutters literally make things up. :p:p:p:p

If you can link to where trump said 'he was going to do it and then pass it down to his daughter so she would have 12 years or more as Empress', please, please do that.
 

deuse

deuse

deuse

Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Posts
24,529
Location
Solihull-Florida
chroniclard said:
So this lawyer, presumably paid by Trump, says its not impeachable? Righto.
Click to expand...


He is giving the money(if any) away.
If you would have read CNN link you would know this.

He does not stand up for trump. He is not part of trumps legal team. He does not ever take sides.
He was asked to speak about law. He is a Democrat and voted Democrat most of his life.

And he talked in the clinton case. He is a Harvard Law School Professor not a lawyer.
 

doodah

doodah

doodah

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,092
Location
London
robfosters said:
So basically you’ll just discount and ignore everything he says because he’s defending Trump.

This isn’t justice, it’s a witch hunt.
Click to expand...

Clinton had 'four articles of impeachment against him for perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power', two of which went to the Senate (perjury and obstruction). He himself said a president does not need to commit a crime to be impeached and now all of a sudden impeachment is only justifiable in his newly defined very specific circumstances, and in the last 5 seconds. What a surprise!
  • He represented OJ, he represented Epstein and was part of his plea deal. Go figure.
  • He cites another law professor who made quick work of the holes in his argument.
  • He himself has admitted to the Senate his 'view' is in the minority.
  • He's been selective with his quoting from legal sources, a tactic pointed quickly pointed out.
  • Nixon was going to be impeached with abuse of power as was Clinton initially so for Dershowitz to now claim it can't be done under US law is completely misleading.
  • And he somehow claims presidents are done for abuse of power too much despite neither been convicted of it and only 3 presidents been charged with it in well over 100 years.
  • He argued the framers stated 'the sole criteria for impeachment' - this is not stated.
  • He also stated that 'he's not implying that the Senate is not "legally bound" to the arguments that impeachment requires a crime' - if they aren't legally bound, then a criminal act isn't required? He's contradicting himself.
  • He claimed that the inclusion of "other high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't include "abuse of power (Framers) - yet has provided no historical evidence to show they specifically meant to exclude abuse of power.
  • Another argument for how a president can be impeached without a crime is only for mental or physical incapacity - no evidence.
  • His get out clause for his complete 180 between Clinton and Trump - he hadn't "researched" impeachment thoroughly enough when he spoke about the Clinton impeachment. Really encouraging!
  • "Nothing in the Bolton revelations would rise to the level of abuse of power" - except that extorting a foreign government on the basis to have said foreign government to interfere in an upcoming election that specifically benefits you is abuse of power.
So basically you’ll just take his word and ignore everything everyone else/historical and legal precedent says because he’s defending Trump?

It sure sounds like projection from you.

deuse said:
He is giving the money(if any) away.

He is not part of trumps legal team. He is a Harvard Law School Professor not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
You sure he's not part of his team? And you sure he hasn't served as criminal appellate lawyer (though yes - he's a legal scholar by trade). Not sure how you can give money away that wasn't paid.
 
Last edited:

robfosters

robfosters

robfosters

Caporegime
Joined
1 Dec 2010
Posts
52,309
Location
Welling, London
I can’t be bothered any more tbh.

Plasma, I’d leave this thread for the sake of your own sanity tbh. Let them have their little tittle tattle discussions and back slapping exercises.

We can come back and gloat when it’s all over and Trump’s acquitted ;)
 

doodah

doodah

doodah

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,092
Location
London
Definitely didn't see that coming ;). That was what - one post relating to Dershowitz and you're out already? Good work Rob. We all know he's going to be acquitted.

Claiming that is like saying tomorrow will be Wednesday.
 

robfosters

robfosters

robfosters

Caporegime
Joined
1 Dec 2010
Posts
52,309
Location
Welling, London
doodah said:
Definitely didn't see that coming ;). That was what - one post relating to Dershowitz and you're out already? Good work Rob. We all know he's going to be acquitted.

Claiming that is like saying tomorrow will be Wednesday.
Click to expand...
I just have better things to do with my time than argue incessantly on a forum about something that doesn’t affect me in any way.

Doesn’t even matter tbh, we’re all gonna be dead by Christmas with the old Hong Kong Fluey anyway.
 

doodah

doodah

doodah

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,092
Location
London
robfosters said:
I just have better things to do with my time than argue incessantly on a forum about something that doesn’t affect me in any way.

Doesn’t even matter tbh, we’re all gonna be dead by Christmas with the old Hong Kong Fluey anyway.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but you have time to make baseless throw away claims, then simply dart for the nearest door when the slightest bit of scrutiny appears. It's just funny and ironic who is now doing the ignoring :p. The joys of the internet eh.
 

Greebo

Greebo

Greebo

Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,690
Location
Co Durham
plasmahal said:
Welcome to fantasy island where nutters literally make things up. :p:p:p:p

If you can link to where trump said 'he was going to do it and then pass it down to his daughter so she would have 12 years or more as Empress', please, please do that.
Click to expand...

Sigh, he has said it several times at rallies and press conferences but I am glad you see it for what it is - "a nutter making things up". Took you a while to come round and realise Trump was a nutter but you got there in the end,.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-jokes-about-running-for-third-term-in-2024/

https://theweek.com/articles/884059/trumps-3term-trolling

I cant be bothered to bring up the page after page of all the times he has said it at rallies. Go fill your boots if you seem to have missed speech after speech referring to a third term.

And here is an article about how Trump could do that.

https://www.ozy.com/news-and-politics/donald-dossier-how-trump-runs-for-a-third-term/249298/
 

deuse

deuse

deuse

Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Posts
24,529
Location
Solihull-Florida
chroniclard said:
Shame its not actually a proper criminal trial, then there might actually be some impartiality and fairness. Though this is the US and rife with corruption so maybe not..... #GOPCoverUp
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that there was a cover up in Clinton's case?
As Alan Dershowitz spoke in favour of clinton at his hearing ;)
 

doodah

doodah

doodah

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,092
Location
London
deuse said:
I will say it one more time.
If you watch and read the links given to you, you would know.
Click to expand...
You aren't reading my links either :p - it also states his denial he's part of his legal team. The WH unveiled he is part of his team, he is coordinating with the team - he's part of their legal defence/team or if you look at it another way - he might be considered a witness ;). He's simply doing this so he isn't scrutinised during the trial. He also admitted in that CNN video to been an appellate lawyer in the CNN video making his arguments to judges.
 

deuse

deuse

deuse

Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Posts
24,529
Location
Solihull-Florida
doodah said:
You aren't reading my links either :p - it also states his denial he's part of his legal team. The WH unveiled he is part of his team, he is coordinating with the team - he's part of their legal defence/team or if you look at it another way - he might be considered a witness ;). He's simply doing this so he isn't scrutinised during the trial. He also admitted in that CNN video to been an appellate lawyer in the CNN video making his arguments to judges.
Click to expand...


Oh I am reading them.

Well when they are not cnn and a likes.

Again. Alan Dershowitz done they same thing at the clinton trial. He stands at no side other then the Constitution of the USA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom