[AlgoRhythms]

I need not remind the good people here that I'm not a Trump supporter.

But the questions I'm about to ask are above party and politics and are important no matter what side you're on.

Are you okay with these final Trump defense points?

Specifically these two:

1. Anything a President does to stay in power is, by definition, in the National Interest.

2. A President can't defy his foreign policy because he sets it.

I see these arguments as being extremely dangerous to our Country because it grants vastly more power that what I believe the Founding Fathers were ever willing to grant the Executive.

I am just as deeply disturbed if these arguments came from my guy and can NEVER support such a sweeping condition, no matter who proposes it. Even if it meant my guy were to suffer. I don't believe ANY President, EVER should have this power.

If these points are allowed to prevail, EVERY future president will use them. Your guy, my guy, or someone else that nobody here wants.

So I'm asking for opinions about these arguments, remembering that both sides will use them against us, one time or another.


Thanks for your input.

 

[SkyKid]

Precedent was already set in previous admins

 

[Ghost863]

I need not remind the good people here that I'm not a Trump supporter.

But the questions I'm about to ask are above party and politics and are important no matter what side you're on.

Are you okay with these final Trump defense points?

Specifically these two:

1. Anything a President does to stay in power is, by definition, in the National Interest.

2. A President can't defy his foreign policy because he sets it.

I see these arguments as being extremely dangerous to our Country because it grants vastly more power that what I believe the Founding Fathers were ever willing to grant the Executive.

I am just as deeply disturbed if these arguments came from my guy and can NEVER support such a sweeping condition, no matter who proposes it. Even if it meant my guy were to suffer. I don't believe ANY President, EVER should have this power.

If these points are allowed to prevail, EVERY future president will use them. Your guy, my guy, or someone else that nobody here wants.

So I'm asking for opinions about these arguments, remembering that both sides will use them against us, one time or another.


Thanks for your input.

You and I have butted heads in the past but here is one post that I have to agree with you on. It does not matter who the president is, if he is given too much power, well let's just say that is something that is unconstitutional. And I as well as many others have taken an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, not just the ones we don't like. I don't think they started with Trump, or even Barry (Obama) for that matter, but we as Americans need to put an end to it because as I told a friend of mine, The United States is not our government, it is we the people, and as soon as we let those in power know who yields the most power, then maybe we can start making some headway to reforming our beloved country.

 

[saln]

This is war, all bets are off, all tactics are on the table. One should make note of the dimocraps methods...

 

[Hick Industries]

I need not remind the good people here that I'm not a Trump supporter.

But the questions I'm about to ask are above party and politics and are important no matter what side you're on.

Are you okay with these final Trump defense points?

Specifically these two:

1. Anything a President does to stay in power is, by definition, in the National Interest.

2. A President can't defy his foreign policy because he sets it.

I see these arguments as being extremely dangerous to our Country because it grants vastly more power that what I believe the Founding Fathers were ever willing to grant the Executive.

I am just as deeply disturbed if these arguments came from my guy and can NEVER support such a sweeping condition, no matter who proposes it. Even if it meant my guy were to suffer. I don't believe ANY President, EVER should have this power.

If these points are allowed to prevail, EVERY future president will use them. Your guy, my guy, or someone else that nobody here wants.

So I'm asking for opinions about these arguments, remembering that both sides will use them against us, one time or another.


Thanks for your input.

You are not accurately reporting what was said. The Democratic house managers did this repeatably, and this was noted by most viewers.

Hopefully these artical will be dismissed by the Senate because the President was not afforded Any Due Process during the house impeachment hearings. Such a process was just as unfair, and unconstitutional as the Red Flag laws we all worry about.

What was actually said was, any lawfull impeachment must be bipartison, and the accused must be given the rights of consoul, meaningfull cross examination, access to all relevant facts and testimony, and the right to call rebuttal whitnesses.

Further, the foreign policy of one President, and the advise of unelected burocrats can be changed by a later President. This is especially true when there is a change in party. Trump promised to get rid of the swamp, and Obamas foreign policy and his unelected burocrats are deffinitely part of that swamp.

Hope you enjoy the next five years, because the 2020 election is going to be another RED LETTER DAY.

 

[PeterEnergy]

No on 1. Yes on 2. POTUS has always set foreign policy. It is a subset of C-in-C.

 

[AlgoRhythms]

You are not accurately reporting what was said. The Democratic house managers did this repeatably, and this was noted by most viewers.

Hopefully these artical will be dismissed by the Senate because the President was not afforded Any Due Process during the house impeachment hearings. Such a process was just as unfair, and unconstitutional as the Red Flag laws we all worry about.

What was actually said was, any lawfull impeachment must be bipartison, and the accused must be given the rights of consoul, meaningfull cross examination, access to all relevant facts and testimony, and the right to call rebuttal whitnesses.

Further, the foreign policy of one President, and the advise of unelected burocrats can be changed by a later President. This is especially true when there is a change in party. Trump promised to get rid of the swamp, and Obamas foreign policy and his unelected burocrats are deffinitely part of that swamp.

There's too much to untangle here so I'm gonna let most of it go because it isn't relevant to the question I originally asked. This is a conversation about presidential power becoming too excessive, NOT a discussion about our present President.

Here's what Dershowitz actually said:

“If the president does something that he thinks will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

My reading of this quote is as follows:

"will help him get elected" is a PERSONAL goal and "in the public interest" is directly and grammatically linked with this personal goal.

In other words, what's PERSONALLY good for a president, ANY president, is by nature good for everyone.

This opinion, in my view, grants too much power to the President.

Hope you enjoy the next five years, because the 2020 election is going to be another RED LETTER DAY.

I accepted the results of the 2016 election the day they happened.
And I'll accept the 2020 results as well, no matter how they play out.
Will you?

 

[pinkerpv]

The Constitution sates that the president sets foreign policy. so number 2 is a mute point.

What Dershowitz was saying had to do with the supposed "quid pro quo concerning the Biden investigation. He was speaking about a situation where the president had an opportunity to do something that was good for the country and just so happened to be good for the president would be OK.

Specific case in point. The President has a responsibility to investigate corruption in the US and other places if it involves the US. And just because the object of that investigation happens to be running for president doesn't provide immunity for him.

You have twisted the words to mean something they do not mean.

Anything a President does to stay in power is, by definition, in the National Interest.

Pretty bad misquote. Not at all what he meant or said.

 

[FalconsBravesHawks]

You and I have butted heads in the past but here is one post that I have to agree with you on. It does not matter who the president is, if he is given too much power, well let's just say that is something that is unconstitutional. And I as well as many others have taken an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, not just the ones we don't like. I don't think they started with Trump, or even Barry (Obama) for that matter, but we as Americans need to put an end to it because as I told a friend of mine, The United States is not our government, it is we the people, and as soon as we let those in power know who yields the most power, then maybe we can start making some headway to reforming our beloved country.

yeah, I heard on Eric Erickson that was one of the stupidest arguments they have heard from a Trump Lawyer, and that it left a lot of folks on both sides scratching their head why he said that. It was definitely not well thought out and a big foot in mouth for the lawyer. That was a stupid comment for sure.

 

[AlgoRhythms]

The Constitution sates that the president sets foreign policy. so number 2 is a mute point.

Actually, it doesn't. It compels both congress and the executive branch to work together to set foreign policy. Read Federalist #69 for more insight here.

What Dershowitz was saying had to do with the supposed "quid pro quo concerning the Biden investigation. He was speaking about a situation where the president had an opportunity to do something that was good for the country and just so happened to be good for the president would be OK.

Specific case in point. The President has a responsibility to investigate corruption in the US and other places if it involves the US. And just because the object of that investigation happens to be running for president doesn't provide immunity for him.

You have twisted the words to mean something they do not mean. Pretty bad misquote. Not at all what he meant or said.

Nice theory but the facts of the case don't support it.

So what, exactly was the President doing in Ukraine that "was for the good of the country"?


There is no mandate that a president is obliged to investigate corruption anywhere and certainly not in a foreign country. Its absurd to imagine the President to be concerned with corruption in the Ukraine. He was interested in obtaining dirt he could find on Hunter Biden, who is not running for office, while Joe was surging in the polls at that time. And he withheld congress approved funding to the Ukraine in order to get it. These are facts that nobody disputes. That info, if it even exists, does nothing "for the good of the country" but does a lot for the Trump reelection.

Now, whether this activity a crime or not is what is being questioned in congress now.

 

[Grotius]

Candidly, I am far more concerned regarding the long-range impacts of the House of Representatives determining the President needs to be removed, then looking for some reason to overthrow the people's vote - because the majority of the House disagrees with the outcome of the election.

States exist in an international environment of Anarchy. Like domestic politics, foreign relations have involved making deals with other countries since the Continental Congress requested the aid of the French against the British. Clinton and Obama both made similar deals, both with regard to Israel and the Palestinians, as well as other foreign policy challenges both Administrations faced.

There was nothing at all in Trump's phonecall that rises to the level of Treason against the US. An investigation of Biden may in fact have been warranted, based on the videotape of Biden recounting how he withheld funding from Ukraine until Ukraine fired a Prosecutor; subsequent facts regarding his son's lucrative board position notwithstanding.

If precedent is being set here, it is a precedent wherein the House may Impeach any future President it chooses, based on a visceral hatred of the outcome of any election. There need not be any "high crimes or misdemeanors", merely a majority who dislike the President. Charges can be fabricated, no particular crimes need be proven, and the outcome of elections can thereby be overturned.



This is a precedent I find far more disturbing than any defense presented by Trump.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[cujet]

1. Anything a President does to stay in power is, by definition, in the National Interest.

2. A President can't defy his foreign policy because he sets it.

I really don't want to be nasty to you, as many of your posts are reasonable. However, #1 above is utter nonsense and is typical of a leftist's distorted view. It's not what was said, and it's not what was meant. Stay away from what CNN (or FOX) and NPR tell you, and think about the words chosen again, carefully. If you come to the same conclusion as before, you have left brain problems.

#1 is called a "political platform" and a candidate's positions may in fact equal votes. What is sometimes surprising is that a candidate follows through on promises.

#2 is nearly meaningless in this situation and is not a point worthy of much time. A president need not negotiate with foreign countries "as directed" by others.

He was interested in obtaining dirt he could find on Hunter Biden,

Again, a distorted statement on your part. Investigating high level corruption is hardly "obtaining dirt".

Let's say that's so. THAT'S HIS JOB!!!! The Executive Branch of government is law enforcement and investigating high level corruption is a task that rises all the way to the top.

 

[AlgoRhythms]

I really don't want to be nasty to you, as many of your posts are reasonable. However, #1 above is utter nonsense and is typical of a leftist's distorted view. It's not what was said, and it's not what was meant. Stay away from what CNN (or FOX) and NPR tell you, and think about the words chosen again, carefully. If you come to the same conclusion as before, you have left brain problems.

So, just to be 100% clear, even though you're saying that wasn't Dershowitz meaning, you would agree that there is a clear distinction between a president's personal goals, especially with regards to being re-elected, and national interest. Not only for the present President but ANY president.

Are you okay with that, or is that also a leftist position?

 

[Dixie_Dude]

The Obama administration based on what Biden said, withheld funds to the Ukraine. So that was what was illegal. Nothing Trump did was illegal. Talking and doing are two different things. Trump saying he should with hold funds to Ukraine but DIDN'T. Nothing to warrant impeachment. One of the Dem's said 2 weeks after he was elected, before he took office, that they would have to impeach him. Pre-meditated Coup in my opinion. Trump may be brash and say a lot of stuff, but he is the only president in my lifetime who has actually tried to do what he said he would do. I think even more so than Reagan. I was born in 1953. Dems are not the Dems of my ancesters. They have gone to far left. They are like communists and I do not want that period. Republicans aren't perfect, but far better than Democrats.

 

[AlgoRhythms]

Nothing Trump did was illegal. Talking and doing are two different things. Trump saying he should with hold funds to Ukraine but DIDN'T.

Unfortunately, the facts don't support this notion. And neither side disputes it.

The question isn't did he or didn't he. The question is whether it was legal for him to do so.

 

[Grotius]

I continue to be surprised that your dissatisfaction is focused on legal arguments made by Harvard Law School professors in Trump's defense, and NOT on the decidedly partisan, hasty, and incomplete (based on subsequent calls for witnesses they declined to call in the House) Impeachment process presided over by Nancy Pelosi.

Methinks thou dost protest too loudly.

 

[PeterEnergy]

I continue to be surprised that your dissatisfaction is focused on legal arguments made by Harvard Law School professors in Trump's defense, and NOT on the decidedly partisan, hasty, and incomplete (based on subsequent calls for witnesses they declined to call in the House) Impeachment process presided over by Nancy Pelosi.

Methinks thou dost protest too loudly.

AlgoRhythms always pretends to be a moderate as he advances the most heinous Leftist subversive ideas. In that way, he is like the propagandists in the media.

Let's give the partisan impeachment a pass. How come Trump can defend himself against completely invalid accusations? Slander and guilt by accusation are the order of the day. It's not AlgoRhythms fault that Trump is failing to meet standards he is not meant to pass.

Oh and whatever I say is the epitomy of reasonable and prudent and whatever criticism you give bounces off of me and sticks to you like glue.

 

[Hick Industries]

After looking up several other threads and comments by the OP, I now believe.
AR = AOC

 

[AlgoRhythms]

AlgoRhythms always pretends to be a moderate as he advances the most heinous Leftist subversive ideas. In that way, he is like the propagandists in the media.

Let's give the partisan impeachment a pass. How come Trump can defend himself against completely invalid accusations? Slander and guilt by accusation are the order of the day. It's not AlgoRhythms fault that Trump is failing to meet standards he is not meant to pass.

Oh and whatever I say is the epitomy of reasonable and prudent and whatever criticism you give bounces off of me and sticks to you like glue.

Predictable response, Peter.

From Wikipedia:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

But you already know that, don't you?

 

[cujet]

So, just to be 100% clear, even though you're saying that wasn't Dershowitz meaning, you would agree that there is a clear distinction between a president's personal goals, especially with regards to being re-elected, and national interest. Not only for the present President but ANY president.

Are you okay with that, or is that also a leftist position?

.

The "so what you are saying" , "you would agree" trap again. It's the strawman/leading question/logical fallacy debate tactic of the uninformed.

Husband: "honey, you look nice today"
Wife: "so what you are saying is, I looked like crap yesterday" (stomps off in anger)


If you want to have a discussion where facts, and not opinions, matter, I'm happy to engage in such. If you insist on leading questions and injecting opinions or leftist talking points, I'm not interested.

Alan Dershowitz does not like President Trump. Yet he had the guts and the ability to think through (and research) the situation with clarity.

If you desire rational conversation, we can do so. We DO NOT have to agree. We do have to speak the same language and not distort meaning using the "so what you are saying is" method.