The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[BrickHorn 18427]

34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that many attorneys, and in particular criminal defense attorneys, spend such a great deal of time preparing zealous defense arguments for their client that they eventually become muted to the truth.  Their job is defense -- get the client acquitted.  Short of criminal behavior in the courtroom (perjury, etc.) I think they can and will do anything, particularly when their client is guilty of what is being alleged.  Deflect, deny, etc.  Over time, that becomes normalized.  It's like an offensive lineman being taught to hold.  Eventually, it becomes second nature and they're shocked when they get flagged for it.

tl;dr  Herpa Dersh

An effective lawyer will not make arguments that diminish his credibility.  But how far into the absurd one can push before losing credibility points depends on the competence and biases of the judge and jury.  In this case, Dersch doesn’t care about his credibility with anyone other than Trumpists, whether true believers or opportunists.  And those fuckers will swallow any bullshit as long as it favors Trump.  So Dersch is free to ignore history, precedent, logic, and decency.

[HenryJames 67137]

 

[texas08 1599]

Bill got a BJ with the interest of public in mind. He was stressed and needed to relax to make better decisions for the interest of public.

[TwiceHorn 32010]

59 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that many attorneys, and in particular criminal defense attorneys, spend such a great deal of time preparing zealous defense arguments for their client that they eventually become muted to the truth.  Their job is defense -- get the client acquitted.  Short of criminal behavior in the courtroom (perjury, etc.) I think they can and will do anything, particularly when their client is guilty of what is being alleged.  Deflect, deny, etc.  Over time, that becomes normalized.  It's like an offensive lineman being taught to hold.  Eventually, it becomes second nature and they're shocked when they get flagged for it.

tl;dr  Herpa Dersh

I think that's pretty accurate.

Brick is right that one's credibility as a lawyer is very important.  But, as he acknowledges, mostly in a forum where you intend to appear again, or where you know your arguments, and the credibility thereof, will follow you around, as in a narrow, insular field like patent litigation, or Supreme Court advocacy.

Criminal defense lawyers are less concerned about this than your average civil lawyer.  To a certain extent, judges expect it and are less likely to hold it against you. Dershowitz has strained his credibility and pissed people off left and right his whole career.  He's old, I don't think he gives a fuck anymore.

In the criminal defense clinic at UT, they asked "If the evidence shows an apple sitting on the ground under an apple tree and you are uncomfortable arguing that someone brought it from somewhere else and put it there, criminal defense is probably not for you."  I could do that for a semester.  Probably wouldn't want to do it for a career.

All that said, he is pushing it.  There is a legal argument that an official cannot obstruct justice by doing something he is legally empowered to do, even if his motive is corrupt; the corollary being that we can't constantly examine the motives of an official if the action on its face is lawful.  All of this being related to sovereign or official immunity.

That argument works a lot better on the Comey firing than this, which is not lawful on its face.  And, the whole argument gets circular at the margins.  Finally, it's an argument relating to criminal liability, where every inference should be indulged in favor of the accused.  This. Aint.  Criminal. Litigation.

Edited January 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Goredho 17633]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

Anything any candidate does to get elected is legal if they believe it's in the country's interest. 

Goddamn fucking insane.

 

There it is, out in the open for all to see.  The unveiling of American Apartheid.  This is why the GOP does not give a shit about public opinion polls.  They are only relevant in a democracy.

[NWBuck 8621]

30 minutes ago, texas08 said:

Bill got a BJ with the interest of public in mind. He was stressed and needed to relax to make better decisions for the interest of public.

You spelled "pubic" incorrectly, I believe.

[DDD Dad 14592]

SIAP

[Mdhorn 6153]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

SIAP

Is there only one word on each of those pages? 

[heso 2849]

6 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Is there only one word on each of those pages? 

I picture her dropping her papers on the way in and just quickly shoving them back into her binder then hoping she didn’t get called on to answer. 

[horn4life 3831]

I'm just trying to figure out what time the Obstruction of the truth will be complete by the corrupt and dishonest Republican Senators Friday?  

Then it's on to the tsunami of 2020, and Trump getting TV face time with Rudy in the Courts, and the loss of both their passports pending trial, then incarceration. Except the Attorney's won't be any more competent than the were for Trump the first go round.  Except this time evidence will be allowed and truth is always a very, very bad thing for Donald Trump.

The only question now is how fucked up will the usual GOP handoff be?

[wildcat09 29569]

 

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that's pretty accurate.

Brick is right that one's credibility as a lawyer is very important.  But, as he acknowledges, mostly in a forum where you intend to appear again, or where you know your arguments, and the credibility thereof, will follow you around, as in a narrow, insular field like patent litigation, or Supreme Court advocacy.

Criminal defense lawyers are less concerned about this than your average civil lawyer.  To a certain extent, judges expect it and are less likely to hold it against you. Dershowitz has strained his credibility and pissed people off left and right his whole career.  He's old, I don't think he gives a fuck anymore.

In the criminal defense clinic at UT, they asked "If the evidence shows an apple sitting on the ground under an apple tree and you are uncomfortable arguing that someone brought it from somewhere else and put it there, criminal defense is probably not for you."  I could do that for a semester.  Probably wouldn't want to do it for a career.

All that said, he is pushing it.  There is a legal argument that an official cannot obstruct justice by doing something he is legally empowered to do, even if his motive is corrupt; the corollary being that we can't constantly examine the motives of an official if the action on its face is lawful.  All of this being related to sovereign or official immunity.

That argument works a lot better on the Comey firing than this, which is not lawful on its face.  And, the whole argument gets circular at the margins.  Finally, it's an argument relating to criminal liability, where every inference should be indulged in favor of the accused.  This. Aint.  Criminal. Litigation.

Well, there's also the whole thing about Dersh having probably raped children and Trump having the evidence.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13712]

2 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

At least Dersh’s arguments are consistent with the facts. He’s not trying to gaslight us.   I think he’s arguing the president’s case the right way. 

I disagree. While we all don't have concrete proof, we all know the President attempted to extort Ukraine into helping Trump get re-elected. Everyone that has spoken under oath about the situation, all agree Trump did this. Even Mulvaney stupidly agreed to it, while not under oath.  This is 100% wrong to do this. Especially with tax payer dollars. It would be wrong to just ask for a political favor much less use American's money to do so.

The defense shouldn't be that the Dersh argument.  The defense should be that the President made a mistake but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment and definitely not removal.  BUT we have a President that will not allow his defense to say he was wrong.  Perfect call.

I dislike Trump but I think this is a legitimate argument. If it comes to removing a President, abuse of power is a grey area. There isn't a solid line where you cross into removal. It's an opinion where that line exists.

[DDD Dad 14592]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I disagree. While we all don't have concrete proof, we all know the President attempted to extort Ukraine into helping Trump get re-elected. Everyone that has spoken under oath about the situation, all agree Trump did this. Even Mulvaney stupidly agreed to it, while not under oath.  This is 100% wrong to do this. Especially with tax payer dollars. It would be wrong to just ask for a political favor much less use American's money to do so.

The defense shouldn't be that the Dersh argument.  The defense should be that the President made a mistake but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment and definitely not removal.  BUT we have a President that will not allow his defense to say he was wrong.  Perfect call.

I dislike Trump but I think this is a legitimate argument. If it comes to removing a President, abuse of power is a grey area. There isn't a solid line where you cross into removal. It's an opinion where that line exists.

Clinton should have been removed for witness tampering and perjury, not the blowjobs (although what he did was sexual harassment and would have gotten him fired from any private sector job, especially today).  Trump should likewise be removed.  This really isn't that hard (i.e., the line is pretty clear to me) if you take off your partisan hats.

Edited January 30, 2020 by DDD Dad

[Jive Turkey 12931]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that many attorneys, and in particular criminal defense attorneys, spend such a great deal of time preparing zealous defense arguments for their client that they eventually become muted to the truth.  Their job is defense -- get the client acquitted.  Short of criminal behavior in the courtroom (perjury, etc.) I think they can and will do anything, particularly when their client is guilty of what is being alleged.  Deflect, deny, etc.  Over time, that becomes normalized.  It's like an offensive lineman being taught to hold.  Eventually, it becomes second nature and they're shocked when they get flagged for it.

tl;dr  Herpa Dersh

Yep. Keep coming up theories that push the boundaries, and then the next thing you know, somebody actually  buys your “affluenza” defense and slaps the wrist of a client who killed 4 people while driving drunk on a restricted license. 

And the cycle continues with even more brazen defenses. 

[Chuckie Finster 22994]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Dershowitz is just trying to stay out of prison for being a kiddie diddler.  He has a special place in hell.

Us Jews don't believe in hell, but I think I'll make an exception for this guy.

[Cairn Horn88 8500]

38 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Is there only one word on each of those pages? 

She is obviously being paid by the page.

[TwiceHorn 32010]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 If it comes to removing a President, abuse of power is a grey area. There isn't a solid line where you cross into removal. It's an opinion where that line exists.

Yep.  It doesn't lend itself to some statutory description that has to be constitutionally precise.  It's really a "perfect" ground for impeachment:  we know it when we see it.

What's ironical about the whole thing is:  if you had an abuse of power criminal statute (there are analogous things for lower officials), it would probably need to take into account the peculiarities of the office of President, yet under current doctrine, the President could not be prosecuted for it.  So why would Congress, even as insane as it is, draw up a statute that could never be used?

[DDD Dad 14592]

4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Us Jews don't believe in hell, but I think I'll make an exception for this guy.

We (1/2, but shalom).

[TwiceHorn 32010]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Clinton should have been removed for witness tampering and perjury, not the blowjobs (although what he did was sexual harassment and would have gotten him fired from any private sector job, especially today).  Trump should likewise be removed.  This really isn't that hard (i.e., the line is pretty clear to me) if you take off your partisan hats.

Years back. I read a summary of Richard Posner's "defense" of Clinton, which took the position that he never should have been impeached or investigated for his personal behavior.  I don't remember all the deets now, but it was fairly persuasive and bore a more than passing resemblance to the shit we're seeing now.  I recognize that the impeachment offenses are quite different here, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was being used as a roadmap here.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674003918/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i3

[Chuckie Finster 22994]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

We (1/2, but shalom).

Dersh has broken my brain.

[DDD Dad 14592]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Years back. I read a summary of Richard Posner's "defense" of Clinton, which took the position that he never should have been impeached or investigated for his personal behavior.  I don't remember all the deets now, but it was fairly persuasive and bore a more than passing resemblance to the shit we're seeing now.  I recognize that the impeachment offenses are quite different here, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was being used as a roadmap here.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674003918/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i3

It drives me crazy to see the defense of "because the investigation shouldn't have been done in the first place it absolves me of any wrongdoing that might be uncovered or that I might undertake to avoid consequences".  One does not follow from the other.  If the investigation had questionable grounds, then that should be addressed separately.  It does not absolve the wrongdoing (in this case witness tampering and perjury).  The Democrats and Clinton treated it as a King's X to avoid responsibility for conduct that was incompatible with the highest executive office in the country.  The Democrats likewise set the wheels in motion for what has now become an even more ridiculous position being proposed by the Republicans.

The normalization of all of this reveals the death spiral of our republic.  

[HenryJames 67137]

 

[Player 4606]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

All that said, he is pushing it.  There is a legal argument that an official cannot obstruct justice by doing something he is legally empowered to do, even if his motive is corrupt; the corollary being that we can't constantly examine the motives of an official if the action on its face is lawful.  All of this being related to sovereign or official immunity.

That argument works a lot better on the Comey firing than this, which is not lawful on its face.  And, the whole argument gets circular at the margins.  Finally, it's an argument relating to criminal liability, where every inference should be indulged in favor of the accused.  This. Aint.  Criminal. Litigation.

Good post. Dersh basically seems to be bastardizing the business judgment rule, and arguing that everything the president does is presumed to be in good faith and in the best interest of the country. 

[TwiceHorn 32010]

2 minutes ago, Player said:

Good post. Dersh basically seems to be bastardizing the business judgment rule, and arguing that everything the president does is presumed to be in good faith and in the best interest of the country. 

Good analogy.

[TwiceHorn 32010]

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

It drives me crazy to see the defense of "because the investigation shouldn't have been done in the first place it absolves me of any wrongdoing that might be uncovered or that I might undertake to avoid consequences".  One does not follow from the other.  If the investigation had questionable grounds, then that should be addressed separately.  It does not absolve the wrongdoing (in this case witness tampering and perjury).  The Democrats and Clinton treated it as a King's X to avoid responsibility for conduct that was incompatible with the highest executive office in the country.  The Democrats likewise set the wheels in motion for what has now become an even more ridiculous position being proposed by the Republicans.

The normalization of all of this reveals the death spiral of our republic.  

In a macro sense, I think you are surely correct.  Posner had some kind of response to this argument, but I disremember it.

[henrygandorf 29223]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep.  It doesn't lend itself to some statutory description that has to be constitutionally precise.  It's really a "perfect" ground for impeachment:  we know it when we see it.

What's ironical about the whole thing is:  if you had an abuse of power criminal statute (there are analogous things for lower officials), it would probably need to take into account the peculiarities of the office of President, yet under current doctrine, the President could not be prosecuted for it.  So why would Congress, even as insane as it is, draw up a statute that could never be used?

the system, as it stands, came into focus during the mueller report days (ahh, that takes me back).  it was back then when we learned that sure, the president probably broke some "laws" in the traditional sense, but the olc opinion was that the president is not necessarily governed by the same set of laws, but instead, would be subject to the impeachment process by the house (and subsequent trial by the senate).  they essentially stated that the president cannot be indicted or charged with a crime.

and now that we're in the impeachment phase, we're learning that the president also can basically not be impeached unless there is clear evidence and possibly already an investigation into...wait for it...an actual crime that he has been charged for.  catch 22, circular logic, however you wanna call it - that's where we are.

part of me thinks this was a genius plan hatched 10+ months ago during the mueller days.  the salad days.  but nope, they're completely off-script now, and just throwing shit against the wall.  the problem is that most of it is actually sticking.

[jimmyjazz 46996]

18 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

It drives me crazy to see the defense of "because the investigation shouldn't have been done in the first place it absolves me of any wrongdoing that might be uncovered or that I might undertake to avoid consequences".  One does not follow from the other.  If the investigation had questionable grounds, then that should be addressed separately.  It does not absolve the wrongdoing (in this case witness tampering and perjury). 

<rabble rabble> Carter Page FISA <rabble rabble>

@Anastasis

[hayden_horn 11402]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the system, as it stands, came into focus during the mueller report days (ahh, that takes me back).  it was back then when we learned that sure, the president probably broke some "laws" in the traditional sense, but the olc opinion was that the president is not necessarily governed by the same set of laws, but instead, would be subject to the impeachment process by the house (and subsequent trial by the senate).  they essentially stated that the president cannot be indicted or charged with a crime.

and now that we're in the impeachment phase, we're learning that the president also can basically not be impeached unless there is clear evidence and possibly already an investigation into...wait for it...an actual crime that he has been charged for.  catch 22, circular logic, however you wanna call it - that's where we are.

part of me thinks this was a genius plan hatched 10+ months ago during the mueller days.  the salad days.  but nope, they're completely off-script now, and just throwing shit against the wall.  the problem is that most of it is actually sticking.

Quote

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

damn right. they've managed to basically arrange a perfectly elegant circular argument. 

[Brisketexan 106692]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

An effective lawyer will not make arguments that diminish his credibility.  But how far into the absurd one can push before losing credibility points depends on the competence and biases of the judge and jury.  In this case, Dersch doesn’t care about his credibility with anyone other than Trumpists, whether true believers or opportunists.  And those fuckers will swallow any bullshit as long as it favors Trump.  So Dersch is free to ignore history, precedent, logic, and decency.

Addressed above by a coupla folks but yeah, it depends on the venue, and even the nature of the proceedings and the attorney.  For what I do (not criminal stuff), where I am regularly in front of the same courts....perhaps my greatest asset is my credibility.  I've made some arguments that required me to stretch, but never one that went so far as to impair my credibility with the court.  Dersch doesn't GAF.

44 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Clinton should have been removed for witness tampering and perjury, not the blowjobs (although what he did was sexual harassment and would have gotten him fired from any private sector job, especially today).  Trump should likewise be removed.  This really isn't that hard (i.e., the line is pretty clear to me) if you take off your partisan hats.

Agreed.  I remember the Clinton saga well, and that was what pissed me off - the lying under oath.  That's actually a fundamental underpinning of our entire system of justice, and undermining it is 100% impeachable.  You can bone all the chubby interns you want, and you'll face whatever the repercussions might be, but when you lie about it under oath, you commit a crime and an impeachable offense (so, maybe the takeaway there is -- don't do shit that puts you in a position of having to testify, and have a strong motivation to lie when you do so).

Now, lies aren't even a thing anymore.  They are so normalized that they are now treated as truth, ho-hum.

The office of POTUS is the highest position of public trust in the land -- damned right we should apply high standards to it when it comes to unlawful behavior.

[Red Five 41618]

The president can't be indicted. That's what impeachment is for. Also, a president can't be impeached because reasons. So I guess we're done here?

[Homercles 10206]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

An effective lawyer will not make arguments that diminish his credibility.  But how far into the absurd one can push before losing credibility points depends on the competence and biases of the judge and jury.  In this case, Dersch doesn’t care about his credibility with anyone other than Trumpists, whether true believers or opportunists.  And those fuckers will swallow any bullshit as long as it favors Trump.  So Dersch is free to ignore history, precedent, logic, and decency.

[TwiceHorn 32010]

Just now, Red Five said:

The president can't be indicted. That's what impeachment is for. Also, a president can't be impeached because reasons. So I guess we're done here?

No the president cant be impeached because he can't be indicted!  Aren't you following along?

[clapclapclap 9000]

Dersh is a doofus, it's the Philbinator that's kicking your tails.

[henrygandorf 29223]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Now, lies aren't even a thing anymore.  They are so normalized that they are now treated as truth, ho-hum.

forget lies.  we're in the situation now where you're not even forced to lie (under oath).  turns out, when they ask you to come testify, you can just tell them to kick rocks.  and when they want people close to you to testify, you can tell them to pound sand.

no testimony = no perjury.  bing bang boom.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13712]

Trump has written the playbook on how not to get impeached and removed. Besides having a friendly Senate, refuse to let anyone testify. 

If I were a future administration I would even stop participating in Congressional Oversight committees even for regular business. you want to hear about my agency.  no.  Maybe I will send over a statement, report or an junior employee.  If I feel like it.

[hayden_horn 11402]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

forget lies.  we're in the situation now where you're not even forced to lie (under oath).  turns out, when they ask you to come testify, you can just tell them to kick rocks.  and when they want people close to you to testify, you can tell them to pound sand.

no testimony = no perjury.  bing bang boom.

it's the easiest way to avoid the perjury trap.

because you can be trapped into perjury by being asked to simply tell the truth. since these people are incapable of truthiness, they have to circumvent testimony, because in their natural collective oeuvre, they revert to the lies. they cannot help it.

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Loving that new Catherine O Hara character!

[HenryJames 67137]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34086]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Trending on Twitter #Dershowitzlogic .

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34086]

that's the best example you could find?

Edited January 30, 2020 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Anastasis 23706]

50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

<rabble rabble> Carter Page FISA <rabble rabble>

@Anastasis

I've never made any such arguments, but I understand that you don't really grasp that. 

[henrygandorf 29223]

11 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

that's the best example you could find?

agreed.  i'm lazy and want to be entertained, so can you please post more (this is for everyone except me).

[heso 2849]

Wanted to see what my R senator was saying to hedge his bet on how the next 2 years will play out.

[jimmyjazz 46996]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I've never made any such arguments, but I understand that you don't really grasp that. 

What I understand is that you don't really grasp the fact that I wasn't being literal.

[Gil Bang 26190]

Rand Paul is such a cock

[Anastasis 23706]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What I understand is that you don't really grasp the fact that I wasn't being literal.

What I understand is that you were being intellectually dishonest. 

[jimmyjazz 46996]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What I understand is that you were being intellectually dishonest. 

OK, cool.  Hook'em.

[Gil Bang 26190]

This is Doug Jones, correct?

[Doc Sam Beckett 5854]

This is our concern, Neal