Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

No crime needed for impeachment

Posted on: January 20, 2020 at 13:26:33 CT
raskolnikov MU
Posts:
187641
Member For:
24.65 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Well, at leat that is what Alan Dersho USED to say before Trump.

In August 1998, during the summer leading up to then-President Bill Cinton's impeachment, Dershowitz argued that a president does not have to commit a "technical crime" in order for it to constitute impeachable conduct.
"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," Dershowitz told "Larry King Live."

CNN come
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

No crime needed for impeachment - raskolnikov MU - 1/20 13:26:33
     “There is no inconsistency between what I said during the - Spanky KU - 1/20 14:46:42
          He was also making the argument that no President - Sal MU - 1/20 14:48:17
     Glad you are devastated(nm) - DollarSigns MU - 1/20 14:13:23
     I don't think you have the argument correct - Sal MU - 1/20 14:07:12
     It's a terrible argument... - Gyro MU - 1/20 14:00:37
          Use of US resources for re-elect effort? Come on now(nm) - raskolnikov MU - 1/20 14:04:03
               this just in: asking an elected official to look into - blake1771 MU - 1/20 14:27:15
                    You're not too bright, I get that - raskolnikov MU - 1/20 14:35:54
                         you're not too bright...the OLC has already ruled NOT - blake1771 MU - 1/20 21:38:58
                         Who cleared the Bidens of wrongdoing? (nm) - Sal MU - 1/20 14:46:03
               prove it!!!(nm) - tigerinhogtown STL - 1/20 14:04:59
                    Mountains of evidence - raskolnikov MU - 1/20 14:06:55
                         you and gray beaver share the gift telling lies(nm) - DollarSigns MU - 1/20 14:23:23
                         If that was true, the House wouldn't want the Senate - Sal MU - 1/20 14:10:47
                              More evidence has become available and if one were honest - raskolnikov MU - 1/20 14:27:22
                                   why you worried abuot a fair trial now?(nm) - tigerinhogtown STL - 1/20 15:19:20
                                   No evidence to prove the case you're - Sal MU - 1/20 14:46:39
                                   what evidence is that? an individual under indictment for - blake1771 MU - 1/20 14:29:13
                                        Bolton, McCabe, Parvas, now.(nm) - raskolnikov MU - 1/20 14:36:44
                                             that was all available then, they didn't ask them to testify - tigerinhogtown STL - 1/20 15:23:26
                                             Bolton won't provide anything his aid didn't testify to - Sal MU - 1/20 14:47:35
                         it's conjecture and innuendo, all shades of gray - tigerinhogtown STL - 1/20 14:10:37
     nothing wrong with that statement(nm) - tigerinhogtown STL - 1/20 13:57:19
     Back when fat Jerry said you had to have bi-partisan - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 1/20 13:31:56
     Because Clinton got a BJ from an intern in the Oval Office - Tigrrrr! MU - 1/20 13:28:52
          He lied about it - raskolnikov MU - 1/20 14:05:43
          except he was impeached for perjury(nm) - tigerinhogtown STL - 1/20 13:58:09
               Yes. But if he hadn't been such a horndog chasing poon - Tigrrrr! MU - 1/20 14:15:47
          RE: Because Clinton got a BJ from an intern in the Oval Office - MOCO SON MU - 1/20 13:54:12
               He is a member of the bar - JayHoaxH8r MU - 1/20 14:00:31




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard