MovieChat Forums > Politics > Dershowitz rips CNN for lying about his ...

Dershowitz rips CNN for lying about his argument. Some Dems on this board are still repeating the silly BS too.

posted 5 years ago by krl97a (5619)
7 replies | jump to latest

It's clear to any honest person who watched Dershowitz's presentation that he was refuting the absurd notion of divined (guessed) motive as a basis for impeaching a President, as opposed to criminal actions. He did argue that actual crimes, either technical statue violations or their equivalent, are required to remove a President. His argument was so compelling that the only response Democrats, including Fake News CNN, had was to lie and erect lame straw men.

"I never said, never suggested and it was a total distortion, not misunderstanding, distortion of my point that I want- I think a president can do anything if he thinks his election is in the national interest. I never said it, it's nonsense, and your network should never have said that I said it repeatedly," Dershowitz told Blitzer.

"Well, we were only playing clips of what you said on the floor," Blitzer replied.

"Yeah, you played a clip that you selected, not the context," Dershowitz shot back."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-cnn-trump-impeachment

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

Dershowitz tried to argue that a) When dual motives in any Presidential act occur the presence of a possible benign motive SHOULD always absolve that President of the consequences of the NEGATIVE motive attached to that act. That principle of jurisprudence is NOT present in ANY court in the Western world. The fact that the robber intended ALL his robbery gains to help the needy wasn't acceptable EVEN in Robin Hood's day. While Robin Hood's crimes may have been morally laudable, they were still CRIMES!!!!!

That is what he said and what he is being criticized for. The implications of allowing a dual motive to absolve ANY wrongdoing is so clear I don't feel I need to explain here. Indeed, in the case of the President the case should be even more apparent because he has sworn PRIMARILY "to faithfully uphold the laws of the state". This is why in Plato's Republic, the Philosopher King is the ruler: a person with no money; no family; no material things etc because ONLY then can he fully devote his DECISIONS to the well being of the state. This is the foundation of Western Governmental thinking.

What Dershowitz suggests runs so contrary to common sense it is laughable. This is NOT about listening to FOX or CNN. Ask yourself this: a the guy kills your wife in a robbery attempt should go free because he wanted to give the money to a church or hospital or the state?

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Your first paragraph illustrates his and my point. You're talking about crimes. Trump wasn't charged with any crimes. Dershowitz was showing the stupidity of impeaching a President over alleged motives. He never said a good motive should exonerate him from crimes. Quite the opposite.

You start from the false premise and it sent the rest of your post down the wrong path.

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

"Dershowitz tried to argue that a) When dual motives in any Presidential act occur the presence of a possible benign motive SHOULD always absolve that President of the consequences of the NEGATIVE motive attached to that act."

Yet the negative motive attached to the act is the only motive with an explanation. Trump's explanation of his motive has never been given to the American people. It's a big problem.

Throughout Trump's presidency we've run into the same problem. Either he is corrupt or he is incompetent. But because he's president, he's protected from both when he shouldn't be.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Seriously? The potential and given national interest motivation is combating corruption and enforcing the law. The Bidens don't have immunity from inquiries about their (actual) potential corruption because one of them decided to run for office. The President wasn't breaking any laws, he was doing his job.

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

I will remind you of your words in 12 month's time after a President Sanders is inaugurated. After he repeals ALL Trump executive actions and starts going after corporations, guns and 'right to life' demonstrators. If Dems keep the house of congress, you guys have just made it impossible for him to be checked! If Dems are able to dislodge McConnell and Co in the senate....watch out!

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

The difference being that Trump's action was constitutional while it sounds like you're suggesting Sanders would take unconstitutional actions. But as a radical leftist Sanders would do that anyway. Fortunately for America, there's a good chance you'll be disappointed and Trump will be reelected. I don't predict things like that but I'm hopeful.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14495) 5 years ago

"Welcome to the Six o 'Clock news, now it's time for us to tell you how to think."

Conservative reaction: *Makes a disgusted face and changes the channel.*

Liberal/Leftist reaction: Yes Master, free us from thought and responsibility; we're dumb.