Create Account


Board Performance Issues We are aware of performance issues on the board and are working to resolve them! The board may be intermittently unavailable during this time. (May 07) x


The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
*** THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT THREAD ***

(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020, 10:46 AM by jj82284.)

(01-31-2020, 07:54 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 04:36 AM)jj82284 Wrote: ...  I must be going insane.  

Alan Dershowitz said, "If the president has mixed motives, on the one hand to act in the national interest (meaning that the underlying use of official office is in and of itself in the national interest) but there also exists personal political interest (It might make my election chances better) then that's not a corrupt intent or an abuse of power."  

""If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is of the public interest."

Dershowitz is saying we don't have to, and should not, try to decide for ourselves what's in the national interest to answer this question.  He's saying that all that matters is if the President believes it's in the national interest. This is already incorrect.  Senators can and should decide for themselves what the national interest is. That's bad enough.  Then Dersh adds that the President is allowed to think of his re-election as being in the national interest for the purposes of this question.

"The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal,"

Again, what is he saying?  The facial legality of the underlying act is determinative of corrupt intent.  Why?  Because political self interest and political subjectivity is universal!  

So in this case we'll say it again for the slow people.  Is there probable cause to suspect joe biden of acting in his personal financial and legal interest?  Yes!  Was that in an arena that rose to federal criminality?  Yes.  Does the president have the authority to direct properly predicated investigations?  Yes.  Does he have the constitutional, statutory, and treaty obligations to root out corruption in our relationship with Ukraine? Yes.  Does he have the authority to pause aid ultimately released before the end of the fiscal year without  special message to congress?  Yes.  

So you have completely lawful actions and pedication to investigate a us citizen.  As such, the fact that joe biden is running for president or that Trump is running for president isn't a corrupt intent.  It would be a corrupt intent if a.) It were plainly unlawful or b.) It benefited the president financially.  

In campaign finance law this is why they dont define "thing of value" to include things like damaging information on an opponent, official actions that may be favorable to a campaign etc. Etc. Because all politicians undertake their LEGAL OFFICIAL DUTIES with the interest of getting elected.  The foundation of a democratic society is the synthesis between the interest of the official to be re-elected and thus the accountability to voters who have an interest in good governance.  

If u want to impeach the next president because their immigration plan polled well then were going to be here for a while.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 12-28-2019, 01:59 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-16-2020, 08:21 AM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-21-2020, 04:06 PM
RE: homebiscuit - by mikesez - 01-21-2020, 04:18 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-22-2020, 01:29 PM
RE: homebiscuit - by StroudCrowd1 - 01-22-2020, 01:32 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-23-2020, 01:37 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-23-2020, 01:43 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-23-2020, 02:18 PM
RE: homebiscuit - by flsprtsgod - 01-23-2020, 03:42 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-24-2020, 12:58 PM
RE: *** THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT THREAD *** - by jj82284 - 01-31-2020, 10:03 AM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 01-30-2020, 02:47 PM
homebiscuit - by homebiscuit - 12-18-2019, 01:57 PM



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!