Totally agree. Certain posters are paid shills.

Research indicates that paid shills are compensated $0.03 per post.

bmks270 said:

---

Is it a coincidence that all of the Trump smear efforts originate in Ukraine?

---

What is a bit disturbing about it is that the initial meddling in an election was our meddling in the Ukraine election. In a real way, some of the downturn in relations from Russia traces from 2014 and that.

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

The Republican House A-Team, no doubt.

Now, if Jordan. Ratcliffe, Stephanikl et.al. have crossX abilities, Dems will have to think twice about any live witnesses. Would be a disaster for them.

---

Those guys had some guts and did some really heavy lifting with what they were faced with. Republican Senators are gutless compared to the likes of Collins, Nunes, and Ratcliffe. I can't believe I am putting my faith in McConnell and Graham to do what is right and end this circus. Hopefully they found some nuggets in their pants(thanks to Trump).

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Totally agree. Certain posters are paid shills.

Research indicates that paid shills are compensated $0.03 per post.

---

Gary is not paid. He thinks he is right.

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

The Republican House A-Team, no doubt.

Now, if Jordan. Ratcliffe, Stephanikl et.al. have crossX abilities, Dems will have to think twice about any live witnesses. Would be a disaster for them.

---

They're just advisers to Trump's defense team.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Totally agree. Certain posters are paid shills.

Research indicates that paid shills are compensated $0.03 per post.

---

At 3 cents/post from these posters, somebody's getting screwed big time.

Prognightmare said:

---

---

Wow...that's pretty damning of the left...

Dershowitz says he didn't do the research then. He's "more correct" now, but wasn't wrong then, even though he won't say he was right back then.

He came across very poorly trying to explain this change of heart.

But really doesn't matter. Dershowitz was correct in 98 and the evidence presented against Trump doesn't meet that standard. Really it's not even close.

Someone should estimate the total people hours and cost spent by all the investigations against Trump including defending Trump since mid 2015, Spygate, Mueller, Ukraine Etc. All of it is a bunch of nonsense. Basically, it's
turning out to be a useless economic stimulus package just like " Shovel Ready Projects "

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Huge if true.

Quote:

---

It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office... it doesn't have to be a technical crime.

---

- Alan Dershowitz 1998

---

"Huge if true".
OMG got him yet again!

LOL

More Biden scams revealed (Schweitzer book related, but for fun MF Barns discusses):


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1219580115581054982.html

Also Frank Biden and Ashley Biden stories in there.

Quote:

---

On Nov. 4, 2010, according to White House visitors' logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele Smith in the Office of the Vice President.

Less than three weeks later, HillStone announced that James Biden would be joining the firm as an executive vice president. James appeared to have little or no background in housing construction, but that did not seem to matter to HillStone.

So James Biden's expertise isn't in construction, it's in being Joe Biden's little brother. SInce Joining HillStone International, the company has expanded 400%.

Six months later HillStone gets a 1.5 billion dollar contract for housing in Iraq, the first of two. The contracts, each for a period of three years, have an estimated value to Hill of approximately $200 million and to HillStone of approximately $1.3 billion.

These two contracts nearly triple Hill's backlog, from less than $800 million to approximately $2.3
billion.

---

nortex97 said:

---

More Biden scams revealed (Schweitzer book related, but for fun MF Barns discusses):


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1219580115581054982.html

Also Frank Biden and Ashley Biden stories in there.

Quote:

---

On Nov. 4, 2010, according to White House visitors' logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele Smith in the Office of the Vice President.

Less than three weeks later, HillStone announced that James Biden would be joining the firm as an executive vice president. James appeared to have little or no background in housing construction, but that did not seem to matter to HillStone.

So James Biden's expertise isn't in construction, it's in being Joe Biden's little brother. SInce Joining HillStone International, the company has expanded 400%.

Six months later HillStone gets a 1.5 billion dollar contract for housing in Iraq, the first of two. The contracts, each for a period of three years, have an estimated value to Hill of approximately $200 million and to HillStone of approximately $1.3 billion.

These two contracts nearly triple Hill's backlog, from less than $800 million to approximately $2.3
billion.

---

---

My memory is a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall an entire season arc on Arrested Development that was eerily similar. Of course the title of the series aptly describes most dems.

NM

nortex97 said:

---

More Biden scams revealed (Schweitzer book related, but for fun MF Barns discusses):


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1219580115581054982.html

Also Frank Biden and Ashley Biden stories in there.

Quote:

---

On Nov. 4, 2010, according to White House visitors' logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele Smith in the Office of the Vice President.

Less than three weeks later, HillStone announced that James Biden would be joining the firm as an executive vice president. James appeared to have little or no background in housing construction, but that did not seem to matter to HillStone.

So James Biden's expertise isn't in construction, it's in being Joe Biden's little brother. SInce Joining HillStone International, the company has expanded 400%.

Six months later HillStone gets a 1.5 billion dollar contract for housing in Iraq, the first of two. The contracts, each for a period of three years, have an estimated value to Hill of approximately $200 million and to HillStone of approximately $1.3 billion.

These two contracts nearly triple Hill's backlog, from less than $800 million to approximately $2.3
billion.

---

---

Also from the article:

Quote:

---

Biden remained with Hill International until December 2016, but between 2010 & 2016 Hill accumulated contracts from the federal government for dozens of projects, including projects in Puerto Rico, Mozambique, Haiti, China, Mexico, Brazil, Romania & all over the Middle East.
I wonder why his tenure ended in December of 2016? Did his expertise in international housing construction end? What happen that suddenly made all that change, and is it a coincidence that the then president of HillStone Kevin Justice, left as well?

---

What do our resident lawyers think of this article?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/closing_a_loophole_in_sekulow_and_cipollones_response_to_the_articles_of_imepachment.html

Quote:

---

...

That was the easy part. What's the hard part?

The hard part is that the Sixth Amendment talks about the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions at trial. The plain fact of the matter is that Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution only states that "[t]he House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." There is no intent here to characterize impeachment proceedings as a trial. In fact, the issue of trial comes up in Section 3, where the language is "[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

So, what Constitutional justification is there for claiming, as Sekulow and Cipollone do in their response, that House impeachment proceedings violated rights that President Trump has according to the Sixth Amendment when the amendment evidently applies to trials, which impeachment proceedings are not?

The answer is a version of the principle I stated in a previous article as Proposition III:

Proposition III*: If legal proceedings A and B are sufficiently similar in relevant legal respects and Sixth Amendment rights are retained during A, then they are retained during B.

Here "A" denotes criminal trials and "B" denotes impeachment proceedings. Armed with Proposition III*, Sekulow and Cipollone can close a loophole that Democrat lawyers might try to jump through. Anyone who thinks I'm being excessively legalistic should keep in mind how Democrats operate.

Of course, one would have to explain why criminal trials and impeachment proceedings are "sufficiently similar in relevant legal respects." A defense of Proposition III* belongs in a law journal, which I may write later.

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Huge if true.

Quote:

---

It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office... it doesn't have to be a technical crime.

---

- Alan Dershowitz 1998

---

Holy crap! This is huge. Not they will definitely get 67 Senators to vote for conviction!

---

Huge if true.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Huge if true.

Quote:

---

It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office... it doesn't have to be a technical crime.

---

- Alan Dershowitz 1998

---

Holy crap! This is huge. Not they will definitely get 67 Senators to vote for conviction!

---

Huge if true.

---

More massive than huge.

Not much; that the House activities were far outside the bounds of common law practice and history doesn't matter much. The purpose was to advance to a vote to remove the president.

There's no structural guidance in the constitution as to what the house really had to do, and in truth lawfare won in the court of public opinion since at least 4 GOP Senators won't vote immediately to acquit.

Now, in candor should they have had SCIF hearings with testimony even now hidden from us? Of course not. But that the President was treated very poorly by the rabid House leadership is a minor offense.

BTW, Trump holding up aid and asking them to investigate Biden wasn't wrong or illegal. The whole thing is a farce.

RGLAG85 said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Huge if true.

Quote:

---

It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office... it doesn't have to be a technical crime.

---

- Alan Dershowitz 1998

---

You obviously haven't listened to any of his interviews or you wouldn't post this drivel.



Ok, yes you would because you're a leftist loonie.

---

I saw him pretzel. He's a lawyer doing his job defending a guilty client. Nothing wrong with that but the rest of us don't have to buy it.

His opinion is alone against the vast majority of experts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/12/09/more-than-five-hundred-law-professors-write-a-letter-favoring-impeachment-what-effects-will-it-have/

Law professors are quite an impartial bunch.

Noah Feldman is a great example.

But, HUGE if true!!!

Remember:

Quote:

---

"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Dershowitz says he didn't do the research then. He's "more correct" now, but wasn't wrong then, even though he won't say he was right back then.

He came across very poorly trying to explain this change of heart.

But really doesn't matter. Dershowitz was correct in 98 and the evidence presented against Trump doesn't meet that standard. Really it's not even close.

---

Its not that hard to understand if people will just get the image of Law & Order or anything in the civil sector out of their mind.

The impeachment process is largely arbitrary and political. Not just this one, all of them. All Derschowitz meant was the true fact that an actual crime is not needed because the Senate can arbitrarily decide something rates the definition without being on the law books. But the reverse is also true---they can arbitrarily throw it out. So Trump would already be convicted if it was a Democrat majority Senate and for the same reason, it is hoped that the Republicans have already mobilized to throw it out barring something very real and serious.

All Derschowitz means is it doesn't have to match a legal crime on the books. It is actually a pretty stupid process considering if anyone is expecting anything like true evaluation to happen in a partisan age.

Put another way, it is possible for a real crime to be found that would trigger conviction on bipartisan lines, but it is very easy to find an offense (offenses are not a crime) that would result in conviction from a hostile Senate. A friendly Senate is not going to convict for an offense if they plan on re-election, and may not do so for a lesser crime. (Clinton's was a bipartisan non-conviction if recall correctly, with some Repubs).

In that other thread, there was a recent interview with Deshowitz where he also said that it didn't have crime. I'm not sure what the "gotcha" moment is.

His point is that, while a crime is not necessary for impeachment, "abuse of power" is not impeachable, that the founding fathers considered making it so, but reject it because it is a vague assertion that can mean anything.

While things like bribery are an abuse of power, that is not the reason they are impeachable.

What is it with the leftists and their petitions? A few weeks ago it was psychologists. Years before that, "scientists" on climate change. It's not how our government or its bureaucracies operate. What do they think these activities accomplish?

The founders intended "high crimes" to mean abuse of the office, betrayal of public trust. There have been many impeachment articles over the years that charged no statutory crime.

Jefferson said of impeachment:

Quote:

---

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

---

Trump broke statutory laws as well, in service of his corrupt scheme, but violating the Impoundment Act by itself is not impeachable.

The Dems know he won't get removed. All they are doing now is 2 things:

1. Push introducing witnesses that they can spin as having dirt on Trump and when they are refused claim the process isn't fair, cry foul, claim cover up. They don't really want witnesses because they don't know for sure new witnesses will align to their viewpoint but moreover it opens the door for witnesses they really don't want up there like the whistleblower or Hunter Biden. Media will carry their water on the "Senate cover up of Trump's crimes".

2. Try to convince a few R Senators to cross the aisle and vote to remove to claim a bipartisan removal vote and better yet for them if it results in a simple majority vote for removal. They'll spin this like crazy up to the election.

aTmAg said:

---

In that other thread, there was a recent interview with Deshowitz where he also said that it didn't have crime. I'm not sure what the "gotcha" moment is.

His point is that "abuse of power" is not impeachable, that the founding fathers considered making it so, but reject it because it is a vague assertion that can mean anything.

---

But that wouldn't matter if it was a Democratic majority Senate. They would just craft something that fits their tastes and go from there.

Notice how the Democrats declare along with the MSM a desire to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. That proves it is not a legal criminal process, but a political stunt. Imagine saying you have decided to jail a CEO for insurance fraud before any claim had taken place. You can't "plan to arrest someone for a crime" that hasn't happened yet. Yet here we had the Democratic Party and elements of the MSM like the Washington Post calling for impeachment from the get-go. Before there was the slightest trace or even possibility Trump had committed wrongs as a President.

See?

Its just political. So was Johnson's and Clintons, and probably Nixon's as more comes out.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The founders intended "high crimes" to mean abuse of the office, betrayal of public trust. There have been many impeachment articles over the years that charged no statutory crime.

Jefferson said of impeachment:

Quote:

---

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

---

Trump broke statutory laws as well, in service of his corrupt scheme, but violating the Impoundment Act by itself is not impeachable.

---

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing Trump's "abuse of office."

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing Trump's "betrayal of public trust."

Please provide specific examples, including citations, evidencing how Trump "broke statutory laws."