Some of you historians may find this interesting.
It was among his miscellaneous defenses.
Today there is a Trump Tweet that announces he will hold a news conference about the impeachment at 12pm.
He will talk about that it was" The Country’s" " victory" over the Impeachment hoax.
Truth is, he personally had a victory. His family, his administration, his supporters perhaps.
" The Country"? No way! At this point there was a bi partisan vote in favor with ALL DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS and one Republican for conviction.
If you add up the Americans represented by the FOR AND AGAINST Senators, the Senators for guilty represent 18 million more people than the Senators who oppose.
So the victory of America suggests he views himself as The nation. And the nation is clearly split but the people of the nation do not reflect the split to him. A majority perhaps doesn’t count in his mind. Or matter. We will see when he speaks today. There will be no recognition of half the nation today. No apology. No CONTRITION. In fact Rudy apparently has been dispatched right back to Ukraine, as though the nation did not go through this.
If that’s Trump’s defense, perhaps somewhere, they can come up what crime he was accused of.
These are just editorials, one could post articles from anywhere, some are good, some so-so.
We are a nation of law not of mob majority rule.
I’m glad Rudy has been dispatched back, obviously, they are looking into corruption in Ukraine.
One is actually counting this margin of 18 million by just adding up states as if everyone in the state would be for it? Wow, just wow.
Actually, further reflection here.
Sour grapes may not be completely accurate to explain my opinion.
How about perfectly expected.
For as long as I can remember, the losing side in a criminal proceeding tells everyone just how bad the nation is. The system didn’t work, the system is corrupt…and it is the product of a corrupt nation. We are ancient Rome on its way down the toilet.
Of course, it is only in assuming guilt that gives this a leg to stand on.
To all those that had no opinion or believed he was not guilty, the system simply worked as designed.
Yes it was
And also, a nation of laws and certainly not justice.
I think what Trump detractors were looking for was the free flow of witnesses and documents blocked by a man, who on the record and in numerous tweets has expressed that any unwillingness to testify, or taking the 5th is an admission of guilt…in this case I would say blanket Executive Privilege is the same.
They are looking for political dirt on the election opponent and evidence to put the interference of 2016 on Ukraine and not Russia.
Can you cite his lawyers making this argument? I haven’t seen this claim.
And how about a citation for this one as well.
As for blanket Executive Privilege, that was never asserted. I know about this one, and this charge is demonstrably false.
Trump’s lawyers never actually asserted executive privilege.
They asserted a blanket total privilege, which was rejected by one District Court as almost frivolous at the time of impeachment.
This is incorrect. The White House, on the advice of the Justice Department, provided three separate responses, in writing, to various subpoenas. And yes, executive privilege to prevent the testimony of his senior advisors was one of them.
How can you assert executive privilege over individuals?
Stating their name and job is not privileged.
You assert privilege over specific information. It has to be identified then asserted. This was the blanket privilege that was rejected.
There is no ABSOLUTE executive privilege. It is a qualified privilege.
How did you miss Dershowitz?
No what wasn’t?
I miss a lot of things. How about a citation?
Pretty much every president since Nixon has asserted this privilege so I’m pretty sure it’s a real thing.
The transcritps are avaaiible. Ihave already posted links to discussions of Dershowitz’s defense, and the loss of checks and balances.
It is not over the individual but the communications that person may have been party to.
Having been pummeled by constitutional scholars, Dershowitz needs to back track. This is his gambit. But if anyone misinterpreted his argument it is was the Trump stans who kept on asking: what was the crime?