Pres. Trump is bring in the the big guns

[Jmac00]

Pat Cipollone is lead counsel, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, and Pam Bondi for his team. Dershowitz is only there to protect the Constitution, he is afraid the demonRATs , if allowed to run amok, will set a very dangerous precedent for future Presidents. I think Dershowitz has an excellent point and will do an excellent job in that regard.

Cipollone is an excellent attorney in his own right. Im hoping their collective ego's don't get in the way of the Presidents defense

 

[Calculon]

I've been impressed with Dershowitz's ability to separate his personal politics from defense of law and constitutionality. He has no love for POTUS but won't turn a blind eye to the shit-show going on.

 

[ProgSpear]

Unlike most of the leading lights in the current Democrat party, Dershowitz has demonstrated that he is a principled "old school" (a.k.a. greatest generation) style democrat. That seems to be the last group of democrats that still had some reverence for the Constitution and the founding of this country. It literally turns my stomach when I hear this crop (Pelosi et al) hypocritically moan and intone about the constitution and rule of law in defense of their actions...

 

[Phazer]

None of this pseudo-legal drama means anything.

The senate IS NOT an impartial jury. There are, in reality, 100 partisans sitting in the audience listening to a political show.

The only thing that will sway the way senators cast their votes is how they think their electorate will respond to their action.

If the charges really entailed real crimes and a real abuse of power by the chief executive, then both parties would want to take corrective action. In this case, however, we're simply looking at an election year ploy by a single party.

As far as the "contempt of congress" article, the senate should simply respond: "We in this chamber are one part of the United States' congress. We were not involved in any investigation. We issued no queries to the executive branch. So, contempt of Congress is not possible since all of congress has not yet been involved in this process. What we have here is a tantrum by one party who have a single committee in a single chamber of congress that had their feelings hurt by the executive branch. Instead of using normal procedure and taking their issue to the third branch of our government, the Democrat party has dismissed centuries of tradition and impeached a duly elected president for not bowing to their self-entitled sense of superiority. This charge is legally void."

 

[SmallGameAddict]

None of this pseudo-legal drama means anything.

The senate IS NOT an impartial jury. There are, in reality, 100 partisans sitting in the audience listening to a political show.

The only thing that will sway the way senators cast their votes is how they think their electorate will respond to their action.

If the charges really entailed real crimes and a real abuse of power by the chief executive, then both parties would want to take corrective action. In this case, however, we're simply looking at an election year ploy by a single party.

As far as the "contempt of congress" article, the senate should simply respond: "We in this chamber are one part of the United States' congress. We were not involved in any investigation. We issued no queries to the executive branch. So, contempt of Congress is not possible since all of congress has not yet been involved in this process. What we have here is a tantrum by one party who have a single committee in a single chamber of congress that had their feelings hurt by the executive branch. Instead of using normal procedure and taking their issue to the third branch of our government, the Democrat party has dismissed centuries of tradition and impeached a duly elected president for not bowing to there self-entitled sense of superiority. This charge is legally void."

Pretty much sums it up

 

[tirwin1]

Ken Starr is a mistake regardless of his legal acumen. What were they thinking?