[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Coronavirus: 10 Public Safety Regulations Set Aside in the Name of Public Safety

Child Lovers Everywhere: The Cabal, Derp Staters.... ("White Hats" and QAnon set the trap via CV 19 Op & Lockdown)

Coronavirus Playlist

Putting Jared Kushner In Charge Is Utter Madness

Are ‘Stay At Home’ Orders Constitutional?

The Creed of Slaves

Soros Org's Virus Playbook: Abolish Family, Free Prisoners And Take Properties Without Permission

Celebrity Whines About Being Quarantined In Luxury Mansion

FOREVER POLICE STATE: Fauci Says Lockdown Will Continue Until There Are No “New Cases” of Coronavirus

New Study Confirms Exercise is one of the Keys to Build Your Immune System for Corona Virus

Donald Trump Trashes Chuck Schumer In Letter: “I Never Knew How Bad A Senator You Are”

Schumer 'appalled' over Trump letter: 'Stop the pettiness'

COVID-19: Was This New Medical Police State Planned?

Franklin Graham Blasts Pelosi For Saying Trump Was ‘Fiddling’: ‘I Wonder What She Was Doing’

After Citizens Refused to Obey, Sheriff Reverses Decision to Close Gun Stores

Woman Threatens to Call Police on Neighbor For Violating Lockdown

12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic

'ChrisTophobic bigoTs' ... ouTraged ---- over Franklin Graham's Tent hospiTal

Our Views: Tony Spell is a minister who's a threat to life and should be locked up

Making a Cast Iron Pan Pizza (Best Cooking-Guy channel on YouTube)

STELLA'S (The Lab) BEST LEAF JUMPS OF ALL TIME

Problem, Reaction, Reset (Fork-in-the Road ---> HERE)

How to Worship Without Going to Church

Mike Pompeo: Coronavirus crisis "Live Exercise"?!

Trump Calls For $2T Infrastructure Package In Phase 4 Stimulus

Taking Rights Seriously

Virginia Man Shoots an Active Robber in Store, Is Arrested Himself

“Stayin’ Inside” – Corona Virus Bee Gees Parody

WHAT DOES “FREE EXERCISE” OF RELIGION MEAN UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

DC residents are now PRISONERS in their own homes; 90 days in jail for anyone caught ‘traveling without permission’

“One Of The Worst Coverups In Human History”: MSM Attention Turns To Chinese Biolab Near COVID-19 Ground Zero

The Police Power of the States to Control a Pandemic, Explained

Dad Getting Food for His Kids During Outbreak Owns 6 Cops Harassing Him for It

Why the Government Has Legal Authority to Quarantine

Close the Churches

PastorDies Of Coronavirus He Had Questioned

Depression about the ills of the nation

Blind Faith Meets Coronavirus Science In Potentially Deadly Clash

Bill Gates Calls for Complete National Shutdown

Louisiana church packed for services again despite charges against pastor amid pandemic

2010 Rockefeller Foundation Paper and The New Normal

MUST WATCH: 201 Event: The Planned Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation, SCRIPT & ACTORS (Oct 2019!)

BREAKING NEWS: President Trump pardons Julian Assage, Ed Snowden & Bradley Manning

Armed CiTizen ShooTs ... Kills AcTive ShooTer --- At Tulsa Shopping CenTer

Trump administration rules gun shops 'essential' amid virus

Justice Department IG Finds Widespread Problems With FBI's FISA Applications

Justice Department Looking Into Senator's Stock Sell-Off

Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?

Attorneys claim LMPD officers killed 26-year-old EMT in 'botched' police raid

NATIONAL GUARD IN SEVERAL STATES STOPPING VEHICLES, INTERROGATING DRIVERS AND EVEN GOING ‘DOOR TO DOOR’


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: Dershowitz: Democrat Impeachment Approach Akin to Stalin’s KGB — ‘Show Me the Man and I’ll Find You the Crime’
Source: Breitbart
URL Source: https://www.breitbart.com/clips/201 ... b-show-man-ill-find-you-crime/
Published: Dec 8, 2019
Author: Jeff Poor
Post Date: 2019-12-08 11:01:28 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 147
Comments: 6

Dershowitz: Democrat Impeachment Approach Akin to Stalin’s KGB — ‘Show Me the Man and I’ll Find You the Crime’

Jeff Poor
Breitbart
8 Dec 2019

During a preview of Fox News Channel’s “Life, Liberty & Levin” set to air on Sunday at 8 p.m. ET, law professor Alan Dershowitz argued the approach some Democrats were taking on President Donald Trump’s impeachment was to manufacture the reason for the sake of an impeachment.

The latest effort for Democrats involves accusations of bribery, as it pertained to the Trump administration’s interactions with Ukraine. According to Dershowitz, Trump’s interactions with Ukraine did not rise to the level of bribery as defined by statute or in common law.

“[W]hat they’re trying to do is what the KGB under Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin, the dictator — I’m not comparing our country to the Soviet Union — I just want to make sure it never becomes anything like that. Beria said to Stalin, ‘Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime.’ And that’s what some of the Democrats are doing. They have Trump in their sights. They want to figure out a way of impeaching him, and they’re searching for a crime.”

“First, they came up with abuse of power,” he continued. “Not a crime — it’s not in the Constitution. So now they’re saying ‘bribery,’ but they’re making it up. There is no case for bribery based on, even if all the allegations against the president were to be proved, which they haven’t been — but even if they were to be proved, it would not constitute the impeachable offense of bribery.”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

"Dershowitz admitted to being at the billionaire’s home but noted that he’d never seen an underaged girl at Epstein’s place despite sworn testimony from Epstein’s former butler who claimed that Dershowitz was at the residence at the same time that underaged girls were there."

That Dershovitz? He should be tarred and feathered along with the rest of the folks who rode the amoral jackwagon to Epstein's pleasure palace.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-08   11:37:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

"Breitbart"

Still bending over for the Zionist Organized Criminal state-establishment are they?

That should make Log Cabin Pipe Fitters like you happy.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-08   12:24:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#2)

That faithful old government publication of Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial, it states: [boldface as in original]

2218. After discussion of English precedents, the Senate ruled decisively in the Peck trial that the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied.

Witnesses in an impeachment trial are required to state facts and not opinions.

[...]

When they get out of that "fact-finding stage," and get into the trial stage, none of the hearsay or less than "best evidence" comes in. The Republican led Senate is highly unlikely to waive centuries of precedent to help Sloppy Jerry avoid disaster.

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

It was decided in the Belknap trial that a witness might not be examined as to the contents of an existing letter without the letter itself being submitted.

Instance wherein the President pro tempore ruled on evidence during an impeachment trial.

On April 4, 1868,2 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Mr. Robert S. Chew, chief clerk of the State Department, was sworn as a witness on behalf of the House of Representatives, and examined by Mr. Manager Benjamin F. Butler as to the practice of making temporary appointments of assistant secretaries of Departments to perform the duties of their chiefs in the absence of the latter. The witness testified that the appointments in such cases were made by the President, or by his order. Mr. Butler then asked:

Did the letter of authority in most of these cases * * * proceed from the head of the Department or from the President?

Mr. William M. Evarts, of counsel for the President, objected that the letter of authority showed from whom it came, and was the best evidence on that point. In the discussion which followed, the counsel for the President intimated that they did not object if the question was intended to elicit a reply as to whose manual possession the paper came from. But if it was intended to ascertain who signed the paper, then the paper itself would be the best evidence.

Mr. Butler reduced the question to writing as follows:

Question. State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State or from what other officer?

The Chief Justice3 thereupon made an inquiry which led to this colloquy:

The CHIEF JUSTICE. ‘‘Came from the Secretary of State.’’ Do I understand you to mean signed by him?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am not anxious upon that part of it, sir. I am content with the question as it stands.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice conceives that the question in the form in which it is put is not objectionable, but—

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will put it, then, with the leave of the Chief Justice.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice was about to proceed to say that if it is intended to ask the question whether these documents of which a list is furnished were signed by the Secretary, then he thinks it is clearly incompetent without producing them.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Under favor, Mr. President, I have no list of these documents; none has been furnished.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does not the question relate to the list which has been furnished?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It relates to the people whose names have been put upon the list; but I have no list of the documents at all. I have only a list of the facts that such appointments were made, but I have no list of the letters, whether they came from the President or from the Secretary or from anybody else.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the form in which the question is put the Chief Justice thinks it is not objectionable. If any Senator desires to have the question taken by the Senate, he will put it to the Senate. [To the managers, no Senator speaking.] You can put the question in the form proposed.

Mr. Manager BUTLER (to the witness). State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State, or from what other officer.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand the witness is not to answer by whom they were sent.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I believe I have this witness.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will instruct the witness. [To the witness.] You are not to answer at present by whom these documents were signed. You may say from whom they came.

__________

2 Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe supplement, p. 118.

3 Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, Chief Justice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2230. In the Swayne trial hearsay testimony introduced to show inconvenience to litigants from respondent’s conduct was ruled out.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2235. In general during impeachment trials questions as to conversations with third parties, not in presence of respondent, have been excluded from evidence.—On March 8, 1803,2 in the high court of impeachment during the trial of John Pickering, judge of the United States district court of New Hampshire, Mr. Jonathan Steele was testifying, when, Mr. Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the managers for the House of Representatives, addressed the court. He said he wished in case it should be deemed proper by the court, to ask one of the witnesses whether he had conversed with the family physician of Judge Pickering, and what his opinion was as to the origination of his insanity. Mr. Nicholson observed that he had doubts of the propriety of this question, and therefore, in the first instance, stated it to the court.

The court decided the question inadmissible.

Later, on the same day, this witness, in the course of his testimony, was going on to state some conversation he had with Judge Pickering’s physician at this time

which he was induced to ask in consequence of solicitude to gain true information as to the reported intemperance of the Judge, when he was interrupted by the Court,1 and informed that this species of testimony had been already decided to be inadmissible.

__________

2 First session Eighth Congress, Annals, pp. 358, 359.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2238. In the Johnson trial declarations of respondent, made anterior to the act, and even concomitant with it, were held inadmissible as evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2245. In the Johnson trial the Chief Justice ruled that an official message transmitted after the act was not admissible as evidence to show intent.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-08   15:08:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nolu chan (#3)

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

Do Fearless Leader and his cult of Log Cabin Pipe Fitters/Pizza Pedophiles not LOVE wikileaks anymore?

search.wikileaks.org/?q=Firtash

Lots of evidence there. Odd how his/their/your "concern" over Ukrainian corruption seems to, conveniently, miss that.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-08   15:18:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#4)

Lots of evidence there.

Speaking of evidence....

From Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial:

2256. In the Belknap trial objection was successfully made to an opinion of a subordinate officer as to evidence of the character of respondent’s administration.—On July 12, 1876,1 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, Nelson H. Davis, Inspector General of the Army, was examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, having ascertained that witness had been in the Army during respondent’s entire administration and had been holding constant official relations with him, asked:

From all you know of the subject, and from all you know of General Belknap, I ask you what has been the general character of his administration of the War Department?

Mr. Manager George A. Jenks at once objected:

The objection I make to that is that a witness must testify to character instead of to the specific acts of this man, or general acts. He must know what has been said by those who are familiar with his administration in that office, instead of how has he done the business.

Mr. Manager George F. Hoar said:

We understand also that it should be the opposite of the particular offense charged. If a man is charged with adultery, his reputation for chastity; if he is charged with perjury, his reputation for veracity. We suppose the question should be, ‘‘What is the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity?’’ * * * We do not understand that it is competent to prove by a subordinate officer in the Army, as an expert, the general character of the administration of a great officer of state. There is no such thing as an expert in such an administration. We object to the question unless it is limited to the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-08   23:44:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: nolu chan (#5)

Trump isn't being impeach for adultery, shyteferbrains, he's being impeached because he's up to his pudgdy, Useful Idiot, jowls in the Odessa Mafia's excrement.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-09   12:14:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com