Suing CNN

It's been a while, had forgotten this incident. Will be interesting to follow. 

I was asked to present the Constitutional argument against President Trump's impeachment and removal to the United States Senate this past January. For an hour and seven minutes, I argued that if a president does anything illegal, unlawful, or criminal-like -- if he commits treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors -- he satisfies the criteria for impeachment under the Constitution. But if a president engages in entirely lawful conduct motivated in part by the desire to be reelected, which he believes is in the public interest, that would not constitute grounds for impeachment. Everybody seemed to understand the distinction I was drawing. Some agreed, others disagreed. But the distinction was clear between illegal conduct on the one hand, and lawful conduct on the other hand.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16520/cnn-lawsuit-dershowitz

Clown Show for Clowns

"First it was COLLUSION! Can you believe it? Trump was colluding with the Russians to steal the election from its rightful owner, H.R. Clinton."
https://spectator.us/impeachment-pathetic-clown-show/

Good luck democrats, I hope it works as well for you as it did for the GOP.

Those Oh So Important Diplomats

I've been a fan of Atkisson since I was in flight school in the 90s and would see her delivering the news on CNN while eating lunch of the officer's club.

Many will debate the substance of the public impeachment testimony against President Trump. To me, each of the Democrats’ witnesses of the past two weeks appeared to be well-intentioned and hard-working, and seemed genuinely to believe they know what’s best.

But a picture also emerged of U.S. diplomats who appear to believe they, rather than the U.S. president, have the ultimate authority to determine our foreign policy. And if the president doesn’t go along? He clearly must be wrong — in their view. Or, even worse, he’s a traitor. He’s to be obstructed. Taken down. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/471643-impeachment-inquiry-its-a-question-of-who-should-run-the-show

Well then - what is this impeachment about ....
"Yet Sondland noted that “we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior” — that no one expressed any concerns. And he admitted that Trump never told him of any “preconditions” for aid or a meeting.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Indeed, when he directly asked Trump what he sought from Ukraine, the president responded: “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.”

For weeks, Sondland testified, he saw no link between investigations and aid or a Trump-Zelensky meeting. And, he stressed repeatedly, he had no clue at all, ’til “late in the game,” that Joe or Hunter Biden was remotely tied to any of this."

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/