Posts: 136807
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 10, 2021 09:56 PM            

---

http://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats-cannot-impeach-trump-and-you-cant-impeach-him-after-leaving-office-dershowitz_3650853.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=b reaking-2021-01-10-4

IP: Logged

Posts: 136807
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 12:24 AM            

---

And for all you "no evidence of voter fraud" folks, Dershowitz also said that the Supreme Court would rule in President's Trump favor, because it's a Constitutional issue that only the legislature may change voting laws. Of course, the Court did not so rule, but like almost all of the 50 plus other cases, the Court wouldn't even hear the case for process reasons. They punted the ball. Of course, the media pounced on this narrative that such dismissals meant the courts found no evidence of voter fraud, which is why so many of you liberals parrot that lie. Dershowitz isn't a hack. He has a brilliant legal mind. For those who don't already know, he is also a Dem.

IP: Logged

Posts: 3323
From: Sound
Registered: Aug 2011

posted January 11, 2021 06:18 AM            

---

Interesting. Can you explain what the 'process reasons' are that meant the courts wouldn't hear the cases? Is this the same as when a court believes there is not enough evidence at that point to conduct an effective investigation?

------------------
Face a situation fearlessly, and there is no situation to face
~ Florence Scovel Shinn ~

IP: Logged

Posts: 136807
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 07:10 AM            

---

No. Standing to sue, ripeness, and the doctrine of laches. Some courts said they waited too long to sue (laches). But suits before the election were dismissed for being too early and with no injury (ripeness). The courts didn’t want to hear the cases. Some, however, were split decisions, so a lot of judges did want to hear them. In WI, the Chief Justice of the dissent wrote a scathing opinion against the majority. One vote separated them. SCOTUS tossed the Texas case, because there was no standing. Affidavits are evidence in any court, but apparently not where voter integrity is at issue.

IP: Logged

Posts: 3323
From: Sound
Registered: Aug 2011

posted January 11, 2021 07:15 AM            

---

Thank you for explaining. Hopefully the level of unrest this election has generated will be a good enough reason to review some of these barriers and improve the system. It seems unnecessarily complicated.

------------------
Face a situation fearlessly, and there is no situation to face
~ Florence Scovel Shinn ~

IP: Logged

Posts: 136807
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 07:28 AM            

---

Several of these cases should have been slam dunks. According to the Constitution, only state legislatures can change election law. WI even had precedent where it happened before and where the remedy in the law was blind ballot removal.

IP: Logged

Posts: 136807
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 07:33 AM            

---

There was a two-pronged strategy. The Trump team used the Constitutional issues for the courts. They saved the fraud Affidavits for the legislatures. That’s why one Trump appointed judge got mad and said there was no voter fraud and dismissed it out of hand. I think at least one court did agree to hear a case. Some cases are still pending. That big Texas case would have been a game changer, but SCOTUS tossed it, because states don’t have the right to tell other states how to run their elections. That doesn’t mean it had no merit. The Constitution applies to all states, and it says that only the legislature can—not the Secretary of State, not the Attorney General, and not even the state Supreme Court.

IP: Logged

Posts: 17225
From: http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?action=viewprofile;username=u36170365
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 09:34 AM            

---

There are pubbies who think that he should be impeached, too. Oh, and Dershowitz, who got Epstein a sweet deal, and was accused of raping a teenager? That Dershowitz?

IP: Logged

Posts: 6364
From: Lyra
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 11:23 AM            

---

I would not give too much importance to Alan "Epstein Island" Dershowitz's defenses of Trump as Trump Mafia has a lot of his compromising videos.

ANd everything Trump Legal Team claims keeps backfiring, so I am 100% sure Dems will Impeach Trump.

Anyway, America is CANCELLING Trump and his Insurrection Teams. The extent of their devious plans is like another 9-11, so many Domestic Terrorists and Cult involvement including Sergeant of Arms, Military Captains etc.

They wanted to kill/capture entire Congress on Jan 6th.

One smart Black Cop distracted a kill squad by thinking on his feet, else all Senators were gone. Chilling Video.

True Patriots now have all the details of every Partctipant by hacking Parler. They discussed everything in detail, they never thought the Insurrection would fail.

IP: Logged

Posts: 136807
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Juris Doctorate.
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 01:46 PM            

---

I am no fan of Dershowitz. Dems never had a problem with him till he started calling out their BS. His legal mind is a great one, though.

IP: Logged

Posts: 6364
From: Lyra
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 11, 2021 03:30 PM            

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I am no fan of Dershowitz. Dems never had a problem with him till he started calling out their BS. His legal mind is a great one, though.

---

Yes, he is very sharp. That is how he escaped prison!

IP: Logged