Alan Dershowitz Discusses His Role During President Trump Impeachment Trial…

I’m skipping any further discussion of Pam Bondi because, quite frankly, while she may be considered a member of President Trump’s team, if we are honest about her background –particularly in the Zimmerman case fraud– there’s nothing good to say.

Bondi was the Florida AG and convinced Gov. Scott to appoint a special prosecutor.  Bondi picked her campaign manager, Jacksonville state attorney, Angela Corey; who constructed a fraudulent witness against the accused. AG Pam Bondi specifically knew Witness #8 was manufactured. In ’12/’13 Pam Bondi attempted to frame a transparently innocent man.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz appears on Fox News for a discussion of his role in the upcoming senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Mr. Dershowitz states he will be presenting the constitutional argument against the entire premise for the insufferable impeachment. WATCH:

Defense Lawyers

This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Donald Trump, FBI, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, President Trump, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

187 Responses to Alan Dershowitz Discusses His Role During President Trump Impeachment Trial…

  1. dorothea says:

    Seriously Pam Bondi is a lightweight although she was the State AG. If she was unattractive, I don’t think she would be there. I am a female attorney, too, so maybe I can get away with saying that. She was on Hannity tonight, and she did not provide anything new or even substantive at all to the discussion.

    Liked by 30 people

    • stenwin77 says:

      I agree. Sometimes, I think Pres. Trump puts too much emphasis on looks – especially the looks of women. While I don’t think Bondi will do any harm, she’s a ditzy blonde. My husband has crossed paths with her during his career and was totally NOT impressed. Empty skirt.

      Liked by 17 people

      • stenwin77 says:

        I meant to say, while I don’t think she will do any harm, she certainly won’t help him any.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Um… NO.

        I don’t know how the heck she got there, but it for sure wasn’t based on her looks. And to say you think that President Trump picked her based on her looks is pretty odd to me, and probably would be to him as well. Especially over this seriously sick garbage COUP they call “impeachment”.

        I truly don’t believe that you really think he is that shallow!

        Liked by 10 people

        • GB Bari says:

          Agree totally. Blondi is there for some reason that we don’t yet know, But we also don’t know whether the President specifically requested her or if she was recommended to him by one or more of the other attorneys or someone that the President highly trusts. I highly suspect she was recommended to him. It will be interesting to discover why she was brought onboard – which we may learn in the future.

          Liked by 5 people

          • Ospreyzone says:

            PR. She is good in front of a camera and President Trump loves people that can articulate his side well. Unfortunately, most people sitting in front of a TV want to see a show. Bondi provides a familiar message, and, as Trump says, is right out of central casting.

            Liked by 4 people

          • Melanie G Melancon says:

            She is probably there because she is from Florida. With the upcoming election, her presence on the team sends a message about the importance of the state. He has plenty of high powered lawyers here, so I believe she sort of rounded out the team.

            Liked by 3 people

        • JonS says:

          He’s not shallow, but he’s smart. Juries can be influenced in many ways

          Liked by 4 people

        • Aggie says:

          I think Bondi is there as the sacrificial lamb to draw fire from Trump’s antagonists, and then be dismissed – while directing attention to the idea that it was a misogynistic and hate -based, unfair attack.

          Liked by 1 person

      • madeline says:

        My beef with Bondi is how she handled the foreclosure debacle. So disappointed PDT brought her into the Whitehouse, she has been tying to get there since PDT got there. She’s gold digger.
        http://www.orlandosentinel.com › news › os-xpm-2011-12-18-os-bondi-forec…Critics: Bondi lax in pursuing big mortgage lenders amid …

        Liked by 3 people

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        I don’t think Trump picked her because of her looks…
        He picked her because she has been a vocal “loyal” supporter of him on FOX News.

        Bondi pulled the modern day version of
        George Washington showing up to ’75 Congress every day in his military uniform and miraculously being commissioned Commander in Chief of the Continental Army.

        Liked by 2 people

    • California Joe says:

      The Florida AG is ceremonial position. They have no investigative staff. No criminal investigators. Nobody carries a gun or can make an arrest not even the AG. They have a small staff of consumer phone representatives with an 800 number and that’s about it. I worked with them years ago. Nice guys. They had two investigators for the whole state of Florida doing mostly asset forfeiture cases worked by the insurance fraud agency.

      Liked by 13 people

    • trialbytruth says:

      Nice thing about the Treehouse you could have gotten away with that if you were a toothless trucked from Iowa.

      The fact that your a lawyer does give your opinion a little more gravitas. Now if you happen to be a beautiful woman ( at least on line, I myself am 6’2″ trim and rich on line.) Then your opinion becomes even more important🤔

      Not sure i have seen you post here before so all kidding aside welcome.to CTH

      Liked by 3 people

    • WES says:

      Dorothea:. When setting up a legal team, I remain puzzled what her role could be.

      Like

      • Strangely Accurate says:

        She can be an effective spokesperson, present the argument to the media outlets and deal with the public relations defense.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Very accurate, must be why the press release said she had joined the team to coordinate media relations. She helped arrange media for Trumps Florida rallies and spoke at them. She was lead attorney for 17 state AG’s in Obamacare suit. She has good inside media contacts ( Guest host of “The Five” on Fox} etc.
          Last but maybe most important, this is not a job for Bondi, it is personal. She is a long time friend of the Trump family and angry at the way they are treated.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Roni says:

          Or she could become a distraction.
          PDJT needs members in his team who are absolutely ruthless. I’m not seeing it.

          Liked by 1 person

          • swissik says:

            Like you I am not seeing it either. IMHO neither Starr nor the Dersh are particularly effective and the latter isn’t trustworthy. I respect his academic prowess but don’t like his cheshire cat smile, it doesn’t bode well. Not inspiring, besides I watched for some time how he is gradually building his TV presence on Fox. I continue to believe that the president is not being well advised by those that are seemingly close to him. By now one would expect the snakes have been cleaned out. Like I said IMHO.

            Like

      • TrustyHaste says:

        She can make the coffee. LOL

        Like

    • margarite1 says:

      Maybe not in this case but don’t looks matter to some extent when dealing with a case? Maybe it isn’t right but – like being tall – isn’t it a factor?

      Like

    • nats1mom says:

      100% agree with you Dorothea. She did not provide anything new; just a bunch of lip service. I cannot understand WHY she is on this “team.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • TwoLaine says:

      I think she is there as legal spokeswoman only. And yes, because she’s a looker, as some might say.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m understanding SD to say Bondi engaged in criminal acts as Florida AG. Does POTUS not know Bondi is (possibly) dirty? Others say she’s not legal dream team caliber. WTF?

      Liked by 2 people

    • gnome says:

      She’s meat. The dems have a couple of women on their panel so Trump daren’t have only good lawyers on his. It’s only fair.

      Like

      • willthesuevi says:

        Not sure if you intended to be so condescending to female attorneys or not, but there is much wrong with this comment.

        I am not a Bondi fan and agree with Sundance on her, but it has nothing to do with being female and everything to do with her previous decisions & actions.

        Like

    • bruzedorange says:

      “AG Pam Bondi specifically knew Witness #8 was manufactured. In ’12/’13 Pam Bondi attempted to frame a transparently innocent man.”

      Despite the personal assessments offered by fellow Treepers, there is that. She possibly, ostensibly, knows how this works from the OTHER side–using government resources to frame an innocent in court and in the press. That alone is still not enough to expend a valuable team slot, unless she’s “foxy like a fox” and intentionally presents below her ability. Her roots may be brunette.

      I think Trump has a proven history of recognizing when acumen is camoflaged by outward beauty. His radar also picks up people who are driven to prove themselves on the big stage, who are at their best when the spotlights are on them.

      I dunno…
      but my long list of Trump’s headscratching decisions has a lot of items lined out, with annotation in the margins, “Ahhh, now I get it!”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Issy says:

      You can get away with it, and I agree.

      Like

    • Rachel Guess says:

      dorothea,

      Tbh I would have much preferred Rep. John Ratcliffe on President Trump’s team than Pam Bondi. He has done an amazing job over in the House imo.

      Like

    • cwf60 says:

      Bondi did nothing about the outright voter fraud in Florida. There is a reason she is getting national exposure, and I am hoping that is not indicative of a position in President Trump’s cabinet.

      Like

  2. freepetta says:

    I feel the same way. But I have doubts about Dershowitz and his motivation.
    I’m very concerned.

    Liked by 5 people

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Dershowitz is there to defend the rule of law, not Trump. He’s made his opinions about POTUS quite clear. Not that it’s helped him with the Progressives. But he knows how much of a travesty shampeachment has been, and the danger it and the future shampeachments the Democrats will throw at PDJT to the survival of the Republic. A guillotine doesn’t care whose head it cuts off, and the Democrats have just hoisted the blade and locked it in place.

      Liked by 27 people

      • freepetta says:

        Couldn’t agree with you more Tars.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Rock Knutne says:

        Maybe Dershowitz is buttering his own bread – so to speak.
        When the schiff hits the fan about pedo island and the rest of the world finds out he flew lolita airlines a few times he’ll at least have used his gravitas to defend President Trump.

        Liked by 1 person

      • amwick says:

        Well put, Dersh is defending our Constitution. It is about time someone did. (I know, he has been doing this for a while) I like him because he not a Trump supporter, because it shows political affiliation is secondary to law. If that makes sense.

        Liked by 8 people

      • Redzone says:

        Dershowitz is also very appreciative of PTs actions towards Israel and the Jewish folks. I’m sure he’s happy to reciprocate, especially when the service aligns with his constitutional legal views.

        Like

    • margarite1 says:

      I see Dershowitz as someone with principles regarding the law. He’s lost social status among his Martha’s Vineyard “friends” for sticking to his guns.

      Liked by 8 people

      • vikingmom says:

        Alan Dershowitz, like Jonathan Turley. recognizes the danger to the rule of the law and isevidently willing to speak up against it, even though neither of them supported Donald Trump for President. I admire their determination in the face of what is probably pretty fierce condemnation from the DC crowd in which they have always been accepted. We could use quite a few more people like them!!

        Liked by 17 people

        • Raptors2020 says:

          Vikingmom:
          Dersh and Turley have surely had the opportunity to speak privately and candidly to the Lawfare lawyers and others involved in this persecution. They’ve no doubt extensively studied Lawfare’s radical legal theories; these leftists are overtly opposed to the American Constitution.

          In many countries you are guilty, if accused by government officials, until you prove your innocence. The Kavanaugh hearing was driven by Democrat politicians and lawyers who want that theory of justice to prevail in America. General Flynn is being endlessly persecuted by Justice Department lawyers used to extorting guilty pleas from those they seriously target. People who insist on their innocence are nothing more than a big nuisance to these lawyers.

          Leftist lawyers want a system where your guilt or innocence is determined by your standing with the State, or utility to the State. Facts, truth, individual rights would become obsolete. President Trump refuses to commit the crime they crave, so they’ve gone ahead and charged him, effectively, for the offence of being an Enemy of the State. As the Kavanaugh outrage demonstrated, leftists are quite comfortable striving to destroy those who get in their way. Much more of this awaits us. Republicans who think these radicals can be appeased can only surrender and call it compromise.

          Liked by 4 people

        • getfitnow says:

          This^

          Like

      • Rileytrips says:

        Yes. He is loyal to his beliefs, and he has studied the Constitution most of his life. I don’t agree with his politics, but he is patriotic and honorable. I can respect him for that. Just like I can despise Bernie Sanders politics and ideology, but can still respect him because he is true to what he believes in and doesn’t waver. Richard Dreyfus (the actor) is like this, too. He is a true “old-school” liberal, always has been, and is appalled that his party wants to limit free speech now. His party left him behind.

        Liked by 8 people

        • Your Tour Guide says:

          He’s an old man. His entire life work has been in
          furthering the law, as it was intended to be done.

          The old concept with the blindfolded lady justice,
          and the scales. Whatever sins he’s committed, he
          knows enough about the laws, how they’re written,
          and why to know that everything he’s worked for
          and taught, (since before many here were born),
          is under deadly assault.

          He also knows that if the other side succeeds,
          what he has done, worked for, strived to acheive
          will vanish. As will any mention of him, or his works
          in most literature, online articles.

          What if anyone here worked for decades in their
          yard, on the outside of the house. Planted a gorgeous
          garden. Had many compliments on your life’s work.
          Threw your heart and soul into it. You lose your health.

          The city decides they want your land. You’re too sick
          to defend yourself, and you come home to a bulldozed
          lot. That’s the feeling Dersh has about all of what’s
          happening.

          Also, Trump is maybe offering him redemption. So,
          there’s that.

          Like

      • GB Bari says:

        Desrh also is just as interested in promoting Dersh.

        This provides him with tremendous gravitas that he has been gradually losing with the MSM since he criticized the Muh Russia case in tv interviews.

        That said, he seems to be able to articulate an argument very well to a jury and thats probably why he’s there since it is as much about the PUBLIC “JURY” opinion as it is about the Senate’s opinion. The DemonRATs know PDJT will be acquitted but they want to dirty him up ahead of the election.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dutchman says:

        IMHO, Dersh really hurt the ‘Injsurance plan’, when he penned an op-ed saying IF the Senate were to vote to convict, that PDJT could argue it was invalid, refuse to leave WH, and take it to SCOTUS.

        Again, IMHO I think the original plan was Watergate, 2.0.
        Specifically, that Senators wouldn’t need to actually VOTE to convict.

        When PDJT fired Mueller, etc. A Republicon Senator (Graham) would go to PDJT and,TELL him they had the votes to convict, and for sake of party/country, resign.

        Dersh’s op-ed threw hot water on that plan; which Republican Senators are prepared to go into the history books, as voting to Impeach, when it may be overturned? They didn’t want to have to go on record.

        Remember WHICH Senators voted to Impeach Nixon?,…..Exactly my point.

        So,,Dersh threw a major monkey wrench in the works, and Dems will never forgive him for that.

        He will present the Constitutional argument rebuttal, to complement Turley.

        As for the rest, I hope they repeat Jordans 4 talking points, and then rest.

        No quid pro quo.
        Ukraine didn’t KNOW $ was being withheld. (So no pressure)
        Ukraine didn’t DO what they were supposedly being pressured to get them to do.
        And yet they got the $.

        If they don’t want to hear witnesses supporting Biden corruption, than stick to those 4 points.

        But, if they want to allege Rudy, on behalf of PDJT, was looking for dirt on Biden, than they gotta hear witnesses that Biden was and IS dirty. Its only fair.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Mark Levin Show with Dershowitz. Fascinating discussion. Don’t think there are two more knowledgeable and passionate on the Constitution. Dershowitz will defend the rule of law and expose the BS of the wafer thin articles of impeachment relative to the Constitution. He’s also a street smart SOB. Trump’s not bringing a knife to a gun fight with Dershowitz.

      Liked by 6 people

      • freepetta says:

        I’m still very stressed out. I know all the bullshiiiit that comes out in any trial. The truth often gets whitewashed.
        The sooner this is wrapped up the better it will be for this country.
        Of course it doesn’t mean Pelosi and her band of corrupt misfits won’t constantly impeach PDJT.

        Liked by 2 people

        • amwick says:

          I feel the same way… and your last point is sooooo important. How will this impeachment charade be stopped from becoming SOP? It had a place, the way our founders envisioned it.. but not what it is now.

          Liked by 2 people

          • WRB says:

            The only way to stop the House from doing this on a regular basis is to punish them for doing it. I keep hoping someone will come up with a way to punish the House, but so far, have heard nothing.

            One possible approach (I hope there is a better one) is to have the Senate, after hearing the case, vote to censure the House for their unconstitutional acts.

            Liked by 1 person

            • amwick says:

              IKR? THis really bothers me. I thought that any Congress Critter that called for a frivolous impeachment should be expelled. It should be that serious a charge… But something has to happen or it will be wash, rinse, repeat. SMH…

              Liked by 1 person

            • beach lover says:

              There is nothing to keep the Senate from calling all these witnesses, and having it out, once the impeachment fiasco is over.

              House is out… we’ve seen how they operate, but Graham or others have not done anything yet and the impeachment and before that, the IG report, and before that Mueller… seems to keep the truth from coming to the public.

              If anyone thinks, the Dims aren’t already working on the next saga from Lawfare, they haven’t learned anything the last 3 years. Time to go on offense. And be damned what Durham is doing. Expose the crooks now!

              Liked by 1 person

            • X XYZ says:

              One theory I heard is that if the Republicans take back the house, they could vote to refuse to seat those in Pelosi’s gang that instigated the bogus impeachment.
              That would be sweet…

              Like

          • freepetta says:

            This whole thing stresses me out and the dumb azz answers I hear from Republicans just boggles my mind. With friends like those who needs enemies. SMH.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Peppurr says:

          Me too. At what point does this become an abuse of process?

          Liked by 1 person

    • Issy says:

      Dershowitz likes the limelight, but he makes excellent arguments.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hans says:

      I think he serves a second purpose … a DEMOCRAT who supports the president

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Yeah, that demeaned the team to let the junior cuteypie self aggrandize.
    Dersh is a good choice, th o.

    Liked by 7 people

  4. jeans2nd says:

    Jane Raskin was part of the defensive side during the Mueller Hoax, and is reported to be a good attorney.

    Pat Cipollone is good friends with Laura Ingraham, which is extremely concerning, although Cipollone is reported to be a good attorney. Cipollone is also reported to lawyer as Ingraham lawyers. Not good. imo

    Jay Sekulow is a star. Period. Sekulow also has the winning minds of ACLJ at his disposal.
    One suspects the Federalist Society is also a source.
    .
    Bondi was added a couple three months ago, to be part of the messaging team for Shampeachment. It is not clear from today’s announcements that Bondi’s position has changed.

    Liked by 7 people

    • H.R. says:

      jeans2nd: “Bondi was added a couple three months ago, to be part of the messaging team for Shampeachment. It is not clear from today’s announcements that Bondi’s position has changed.”

      That’s my take, too. She did a good job tonight.

      TREEPERS! Remember, we’re all up to speed on the players, strategy, and much of the nitty gritty details. Bondi didn’t say anything tonight that we didn’t already know.

      There will be a whole lot of people tuning into this rare event who have been paying only half-attention or no attention at all to the events leading up to this.

      President Trump’s defense team needs someone to communicate his positions and arguments to the people who are just now paying attention. She attractive enough to hold attention without being the stereotype ex-beauty queen turned newsreader. She speaks clearly and a decent pace.

      Bondi has enough legal chops so that she herself will understand what’s going on and won’t trip over herself trying to convey any legal concepts brought out without stammering her way through. She also has a bit of name recognition, albeit on the negative side here on CTH.

      Her job is to keep on top of the proceedings and counter the Yellow Stream Media’s daily narrative.

      Judging from tonight’s performance, she’ll do a fine job of reaching through to the newbies tuning in to this hot mess of an impeachment and selling the constitutional danger and foolishness the Dems are wreaking on the nation.

      My 2¢.

      Liked by 6 people

  5. JohnCasper says:

    Insanity on the Potomac: a demented clown show starting Adam “Psycho” Sciff and Jerry “The Body” Nadler and produced by Nanzi Pelois inc, ltd, xyz.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Bob Parker says:

    SD, Thank you for the background on Pam Blondie.

    Candidly, I was stunned that she was selected to the team as I thought that there surely MUST be other more prominent conservative attorneys out there far more worthy of 1 of those spots on President Trump’s defense team than her.

    I am now even more stunned & disturbed that this lightweight has been afforded this opportunity..

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Right to reply says:

    I don’t like Bondi. She just oozes sleaze and corruption. I wouldn’t trust her with my money.

    Liked by 6 people

  8. Coast says:

    Bondi should be in jail. Enough said.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. wendy forward says:

    I am looking forward to seeing Sekulow, Dershowitz, Starr and Cippolone work. I’m sure there will be someone who will surprise me too.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. Jim Raclawski says:

    Bondi = eye candy …. there for the criwd draw…. weak link with already proved agenda inconsistent with battle this “team” faces….wonder who on inner cycle placed ” her hat “in the ring?

    Like

  11. trialbytruth says:

    I think we may see calvalcade of sign ons for this. Some will get to speak some will fill a chair and get coffee.

    As a lawyer who would not want a crack at this, high profile and facing lightweight competition. So you put dersh and seculow against lawfare . Cipolone and Star face off with Schiff and Nadler and let the rest take on the minority hires.

    A word about Pam Bondi i know the history but a pretty girl can beat the crap.out of one of balance team and no one will cry foul.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Linda K. says:

      I was actually relieved when I heard Schiff and Nadler were representing the House side of this trial. We have already seen them in action and they are both pathetic, weak and unappealing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Your Tour Guide says:

        The senate should make a resolution that all persons
        present are checked for any type of electrical devices.
        Including watches ( think what we’ve heard the last
        week, sports wise).

        That way, Schiff and Nadler can’t receive any prompting
        in their ear pieces from the Lawfare bunch. Seems only
        fair.

        Which is a concept these unspeakable bastards don’t
        understand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Schiff+ Nadless standing side by side will look like the number 10.

        Like

  12. Gov Jay says:

    Hat tip to Sundance for his stellar summation of Pam Bondi… brief, complete and to the point…

    Liked by 8 people

  13. Bogeyfree says:

    I haven’t heard why this team especially now with Constitutionalist lawyer Dershowitz, don’t first file an appeal with the SC to argue if the charges even meet the level of impeachment as described in the Constitution.

    Or can the House impeach a President for anything including Jaywalking and the Senate must try the case now?

    Seems like they are setting the precedent for constant and on-going harassment by our House of Representatives on all future Presidents.

    Liked by 8 people

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Any delay allows Democrats more s**t to dig up or fabricate and throw at POTUS. Get it over with so this team minus Bondi can get ready for shampeachment 2.0.

      And IMO shampeachment 2.0 will happen. In some ways I hope it does. Because IMO if they abandon the shampeachment route they have only one realistic method left to prevent a Trump reelection.

      I won’t mention it because most everyone here knows what that is.

      Like

    • Strangely Accurate says:

      Dersh said on The Ben Shapiro show last night that the second article should easily be able to be dismissed as the President has the absolute right of executive privilege.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      Perhaps it is the SENATE, that should make such an appeal to SCOTUS, as they definetly have standing.

      The SENATE,would be asking SCOTUS;
      “Does the Senate HAVE to take up ANY Impeachment delivered to it by the House, even if there is clearly no high crime, or admissable evidence?

      If so, the House could send articles of impeachment up, in a constant stream.
      Is THIS what the Founders would want?”

      But, that would require Mitch to act, and his most powerful position is thru inaction.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Issy says:

        I don’t think SCOTUS will touch this.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          Its right up their alley, one way or another.
          The question has to be answered, for NOW and for the FUTURE; IS this current Impeachment Constitutional?

          DOES the Senate have the option of dismissing the charges, or voting to aquit/convict, for that matter, without hearing any evidence?

          Can the House just keep sending Articles of Impeachment up to Senate, ad infinitum?

          Weighty matters, and history is watching and future precedents are being set

          Like

          • Issy says:

            Of course, they can, but the 1993 precedent set by Nixon vs United States States basically said they would not rule on the soul powers given to the house & senate the in the Constitution regarding impeachment.

            Of course, that was before Roberts. He likes to tinker with things.

            Like

  14. bleep21k says:

    I would say that Dershowitz made a good argument for his advocacy of President Trump – by way of the constitutionality of the two articles that have been put forward (they got nuttn!) – tonight on cnn, versus jeffrey Tubin:

    cooper looked idiotic in the middle of the split screen shots, and they cut it short of the finish.

    Liked by 6 people

    • The Framers would NOT be passing out money stolen from the American people to every other freaking nation on the planet either, but I digress.

      Toobin is an idiot, like most dems and all talking heads on CNN.

      This sh!t is CRAP!

      And no, killery klinton did not “behave this way”, because she wasn’t elected! lmao

      Liked by 3 people

    • This is such a classic example of the interplay between adherents of modern Progressivism and anyone not in their corner. The Progressive cannot stand and cannot let stand a thought in the head of another person that is not exactly congruent to their position. It is insidious and a sign of their mental derangement. Toobin and Cooper and the entire production staff at CNN believe they have an obligation to call Dershowitz on simply holding a counterpoint position–and, on account of their having a bully pulpit for being a cable channel, a duty to do so for public consumption and programming (as in programming their viewer’s brains to think like they do). A normal person absent this deranged inability to live in a world where someone in their sphere thinks a thought in opposition to themselves, would certainly figure Dershowitz is a relevant character to have on a show like this, get him to state his position on the topic at hand, even mine the whole concept that, according to Dershowitz, he is not on any side but the Constitution’s. Then perhaps present a different view and discuss the particulars of each and walk away from it. But these two, from minute one, are actually involved in this piece to pressure Dershowitz on having taken this offensive (to them) position and thereby to make certain to programmable viewers that this is not the correct position to hold or even to accept as possibly credible. The first thing they need to clarify is who’s side Dershowitz is on because they live in a deranged, binary world where there is only their Progressive side and then laughable, indefensible anathema against their side–which cannot be allowed to exist or fester in anyone else’s mind. They continue to get him to state his position over and over in order to get another chance and another chance to mock it, not understand it or help a mildly intrigued viewer get the gist of it better. It got old, but they couldn’t get enough of it, even after Dershowitz called them old ladies. Bizarre, but SOP these days for all my Progressive acquaintances and public figures alike. It’s like the same spirit, some power of the air, has possessed them all . . .

      Liked by 2 people

    • Issy says:

      Alan won on the point he was representing his interpretation of The Constitution while Jeffery was mostly attacking Alan personally for representing Trump. They didn’t get to a real debate point until the end of the clip. This was whether Abuse of Power was a high crime, and it just came down to opinion and was not fully explored, as they ran out of time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      Anybody able to do some good screen shots?

      Edit through to about 1:45 vicinity, and capture
      Cooper in all his doofiness. Henceforth, said
      shots should be what gets posted regarding
      Cooper. Time to return their type of favors.

      Like

  15. Doppler says:

    If any of them cross examine better than Jim Jordan and Elise Stephanie, I’ll be surprised. Very few highly paid DC lawyers are great courtroom lawyers, because they don’t get enough trial experience in the real world. One case keeps half a dozen lawyers busy for three years, they spend all their time dealing with DC and financial elites, they don’t know anyone who could afford to hire them, they don’t have the ability to spellbind a big diverse audience. A big team means they’re each concerned with who gets what part, rather than with the overall narrative.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Doppler says:

    Stephanik

    Liked by 1 person

  17. islandpalmtrees says:

    Given the importance of the defense team, each must have been selected for specific reasons. For example, some matters are better handled by ladies.

    Liked by 2 people

    • old45model says:

      IPT, exactly! A female shredding another female looks far better than a male shredding a female – and optics will matter, I presume.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Well, if we’re gonna get shallow, and focus on optics and looks, you got Bondi the beautiful as spokesperson for the,Trump legal team, vs Pencil neck for the House Prosecution team.

        Visualise that. Nuff said? If not add in Nadler. Yeah,…..

        Liked by 2 people

  18. From what I know and what I find on the Intertubes, Dershowitz, Starr, Ray, Sekolow, and Raskin are the real legal heavyweights on Trump’s defense team. Frankly given those, I’m not too worried about the back-benchers on the legal team.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. theasdgamer says:

    I can see at least two prosecutors on the President’s legal team. If the Senate votes to hear more witnesses, have your snacks and libations ready. It should be interesting.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. theasdgamer says:

    Bolton is a mine intended to damage the dems. “I know something you haven’t heard. Step on me!” lol

    Liked by 2 people

  21. dorothea says:

    I thought Robert Mueller had investigated everything with all of his lawyers. It seems that all of these tentacles regarding the Ukraine would have emerged during the course of 3 years and unlimited funds! Mueller seemed to have almost no limits on what he could investigate to hurt the President. Why doesn’t anyone bring this up?

    Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      Mueller knew that “Russian collusion” charge was an empty, barren void, a complete fraud. His entire effort from probably ~July 2017 forward was focused on trying to find a way to entrap the President into committing some action that could be identified as obstruction of justice, and to collect as much dirt on the president and his close allies as could either be found or fabricated well enough to appear credible.

      AG Barr knew it was all BS and shut Mueller down else the investigation would still be ongoing.

      Liked by 3 people

    • beach lover says:

      That was one reason Pelosi tried to delay the process hoping some of the info that was hidden in Mueller report, could be requested. No doubt Nadler and Schiff know it even though it’s supposed to be redacted…..kinda like grand jury information. They can’t use it openly, but it gave them breadcrumbs to follow.

      Ukraine was a mess of corruption. Everyone knew it. When the words from Trump were spoken about “getting to the truth”, that sent shock waves thru the members of the State Dept, that had been covering up for the last probably 10 years. Hence the whistleblower. One thing I haven’t heard much about lately… the WB. If he iisn’t called if they get witnesses, something just isn’t right. He was the whole enchilada when it comes to the start of this mess.

      Like

    • Issy says:

      Not His Purview

      Like

  22. The outcome of this impeachment trial will surely affect, one way or the other, the fragile balance of power that currently exists in the free world, in that it could lead, potentially, to unknowable events of unknown magnitude. Having said this, it might be good to recognize that this trial will set heavily on the shoulders of these particular lawyers who will be representing the President of the United States in a matter wherein the fate of the Nation will hang in the balance. As such, we should willingly give them our unconditional support.
    The President is placing his Office and our Nation in their hands.
    This was a solemn decision.
    I wish them the best.

    Liked by 5 people

  23. Mike in a Truck says:

    Id rather look at Pam than Alan. Ohhhh…I’m so shallow and headed for hell…..

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Magabear says:

    This should last 2 to 3 days at the most, not 2 to 3 weeks. Should’ve been dismissed outright, but the Pierre Dilecto caucus….well….they suck.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. Rock Knutne says:

    Wasn’t the ‘real’ DeeDee – Brittany Diamond Eugene?
    She actually was 16 at the time she was fooling around on her boyfriend with Trayvon.
    It was her half-sister Rachel Jeantel that was used as DeeDee to cover her duplicity.

    Like

  26. Dick_Turpin says:

    Hi there Treepers,
    Foreigner here….so please excuse my ignorance in this matter.
    Is there a legal reason why Trump’s own lawyer Rudy is not on the team?
    Thanks in advance 🙂

    Like

    • WRB says:

      I do not think there is a legal reason for Rudy not being on the team. However Jay Sekulow is also one of the “personal attorneys” for POTUS, and he is on the team.

      Liked by 2 people

    • If the “trial” goes into witnesses territory, Rudy WILL BE the MOAB (Mother of all Bombs) for President Trump; as a potential witness to end all witnesses, he would be the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. None of the jerks pretending to be congresspersons wants to set that off in public forum.

      Liked by 5 people

  27. Fools Gold says:

    “I’m a Democrat” brought me to President Donald J Trump! Last Democrat I supported was JFK but I hated his father and killer Son. Oh my. Foreign Policy matters more now than ever and R’s have sucked since the esculater ride into the real history of good for America.

    Like

    • Fools Gold says:

      By the way I’m referring to my lifetime, not before it and only a Dim I respected. 16.9% new construction increase reminds me of how I Loved Reagan. Topping that is now is Donald J Trump especially in this evil filled world and swamp up to no Good!

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Rynn69 says:

    I would like to know more about Ray, Purpura, Philbin, and Raskin…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dekester says:

      We occasionally watch a bit of Ingraham on Faux. ( its included in our basic cable package.)

      Robert Ray has been on with her, IMO he is fantastic, and always looks seriously angered by the Dems position. However he is measured, and comes across as an extremely intelligent and tough individual.

      I was extremely pleased, and surprised that he was selected to “the team”

      Surprised, because I was unaware as to how highly PDJT thought of him.

      Of course I had forgotten that PDJT seems to, ( and likely knows) everything.😎

      God bless PDJT

      Liked by 4 people

  29. Jeff Jacobs says:

    I really dislike bondi. Bad pick

    Like

  30. Joyce M says:

    I sure wish Sidney Powell were available, but based on what she is working on right now I know she doesn’t have the bandwidth.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Doug Amos says:

    Defer to Sundance re: Bondi; every time. Everybody loves the spotlight. Hoping somewhere a bad guy steps in a steaming pile and brings unintended consequences that blow a huge hole in the swamp and there is no more qualified person than President Trump to achieve just that.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Helen Loughman says:

    Lev Parnas is compromising everyone that is being photographed with him, by association.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      Guy is a walking Typhoid Mary. How far
      back did he agree to assume that role?
      Nothing is by coincidence. To be this
      compromised, they must have got him
      by the short hairs, even before he linked
      up with Rudy. Wonder if Isikoff is one of
      his old BFFs?

      Like

  33. Bulldog84 says:

    Dershowitz, whom I never liked and comes with his own baggage, has proven to be correct about a number of things, in particular the FISA Court. But I digress.

    He must make the argument that congressional spending mandates which limit the virtually unlimited power of the Chief Executive over the conduct of foreign affairs (declaration of war excepted) violate the Constitution. And he must support his argument with specific examples (crackhead Hunter Biden and Paul Pelosi) which reveal the corruption enabled by this unconstitutional practice. Many of the RINO senators will hate this argument. Never mind.

    Pursuing corruption in foreign countries is well within the Article I powers of the Presidency, particularly if those countries are recipients of US foreign aid. The false argument that POTUS attempted to extort a foreign leader (something which was actually perpetrated by corrupt Joe Biden) can only be made because Congress is wasting federal tax dollars on corrupt aid programs.

    I think a legal argument can be made that all foreign aid is unconstitutional. Dershowitz won’t make it. But he needs to make the argument that it unconstitutionally restricts the President’s constitutional powers.

    Liked by 2 people

    • IGiveUp says:

      Yes. Good points. The public must hear the Constitutional argument. Civics education! It will fall on deaf ears in the Senate of course. The 3 branches themselves and their various parts just aren’t into the constitution that much.

      Liked by 1 person

  34. thedoc00 says:

    Not single one of these “lawyers” have even a dot of knowledge regarding the witnesses, the charges and other existing testimony that is hidden by the democrats. Not a single one of them has argued in front of the public in defense of the president during the House Proceedings.

    Where are the 4-5 Republican lions of the House who shredded the Democrat’s and lawfare case during the House Hearings???

    A couple of the lawyers pictured need to be there because they actually have done legal work on behalf of the President or have a special understanding of the law and constitution, but the rest of this team is near useless and even a public optics disaster.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. BZ says:

    Pam Bondi is an attractive and fairly articulate individual. However, she is extremely corrupt and narcissistic.

    Her corruption has defined her career. She was the prosecutor who charged seven totally innocent individuals in the death of Martin Lee Anderson. She was so terrible as a prosecutor the jury took less than two hours to find all the accused not guilty.
    Her actions destroyed many lives needlessly.

    During the Trayvon Martin fiasco, she encouraged a very weak governor to appoint her close friend and the head of her campaign finance committee, Angela Corey, special prosecutor. Further, Ms Bondi, immediately declared publicly that Mr Martin had been murdered by George Zimmerman. Totally unprofessional conduct.

    President Trump must have a reason letting her join his legal team. However, I truly doubt her extremely horrible background is fully realized by the White House.

    Like

  36. dasantacroce says:

    NONE of this is going to unfold as we think. The Storm is upon us. Trump is running virtually unopposed. Trump is a money machine for Republican donations. Ted Cruz etal are lining up to kiss his ring including Alan Dershowitz. Lindsey Graham is breathing fire; Rand Paul is pressing home the attack and Pierre Delecto is dropping in the polls. And Trump holds the stage. Courtesy of the MSM. And the democrats are coming for your guns. Just as at Lexington and Concord.

    Like

  37. PCS says:

    I find it hard to believe the President selected this team. Seems … off.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. revarmegeddontthunderbird says:

    IMHO, He put her on the team because he needs more women to vote for him and he has to win FLorida.

    Like

  39. Hans says:

    After Nixon. A law was passed that the President could not stop foreign aid…. just perhaps it might be time with the new 2020 republican house and senate to repeal that bill and stop funding the kick backs to the crooked congressmen thru the crooked State Dept.
    This could be a wonderful outcome for this bogus impeachment scam.

    Like

    • Bulldog84 says:

      If only some brilliant legal mind could make the common sense real world argument that the only reason why an alleged “quid pro quo” was even possible is that congress has for years unconstitutionally taken upon itself — for corrupt reasons — the power to mandate foreign aid.

      Stop this pernicious practice once and for all. Put the foreign lobbyists and their congressional sponsors out of business for good. Do it in the context of the sham impeachment for good measure, to make the grifter heads explode.

      Like

  40. sarasotosfan says:

    Sundance. thanks for laying out the case against Pam Blondi to be within a nuclear device of Trump’s defense team. She is not only the weakest link, she could be re-armed against the interests of the presidency.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. willthesuevi says:

    I remember reading Alan Dershowitz’s column in Penthouse and I seem to recall an interview he gave in Playboy as well.

    I may not have agreed with Alan Dershowitz through the years, but I can certainly respect him.
    Primarily I give him respect, because he has been consistent on the law his entire life. Left or right does not matter when he discusses constitutional issues. He has been that way for as long as I remember reading and listening to him.

    I like that he is on the Presidents team for the Senate trial. He has the gravitas to bitch slap each and every one of these Lawfare clowns. He is sharp and can eloquently defend his constitutional positions. He can certainly help POTUS.

    As for the rest of his team, I have my opinion, but I am not the person on trial, am I? President Trump has assembled a team he approves of and that is as it should be. I am sure he has his reasons for every single attorney there.

    It is not up to me to second guess the man.

    Like

  42. X XYZ says:

    By now it is apparent that the Dems and their Lawfare plotters have found the impeachment process to be a valuable weapon, as they have literally weaponized it. There is nothing to stop congress from bringing a frivolous impeachment.

    Words in the constitution such as “high crimes and misdemeanors” were a compromise because the Founders themselves were at odds over the matter. How “high” is high? What constitutes a “misdemeanor”? Those terms are subjective and can mean whatever you want them to mean.

    Probably the only way this could be remedied would be through an amendment to the constitution. But don’t expect congress to pass anything that would limit their powers.

    Like

  43. MR52 says:

    I really question any role Bondi and Alan Dershowitz have in this. Starr was probably a good pick but is bad for PR. Maybe Bondi and Dershowitz and just distractions on purpose. Trump does like to do the “hey look squirrel” bit.

    Like

  44. DanJ1 says:

    They hit the nail on the head. This is about weakening the Executive Branch and handing it to the nutcases in the House. I’ve given this some thought recently that W-Chaney-Rumsfeld grabbed enormous power for the Exec Branch with liberal (small “L”) use of line item vetoes, regulations, executive privaledge, executive orders, Patriot Act, and more. Obama took those reigns and ran with them. Remember phone and a pen! The first thing he did was extend the Partiot Act in spite of promising not to. The last thing he did was put in motion a two year investigation of his replacement through illegal means.
    .
    This is what Trump inherited and he’s running with it to enact 100% of his promises to the people who put him behind the Resolute Desk. He’s using it to expose the swamp and rewrite all the backroom deals of the last 8 years. The House and Dems have spent the last three years trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube but you can’t. Not without destroying the tube.
    .
    They don’t just want to get back to pre-W times. They want to castrate the Executive Branch for all time. The trial in the Senate will expose this and the bull will be kicking the Dems in the teeth. The esteemed professor and the Trump team are exactly correct. This cannot be allowed to happen for the sake of the Constitution and the Country.
    .
    The Dems think that if they do this and Trump is gone, they will control the government forever and ever. That the Republicans will never be in a position to use it against their future president. This is idiocy. I think back to when Reid used the nuclear option which the Republicans rejected as an option many times. Reid must have assumed that the Senate would never turn back to the Republicans. What happened is what’s playing out today. Supreme Court has gone Conservative and will likely add two more Conservative justices in the next five years. The Republicans and Trump have stacked the entire Federal Court system with Right leaning appointees. All of them were done using Harry Reid and the Dems nuclear option.
    .
    Hopefully there are a few reasonable Dems in the Senate that will not let this happen. It will literally be the end of the Dem Party if they don’t.

    Like

  45. JL says:

    I wouldn’t publicly put Dershowitz anywhere near this trial. He had too many ties to Epstein, and putting him out there is just asking for Dersh to be targetd with a fake Epstein narrative. The FBI controls both Epstein information, and Epstein disinformation.

    Like

  46. X XYZ says:

    Some here have said that “this will be the end of the Democrat Party”;
    And some have said “this will be the end of the Republican Party”.

    Really? With either view, politics in America is not what you think it is.

    Like

  47. I believe SD got on the national map with his coverage of the Zimmerman railroading. If I’m correct, based on his black belt in corruption research, I’ll take his over anyone’s opinion on Bondi.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. askandgettruth says:

    DO NOT trust dershowitz has anybody followed this lib POS all of a sudden he is a conservative ? he is trying to save his socialist ass from PEDO ISLAND. wake up and shut off CNN and the rest of the MSM

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s