Very hard to do that if he hadn’t very clearly tried to subvert an election result. You heard him say he wanted a governor to find him more votes. You know that is wrong. But he plays for your team so it is ok? How can you right wingers- who are so obsessed with the right they get sucked into the horror show of American politics - be so blinkered as to a ticelt seem out malfeasance in the left and try so hard to ignore it in the left. Imagine a political leader here said the election result doesn’t stand because I am too popular to have lost and it is all cheating so change the reault in my favour. Please justify that behaviour abd explain why it isn’t illegal or at the damn least why it isn’t wrong. You have your brain on backwards, mate.
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on Trump’s Georgia indictments: “First of all, nobody should take seriously that there was grand jury indictment. The fact that it was agrand jury indictment, it means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted. Now, the whole strategy of all these four cases to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors, if you bring a Rico case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states. And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump. And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election, which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's runningagainst your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible. And these are among the four, at least three of them, three weakest cases I’ve ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case. And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise, it becomes a banana republic. Anybody can prosecute anybody.And we're opening the door to prosecutionof Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats. It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist isthe most dangerous threat to democracy, and we're seeingit unfold in front of our eyes.Very, very tragically. I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution.I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being fritter away for partisan political purposes.”
Just to change the narrative from the tedious news around some bloke who wants to be President again, let's start a debate as to what has been the best bit of UK Government legislation in your mind. I will start off with the Town and Country plannng act of 1947 which put a greenbelt around London and other cities to preserve the beauty of the countryside from developers and also allow the British public access to places of beauty close the edge of urban centres.
This was before he had read the papers. He has since changed his views. … Now, he’s not so sure. Since reading the 49-page indictment, which was unsealed on Friday, Dershowitz says, “at least one part of it is somewhat stronger than I had initially believed it would be.” Specifically, the indictment cites a tape recording in which the president allegedly brags to an unnamed person about classified “secret information” in a document about Iran. “You hear rustling in the papers and then he shows it to this unauthorized writer,” says Dershowitz. “What we don't know from the tape is whether he shows it to him to read or just shows it to him kind of to show off and say, ‘See? I have this. I'm not going to let you read it but here it is.’” Sadly, Os, you live your life through a narrow lens and don’t do your research.
Can we give all things to do with Trump and Sexual Transformers a rest guys? It is getting beyond tedious. Just for one week!!
Here's my link again to start a fresh discussion! Just to change the narrative from the tedious news around some bloke who wants to be President again, let's start a debate as to what has been the best bit of UK Government legislation in your mind. I will start off with the Town and Country plannng act of 1947 which put a greenbelt around London and other cities to preserve the beauty of the countryside from developers and also allow the British public access to places of beauty close the edge of urban centres.
The Magna Carta was a good idea. Then there's the Great Reform Act of 1832, that was handy. Universal Suffrage has had its good points...
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Saved literally thousands of people from an unnecessary early death. https://www.statista.com/statistics...s-at-work-great-britain-by-employment-y-on-y/ Vin
Alongside which has to stand the Race Relations Act 1965, and the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, which paved the way for a more tolerant society. Until the advent of social media anyway.
You neglected to point out that Dershowitz is a former lawyer of Trump's. Strange that you'd leave out such a detail while trying to paint him as a neutral party here.
