I'm not sure why Dershowitz thinks this is such a gotcha. Intent matters. And the inferences we can reasonably draw about Trump's intent depend on context. Whether Trump is in his first term or his second term is part of that context.

These are the sorts of inferences that we ask juries to make all the time.

I specifically said that I was NOT arguing that Ukraine should be, or should have been, in NATO. I mentioned Crimea only to make the point that Putin has few reservations about moving aggressively against neighboring countries if he thinks it is feasible.


I agree with this to an extent. I don't think U.S. foreign policy should be shaped as if there is some ongoing struggle between the U.S. and Russia for world hegemony. That probably wasn't accurate in 1982 and it certainly isn't accurate now.

But any U.S. president who believes that Putin can be trusted is a fool. I am firmly of the view that Putin is one of the worst people on the planet. I don't think he has anything resembling a moral or ethical compass. Power and money are the only currencies he respects and the only currencies in which he trades.

Man, never would have guessed that Luckbox hates "the media" but uncritically reads the Washington Examiner!

This impeachement thing is the total deconstruction of all the supposedely great system americans live in.
This is beautifull to watch how a civilization goes down.
When Trump is acquitted, it will be open seasons on rivals, setting up the perfect precedent.
Now let's see what happens if the right doesn't get the president they want (now or in the next 40 years).
RIP America, you had a good run.

as long as we have great men like adam schiff, bernie sanders and great women like AOC and millions of silent decent free thinking patriots ready to join the revolution...we will be fine. USA #1!!

Team Trump is literally arguing that he can assassinate the Dem nominee and rig the vote to assure his election, and doing so is not impeachable, and Republicans will go along with it.

Lol. I don't read the Washington Examiner wtf?
Why would you have that idea? Because I posted a google news screenshot and an article backing up my claim that that information about his name has been out for months?
Seriously what is wrong with you people? Are google news screenshots of the Washington Examiner verboten here?
Man I never would have guessed that Wookie makes up nonsense.

I hope that was a rhetorical question, because it is actually fairly obvious what is wrong. It is just tribalism all the way down.

It's just crazy because I searched Eric Ciamarella and Washington Examiner articles were the furthest back ones I can find. Wookie then assumes that means I read the Washington Examiner because that is apparently the only source of this information in his mind. It's wild to see how people think.
It was a rhetorical question but it still amazes me.

I think you are giving Wookie too much credit. His general MO is just to find the laziest, most expedient way to attack the arguer, while rarely addressing the argument at all. It was just the first, most convenient thing he found in your post to attack. I doubt he even bothered to see what your actual argument was.

Makes sense

This is the most ridiculous part about this whole thing. Even more ridiculous than an elected official outing possible whistleblowers BY LEAVING AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING AFTER A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TOLD HIM HE COULDN'T TO TWEET A STUPID QUESTION.

I mean I have joe6iq on ignore obviously cause no one cares what he says about anything beep boop

Since the Washington Examiner is no good, how about random twitter users confirm that the guy's name has been out for months.

I outed him in this thread way back in October.

Random MAGA Twitter bots would tweet out my dick if they thought Hillary touched it

Disclaimer: she did

Lol Steele dossier obviously

Apparently it's true that he was outed by Schiff himself

Anyways, you don't actually think the guy's life is in danger now I hope, right?

Well his name isn't Marie so he might be fine?!

It's a Benny Johnson tweet so my base assumption that it's more probable that it's a lie than it's the truth

I've never heard of him but since he has a blue check mark that seems like a fairly safe assumption to make. I forget sometimes to check to make sure I'm never posting tweets from those ****ers.

Think of what you are saying. It means that if I come home and find an intruder, whether I get convicted of shooting him could depend on whether or not I knew him and was known to hate him. You are saying that I need to be more sure my life is in danger before shooting him than I would need to be if he was a stranger because my risk of punishment for the shooting will be greater.

It's less to do with the blue check mark and more that he's been fired multiple times for plagiarism and outright lying.

Haha blue checkmark are you ****ing serious? You're an embarrassment. Holy ****.

Hey guys only the BEST OF THE BEST get verified by Twitter. We should believe whatever they say!

You guys are so ****ed...