where the lovely Kate McKinnon as the Devil ridiculed his legal arguments.

         What a terrible presentation! He basically read a 90 page law review article at break neck speed to Senators who had been listening to lawyers droning on all day.

          Not surprisingly, the only thing the Republican Senators remember is “if what Bolton says is true, there is nothing impeachable” which gives them cover to vote against witnesses.  

          Even talking heads on CNN this morning did not understand what Dershowitz was saying- Toobin came closest, admitting “I couldn’t really follow the argument.”

          I couldn’t either but, at least to the extent he said that an impeachable offense has to be “akin” to  treason and bribery, he is both wrong and making a terrible argument for Trump:

“So the position that I’ve derived from the history would include, and this is a word that has upset some people, but would include criminal-like conduct akin to treason and bribery.”  

          He is wrong because there is no crime “akin” to treason. He is making a terrible argument for Trump, because if what Trump did is not bribery, “Hey Zelensky I’ll deposit  $400 million in your account if you will open an investigation into the Bidens which will really help my reelection,”  what he did is certainly “akin” to bribery –“Hey Zelensky –“I’ll release the $400 million in aid to your country  if you will open an investigation into the Bidens which will really help my reelection.”

        Is there a statute on the books that says this? No. Duh. There are no criminal statutes addressing acts that only a president  can perform.

Cue Jerry Seinfield with voice over – Dershowitz!

"Not surprisingly, the only thing the Republican Senators remember is “if what Bolton says is true, there is nothing impeachable” which gives them cover to vote against witnesses."

 
Does NOT jive with this:

 
"...he is both wrong and making a terrible argument for Trump..."

 
How can it be a "terrible argument for Trump" if it gives R's cover to not only acquit him, but to vote against witnesses as well?

 
You need to rethink this one.

Then please go buy yourself a dictionary.
From The Grammarist.
"Gibe, jibe, jive
Gibe refers to a taunt or a derisive remark. It functions as both a verb (to taunt) and a noun (taunt). Jibe has a nautical use (relating to turning the sail to go on an opposite tack), but it’s most often used to mean agree or to be in accord. Jive refers to either jazz music, dancing, or nonsense talk, although it can sound old-fashioned or ironic in its senses unrelated to dance. It functions as both a noun (for the dance, music, or talk) and a verb (to engage in the dance, music, or talk)."

and submit a written question “isn’t the abuse of power charged in Article 1 ‘akin to bribery’ which Professor Dershowitz says is an impeachable defense? So while not just any abuse of power is an impeachable offense, an abuse of power akin to bribery is an impeachable offense by his reasoning.” Now the impeachment discussion focuses on this narrow point.

We don’t need witnesses for this and it does not matter if the Repubs vote them down. Now the crack Trump Legal Defense is up the creek,  as this kills all the parade of horribles (parking in a handicapped space is an abuse of power –impeach the president) arguments they have made.

So Dershowitz has taken a big and unnecessary risk here.

How would that be significant in any way? How is Dersh taken any risk at all? All the post speech remarks by Republicans, on and off the record, have been effusive in their praise of him.

 
To his target audience, he hit a five run, home run. Not sure how that could possibly a "be big and unnecessary risk."

Apparently the dems and their sycophants in the media all read from the same talking points.  LIzzy Warren says she couldn't follow the Dersh's argument.  I guess they are pleading cognitive impairment.  The Dersh was easy to understand, made a clear historical case.  I followed it every step of the way.  I guess I am suppose to believe the partisan dems rather than my own lying ears?

Were you drinking heavily or smoking crack when you wrote this?  Aren't you worried your head might explode from all that brilliance crammed into such a small space.  I bet when you were a kid you were no good at connect the dots.  Am I right?

and I, Senator Warren , Jeffrey Toobin – well, the list is a long one – couldn’t follow it, why don’t you explain the four points that baffled me:

1. what crimes are “akin” to treason?
2. why isn’t what Trump did “akin” to bribery?
3. why are “other high crimes and misdemeanors” limited to statutory crimes,
since there are no statutes (as far as I know) that criminalize actions that only a president can take? The other law professors said that this why we have abuse of power.

4. “Applying that rule to the groups of words, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, the last five words should be interpreted to include only serious criminal behavior akin to treason and bribery.”

So state law murder and rape are not impeachable crimes, since these crimes are not akin to treason and bribery. Right? So fortunate that you found it “easy to understand.”

Now, I admit I didn’t watch the whole thing, since there was an episode of “My Mother the Car” on another channel, so maybe I missed it.

But please, share.

Your argument is that you didn't agree with it, not that you couldn't follow it.  I assume Lizzy Warren chooses her words well.  Not being able to follow a line of thought is different than disagreeing with it.   Of course LIzzy is just following the talking points, so I give her that out -- why do that pesky thinking when all you have to do is read off the script.

I feel a lot smarter now, Unfortunately I believe I said:

 
Even talking heads on CNN this morning did not understand what Dershowitz was saying- Toobin came closest, admitting “I couldn’t really follow the argument.”  

          I couldn’t either but, at least to the extent he said that an impeachable offense has to be “akin” to  treason and bribery, he is both wrong and making a terrible argument for Trump:

Citing CNN?  Okay then.

We just don't believe you. You followed it just fine, you just hated it bc the argument was made in favor of Trump, and it was made not only by a liberal, but a non-partisan one, and who WAS well regarded right up until he started defending Trump.  

 
He is a civil libertarian and passes the shoe on the other foot test, where you, Toobin, Tribe and AC Giggles180 fail miserably.

Here's the secret reason Lizzy and the rest say they didn't follow it ... then they'd have to cite the "errors" and give historical counter-examples.  They don't see that as a winning proposition, so they run away while blaming the Dersh.

In fact what the Dersh said was easy to follow.  Naturally some scholar could dig up historical arguments on the other side, this was all debated back in the day.  But that just muddies the water for the Dems.  Their claim is that this is an open and shut case.  Muddy waters don't fit the narrative.  Muddy waters mean reasonable doubt.  Can't have that.  So to maintain the narrative they have to proclaim that Dersh was speaking in tongues.

It was like all of them got stupid all at once. Like when Gilligan and the Skipper used to look at the professor with that quizzical look on their faces after the professor just got done explaining something very complex.  

 
That's the exact look I picture on Mari's face and all the "brilliant" people on FNN watching Dersh. The difference is Gilligan and the Skipper really were lost, and Mari & Crew are just feigning such.

 
This isn't too dissimilar to Hills and Bills "nuts and sluts" defense, minus the sluts part. Dersh is killing liberals, so they all just decided to dummy up. The stakes are too big for them. They are scared to death about another 4 years of Trump.  

 
Witnesses or no witnesses, Trump will get his acquittal, the Republicans will have their cover, and the libtards can argue all day and night with Messrs Dershowitz and Turley, two life-long Democratic constitutional law experts with sterling reputations, who just placed their country over party, and who are both being demonized and name called for doing such.

nonsensical  and she could not follow it.

She had a different complaint than I did. She disagreed with his discussion about intent:

 
"His characterization of the law simply is unsupported. He is a criminal law professor who stood in the well of the Senate and talked about how law never inquires into intent and that we should not be using the president's intent as part of understanding impeachment," Warren told reporters.
 
"Criminal law is all about intent. Mens rea is the heart of criminal law. That's the very basis of it. So it makes his whole presentation just nonsensical. I truly could not follow it," Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, continued.  
 

Dershowitz has fired back saying she misunderstood his argument and “everyone else understood it.”  I guess he doesn’t read the P & R Board. LOL

I explained why I couldn’t follow it and why I thought he was wrong. I asked if you could explain what he meant by “akin” to treason and bribery etc. And you, of course, did not even try beyond repeating that it was “easy to follow.”  This is not a knock on you bc I know you have absolutely no idea- nor does anyone else.

So let's review shall we?

 
1) You state you just couldn't "follow it." Got it.

 
2) And you admit you "didn't watch all of it." Check.

 
But you are SURE he is wrong. LOL

 
I will put you down as a nominee for "Non sequitur of the Year" at this years SPOTY's. You are a shoe in! LOL

Jewish cabal?

for Watergate if he believed his reelection was in the public interest, eh boy....I saw that one Fox-Jack must be dying lol.

Original quote: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters."  
VIDEO source: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters  
.
Revised version: 'Dershowitz says I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot Biden and I wouldn't be impeachable.' (ALERT to the morons: That is not a Trump "quote." That is parody of Trump's actual quote, above. Trump already felt that he could commit any crime and remain untouchable. Dershowitz is just another Trump enabler.)
.
Reminder: Stephanopoulos interview. Trump said he would STILL accept foreign help in the 2020 election.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-exclusive-interview-president/story?id=63749144  Even though his FBI director said it is illegal, Trump, the person with the sharpest legal mind in his own mind, said, "The FBI director is wrong."
.
The next day, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/448507-fec-chair-responds-to-trump-saying-hed-accept-foreign-intel-on  
"Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said Thursday it is illegal to accept foreign assistance during elections after President Trump publicly suggested he would accept foreign intelligence on opponents.  "I would not have thought that I needed to say this," Weintraub tweeted Thursday with her statement.  "Let me make something 100 percent clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election," Weintraub said."