Agree or disagree
 

Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection

Dershowitz's case: If Trump did abuse his power by establishing a quid pro quo — military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, in order to undermine Biden's presidential campaign — well, it's OK because Trump believes it is best for the United States if he, and not Biden, wins the 2020 election.

I Disagree NO POTUS HAS THAT POWER OR SHOULD

The hypocrisy is glaring, can you just imagine the outcry if this was a Democrat on trial in a democratic held senate.

hopefully some day.....

that’s a distortion that the left is clinging to, dershowitz cleared it up, and also made it clear if you watched his testimony.

he didn’t say the president can do
anything to get re elected. he said, just because something might help him get the elected, doesn’t mean he can’t do it because it’s of value to him.

Obama gave the order to kill Bin Laden. Obviously that helped him get re elected. No idiot said that obama should have refused to use the military on a dangerous
mission that would help him politically.

The crime trump is charged with us withholding aid for his personal benefit - the benefit being, improving his chances of being elected. What dershowitz said ( and he made obvious with examples of presidents from Lincoln to Obama) is that there’s nothing wrong with a president doing something which had the effect of helping him politically, especially if it provides some
public value.

Trump can’t transfer gold from fort knox to his personal vault. But he can get a trade deal with china that helps everybody, even if it means it helps him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's a shocker :rotf3:


they only repeat what they see on msnbc from the likes of dumb lemon

So his clearing it up is ok with you but when H. Clinton said the deplorable comment and said sorry, you still use it 6 years later?

So confusing.

can you please try to focus?

Floridaman can be impeached for what he has done and what he might do, as long as the Senate decides that he should be removed. There was intentionally no constraint put on the Senate to have to abide by anything other than their consciences and the political ramifications of their actions. It is not a court of law, it is the Senate.

Dershowitz claimed in his testimony that a president does not commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” unless he violates criminal statutes.

By this argument, no abuse of power could be impeachable unless it violated a criminal law.

He uses a revisionist view of the constitution and the founders to back himself up.

He says that Hamilton in Federalist 65 was writing about specified crimes and that it should not be expanded to include misconduct, abuse, or violation [of some public trust].

He selectively misses part of the essay, and I quote: can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security.

Hamilton said that the Senate was the place to try impeachments, that they do no involve just the normal application of laws and facts, but rather an "awful discretion" not bound by normal legal standards, that the Senators would have to bear political responsibility for.

As far as his gross interpretation of Madison on maladminstration, he apparently limited his reading.
Madison specifically argued that if senators feared that the president might abuse the pardon power, then the Senate could preemptively remove him from office in an impeachment trial: “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him [with pardons], the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”
This contradicts Dershowitz's assertion that it needs to be a crime to remove the president, and in addition reflect's Madison's belief that a President could be removed preemptively.
Dershowitz hopes that the Senate and you fall for his false choice, that because Madison rejected maladministration therefore he has a high and somehow concrete standard of criminal acts. He ignores that high crimes and misdemeanors was intended to include an undefined category of crimes and miscarriages of public trust.

That is what "high crimes and misdemeanors" consist of.
It is not an invitation for senators to turn impeachment into whatever they want it to be, but a charge to senators to make hard legal and prudential judgments about abuses of power and violations of the public trust which are so grave that, even if not technically illegal, still merit constitutional impeachment and removal.

Just remember the other stupid stuff Dershowitz has pontificated on.

His possibly self serving argument that statutory rape should be lowered to 15.

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime," Dershowitz said on CNN in 1999. "If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
His explanation and notice that it only has to be "criminal like" not a crime: "So I have now thoroughly researched the issue and concluded that although a technical crime with all the elements may not be required, criminal like behavior akin to treason and bribery is required.
The emphasis is mine.

no it’s not confusing. if you watch the original dershowitz testimony, no sane person would
conclude that he thinks Trump could
empty out Fort Knox and transfer the money to his campaign to help him get re elected. yet everyone on the left claimed that dershowitz was saying a president could do anything to help himself get re elected. his testimony was clear to any fair
minded person, he cited example after example, his point was that if public policy was designed to serve the public and also had the effect of helping the president politically, obviously that’s not a crime. the clarification would
not have been necessary if
not for the liars in the media.

Clinton’s remarks had only one possible context. You can’t take those remarks out of context, her intent wasn’t debatable or open to interpretation.

only confusing to the dim ( which you absolutely are not) or to those motivated by politics ( which in my opinion you are).
instead of honesty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, well it's been recognized that the "Misdemeanors" bit was a weak, nebulous, throw-in to try to cover unknown, undefined, circumstance. Probably a poor choice of word. A misdemeanor is a crime, but a low level one, hardly worthy of impeachment. So what was probably meant is defined by the preceding qualifier "High"--a High Misdemeanor, which would be the redundant "High Crime."

In any event, as it stands, the so-called "abuse of power" charge is thinking or wanting to do something, but not actually doing it. And attaching to that non-existent doing, the notion that it was specifically intended to influence an election. Even though there was every legal right and duty to do what WAS done--delay for verification. It seems that the High Misdemeanor here must be an unfulfilled thought crime. But this unfulfilled thought High Misdemeanor does accord with your notion of someone in a branch of government being able to act on unconstrained conscience.

And, anyway, any action by the President can influence an election. So what follows from that is the ridiculous notion that a President should not act (not do his duty) because it will affect an election.

So by your own definition, if the Senate acquits, then we can assume that they followed your principle, that they followed their conscience, and will abide the political consequences, and all went as it should.

Misdemeanors was in no way a "weak, nebulous, throw-in to try to cover unknown, undefined, circumstance." It had a distinct meaning when the Constitution was written and unlike the current WH occupant the men who designed and wrote the constitution were very well read. Since some of Blackstone's language is directly reflected in the contemporaneous discussions that lead to the writing of the constitution, I assume they had read this book.
Sir William Blackstone, in his famous 1765 treatise, Commentaries on the Laws of England – the most widely possessed and read law book in America at the time of the framing of the Constitution and a respected resource of many of the Constitution’s framers – discussed ordinary criminal law and impeachment proceedings separately, in different sections of the fourth book of his epic treatise. While the province of impeachment and the province of the criminal law both involved punishment for “Public Wrongs” – and both employed the words “crimes” and “misdemeanors” – impeachment involved public wrongs of a distinctly different sort. Book IV divides the treatment of different types of public wrongs into numerous subheadings. The terms “crimes” and “misdemeanors” are set forth as general descriptors for public wrongs in Chapter 1. But successive chapters then deal separately with different specific types of offenses.

Significantly, wrongs punishable by impeachment are discussed distinctly in Chapter 9, entitled “Of Misprisions and Contempts, affecting the King and Government.” There, Blackstone employed the term “high misdemeanors” in a specialized sense. The “first and principal” illustration of “high misdemeanors,” Blackstone wrote, is “the mal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment. This is usually punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment.”

Keep Blackstone’s identification of “high misdemeanors” with “mal-administration” of high officers in mind. It comes back around in the Constitutional Convention’s discussion of the language that ultimately became the Constitution’s impeachment standard.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/0...eanors-part-1/

It hard to believe that someone who claims to be an originalist would ignore the research and constitutional arguments about that. Though if you agree with Dershowitz's ever changing opinions, that might be the explanation. Here is one of them:

"Contemporary judicial nominees who glibly recite the expected formula of original intent or understanding should read [the Dred Scott opinion] and be asked whether they would have joined the majority decision in Dred Scott—and if not, why not? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation of how honest ‘originalists’ could have wriggled their way out of the majority conclusion in Dred Scott or how they could have agreed with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision [in Brown v. Board of Education]."

Should or did, is the question.
And the politicians will suffer the political consequences.

Jim in CT is correct.

Can you pls. try not to be so snarky. It really is not a good thing for an adult.

I didn't say that I agree with all of Dershowitz's opinions. I am sure there are many that I disagree with. You cite one, do you believe in it? If you do, does that mean you believe in all of his ever changing ones?

The articles of impeachment against Trump are either ridiculous, as is the obstruction of Congress, or very thinly based and faultily or unconvincingly construed as is the abuse of power.

Just like Trump he opens his mouth we all heard and read what he said.. but he was misrepresented, i guess you have heard the white house console says the same thing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Time will tell
Meanwhile drip.....drip.....drip

Every Trumplican Senator’s nightmare
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim is correct again. And, Alan D took CNN (Wolf and crew) to task last evening on TV for misrepresenting what he said. They reluctantly agreed by quickly nodding their heads and trying to move to another topic.

Alan Dershowitz must be so proud of himself. He helped OJ, the serial murderer get off. Epstein, the serial rapist get off and Trump, the serial traitor, to get off. That kind of sums up justice in America.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^^^^^

He voted for Hillary. He votes Democrat. Politically he tends to be Progressive not Republican. Most of black Democrats applauded OJ's acquittal. Epstein was equal opportunity for both parties.

Outside of California, Trump got more votes than Hillary. Hillary was not penalized for several scandals. Corruption is not an abnormality on both sides of the political see-saw.

Not sure what that all sums up to. Maybe SNAFU.

You agree with something that you don’t understand?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he predicted that's what he would say...he's Gotstradamus :drevil: