The White House doubles down on its dumbest impeachment defense
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The White House doubles down on its dumbest impeachment defense
JANUARY 20, 2020
(Ana Ramirez/Austin American-Statesman via AP)Watching the White House put together its defense of President Trump in the impeachment trial that begins this week, one has to ask: Are they even trying?
After the Democratic House managers released a 111-page indictment providing copious detail on the events that led to impeachment, the nature of Trump’s misconduct and the constitutional basis for his removal, Trump’s attorneys responded with a six-page document that would have been shocking were it not just the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from this White House.
Indeed, it reads as though it was written by a ninth-grader who saw an episode of “Law & Order” and learned just enough legal terms to throw them around incorrectly. It makes no attempt to contest the facts, instead just asserting over and over that the president is innocent and the entire impeachment is illegitimate, calling it “unlawful” and “constitutionally invalid,” with no apparent understanding of what those terms mean. The articles of impeachment, Trump’s lawyers say, “fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.” They then repeat this argument multiple times throughout a screed seemingly pitched to the Fox News hosts who will spend the coming days repeating its absurd claims.
The trouble, as any historian or constitutional scholar will tell you , is that just as there are crimes the president could commit that would not be impeachable (say, shoplifting a candy bar), there has never been any requirement that impeachment can only be used for violations of criminal law. Not only were the Framers deeply concerned about the potential of the president abusing his office, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a federal criminal code.
Trump has found the one constitutional “expert” who will take such a position, however: Harvard professor emeritus and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz, whom Trump added to his defense team last week. “Criminal-like conduct is required” in order for a president to be impeached, Dershowitz now claims , to the puzzlement of pretty much everyone who knows anything about this topic.
Since hypocrisy is something of a job requirement for working for Trump, Dershowitz is naturally on video making exactly the opposite argument in 1998. “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” he said at the time.
To illustrate how foolish the White House’s argument is, let me suggest a few things the president could do that would not violate any criminal statute but that pretty much everyone in both parties would consider grounds for impeachment:
- The president states in a news conference that if Russia wants to invade Alaska, that would be fine with him. Taking the opportunity, Vladimir Putin sends a force across the Bering Sea to occupy the state; the president refuses to deploy U.S. forces to repel them, then says, “To be honest, if anyone’s got their eye on Hawaii, I’m not going to stand in your way.”
- With a legal advisory in hand from the Department of Justice saying that anti-nepotism laws do not apply to the White House staff, the president fires every last member of that staff and replaces them with members of his extended family, including making his 18-year-old nephew, whose only work experience is manning the soft-serve machine at a Dairy Queen, the national security adviser.
- The president declares that his job has become tedious and says he’ll be spending the rest of his term in the White House residence getting drunk and playing “Grand Theft Auto.”
So why is the White House falling back on this argument when it’s so plainly wrong as a matter of both law and logic? There are a number of explanations. The most obvious is that they know the president is guilty of the central charge driving the impeachment, that he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government to help his reelection campaign by discrediting a potential opponent. So the last thing they want to do is argue about the facts of the case, except in the most perfunctory way (“I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!” the president tweeted last week)
Another reason they might have seized on the “no crime” defense is that despite being completely wrong, it has an intuitive appeal to it. If we’re calling this phase of impeachment a “trial” and the entire process bears some resemblance to a criminal proceeding, then there ought to be a criminal violation, right?
That makes sense as long as you don’t understand the facts or the law — or are willing yourself desperately to ignore them. That describes well Trump’s allies on Fox News and the audience they speak to, which is where his entire strategy is pitched. It’s why he assembled his legal team from people he sees frequently on Fox News and why running through all his arguments about impeachment is the false claim that the entire process is illegitimate and can therefore be dismissed out of hand, with as much indignation and whining about unfair treatment as possible.
That logic is also why Republicans will do everything they can to prevent witnesses from testifying in the trial. If you’ve convinced yourself that the process is illegitimate in every way, then at the stage when Republicans have control of it, what’s wrong with turning it into a sham, then shutting it down as quickly as possible?
To return to the question with which I began, it’s not quite that the White House isn’t trying to defend Trump in a serious way. It’s that they’ve decided they don’t really have to.
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
Yup. ...and think about it...why would they want to have facts or the truth viewed? It would just blow their case to smithereens. Besides, his core could care less if something is true or not.
Pretty much.
I wonder what Trump has on Alan Dershowitz that compels Dershowitz to make a fool out of himself on Trump's behalf?
Which is why they are trying to block and witnesses or evidence in the Senate.
There are no witnesses that can exonerate him.
There is no evidence that shows anything but thr truth.
Dershowitz has managed to Have himself involved in some of the most high profile cases. Perhaps he sees this as his largest and most prominent case yet.
In 1998 on Larry King Live, Dershowitz said:
I guess the Constitution has changed somehow from 1998 Dershowitz and 2020 Dershowitz.
Lots of things must have changed.
During the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, Dershowitz endorsed Hillary Clinton, calling her "a progressive on social issues, a realist on foreign policy, a pragmatist on the economy".[56] In 2012, he strongly supported Barack Obama's re-election, writing, "President Obama has earned my vote on the basis of his excellent judicial appointments, his consensus-building foreign policy, and the improvements he has brought about in the disastrous economy he inherited."
Of particular interest:
During the 2020 Democratic Party primaries, Dershowitz endorsed Joe Biden. He said: "I'm a strong supporter of Joe Biden. I like Joe Biden. I've liked him for a long time, and I could enthusiastically support Joe Biden." source
Ain't that a kick in the pants?
Not really. Dershowitz is a known avowed Democrat. Always has been. He endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2008 against Mr. Obama but changed to Mr. Obama after he was the nominee. For him to support a Democrat isn't anything new. He is also a strict proponent of the rule of law and while "liking" the Democrat candidates, he often points out the error of ways on both sides. He doesn't like frivolous abuse of the law.......
When cornered by his own words, here is his hilarious defense:
“I am much more correct right now, having done more research,” Dershowitz told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday. “I didn’t do the research back then. I wasn’t wrong. I am just far more correct now than I was then.”
The facts in the case are indisputable. Dishonest Donald did abuse the power of the Presidency for his own personal political gain and got caught. Even if the senate refuses to convict (aka remove him from office) everyone will have seen the trial just like they did in one of Dershowitz's other defendants case, OJ Simpson. And, much like that case, even if Trump is let off by the biased Republican senate, the majority of American people know he's guilty and these sad defense arguments like "abuse of power doesn't meet the standard for impeachment" and "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" nonsense will be seen through. The Republican Senate risks knowingly, willfully siding with an obviously guilty President with only weak process excuses to defend their blatantly obsequious decision. I trust the majority of Americans will see this and punish them for it and will end up handing the Democrats back the majority just like they did in the House in 2018. This is their last hurrah, the old Republican party no longer exists, it has fractured into a fetid pile of disparate parts serving one and only master, dirty dishonest Donald.
Dershowitz is an egomaniac along the lines of Trump. They probably deserve each other.
Yet and still he is a fucking hypocrite. Anything he says in the Impeachment hearing should be taken with a grain of salt.
So the guy who boasts about clerking for the Appeals and Supreme court and that he is a tenured professor at Harvard law excuses his hypocrisy by claiming that he didn't do the research.
I was mistaken when I thought that Dershowitz's credibility couldn't be more in question.
WOW!
[deleted]
Really? How would you know?
I don't normally go down this road, but since the author brought it up, I think this is a weird accusation for someone who didn't go to law school.
So many people are so full of their own opinion that they just assume everyone else would agree with them. It's pretty arrogant, and it's usually untrue.
Looking at these three examples:
Wrong. That would actually be treason (in the form of giving aid and comfort to someone levying war against the United States) which is specifically impeachable by the Constitution.
That might be a shitty idea, but as long as they go through the usual security background checks or senate approval (where required), it wouldn't be impeachable. I don't think there is a lot of support out there for the idea that any president should ever have been impeached for his choices of staff.
Presidents already drink and play golf. No one (with any sense) ever says they should be impeached for it. What's the difference? The founders debated the inclusion of "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment, but ultimately rejected it, substituting "other high crimes and misdemeanors." They decided that an election every four years would be a sufficient protection against this problem. This, according to Madison's notes on the proceedings .
Where is the treason? Where is the war? The hypothetical doesnt describe war, it describes a president giving Alaska to Russia.
The fact is , "abuse of power" does not necessarily need a crime. Dershowitz and Trump are barking up the wrong tree.
No it doesn't. It's not his to "give." Instead, it describes an invasion and cooperation with that invasion. That's treason. Remember, that the premise is that these are impeachable things that aren't actually against the law. The scenario describes a violation of law.
I can't believe I dignify such disingenuousness with a reply.
US Code defines treason:
The hypothetical says the president does not order US troops to deploy. I think the writer is trying to make a point, but if it makes you feel better to act as if your disagreement with the hypothetical renders the entire premise inoperative, knock yourself out.
The truth is that abuse of power does not have to be based on a violation of law, period, end of story.
If you want to go down with the ship on that one, thats your choice.
What one? Your change of subject? Your movement of goalposts? Delude yourself. It won't work on me.
Neither are the funds for the 2019 Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or the FMF. Nor is it his to TAKE.
Ah, someone else wants to change the subject. Ok.
Actually he does have broad discretion as to how and when precisely the assistance is distributed.
He hasn't taken anything. You may relax.
I didn't 'change the subject, I elaborated on an existing one.
Sure, as long as he informs the Congress and gets their okay. Other than that, no so much.
The Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act to preclude the POTUS from using the 'broad discretion' you pretend exists. Perhaps you should READ the act and then READ the GAO decision stating that Trump unlawfully ordered the OMB to violate that law.
Oh and Trump DID take over 30 million from Ukraine and only through an act of Congress was it allocated though it STILL hasn't reached Ukraine.
FAIL.
Before you happened by, the exchange was about an analysis of hypothetical examples of how a president could be impeached for things that aren't violations of statute.
Since neither John nor I had said anything about the distribution of aid, you were changing the subject.
I don't care. I just acknowledged it. It's not really necessary for you to be defensive or in denial about it. At least I responded to it. You're welcome.
What a complete fckn embarrassing joke this has even further escalated into.
Who needs witnesses and evidence to determine if there is merit in a case as trivial as the IMPEACHMENT OF THE POTUS !
For once, i can watch Fox 'news' and get some truth for morev than a few seconds at a time
Not if you were watching 'The Five'. They didn't have the balls to show the hearing at all except as a small box (no sound) in the corner.
Does it really take balls to show it? Sounds more like an entertainment decision for the audience. Most of these speeches are so boring, I wouldn't blame them for putting it in the corner.
Of course republicans don't want their sheeple to hear anything but their lies and spin, the truth is just too much for them to handle. They must have pretty short attention spans. At least the Americans who do have a functioning brain are hearing the truth about Trumps abuses.
Nope. No one's afraid. It's just boring and stupid. Plus, there are other things happening in the world.
What the facts demonstrate is that the president's defense team should move for dismissal immediately following opening arguments. the Democrats continue to demonstrate that they are enemies of this Republic.
Not one Republican Senator including lefty Romney will vote for the impeachment.
And when Trump goes off the rails after he knows he has no check and balance, the entire gop will own every single word and action. Buckle up.