IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY Dershowitz: Trump pursuing quid pro quo to help re-election is not impeachable

  
Via:  larry-hampton  •  3 weeks ago  •  28 comments

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY Dershowitz: Trump pursuing quid pro quo to help re-election is not impeachable
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,"

The odor of burgeoning dictatorship


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Donald Trump's legal team, argued Wednesday that a quid pro quo arrangement that benefits the president politically is fine because all politicians believe their elections are in the public's interest.

He said that if Trump did withhold nearly $400 million in aid to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations of Democrats to help his campaign, it wasn't an impeachable offense because Trump thinks his election would be to the country's benefit. Therefore, he had no corrupt motive.


"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he said   during the first day of the question-and-answer period   of the Senate impeachment trial.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Larry Hampton
1  seeder  Larry Hampton    3 weeks ago

Dershowitz said there were three possible motives for a quid pro quo in foreign policy: the public interest, personal political interest and personal financial interest.

In the end, he argued, only the latter is corrupt.

"Every public official I know believes" their election "is in the public interest," Dershowitz added.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
1.1  seeder  Larry Hampton  replied to  Larry Hampton @1    3 weeks ago

All hail dicktater donny rump!

 
 
 
Steve Ott
2  Steve Ott    3 weeks ago

Alan "I kept my underpants on" Dershowitz view is an exceptionally small minority view. Perhaps a handful of attorrneys and legal scholars hold to some kind of similar view. There is not much credibility there.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    3 weeks ago

All in all, Dershowitz is correct.  Seeing as how Trump is cleaner than freshly driven snow in an unpopulated region with his financials.  Nothing else matters anymore, right?

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
3.1  seeder  Larry Hampton  replied to  bbl-1 @3    3 weeks ago

Yup!

I'd love to hear from some of our conservative friends in regards to this. If I were they, I'd stay as far away from it as possible though.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Larry Hampton @3.1    3 weeks ago

Yeah, the most interesting thing about Trump is nobody really knows how this alleged billionaire is a billionaire considering all of his documented financial failures. 

And these are only the ones we know about.   Far less cash outlays here, but I can't help but wonder if there are dozens of other payments Trump made in line with

Daniels and McDougal.  A notable other thing concerning Trump is the fact that sex is never an issue.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Yeah, the most interesting thing about Trump is nobody really knows how this alleged billionaire is a billionaire considering all of his documented financial failures.

Apparently, when he was doing The Apprentice, part of his contract was that producers and everyone on the show, were required to refer to him as a billionaire.  It is a label he put on himself, with no evidence to its accuracy. 

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.3  katrix  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

He also said that he himself decided how much his net worth is based on how he feels that day.

I'm not sure he could tell the truth if his life depended on it.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4  gooseisgone    3 weeks ago

Dershowitz made an excellent point, at what point does a politician's actions constitute a crime.  "ALL" politicians do almost everything for political purposes(to get reelected), should they all be impeached?

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1  bbl-1  replied to  gooseisgone @4    3 weeks ago

"should they all be impeached?"  Yes, all of those with Russian sympathies.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1    3 weeks ago
Russian sympathies

Please name them! 

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
4.2  seeder  Larry Hampton  replied to  gooseisgone @4    3 weeks ago

So do you think that if a president believes it's for the good of the country that he ensures his next elction, that any crime is permissible?

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.1  katrix  replied to  Larry Hampton @4.2    3 weeks ago

The idea that if a president thinks his reelection is "for the good of the country" - which every politician believes - he can commit any crime is breathtakingly scary.

How could anyone support this much power for every president, whether of their own party or not? Our founding fathers expected Congress to provide checks and balances on the executive branch, but they never expected this batch of cowards and toadies to be in Congress, I guess.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
4.2.2  seeder  Larry Hampton  replied to  katrix @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

Legalese for enabling a dictatorship. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.3  katrix  replied to  Larry Hampton @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

Honestly, I never did either. I knew Trump would be a crappy President and knew he'd try to be a dictator, but I never expected Congress to shirk its duties like this.

And I never expected so many of our citizens to support this travesty of abuse of power.

They'll sorely regret it when the next Democratic president takes it even further. And so will I.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.2.4  gooseisgone  replied to  katrix @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
How could anyone support this much power for every president

What do you think you have been doing for years?

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.5  katrix  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.4    3 weeks ago
What do you think you have been doing for years?

Huh?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.2.6  gooseisgone  replied to  Larry Hampton @4.2    3 weeks ago

Presidents do things for political purposes (unless you disagree) never said anything about permissible crimes. Give me an example of a crime.

Here is an example of things being done for political purposes. Look at the revenues for the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton was in office and Secretary of State and look at them now.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.3  Steve Ott  replied to  gooseisgone @4    3 weeks ago

L’état, C’est Moi

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
4.3.1  seeder  Larry Hampton  replied to  Steve Ott @4.3    3 weeks ago

256

Yup.

In his bizarre New York Times interview , Donald Trump expresses his characteristic assortment of fever-dream assertions. The president believes Hillary Clinton “was totally opposed to any sanctions for Russia,” that a properly amortized health-insurance plan would cost “$12 a year,” that Napoleon’s “one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities,” and that Trump has somehow either carried out or reversed sweeping land reforms (“I’ve given the farmers back their farms. I’ve given the builders back their land to build houses and to build other things”). Yet a consistent idea manages to poke through the delirious rambling. Trump repeatedly affirmed his conviction that the entire federal government ought to be operated for his personal benefit.

Trump expressed this idea by returning several times to the phrase “conflict of interest.” Trump himself is of course the most personally conflicted president in modern American history. He has maintained a vast, undisclosed business empire and openly used his powers in office to enrich himself. But he does not mention this conflict of interest. Instead he applies the phrase to any law-enforcement official who might potentially get in his way.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/donald-trump-ltat-cest-moi.html

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.3.2  Steve Ott  replied to  Larry Hampton @4.3.1    2 weeks ago

And that is what Dershowitz's argument boils down to. Republicans and Democrats should be wary of that view. But they aren't because both parties only want power now.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
5  gooseisgone    3 weeks ago

Look at Bloomberg, stop and frisk was great for the City of New York, now it's bad. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @5    3 weeks ago
Look at Bloomberg, stop and frisk was great for the City of New York, now it's bad. 

So how did stop and frisk speak toward Bloomberg's election???

 
 
 
gooseisgone
5.1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1    3 weeks ago
Bloomberg's election??

Can't answer that primary isn't over, I know he is now saying it was a bad thing, but when running for New York Mayor it was a good thing. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

What a great example of news organizations and politicians lacking the capacity to chew gum and walk at the same time.

Alan Dershowitz has argued that there must be a crime to justify impeachment.  Dershowitz has also argued that politics is not a crime. 

Dershowitz is arguing that a President using their status and position as President for political purposes is not a crime or an abuse of power.  Political motivations are not sufficient to justify impeachment.  However, political motivations does not exempt a President from impeachment for violations of law (or, I presume, regulations).  But that also means that impeaching a President requires citing specific legal violations and infractions as justification for impeachment.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
6.1  seeder  Larry Hampton  replied to  Nerm_L @6    3 weeks ago

Sure. 
That’s how ya get a dictatorship started. Just make excuses to allow someone to exert control that leads to more control, that leads to complete control. As long as it’s in partisan interests leading to personal gain, who gives a fuck if Democracy is upended in the process. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Larry Hampton @6.1    3 weeks ago
Sure. That’s how ya get a dictatorship started. Just make excuses to allow someone to exert control that leads to more control, that leads to complete control. As long as it’s in partisan interests leading to personal gain, who gives a fuck if Democracy is upended in the process. 

Yes, that is one of the things Alan Dershowitz has been warning about.  Impeaching a President for political reasons is how a dictatorship gets started.  Politics equating itself with law opens the door for dictatorship.

How does a dictator govern?  Dictatorships depend upon a dedicated bureaucracy that is not accountable to legislative or judicial oversight and not accountable to the people through elections.  The bureaucracy creates law through regulation without legislative input.  The bureaucracy decides what laws to ignore, what laws to enforce, and what laws the bureaucracy will create by fiat.  The bureaucracy creates its own authority for secret police, spies, enforcers, and propaganda machines.

Has Donald Trump been a friend of the bureaucracy?  Has Donald Trump tried to give the bureaucracy more authority?  Has Donald Trump tried to create more bureaucracy?  Donald Trump cannot be a dictator without a dedicated bureaucracy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

We are a nation of 330 million people, of course we have a bureaucracy. The dictator will take control of the bureaucracy for his own purposes. It isnt clear yet if that might be the direction Trump tries to go. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Donald J. Trump fan 1
CB
The Magic Eight Ball
KatPen
JohnRussell
Dulay
loki12


48 visitors