A Constitutional Argument
Today Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz will make a Constitutional argument against the Articles of Impeachment drafted by the House. Mr Dershowitz is not engaged in a lawyer-client relationship with either the president or his legal team. He will be speaking on behalf of the Constitution.
The basis of the Dershowitz argument will be based on what he has already told anyone who would listen - that the President has to have committed criminal type behavior and despite how progressives feel about it, he simply hasn't.
What the House of Representatives voted on were two terms: "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress. " Dershowitz will show how absurd that is. As a matter of fact they may have violated the Constitution, if I understand the good professor correctly.
After the President's defense team made a strong two hour opening argument Saturday, more juicy tidbits came to light.
Not only do we have the recent spectacle of Lev Parnas running around Cable news making incendiary statements, but over the weekend, the New York Times leaked a piece from John Bolton's book manuscript. According to the leak:
"Trump told Bolton in August, according to a transcript of Bolton's forthcoming book reviewed by the Times, "that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-bolton-trump-ukraine-aid-ny-times-manuscript
Does anyone doubt that Lev Parnas coming out of the woodwork and the Times "bombshell" weren't orchestrated? The democrats are so damn obvious.
On the bright side, we can look forward to an argument that would make the Founding Fathers proud today.
Did the House violate the Constitution?
Rules of civility apply
No, but trump did
How so? Are you an expect on Constitutional Law?
What provable evidence do you have that Trump violated the Constitution, and what part of it did he violate.
I thought feeling counted for the TDS sufferers.
You dont appear to be interested in any evidence.
-
Dershowitz has loudly undercut his own efforts planned for today. There is of course video from 1998 where Dershowitz says that a crime is not needed for impeachment of a president.
Today he has changed his mind, which is "logical" since he is a Trump supporter. If someone else were president it seems questionable whether he would be so eager to argue this basis for being against impeachment.
Then there is the question as to why anyone should listen to Dershowitz over the many many constitutional scholars who argue the opposite of what he will say today.
Yes, and that is consistent with his explanation that the standard demands for something to be at least crime like!
Today he has changed his mind, which is "logical" since he is a Trump supporter.
Wrong on both counts. He is being totally consistent and he voted for Hillary Clinton. He has always been a liberal democrat. He is being fair and honest on this.
If someone else were president it seems questionable whether he would be so eager to argue this basis for being against impeachment.
False...He was against Bill Clinton's impeachment as well.
Then there is the question as to why anyone should listen to Dershowitz
In a Soviet Court the defense would be muted. I get it.
Dershowitz is a Trumpster. Why is not clear. Maybe Trump has some compromising information on him. Who knows.
Repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it any more true.
Of course you could choose a lie that isn't so easy to disprove.
He must be because he doesn't agree with you. That's how it works.
He goes on tv regularly to defend Trump.
Is someone forcing him to?
People who regularly defend Trump are Trumpsters.
[deleted]
Not that I have seen. I don't think I have seen him defend a single policy or act of the president's except to point out that a specific policy or act is allowed under the law. I wouldn't consider that a defense or support of Trump in any way.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've been called a Trumpster because the only thing I've agreed with that Trump has done is his support of Israel, and I'm one of the very few people on this site who can accurately say that Trump isn't MY president. Oh, and I've also agreed with many things Dershowitz has said, so I guess that makes me a Dershowitzster. LOL And I've also agreed with many things Perrie has said so not only am I a Trumpster and a Dershowitzster but a Perriester. That's actually pretty homonymster because in my younger life I was a Barrister.
Even though I've watched the movie "Hombre" I'm not a JohnRussellster.
You mean like the Constitutional scholar that agreed with Dershowitz during the House investigation? One Jonathon Turley.
Calling Dershowitz a Trump supporter tells everyone all they need to know about your bias. Anyone that doesn't walk lock step with the Democrats is a Trump supporter.
So he voted for Hillary, and supports Biden. That really makes him a Trump supporter./S
But what if the evidence, even if proven, doesn't merit removal?
Democrats have been laboring under the illusion if they prove what they allege, Trump has to be removed. But even Trump did everything the impeachment managers allege, no one is bound to vote to remove. Republicans proved that Clinton committed felonies in office (no one disputes he did) and he wasn't removed.
The Republicans should nominate someone else for president while they still have a chance , and stop dragging this country into an abyss.
Nothing on God's earth can protect Trump from infamy and if he is re-elected the country will be complicit in that infamy.
He will never have a majority of Americans on his side. Never. We told you that 4 years ago too.
Since we don't elect presidents through a popularity contest, Trump doesn't need a majority on his side, and that fact was made abundantly clear in November, 2016.
It's hilarious that you think a majority vote constitutes a mob.
King Trump !
The problem, which you never recognize, is the Democrats have spent 3 years dragging the country through the abyss with a fabricated conspiracy about Russian collusion, with one of the main perpetrators of that gigantic hoax, Adam Schiff, leading the charge yet again.
Democrats have Never taken acountablity for their lies. Not only did Schiff lie about collusion, he lied about the FISA scandal, claiming the FBI acted appropiately even after he knew they didn't.
Democrats should read about the boy who cried wolf and take the lesson to heart. As long the Russian hoaxers are leading the party, they have no credibility with anyone who is not preconditioned to drink their Kool-Aid.
LMAO! In the words of Adam Schiff - "We aren't going to make it easy for you"
The investigation into Trump were not a hoax. He stood on a campaign stage and asked Russia to help him against his opponent. It was a disgrace and I knew at the time it would haunt him. Plus, he lied about his business interests in Russia and his family members met with Russians trying to get dirt on Hillary. Plus he cheered on wikileaks, and his toad Roger Stone tried to co-ordinate with Assange on trumps behalf. There are many reasons an FBI investigation into Trump was warranted.
Just kick his flabby cheating lying ass out and try to regain some sense of credibility for your party and your ideology. One of these days its going to be too late.
That is an outright lie, as has been proven to you over and over again.
Trump will be the GOP candidate. Maybe you can beat him this time, but you damn sure failed miserably in 2016.
Oh, is that why the FBI launched a counter intelligence investigation? Funny they made no mention of that.
Plus, he lied about his business interests in Russia and his family members met with Russians trying to get dirt on Hillary.
And time has proven that it was the other way around!
Both investigations into Trump were a national disgrace
He doesn't need a majority, just enough voters who are fed up with the Democrats to get him reelected.
Is that the question you are so worried about?
I dont go into endless back and forths on this forum like some other people do. I rarely post more than 7 or 8 times on any particular seed.
As for your breathless question, the Democrats do have enough evidence to convict trump, in a fair court. In a court where much of the jury pre-announces their intention to do a jury nullification and acquit no matter what, the prosecution case can make use of all the evidence they can get.
If trump is innocent, what are you afraid of from Bolton?
Add in the whistleblower and Schiff to the list of witnesses called. I am sure Schiff is eager to prove the whistleblower wasn't coached up by him, or his team, in any way before filing the report.
Ah, doing the work of American Thinker and Breitbart for them, are you? I would have expected better than your supporting conspiracy theories drummed up by the likes of those.
Nope, just making sure the process is damn clean since there is already evidence the whistleblower contacted Schiff's team first.
Schiff loves to lie. Doctoring evidence for the whistleblower complaint is illegal. But Schiff has that all important D behind his name; so in lefty land he can do no wrong. Of course the whistleblower had no first hand knowledge of the call- all hearsay evidence from unidentified sources- a lefty special.
Oh, and the f'ing rules about whistleblowers not being able to use second hand information were changed after this one brought about his claim. Funny that. Doesn't need to be looked into at all./S
In other words the whistleblowers complaint should have been thrown out; but hey rules changed just for him. Great timing! Nothing to see here, move along.
I can't stand Trump; but the left is by far a bigger threat to the US than Trump ever will be.
Dershowitz says he is 'more correct now than he was then'
He is consistent
No, he's not.
Ambassador Gordon Sondland provided direct evidence based on one-on-one communication with the President. Sondland's testimony wasn't hearsay evidence.
Don't chide others for not being interested in evidence when already obtained important direct evidence is being deliberately buried and ignored.
When Sondland was asked under oath if he had told a colleague that Trump wasnt interested in Ukraine but only interested in the "big stuff" that personally effected him , Sondland did not disagree.
That's a political statement. Attempting to conduct a prosecution in the court of public opinion is not an impartial trial.
Democrats have obtained direct evidence. Why are Democrats deliberately ignoring that direct evidence? Why aren't Democrats demanding that Gordon Sondlond provide testimony to the Senate?
Who gives a fuck?
Why the hell is the US even interested in Ukraine; outside of Obama's stupidity of following past presidents' policy of poking the Russian Bear?
Ukraine is just another money pit for those with connections to get in and make a killing. That is both the Democrats and Republicans.
Trump should resign because he has disgraced his office. Has he no honor?
No more honor than Clinton. Where was your outrage when Bill disgraced the office? The Democrats didn't even bother arguing he wasn't guilty. Look at the picture of the Democratic Senators standing on the White House lawn in support of Bill Clinton next time you need to be reminded of hypocrisy and disgraced. Did Bill resign?
What are you and the left afraid of? That a good economy; and a pathetically weak Democratic field of far left losers will ensure Trump gets reelected?
According all of your polls you should want Trump to run again; it is a sure slam dunk for the Democrats in the elections. Just like in 2016.
Why not contest his argument rather than tossing a smear?
The truth isn't a smear.
Proof? Link??
"...Lev Parnas coming out of the woodwork and the Times "bombshell" weren't orchestrated?"
... as was the metering of bombshell allegations in the runup to the 2016 election as well as the Kavanaugh nomination - it's been 'Just one more investigation'.
Since YOU failed to post the link to the quote you posted by Dershowitz, I will to protect NT.
Final thoughts:
The adults have finally had a chance to counter the House's ridiculous impeachment case and they are ripping it to shreds. Meanwhile the media has come in, on cue as always, in an effort to pressure moderate Republicans to allow for witnesses. Here at NT the proponents of impeachment have struck out!
Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, delivering a spirited constitutional defense of President Trump at his Senate impeachment trial Monday night, flatly turned toward House impeachment managers and declared they had picked "dangerous" and "wrong" charges against the president -- noting that neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" was remotely close to an impeachable offense as the framers had intended.
In a dramatic primetime moment, the liberal constitutional law scholar reiterated that although he voted for Hillary Clinton, he could not find constitutional justification for the impeachment of a president for non-criminal conduct, or conduct that was not at least "akin" to defined criminal conduct.
He said that "all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities" now face the "realistic threat" of enduring "vague charges of abuse or obstruction," and added that a "long list" of presidents have previously been accused of "abuse of power" in various contexts without being formally impeached.
The list included George Washington, who refused to turn over documents related to the Jay Treaty; John Adams, who signed and enforced the so-called "Alien and Sedition Acts"; Thomas Jefferson, who flat-out purchased Louisiana without any kind of congressional authorization whatosever; John Tyler, who notoriously used and abused the veto power; James Polk, who allegedly disregarded the Constitution and usurped the role of Congress; and Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and others would also probably face impeachment using the Democrats' rules, Dershowitz said.
"Abuse of power," he argued, has been a "promiscuously deployed" and "vague" term throughout history. It should remain a merely "political weapon" fit for "campaign rhetoric," Dershowitz said, as it has no standard definition nor meaningful constitutional relevance.
Dershowitz then said he was "nonpartisan" in his application of the Constitution, and would make the same arguments against such an "unconstitutional impeachment" if Hillary Clinton were on trial -- passing what he called the "shoe on the other foot" test.
"Purely non-criminal conduct such as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses," Dershowitz said.
He quoted Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis -- one of the two dissenters in the notorious 1857 "Dred Scott v. Sandford" decision and counsel for President Andrew Johnson during his impeachment trial in 1868 -- as saying there can be no impeachable offense "without a law, written or unwritten, express or implied."
Johnson, Dershowitz observed, was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act -- a statute essentially designed to create the pretext to impeach Johnson. By passing the law first, lawmakers expressly recognized that criminal-like conduct was needed for impeachment, Dershowitz argued. (No president had ever been impeached for non-criminal conduct until Trump's impeachment last year.)
Indeed, a "close review of the history" near in time to the founding of the United States, Dershowitz said, revealed that the founders explicitly wanted to avoid making impeachment so arbitrary and powerful that it effectively created a "British-style parliamentary democracy," in which presidents served at the pleasure of the legislature.
Dershowitz further suggested that the "rule of lenity," or the legal doctrine that ambiguities should be resolved in favor of defendants, also counseled toward acquitting the president. The Constitution permits impeachment and removal of presidents for "treason," "bribery," and "high crimes and misdemeanors," but does not clearly define the terms.
Responding to reports that former national security adviser John Bolton has written in his forthcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to link Ukraine aid to an investigation of the Bidens, Dershowitz argued that even an explicit "quid pro quo" would not constitute an impeachable "abuse of power."
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said. "That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like 'quid pro quo' and 'personal benefit.'"
"It is inconceivable," Dershowitz said, that the framers would have intended such "politically loaded terms" and "subjective'" words without clear definitions to serve as the basis for impeachment.
Fearing a partisan impeachment process, the framers had rejected the offense of "maladministration" as a basis for impeachment, Dershowitz noted, and "abuse of power" was similarly vague.
Dershowitz wrapped up his argument, steeped in historical and textual analysis of the constitution and founding documents, by urging senators to reject the "passions and fears of the moment," as the framers had similarly warned.
A series of Republican senators lined up to shake Dershowitz's hand after his presentation concluded.