• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump lawyer says a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,462
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

To say that a sitting president cannot be impeached for committing abuse of power is dangerous. You Trump supporters do not want to hold Trump accountable for his abuses. You all have set the bar so low now that a Dem president can do ANYTHING he wants to abuse or not because you all have excused ANYTHING Trump does.
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

Let's hear from all the players around trump, those with firsthand info, then I'll make up my mind. If the whole purpose is to find the truth, how does having no witnesses or documents presented help?

Hell no the charges are not bogus. He's lucky there were only two charges.
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

I think the current ones are. I am sure that he has done things that I would support impeachment for, just not this thing.
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

There is some truth to that. With the checks and balances, it is rather difficult for a president to actually abuse his power. If he is able to do something then he apparently had the power to do it or he wouldn't have been able to do it.
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

They are absolutely bogus and should horrify any American that respects the Constitution. Democrats are abusing their House majority like a bunch of single-party authoritarians in a sham effort to overturn the 2016 presidential election.
 
Abuse of power is a more general term for a President that uses the powers of the presidency for corrupt purposes. It is not intended to be a criminal charge because it is not the job of the Congress to determine what criminal charges a President should face (if any), but whether their use of the Presidency constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" against the nation.

Nixon was never accused of burglary, he was accused of abuse of power. Clinton also was presented with an abuse of power article, but it failed to pass in the House during the vote.

It is also just a flat out lie to say the framers intended to keep impeachment narrow. They left it open ended because not many statutory laws existed, and knew there were a million ways to abuse the presidency.

Dershowitz arguments are idiotic.
 
Alan Dershowitz: Trump Could Give Away Alaska And Be Protected By SCOTUS |
HillReporter.com



“ Assume Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory… That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution.”

“That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable?”

I’m no legal scholar, but these two scenarios are troubling.

Aside: Dershowitz has distanced himself from the legal team of POTUS, saying he is arguing the Constitution, wouldn’t that put Dershowitz in the ‘witness’ category.
 
There is some truth to that. With the checks and balances, it is rather difficult for a president to actually abuse his power. If he is able to do something then he apparently had the power to do it or he wouldn't have been able to do it.

That’s some brilliant reasoning there!
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

IMO Dershowitz is correct. The charges are vague and too open to interpretation.

Article I "Abuse of Power" tries to lump accusations of bribery, extortion, etc., into the vague "abuse of power" heading. This was done (IMO) in hopes they would be able to demand witnesses appear before the Senate expecting such testimony would prove those crimes. It is the "fishing expedition" allegation. They KNOW they rushed the process for political reasons. Now they want to use the Senate trial to find something, and if they can't, then cast blame on the Senate for not being "fair."

Article II "Obstruction of Congress" is a made-up crime. Based on opposition to the SCOTUS determination of the existence of Executive Privilege. IMO the Democrats are trying to claim that during Impeachment no such Executive Privilege exists. But you don't do that in an Impeachment trial, you argue that in the Court during the Impeachment process before you reach a determination on what to charge the President with.
 
Last edited:
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

even a high misdemeanor is impeachable.
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?
This is an example of the insanity Trump & his are trying to foster upon us. That he can shoot someone on the street, and not be liable for it. That he is immune from any form of oversight. And now, that cannot be impeached for abusing his power.

Step back and think about this? It's literally insane. Pure insanity.
 
Abuse of power is a more general term for a President that uses the powers of the presidency for corrupt purposes. It is not intended to be a criminal charge because it is not the job of the Congress to determine what criminal charges a President should face (if any), but whether their use of the Presidency constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" against the nation.
Yep. Abuse of power is the "high crime" itself.

Nixon was never accused of burglary, he was accused of abuse of power. Clinton also was presented with an abuse of power article, but it failed to pass in the House during the vote.

It is also just a flat out lie to say the framers intended to keep impeachment narrow. They left it open ended because not many statutory laws existed, and knew there were a million ways to abuse the presidency.

Dershowitz arguments are idiotic.
Beyond!
 
That’s some brilliant reasoning there!

There are certainly many things Trump would have wanted to do but the resistance stopped him from doing it. So, he wasn't able to abuse his power.
 
They are vague and too open to interpretation.

Article I "Abuse of Power" tries to lump accusations of bribery, extortion, etc., into the vague "abuse of power" heading. This was done (IMO) in hopes they would be able to demand witnesses appear before the Senate expecting such testimony would prove those crimes. It is the "fishing expedition" allegation. They KNOW they rushed the process for political reasons. Now they want to use the Senate trial to find something, and if they can't, then cast blame on the Senate for not being "fair."

Article II "Obstruction of Congress" is a made-up crime. Based on opposition to the SCOTUS determination of the existence of Executive Privilege. IMO the Democrats are trying to claim that during Impeachment no such Executive Privilege exists. But you don't do that in an Impeachment trial, you argue that in the Court during the Impeachment process before you reach a determination on what to charge the President with.

This applies to the Constitution, as well.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

Oh you mean youu think he is a Democrat yet:
Political commentary. Dershowitz has said he is a member of the Democratic Party. However, in 2016, he stated that he would cancel his party membership if Keith Ellison was appointed party chair; Tom Perez was appointed instead.Alan Dershowitz - Wikipedia
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

Dershowitz's claim isn't exactly that a president can't be impeached for abuse of power. His claim is that the abuse has to be tied to some other crime which harms the interests of the nation in some substantial way. For example, Bill Clinton abused his power by asking Betty Currie to hide evidence of his affair with Lewinsky and to lie about the facts and circumstances of the affair. He was let off the hook because, in the Senate, it was decided that while he did commit certain crimes those crimes did not substantially harm the nation or the ability of government to function in the interests of the nation.

If the Democrats could actually prove that Trump was using his position with Zelensky for the express purpose of manipulating the 2020 election they might have a case but so far everything that has come out in that regard is purely speculative. Where verifiable facts have been presented they have all been with regard to the 2016 election where we have hard evidence that Democrats used foreign sources to assist Clinton.
 
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Dershowitz, who's serving as legal counsel for President Trump's defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he is following in the footsteps of Justice Benjamin Curtis who defended President Andrew Johnson. He said Curtis had argued that proof of a crime was necessary for a president to be removed from office.

“So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis,” he said. “And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history. The argument is a strong one. The Senate should hear it.”

He said the constitutional framers worried about “giving Congress too much power” to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too “open-ended.”

Alan Dershowitz: Argument president cannot be impeached for abusing power a 'strong one' | TheHill



Alan Dershowitz is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Do you think the impeachment charges are bogus?

Alan Dershowitz has been a Trump sycophant all along. His argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is absurd -- arguing that a president can only be impeached for violating an actual statute, which weren't written at the time. After hearing him say that on TV I checked Federalist 65, where the Founders debated this. This is paragraph two:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
 
This applies to the Constitution, as well.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

That is the purpose of the Court, to interpret the meaning of the law and how to apply it on a case by case basis. Those "few other courts" include English courts whose interpretations of Common Law provided much of the foundation of their legal structure.

In the United States our Courts follow a set of procedures to "interpret" the law on a case by case basis. In order:

1. Plain Meaning, i.e. the law means exactly what it says.

2. Legislative History, i.e. review the arguments, statements, and other records of the legislative body at the time the law was enacted.

3. Original Intent, i.e. when the legislative material is minimal or non-existent, then review the actions, arguments, and other available information of the times to determine the probable intent of the drafter's.

4. When none of these options is available, then the Court typically finds the issue void for vagueness, ruling in favor of the party being held accountable, and leaving it up to the legislative body to "fix" the law afterwards.

That is the job of the Court. Dispute resolution. To review the arguments for and against a case at bar, and whether disputants agree or disagree, provide a resolution.
 
Last edited:
Alan Dershowitz has been a Trump sycophant all along. His argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is absurd -- arguing that a president can only be impeached for violating an actual statute, which weren't written at the time. After hearing him say that on TV I checked Federalist 65, where the Founders debated this. This is paragraph two:

“The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays arguing in support of the United States Constitution.” - from the web

What weight do these papers carry as to the Constitution and law?
 
Dershowitz's claim isn't exactly that a president can't be impeached for abuse of power. His claim is that the abuse has to be tied to some other crime which harms the interests of the nation in some substantial way. For example, Bill Clinton abused his power by asking Betty Currie to hide evidence of his affair with Lewinsky and to lie about the facts and circumstances of the affair. He was let off the hook because, in the Senate, it was decided that while he did commit certain crimes those crimes did not substantially harm the nation or the ability of government to function in the interests of the nation.
Well, part of what got Clinton off was that he admitted to the nation that he had been deceptive and offered an explination that his actions had more to do with protecting his family, and that his actions were still wrong, and he asked the nation for forgiveness. That had a major impact in his aquittal. It's something we all know Trump will never do.

Further, using hundreds of millions of tax payer money and other government services to orchestrate a political scheme is the HEIGHT of abuse of power, and clearly qualifies as public corruption in criminal proceedings. It is highly illegal to do what Trump did. We've buried mayors, city counsel members, and governors for far less, with far less.

Also, withholding the WB compliant was itself illegal, as was telling government agencies and employees to ignore subpoenas from congressional committees without a claim of executive privilege - which is contempt of Congress, and is a crime.

If the Democrats could actually prove that Trump was using his position with Zelensky for the express purpose of manipulating the 2020 election they might have a case but so far everything that has come out in that regard is purely speculative.
All of the witnesses the testified before the House stated they saw Trump's interests as entirely political, including those hand picked diplomats appointed by Trump.

The whole point of Trump's scheme was to get Ukraine to make public commitments to investigations, giving the American people the impression the Ukraine was doing this independently, while concealing in private that it was Trump that was the puppeteer the entire time.

We all know Trump had a political interest in this and has been obsessed with getting his enemies under public clouds of investigation. This playing stupid **** got old a long time ago.

Where verifiable facts have been presented they have all been with regard to the 2016 election where we have hard evidence that Democrats used foreign sources to assist Clinton.
:roll:
 
Alan Dershowitz has been a Trump sycophant all along. His argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is absurd -- arguing that a president can only be impeached for violating an actual statute, which weren't written at the time. After hearing him say that on TV I checked Federalist 65, where the Founders debated this. This is paragraph two:

The rest of the passage quoted ought to be thought about as well. It indicates that an impeachment will flare the passions of society and that decisions will be rendered as a result of power and not guilt or innocence.

For that reason, impeachment should be reserved to injuries done to society.

Considering, again, that the aid was released and no investigation required, it would seem that no injury to society was caused.
 
Back
Top Bottom