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

MovingPictures said:

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 is 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.


All of the witnesses the testified before the House stated they saw Trump's interests as entirely political, including hand picked diplomats appointed by Trump. Not only that 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.


:roll:

Click to expand...

1. It was also the situation with respect to Clinton his perjury was of a personal nature. That also made it less palatable for a removal.

2. There was no use of public funds. The aid was released and no investigation was required.
That's really the bottom line here.

Athanasius68 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Throwing an election is not injurious? Good luck selling that ...

Chomsky said:

Yes, because People = House.

Click to expand...

indirectly in a representational fashion and manner. The House is ultimately responsible to the People.

Athanasius68 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am glad to see that you admit that Trump did what he is accused of: He withheld aid (and according to the GAO, illegally) that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine, for the purpose of pressuring President Zelensky to launch a pretty clearly bogus investigation into Joe Biden, which would do nothing at all to help either Ukraine or the United States, but would work to Trump’s personal political benefit. Withholding the aid would have sabotaged Ukraine in its war against Russia, and even hinting at withholding the aid has harmed Ukraine’s negotiating position with Russia. So Trump has done public harm in an attempt to get private benefit.

But you say, no problem, they got the aid, so no harm. Zelensky was within days of announcing the investigations in a CNN interview, but the whistleblower report and Congress’ resulting curiosity about what was going on caused Trump to release the aid, after which Zelensky cancelled the interview.

Taking hostages is not mitigated by letting the hostages go. The "harm" is already done. Likewise, Trump did what he was accused of and letting the aid pass finally doesn't undo the abuse of power.

Rexedgar said:

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


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.

Click to expand...

No and that is an absurd claim. It is claiming that any defense attorney who argues his client didn't break any law even if having done what the prosecution claims therefore is a witness? No, one's opinion on the application of the law isn't even allowed as testimony.

It is important to understand just how intensely the fascist police-state Democrats in Congress truly hate due process, the rule of law and the rules of evidence. In fact, the impeachment hearings were the Democratic Party disavowing their oaths of office to act like police-state totalitarians by making a case 100% outside the rules of evidence basing it entirely on inadmissible testimony of only inadmissible hearsay, inadmissible speculation and inadmissible personal opinions. The Democrats literally did not offer or have even 1 witness who gave admissibel testimony.

The Democratic Party openly claims that the language of the Constitution ("high crimes and misdemeanors") is irrelevant to them, due process is irrelevant, rule of law is irrelevant and rules of evidence are all irrelevant - noting virtually all of the Democrats in Congress are lawyers.

Even more horrific than the impeachment is the Democratic Party's open hatred for the most established rules of fair trials in the USA and Western society for centuries. They claim that ANY can be prosecuted solely as a popularity contest with the only proof being innuendo, speculation personal opinions of personal adversaries. No admissible or direct evidence whatsoever is necessary.

Thus, whoever has the power to select the grand jury can pick people who will indict anyone that power doesn't like or wants to destroy. If you are a Muslim and the ruling political authority doesn't like Muslims, they could indict that Muslim based upon no admissible evidence - just people who openly hate Muslims testifying in their opinion the Muslim in his mind is thinking about mass murder - and that is sufficient to indict that Muslim for being a terrorist and conspiracy to commit mass murder. No admissible evidence even required, nor does it matter what the criminal statute says.

Rexedgar said:

“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?

Click to expand...

They are the clearest form that we have as to what was on the minds of those who wrote the constitution. The Supreme Court routinely uses them to determine historical views on the constitution. What's what.

The New Democratic Party's stance on justice and due process is the government may arrest, convict and imprison anyone they want to with no evidence necessary and actual laws irrelevant. It is only about raw power, raw police state totalitarian power. But what is new about that.

It was Democrats who lynched all the innocent black men. All it takes to the Democratic Party to destroy, convict, arrest, and kill anyone is the raw power to do so. Talking about laws and evidence? That is 100% irrelevant. It is only about power, corrupt power to get whatever those in power want.

The Democratic Party's hatred of the rule of law is what the Democratic Party started with their first president openly defying the US Supreme Court to mass murder Native Americans for which the legality of it was that it was politically popular to mass murder Native Americans to steal their land. That is how the Democratic Party views government. It is only about raw power, even mass murderous raw power totally outside of law and justice to get whatever they want.

danielpalos said:

indirectly in a representational fashion and manner. The House is ultimately responsible to the People.

Click to expand...

That's accurate. Conceptually, the House is the People's chamber, with the Senate being the State's chamber.

Athanasius68 said:

2. There was no use of public funds. The aid was released and no investigation was required.

Click to expand...

No, he got caught in the act of a crime and was stopped. That's what really happened.

MTAtech said:

I am glad to see that you admit that Trump did what he is accused of: He withheld aid (and according to the GAO, illegally) that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine, for the purpose of pressuring President Zelensky to launch a pretty clearly bogus investigation into Joe Biden, which would do nothing at all to help either Ukraine or the United States, but would work to Trump’s personal political benefit. Withholding the aid would have sabotaged Ukraine in its war against Russia, and even hinting at withholding the aid has harmed Ukraine’s negotiating position with Russia. So Trump has done public harm in an attempt to get private benefit.

But you say, no problem, they got the aid, so no harm. Zelensky was within days of announcing the investigations in a CNN interview, but the whistleblower report and Congress’ resulting curiosity about what was going on caused Trump to release the aid, after which Zelensky cancelled the interview.

Taking hostages is not mitigated by letting the hostages go. The "harm" is already done. Likewise, Trump did what he was accused of and letting the aid pass finally doesn't undo the abuse of power.

Click to expand...

That statute isn't a criminal law and therefore is completely irrelevant. In fact, the claim that is basis for impeachment is absurd. Presidents don't follow non-criminal regulations all the time. So does Congress. So does other levels of government. Every Supreme Court case that the President or Congress lost then constitutes "abuse of power" and the side that loses the Supreme Court (or any other federal case) should be forced out of office and banned from government for life.

If your analysis is correct, every president for over 150 years and virtually every member of Congress should have been forcibly removed from office for "abuse of power" because a federal court ruled they violated some regulation, statute or provision of the Constitution.

MTAtech said:

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. :

Click to expand...

1. Dershowitz is a Trump sycophant?
He's a constitutional law Scholar, a civil libertarian, and became the youngest full professor of law in the history of Harvard Law School. He is interested in the constitutional arguments, not trying to gain an advantage with Trump. He doesn't care about the screams of the left chanting about Trump.

2. His argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is absurd?
He didn't make that claim. You did.
He said the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

MovingPictures said:

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.


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.


:roll:

Click to expand...

The bolded is exactly what it is. And it's beyond insulting.

MTAtech said:

They are the clearest form that we have as to what was on the minds of those who wrote the constitution. The Supreme Court routinely uses them to determine historical views on the constitution. What's what.

Click to expand...

I've read passages, but never the entire set of documents. It's one of my regrets.

swing_voter said:

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?

Click to expand...

Um....but he did it. According to Conservative witnesses, career diplomat witnesses, military witnesses, foreign witnesses, Giuliani's witnessing, Trump's own admittance, the primary documentation, and the contexts...he did it. In fact, evidence continues to be revealed that he did it. So how can the charges be bogus?

In regards to anything being partisan, the facts are very clear:

- It was the GOP that pretended not to have read the transcript, even after Trump issued spin instructions. Why spin if it was a perfect call? Why pretend not have read what the entire world had read?

- It was the GOP that pretended that the closed door inquiries were unconstitutional, but then voted against making them public.

- It was the GOP who assisted Trump in harassing witnesses and seeking to keep evidence out of the proceedings.

- It was the GOP who argued that it was unconstitutional that Trump can't face his accusers, only for Trump to refuse to face his accusers when invited to do just that.

- It is the GOP that has implied that they plan to ignore the whole thing at the Senate level. You know, because "America" first.

In the meantime, with the evidence being so very obnoxiously overwhelming, he did it. We convict murderers on far less. So who exactly is actually being Partisan here? This right-wing insistence that "the left" is doing this only because they hate him ignores the fact that he ****ing did it. Tell you what, the next time a cop gives you a ticket for speeding, make sure and tell the judge that you received the ticket because the cop hates you. See how that plays over.

And do you know why he felt comfortable firing the career Ambassador to Ukraine, enlisting a personal lawyer to deal with "corruption" instead of the State Department, using an ambassador to the EU (a donor to his campaign) to deal with a non-EU country, and cut off and released funds right before the call and right after the whistle-blower revealed it respectively? It's because Trump's voters have ignored and even applauded his abuse and ever lowering of standards to the point where he felt that this was perfectly acceptable. Just the fact that he released the funds right after the whistle-blower reported that he withheld it proves that even Trump knows what he did. One could argue easily that this behavior began when he encouraged foreign governments to buy up hotel space for political favor or when he ignored the Pentagon's use of his hotels. Personal gain didn't just start with this Ukraine scandal. Trump's cult, who prefer to think that this is just left-wing partisanship and that Trump continues to be a hapless innocent victim, ignore the facts and the history. They are actively encouraging the new standard that a future Executive may indeed use foreign agencies and governments to do harm to American citizens if they can reap a personal reward. The GOP, in the year 2020, will stamp an approval on it for future Executives.

So, once a person brings themselves around to the reality that absolutely shows that he absolutely did it....one really must choose to figure out whether or not they even give a **** about the country. The fact that House Republicans chose to shove the country to the side in order to protect their new Party's identity and their White House representation should be a slap to the face to all proper Conservatives. Even Nixon's Republicans finally woke the hell up and chose "America First."

Condor060 said:

1. Dershowitz is a Trump sycophant?
He's a constitutional law Scholar, a civil libertarian, and became the youngest full professor of law in the history of Harvard Law School. He is interested in the constitutional arguments, not trying to gain an advantage with Trump. He doesn't care about the screams of the left chanting about Trump.

2. His argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is absurd?
He didn't make that claim. You did.
He said the argument that a president cannot be impeached for abusing his power is a “strong one” that has been successful in the past.

Click to expand...

Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Trump's legal defense team for the impeachment trial, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that he will be arguing in the Senate that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress do not amount to impeachable offenses, even if proven.



Dershowitz claims abuse of power is not an impeachable offense even if proven - Axios

President Trump has already been impeached. Someone should tell Dershowitz.

Chomsky said:

Throwing an election is not injurious? Good luck selling that ...

Click to expand...

No election was thrown.

The aid was released. No investigation required.
No injury.

MTAtech said:

I am glad to see that you admit that Trump did what he is accused of: He withheld aid (and according to the GAO, illegally) that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine, for the purpose of pressuring President Zelensky to launch a pretty clearly bogus investigation into Joe Biden, which would do nothing at all to help either Ukraine or the United States, but would work to Trump’s personal political benefit. Withholding the aid would have sabotaged Ukraine in its war against Russia, and even hinting at withholding the aid has harmed Ukraine’s negotiating position with Russia. So Trump has done public harm in an attempt to get private benefit.

But you say, no problem, they got the aid, so no harm. Zelensky was within days of announcing the investigations in a CNN interview, but the whistleblower report and Congress’ resulting curiosity about what was going on caused Trump to release the aid, after which Zelensky cancelled the interview.

Taking hostages is not mitigated by letting the hostages go. The "harm" is already done. Likewise, Trump did what he was accused of and letting the aid pass finally doesn't undo the abuse of power.

Click to expand...

Whether the example used is bank robbery, or murder or hostages, the analogy remains flawed: these are against the law.
It is not against the law to place conditions on foreign aid.

And as we all know, there were no conditions on foreign aid. Ukraine received the funds.

Even if we accept the GAO conclusion as accurate, that law prescribes a remedy to fix the issue.

As we learned in 2016 presidential candidates are not immune from being investigated, and we also learned there is a duty for a president to do so. It should be obvious that the statements of Biden and the job of his son is far more a credible reason to investigate than the rationale to think Trump had conspired with Russia.

The funds were relessed Congress was threatening, in a bipartisan fashion, to withhold Defense spending if the Ukraine funds were not released.

Athanasius68 said:

No election was thrown.

The aid was released. No investigation required.
No injury.

Click to expand...

Because he was thwarted by the impeachment. At least in this instance.

MovingPictures said:

No, he got caught in the act of a crime and was stopped. That's what really happened.

Click to expand...

No. Congress threatened to withhold Defense spending unless the Ukraine funds are not released.

Chomsky said:

Because he was thwarted by the impeachment. At least in this instance.

Click to expand...

Investigating a presidential candidate is perfectly legitimate. Kind of tough to deny that in 2020 after the events of 2016.

And of course, no 2020 candidate was investigated.
No harm. No foul.

Chomsky said:

The bolded is exactly what it is. And it's beyond insulting.

Click to expand...

Then the precedent that you have established is that a president can be impeached for thoughts.
That is what is truly insulting.
And a very bad precedent.

Athanasius68 said:

Investigating a presidential candidate is perfectly legitimate. Kind of tough to deny that in 2020 after the events of 2016.

Click to expand...

This is the last time I'm going to explain. It's not a legitimate act when it's an abuse of power.

Chomsky said:

This is the last time I'm going to explain. It's not a legitimate act when it's an abuse of power.

Click to expand...

So what makes an abuse of power in this situation?
I mean, factually, there was no investigation. And the aid was released. How then can power be abused?

Athanasius68 said:

Then the precedent that you have established is that a president can be impeached for thoughts.
That is what is truly insulting.
And a very bad precedent.

Click to expand...

Yes. Intent is a component.