• 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

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Then we won't call it a 'trial', we'll call it a hearing and/or an 'inquiry'.

The Executive Branch doesn't have to follow the direction of the legislative Branch. That can be settled by the courts and has been done many times before. You can look it up. How does the judicial branch check the other branches? | eNotes
Click to expand...

And you will find that is in about every one of the relatively few cases that dealt with that question the courts have ruled that the Executive does have an obligation to be responsive to Congress's requests for information in the context of an impeachment inquiry. But we don't have the luxury of time to wait for the courts as we are nigh upon another election with a President that has openly demonstrated his intention to cheat and has entreated others to help him do so.

The Founders did not simply entrust the constitution to the courts. They did the opposite. They gave Congress the ultimate check on the courts. The power of impeachment. It was to the popularly elected legislative branch that they gave the ultimate weapon. It was to the popularly accountable Congress that they gave the responsibility of settling constitutional questions and exercising constitutional discretion. Ours is a system that rests ultimately on, and answers to, the people. Not one where everyone is answerable to judges. To do that would be to turn the constitution on it's head. The preamble starts off with; "We the People". Not; 'We the judges', or 'We the courts'.
 
swing_voter said:
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?
Click to expand...

no, they aren't bogus and abuse of power has been considered impeachable since before the federalist papers were written.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”
What Does ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ Actually Mean? - The Atlantic
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

he violated the law by withholding the funds to Ukraine.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That's a new one on me. Maybe you'd like to provide a link to the actual Snopes article? [NOTE - A link to an article that says that there is such a Snopes article simply will not suffice.

Not as easy as you make it for people who don't think that Mr. Trump is the Second Coming.
Click to expand...

Here is the link:
Did Barack Obama Steal His Social Security Number?

I will admit, the snopes article does not show any concern over two dates of birth. I got my data mixed up. Let me rephrase my first statement:

The only time snopes is correct is when they reveal Obama is using an SSN number with a Connecticut prefix (042-68-4425)
A state in which he has no family and no history.

That being said, now that the snopes article has confirmed Obama's real SSN for us (it was originally found on a poorly redacted page of his 2009 tax returns and has since become public knowledge) we can run this SSN through any number of federal databases to reveal that it does in fact have two dates of birth associated with it. One DOB is from 1890 and the other is Obama's real birthday:

Captureteasdf.png


Any time you have an SSN associated with two dates of birth it's a clear cut sign of identity fraud (except in Obama's case of course as he is above the law)

More background on why older SSN numbers are used in identity fraud:

"The issue traces back to a larger discrepancy the audit found, that 6.5 million Social Security numbers for people born before June 16, 1901 do not have a date of death on record in the administration’s “Numident” system. Without a date of death properly noted in the database, government agencies and other entities inquiring wouldn’t necessarily know an individual was deceased and fraud may occur more easily as a result"

And I will give you a nickel if you can guess the identity of the person with the 1890 DOB associated with Obama's SSN.

And Trump is not the second coming, he is the restrainer. (See 2nd Thessalonians Chapter two)
 
Atomic Kid said:
And you will find that is in about every one of the relatively few cases that dealt with that question the courts have ruled that the Executive does have an obligation to be responsive to Congress's requests for information in the context of an impeachment inquiry. But we don't have the luxury of time to wait for the courts as we are nigh upon another election with a President that has openly demonstrated his intention to cheat and has entreated others to help him do so.
Click to expand...
Each case has to be judged on its own merit. How can the President 'cheat' and who is helping him? This is getting into some serious conspiracy nonsense. The people can make their own decision in November.

The Founders did not simply entrust the constitution to the courts. They did the opposite. They gave Congress the ultimate check on the courts. The power of impeachment. It was to the popularly elected legislative branch that they gave the ultimate weapon. It was to the popularly accountable Congress that they gave the responsibility of settling constitutional questions and exercising constitutional discretion. Ours is a system that rests ultimately on, and answers to, the people. Not one where everyone is answerable to judges. To do that would be to turn the constitution on it's head. The preamble starts off with; "We the People". Not; 'We the judges', or 'We the courts'.
Click to expand...
The House does not have power over the Senate or the Courts. 'The people' will make their decision in November and who would want it any other way? It's justice.
 
Casca XV said:
Challenging congressional subpoenas in court is not a crime. If it were, 41 of the 44 previous president would have to be indicted.

The only actual physical evidence and the other Govt themselves say that did not happen. Biden is as corrupt as they come, and so arrogant he openly bragged about his criminal activity. Him running for president doesn't make him immune to criminal investigation. Trump asking another Govt of the country where the crimes happened whom we also have a criminal investigation corporation treaty with, is his duty as president. If this was politically motivated he would have waited for Biden to be the nominee. But like most people Trump knows even without this Biden is no electoral threat.

Posting a document signed by a semi-retarded joke of a congressmen is not evidence. Even if those documents were legit they are still allegations not evidence.


You Leftist are constantly accusing us on the Right of being and doing what you yourself and/or your side is guilty of. Please tell me, I'm honestly curious;

1. Are you judging us by your own standards of behavior? Do you actually assume we have the same low morality as you?

2. Or is it that you know what you are doing? That you realize that lying to the point of inverting the truth is a great tactic for putting your political enemy on the defensive?
Click to expand...
The president didn’t challenge the subpoenas in court. He just ignored them.

There is no evidence of any corruption regarding Biden, apart from your assertion.
 
ClaraD said:
he violated the law by withholding the funds to Ukraine.
Click to expand...

-Zelensky told Trump he needed military aid
-Then Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.”
-That same day, Michael Duffey sent an email directing military aid to be withheld

Now the White House is withholding Duffey's emails. This is a cover-up.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Each case has to be judged on its own merit. How can the President 'cheat' and who is helping him? This is getting into some serious conspiracy nonsense. The people can make their own decision in November.

The House does not have power over the Senate or the Courts. 'The people' will make their decision in November and who would want it any other way? It's justice.
Click to expand...

Yes each case has to be judged on it's merits but the track record has been that Congress's need for information in an impeachment proceeding takes precedence. And pay attention please. I did not say the House has power over the Senate. But it does have a power the courts don't have and that is they can impeach judges and not visa versa. And yes the people will make their decision. Which is completely in an alignment with my previous post. The Democrats are putting their case for the American people more so than they are for the Republican senators. Whom they know aren't unlikely to suddenly grow a conscience and act like statesmen rather than partisan cronies. The American people will be the ultimate jurors here and that's something the GOP should keep in mind.
 
Night_Ranger said:
Here is the link:
Did Barack Obama Steal His Social Security Number?

I will admit, the snopes article does not show any concern over two dates of birth. I got my data mixed up. Let me rephrase my first statement:

The only time snopes is correct is when they reveal Obama is using an SSN number with a Connecticut prefix (042-68-4425)
A state in which he has no family and no history.

That being said, now that the snopes article has confirmed Obama's real SSN for us (it was originally found on a poorly redacted page of his 2009 tax returns and has since become public knowledge) we can run this SSN through any number of federal databases to reveal that it does in fact have two dates of birth associated with it. One DOB is from 1890 and the other is Obama's real birthday:

Captureteasdf.png


Any time you have an SSN associated with two dates of birth it's a clear cut sign of identity fraud (except in Obama's case of course as he is above the law)

More background on why older SSN numbers are used in identity fraud:

"The issue traces back to a larger discrepancy the audit found, that 6.5 million Social Security numbers for people born before June 16, 1901 do not have a date of death on record in the administration’s “Numident” system. Without a date of death properly noted in the database, government agencies and other entities inquiring wouldn’t necessarily know an individual was deceased and fraud may occur more easily as a result"

And I will give you a nickel if you can guess the identity of the person with the 1890 DOB associated with Obama's SSN.

And Trump is not the second coming, he is the restrainer. (See 2nd Thessalonians Chapter two)
Click to expand...

Get help.
 
swing_voter said:
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?
Click to expand...

swing_voter:

The American Revolution is over. Long live the King! The King cannot abuse his office and is infaliable, as he holds the divine right of kings directly from God. His advisors can be mistaken or corrupt, but never the King! All hail King Donald I. By the way, your republic is either dead or is so damaged that it soon will be.

The impeachment charges are not bogus but the House failed to throw the book at President Trump. There were plenty more charges which should have been levelled at the sitting President by the House but they were not. Why? Because the whole process was designed to be a pre-election PR stunt to further tarnish Mr. Trumps already very bad reputation with most American voters, rather than to remove him from office. The whole process was designed to fail. And fail it will.

Trump is alleged to have committed many crimes while in office from accepting bribes from Saudi lobbyists to withholding Congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine for his own personal gain through a coerced foreign investigation of a potential domestic political rival. The GAO who oversees this kind of aid transfer has declared the withholding to be a crime, so Mr. Dershowitz is blowing air out of his arse in my opinion. More recently he initiated military strikes, without Congressional approval or even knowledge, against two states with which America is not at war and assassinated both military and paramilitary officers as well as innocents against American Law. President Trump is eminently impeachable and convict-able but the political will to throw the book at him was lacking in both major parties and the result is this tepid and absurd piece of public political theatre which will just fuel the cynicism and indifference of the American people to their own political system and its checks and balances.

Mr. Dershowitz is the man who suggested that the US adopt "torture warrants" post 9/11 and who almost unquestioningly supports the very right-wing State of Israel. He is hardly a leftist unless your are comparing him to 19th Century robber-barons and would-be absolute monarchs like President Trump.

Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Yeah, we know, spread innuendo. Now, outline what specific crimes were violated.

If it's a crime to make money off your parent's name, the Kardashians would all be in jail.

Meanwhile, Jared and Ivanka have offices in the White House, where they conduct personal business.
Click to expand...

Bribery is the crime.

About a half dozen times as Senator or VP, Biden was in charge of a new law or policy that would greatly effect a Company or Government.

Biden makes a decision in favor of that Company or Government. Just before or suddenly after, one of his relatives has a multi-million dollar No-Show Job with that company. In the case of China his son, who got busted with a crack pipe the month before, got a billion dollar consulting contract form the Govt owned Bank of China.

Biden's criminal business model is to receive his bribes through his relatives No-Show Jobs.

Your examples of the Kardashian's or the Trumps is not comparable. They did not make their wealth from selling political favors or any other illegal means.

Trumps net worth is down about 1.6 Billion dollars since starting his campaign. He is not getting rich from political office.
 
Night_Ranger said:
Oh I'm sorry. You didn't know about any of this?

Hate to burst your bubble. Obama isn't who he says he is.
Click to expand...

We all know about the bigoted racist origins of this. That's why you're just another prime example of the kind of ignorance and prejudice this divisive bigoted rhetoric goes on to foster.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Yes each case has to be judged on it's merits but the track record has been that Congress's need for information in an impeachment proceeding takes precedence. And pay attention please. I did not say the House has power over the Senate. But it does have a power the courts don't have and that is they can impeach judges and not visa versa. And yes the people will make their decision. Which is completely in an alignment with my previous post. The Democrats are putting their case for the American people more so than they are for the Republican senators. Whom they know aren't unlikely to suddenly grow a conscience and act like statesmen rather than partisan cronies. The American people will be the ultimate jurors here and that's something the GOP should keep in mind.
Click to expand...
If the Democrats wanted the people to be the ultimate jury they would never have taken the Articles to the Senate, where they knew they would fail. Instead they're making themselves look ever more foolish with their wild accusations and conspiracy theories.
 
MTAtech said:
Yeah, we know, spread innuendo. Now, outline what specific crimes were violated.

If it's a crime to make money off your parent's name, the Kardashians would all be in jail.

Meanwhile, Jared and Ianka have offices in the White House, where they conduct personal business.
Click to expand...
Innuendo? You obviously didn't read the article.

There's more bad news on the way you'll also have to ignore. Inside the Beltway: Profiles in corruption: Peter Schweizer strikes again - Washington Times
 
W_Heisenberg said:
What Trump is doing is illegal, and I think it's a not okay for you to minimize his actions as merely chest-thumping. Time and time again I see Trump supporters making the same anti-Constitutional, fascist sorts of arguments. You are no exception.
Click to expand...

Thank you for delegitimizing yourself right off the bat.

Go poison the well somewhere else.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
There's more bad news on the way you'll also have to ignore. Inside the Beltway: Profiles in corruption: Peter Schweizer strikes again - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Hey kids. Dobbs reminds us that a terrific way to make some easy money is to write books that appeal to the far right. The nice thing about it is you don't have to waste time doing much research.

Also, you don't have to worry about making reasonable, coherent arguments based on reality. Consider your audience, after all. These are not people who make a habit out of intellectual honesty. These are not critical thinkers.

Nah. Just make stuff up. Like Schweizer did in his part-fairy tale book called "Clinton Cash." (Any book with the name "Clinton" in its title is bound to be a hit on the far right circuit.)

And if that gets too hard, then just steal direct passages from other sources, as Schweizer did more than a dozen times in "Secret Empires."

I was going to provide links to support my examples, but then I remembered that Republicans don't believe in evidence. So, nah.

Schweizer's new book is "Profiles in Corruption." Huh. Sounds like it's an autobiography.
 
Last edited:
jpn said:
Hey kids. Dobbs reminds us that a terrific way to make some easy money is to write books that appeal to the far right. The nice thing about it is you don't have to waste time doing much research.
Click to expand...
Is honesty in politics only of interest to "The Far Right"? I hope you're wrong, and believe you are. That's largely the reason why Donald Trump was elected President.
Nah. Just make stuff up. Like Schweizer did in his part-fairy tale book called "Clinton Cash." (Any book with the name "Clinton" in its title is btund to be a hit on the far right circuit.)
Click to expand...
In fact "Clinton Cash" is a handy reference book and, had there been anything false in there, the Clinton's would have sued.
Schweizer's new book is "Profiles in Corruption." Huh. Sounds like it's an autobiography.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that Peter Schweizer is corrupt?
 
For those of you out there safe and snug in their conservative reality distortion fields, remember: Google, when used with intellectual courage and honesty, is not your friend.
 
Moderate Right said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, because a president flaunts the law and Congress lets him do it, an embezzler ,because he has stolen from your company proves that he is allowed to embezzle, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do it. (?????)
 
Last edited:
Atomic Kid said:
And you will find that is in about every one of the relatively few cases that dealt with that question the courts have ruled that the Executive does have an obligation to be responsive to Congress's requests for information in the context of an impeachment inquiry. But we don't have the luxury of time to wait for the courts as we are nigh upon another election with a President that has openly demonstrated his intention to cheat and has entreated others to help him do so.

The Founders did not simply entrust the constitution to the courts. They did the opposite. They gave Congress the ultimate check on the courts. The power of impeachment. It was to the popularly elected legislative branch that they gave the ultimate weapon. It was to the popularly accountable Congress that they gave the responsibility of settling constitutional questions and exercising constitutional discretion. Ours is a system that rests ultimately on, and answers to, the people. Not one where everyone is answerable to judges. To do that would be to turn the constitution on it's head. The preamble starts off with; "We the People". Not; 'We the judges', or 'We the courts'.
Click to expand...

You make some good points PROVIDED that, as "Originally Intended", NEITHER the Senate nor the Judiciary were "popularly accountable" as the term is used today. As "Originally Intended" BOTH the Senate and the Judiciary were "accountable to 'The Right People'" and NOT to the populace at large.
 
weaver2 said:
So, because a president flaunts the law and Congress lets him do it, an embezzler ,because he has stolen from your company proves that he is allowed to embezzle, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do it. (?????)
Click to expand...

Whew. I can't debate with people who are from another universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom