• 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!

Dershowitz claims 'abuse of power' is not a 'high crime or misdemeanor' under US Constitution

Tanngrisnir said:
All the elements of bribery are subsumed into the 'abuse of power. You wouldn't know. You haven't read them.

Not really. Not when your bluff has been called.
Click to expand...

More odd things to say. Odd, and incorrect.
 
eman623 said:
You thought wrong, and the snark is not appreciated.

And I didn't vote for Trump who I agree makes up **** all the time. But that's not impeachable either.
Click to expand...

Since you don't think anything that Dirtbag has done is impeachable the "snark" was well earned.
 
digitusmedius said:
Sez an obedient cultist.
Click to expand...



I know you probably can't see it -- but for those of us who are not affected by far-left histrionics, the attacks and accusations that come from the Left are interesting, but seem more appropriate to middle schoolers than to adults.
 
Piglet said:
I know you probably can't see it -- but for those of us who are not affected by far-left histrionics, the attacks and accusations that come from the Left are interesting, but seem more appropriate to middle schoolers than to adults.
Click to expand...

As before, just more blather from the Cult.
 
digitusmedius said:
Since you don't think anything that Dirtbag has done is impeachable the "snark" was well earned.
Click to expand...

LOL. Sure, think whatever you like. I define my conservatism according to my rules, not yours.

Your side is going to lose this fight as surely as night follows day. Which is not to say I'm going to win. Trump is going to win and you handed the win to him.

You'll get another chance to get him out of the WH in November. My advice is don't totally **** it up like you did this one.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No worse than voting to acquit after an admission to felony perjury.
Click to expand...

Felony perjury, yes. But was it corruption in the attainment or exercise of office to lie about private adultery? That was the main question.
 
Mr Person said:
Felony perjury, yes. But was it corruption in the attainment or exercise of office to lie about private adultery? That was the main question.
Click to expand...

What is a more serious offense under the law for a public officer to have committed: embezzling taxpayer money from the public coffers, or embezzling your grandmother's Social Security check? One is an abuse of one's office and the public trust for personal gain, the other is an abuse of an intimate relation and her trust in you for personal gain. I would argue that either should disqualify one from continued employment in public office.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Dershowitz's claim with regard to impeachment for abuse of power is that the term, "abuse of power" is amorphous and as such, the claim needs to relate to some other specific crime. In the Clinton case, for example, there was no real question but that Bill had attempted to use his position to influence testimony from Betty Currie and cover up his affair with Lewinsky. There was no question with regard to whether he had perjured himself. Those crimes were definitely present but the question of whether they rose to "high crimes" with respect to impeachment still existed. In that, the Senate decided that the crimes did not really effect the nation as a whole and were not of such consequence that the necessitated removal.

In Trump's case, there still hasn't been a respectable case made for a readily identifiable abuse charge. Furthermore, even if the abuse case was rock solid, there has been no evidence that the crime would in any way harm the nation. Democrats are hanging an exceedingly weak case for abuse on the "high crime" of trying to influence the 2020 election for which the only evidence presented has been purely speculative. If the Clinton impeachment was weak, the Trump impeachment is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Inventing standards such that the person to which they apply will be exculpated is not convincing argument....




"High crimes and misdemeanors" means corruption in the attaining or exercise of office. There need not be a crime and everyone but Dershowitz knows it (that is, people who know what they are talking about and are NOT lying through all available orafices).

In fact, Dershowitz used to know it: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” he said at the time.

andrew kaczynski�� on Twitter: "Here's the video:

[url]https://t.co/ffje5ZSOLE… "[/url]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...doubles-down-its-dumbest-impeachment-defense/






As for "evidence that the crime" would harm America? That also isn't a requirement. But if it was, the argument that strong-arming an ally to their disadvantage as against what conservatives called our "greatest geopolitical foe" would certainly meet that requirement.

Or do you perhaps think it'll help our international relations with allies to screw over allies for the president's personal benefit?



"In that, the Senate decided that the crimes did not really effect the nation as a whole and were not of such consequence that the necessitated removal." No, it didn't. That's just you saying it. What they did was vote to acquit. Neither of us knows for sure what was going on in each of their heads, though i suppose they certainly could conclude that the GOP's efforts to create what you would have called a "perjury trap" if aimed at a conservative hurt the country more than anything Bill Clinton did. More likely, the votes were motivated by resentment of the GOP turning a failed Whitewater smear program into what you call a "perjury trap" when aimed at a conservative.

In fact, if we're going to be honest about this, the founders knew perfectly well that "high crimes and misdemeanors" itself could not possibly have a solid meaning where they did not provide judicial review of conviction on articles of impeachment. A president could be impeached for having a stupid face (and naturally, you lie to defend Trump by pretending that's sort of what's going on here). Political process, political remedy.






So to review, the founders hoped people would play fair and intended "high crimes and misdemeanors" to relate to acts of corruption in attaining or exercising office, but they also knew they were not creating a requirement to that effect because, not being stupid, they realized that if there's no judicial review mechanism there's no One True Definition of the term. Congress defines it by voting to or not to impeach, to or not to convict.

Playing lawyer (and getting it wrong) won't change that.

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
digitusmedius said:
Only that the entire combined U.S. intelligence apparatus unanimously concluded that Russia did interfere in the 2016 elections and we have Dirtbag Trump telling us that he was all for it:

Click to expand...


Trump was for Russia interfering? Are you serious about a joke that they should find Hillary's destroyed emails

But.......You said Trump interfered. Now you're changing your story.

And if somehow by magic that Russia could get the 10 cellphones that were smashed with hammers and get those emails and give them to the press, how would that be interfering with an election unless Hillary had some bad stuff in her emails?
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
One of the most serious things a politician can do is abuse the power entrusted to them by the people.

The odd part here, is the people who entrusted Trump with power, do not care whether he abuses it or not.

In fact it’s quite the opposite, they have actively encouraged further abuse of power by the way they have approached this entire situation.

The persons argument is asinine and it’s this line of asinine thinking that allows dictatorships to flourish.

Imagine a Trump, but competent, there is no limit to what they can do due to the political cover Trump like voters provide.
Click to expand...

You wrongly assume that Trump supporters agree that he has committed abuse of power, or any impeachable act. When you look at the job of the President and the duties charged to him, it is fairly easy to make arguments against the weak articles of impeachment that have been drafted. This particular impeachment process has been marred from the start with partisanship and false and unsubstantiated accusations. First and foremost it is difficult to take democrats very seriously when they have been endorsing impeachment since Trump was elected. They have brought forth numerous resolutions to the House for votes to impeach, all which fail until the current. They received absolutely no bipartisan support and in fact the only bipartisan show of support went agains the democrats with 2 voting against the impeachment articles and one changing parties.
Another problem with this impeachment is the lack of an actual crime to be charged in the articles. There is of course the hypocrisy of the left with charging Trump for things which Presidents of their party have done in the past and were OK with democrats. The swap for Bowe Bergdahl, the granting of pseudo citizenship for dreamers, both with required action by Congress but none was provided. This would be abuse of power. The refusal of the President and the A.G. Eric Holder to provide documents related to Congress in their investigation of the Fast and Furious scandal involving guns delivered to Mexican drug cartels. Then there is Joe Biden's admission that he use the threat of withholding funds for the Ukraine government if they didn't fire a prosecutor who just happened to be involved in the investigation of a Company that Joe's son was drawing a $60,000 a month paycheck. Yet he had no experience of any type in that field. Except his daddy was Vice President.
Finally, the joyous celebration of the democrats handing out commemorative pens with Nancy's engraved signature. I thought this was a sad, somber, prayerful, thoughtful execution of their duty that nobody wanted to have to do? Did you get your pen?
Just hard to pass over the partisan position in this case. It's really about the loss of the 2016 election and the very likely re-election of Trump. Democrats want power.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Inventing standards such that the person to which they apply will be exculpated is not convincing argument....




"High crimes and misdemeanors" means corruption in the attaining or exercise of office. There need not be a crime and everyone but Dershowitz knows it (that is, people who know what they are talking about and are NOT lying through all available orafices).

In fact, Dershowitz used to know it: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” he said at the time.

andrew kaczynski�� on Twitter: "Here's the video:

[url]https://t.co/ffje5ZSOLE… "[/url]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...doubles-down-its-dumbest-impeachment-defense/






As for "evidence that the crime" would harm America? That also isn't a requirement. But if it was, the argument that strong-arming an ally to their disadvantage as against what conservatives called our "greatest geopolitical foe" would certainly meet that requirement.

Or do you perhaps think it'll help our international relations with allies to screw over allies for the president's personal benefit?



"In that, the Senate decided that the crimes did not really effect the nation as a whole and were not of such consequence that the necessitated removal." No, it didn't. That's just you saying it. What they did was vote to acquit. Neither of us knows for sure what was going on in each of their heads, though i suppose they certainly could conclude that the GOP's efforts to create what you would have called a "perjury trap" if aimed at a conservative hurt the country more than anything Bill Clinton did. More likely, the votes were motivated by resentment of the GOP turning a failed Whitewater smear program into what you call a "perjury trap" when aimed at a conservative.

In fact, if we're going to be honest about this, the founders knew perfectly well that "high crimes and misdemeanors" itself could not possibly have a solid meaning where they did not provide judicial review of conviction on articles of impeachment. A president could be impeached for having a stupid face (and naturally, you lie to defend Trump by pretending that's sort of what's going on here). Political process, political remedy.






So to review, the founders hoped people would play fair and intended "high crimes and misdemeanors" to relate to acts of corruption in attaining or exercising office, but they also knew they were not creating a requirement to that effect because, not being stupid, they realized that if there's no judicial review mechanism there's no One True Definition of the term. Congress defines it by voting to or not to impeach, to or not to convict.

Playing lawyer (and getting it wrong) won't change that.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

If the Democrats succeed in removing Trump for purely political reasons they will have effectively nullified the Constitution as it was constructed and replaced the entire concept of co-equal branches of government with an all powerful legislative branch which can write the law, interpret the law and enforce the law without opposition from any other branch. The result is that Republicanism will be but a distant memory having been replaced by a direct democracy such as we see in the DPRK.
 
digitusmedius said:
You're really not good at pulling your weight for the cult off.
Click to expand...

The only cult is the one of leftism, which uses the same tactics as the cult of evangelicals in spreading hate and fear.
 
Felis Leo said:
What is more serious under the law for a public officer: embezzling taxpayer money from the public coffers, or embezzling your grandmother's Social Security check? One is an abuse of one's office and the public trust for personal gain, the other is an abuse of an intimate relation and her trust in you for personal gain. I would argue that either should disqualify one from continued employment in public office.
Click to expand...

Trump has done the same. He lied about paying off his bimbos didn't he? He skated also because he was not under oath. But is was not abuse of his Presidential power like the Ukraine affair is. Clinton could have simply refused to testify under oath like Trump did too.
 
iguanaman said:
Trump has done the same. He lied about paying off his bimbos didn't he? He skated also because he was not under oath. But is was not abuse of his Presidential power like the Ukraine affair is. Clinton could have simply refused to testify under oath like Trump did too.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton certainly should have refused, yes. That is what I would have advised him to do if he was my client.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

This is irrelevant.

Trump isn't being charged with "abuse of power". The article of impeachment accuses him of "abuse of Congress".

So that means that this opinion by Dershowitz...and your response...are nothing but discussion about something that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

The Cult is especially strong with you today.
 
I think that the overall argument that "abuse of power" is not an impeachable offense is quite dangerous. To say such a thing would excuse all sorts of actions and behaviors of future Presidents an how they wield the power of office. I don't believe that the blanket statement that abuse of power is not impeachable is true. It would give too much leeway to claim that one cannot be impeached for abuse of power. I think we need to be very careful in the sorts of defense we will accept in this case. Now one may think that withholding funds from a foreign country to convince them to announce a politically motivated investigation against a political rival is all well and good within the powers of President. But even then, we shouldn't invoke the blanket statement that abuse of power is not impeachable. It may be tough to make a case that a certain abuse crosses the line and is impeachable, but surely there are abuses which must be considered impeachable.
 
Felis Leo said:
Bill Clinton certainly should have refused, yes. That is what I would have advised him to do if he was my client.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest reasons the Clinton verdicts in the Senate failed to reach even a majority of voting senators was that Clinton did not try to obstruct the process, freeing both documents and witnesses for testimony. Secondary reasons were that he eventually expressed contrition for his act (not so much the sexual part but for denying it initially) and the fact that the Republican party, as nasty as it was even then (see Newt Gingrich), still had members in the Senat at least with dignity and independence of thought in stark contrast to the Cult of Personality it belongs to now. Of course, it didn't hurt Clinton that the most serious charge he was accused of--perjury (which failed by a 45-55 vote) was nearly all related to a civil matter which occurred before he was President and had nothing to do with his presidential duties or actions. I do agree that instead of obfuscating his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky he should have simply said that failings in his private life was his and his wife's business and nobody else's and never commented again on that matter.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I think that the overall argument that "abuse of power" is not an impeachable offense is quite dangerous. To say such a thing would excuse all sorts of actions and behaviors of future Presidents an how they wield the power of office. I don't believe that the blanket statement that abuse of power is not impeachable is true. It would give too much leeway to claim that one cannot be impeached for abuse of power. I think we need to be very careful in the sorts of defense we will accept in this case. Now one may think that withholding funds from a foreign country to convince them to announce a politically motivated investigation against a political rival is all well and good within the powers of President. But even then, we shouldn't invoke the blanket statement that abuse of power is not impeachable. It may be tough to make a case that a certain abuse crosses the line and is impeachable, but surely there are abuses which must be considered impeachable.
Click to expand...

I think in your last sentence the problem is perfectly framed. Impeachment by its nature is a purely political act. To have an impeachable offense something that can be so loosely defined is problematic in my view.

All that being said not sure Trump is being charged with abuse of power,rather something called abuse of congress.
 
Paradoxical said:
The only cult is the one of leftism, which uses the same tactics as the cult of evangelicals in spreading hate and fear.
Click to expand...

Too late for the projection. As a cultist you should learn to lead with that propaganda ploy.
 
washunut said:
I think in your last sentence the problem is perfectly framed. Impeachment by its nature is a purely political act. To have an impeachable offense something that can be so loosely defined is problematic in my view.

All that being said not sure Trump is being charged with abuse of power,rather something called abuse of congress.
Click to expand...

You mistake something being "political" as something "loosely defined." There is nothing starker in this case than the fact that Donnie Dirtbag was trying to use the shake down of a foreign government for his political gain. It also happens to violate federal law since what Dirtbag would get, had his plot worked, would have been something of immense value as required by the statute: (USC; 52 section:30121)--no less than a second term in the presidency of the United States.
 
digitusmedius said:
Too late for the projection. As a cultist you should learn to lead with that propaganda ploy.
Click to expand...

I'll leave that up you far left wingers who claim you are "progressive" because you know far left doesn't sell well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom