• 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!

Intersesting argument concerning Alan Dershowitz's role?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Alan Dershowitz's role in defending Trum. Dershowitz says he is not Trump's lawyer but he is there to explain why Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. So if he is not Trump's lawyer, then he is in eseentially a witness. If he is allowed to be a witness, then why can the Dems have witnesses, if only to rebut one of the most silly constitutional arguments ever?
 
independentusa said:
Alan Dershowitz's role in defending Trum. Dershowitz says he is not Trump's lawyer but he is there to explain why Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. So if he is not Trump's lawyer, then he is in eseentially a witness. If he is allowed to be a witness, then why can the Dems have witnesses, if only to rebut one of the most silly constitutional arguments ever?
Click to expand...

His role as I interpret it is to act as a “friend of the court” to argue the constitutional points of the impeachment.

As it stands now, any house majority can impeach any president, and any House majority that can get 2/3 rds of the Senate can toss any president for trivial issues that are not crimes. This theory has always been there, but there was no stomach to hijack the separation of powers statutes until social media gave every nut case a megaphone, drowning out the “wise voices” that used to counsel legislators.

The goal, as stated by Pelosi was simply to put a “scarlet letter” on Trump during his re election year. I seriously doubt even the most jaded of our founding fathers expected that.
 
Dershowitz is a legal consultant.

You can amuse yourself with the prospect of Schiff being called as a witness - a potential development which casts serious doubt on his role as a House manager.
 
independentusa said:
Alan Dershowitz's role in defending Trum. Dershowitz says he is not Trump's lawyer but he is there to explain why Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. So if he is not Trump's lawyer, then he is in eseentially a witness. If he is allowed to be a witness, then why can the Dems have witnesses, if only to rebut one of the most silly constitutional arguments ever?
Click to expand...

Perhaps had the democrats been more equitable in the House, the republicans would be in the Senate. Karma is a bitch.
 
independentusa said:
Dershowitz says he is not Trump's lawyer but he is there to explain why Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Absurd, of course. Abuse of power is at the heart of the founder's conception of "high crimes and misdemeanors": corrupt acts in attaining or exercise office.


Why's Dershowitz completely selling out?

CT: perhaps it has to do with a certain deceased person he once represented, with whom Trump has many pictures/connections. Maybe Trump saved some things that could implicate Dershowitz?




Oh well, maybe just going senile.
 
independentusa said:
Alan Dershowitz's role in defending Trum. Dershowitz says he is not Trump's lawyer but he is there to explain why Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. So if he is not Trump's lawyer, then he is in eseentially a witness. If he is allowed to be a witness, then why can the Dems have witnesses, if only to rebut one of the most silly constitutional arguments ever?
Click to expand...
I dont know if he is considered an expert witness but if he is i absolutely agree that the prosecution should be allowed to have an expert witness of their own to provide rebuttal. That would be fair and a reasonable request.

The reason why Trump should be allowed witnesses is because he is the accussed and he should be allowed to present however much of a defense as he wants.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
independentusa said:
Alan Dershowitz's role in defending Trum. Dershowitz says he is not Trump's lawyer but he is there to explain why Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. So if he is not Trump's lawyer, then he is in eseentially a witness. If he is allowed to be a witness, then why can the Dems have witnesses, if only to rebut one of the most silly constitutional arguments ever?
Click to expand...


If Trump hires him as his lawyer, then he's Trump's lawyer.
 
chuckiechan said:
His role as I interpret it is to act as a “friend of the court” to argue the constitutional points of the impeachment.

As it stands now, any house majority can impeach any president, and any House majority that can get 2/3 rds of the Senate can toss any president for trivial issues that are not crimes. This theory has always been there, but there was no stomach to hijack the separation of powers statutes until social media gave every nut case a megaphone, drowning out the “wise voices” that used to counsel legislators.

The goal, as stated by Pelosi was simply to put a “scarlet letter” on Trump during his re election year. I seriously doubt even the most jaded of our founding fathers expected that.
Click to expand...

The goal is to uphold the constitution, you know that thing the right is currently crapping all over.
 
I think it should be noted that Dershowitz is NOT a "constitutional scholar." If one knew about his career, one would know that. His entire career was in criminal law, and the description in the Wikipedia entry does not obviate that. In criminal law, I would defer to his expertise, but outside of that field, no. His opinions about Impeachment are so far from the mainstream (and without historical support), one can't even see the sun glinting off them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom