• 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 in 1998 argued during Clinton no crime is necessary for impeachment

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The many faces of Alan Dershowitz (Dershowitz at 5:00 into the video )



Here dershowitz is arguing the opposite stating that Trump is not being charged with a crime implying that impeachment is illegitimate




Will the real Alan dershowitz please stand up?
 
Last edited:
The many faces of Alan Dershowitz (Dershowitz at 5:00 into the video )


Here dershowitz is arguing the opposite stating that Trump is not being charged with a crime implying that impeachment is illegitimate



Will the real Alan dershowitz please stand up?



He's a lawyer. He's paid to defend his client.
 
He's a lawyer. He's paid to defend his client.

Lawyers should not be interpreting the same law in the exact opposite way for 2 different clients.
 
For people who don't watch the video, he said if you have someone who completely corrupts the presidency, who abuses trust, that a crime isn't needed to impeach them. Of course, with trump, we have those things and crimes.
 
He's a lawyer. He's paid to defend his client.

that may be true, but the videos exemplify the fact that he's not arguing what is true, only asserting what he thinks will bamboozle the public and the senate.
 
The many faces of Alan Dershowitz (Dershowitz at 5:00 into the video )



Here dershowitz is arguing the opposite stating that Trump is not being charged with a crime implying that impeachment is illegitimate




Will the real Alan dershowitz please stand up?


dirtydersh.jpg
allegedly
 
He volunteered for this and says it's his opinion, not said to represent trump.
Dershowitz joined the impeachment defense team last week.

Regardless, obvious hypocrisy is obvious.
 
He's a lawyer. He's paid to defend his client.

That's true enough, and we can disregard his current statements as self serving, because he's clearly not advancing a principle he believes in but whatever standard or principle helps his client.

Furthermore, it's a fringe opinion from what I've seen that impeachment requires an indictable offense. Just for example, if a judge shows up drunk every day, makes bizarre rulings, falls asleep during testimony, etc. clearly and obviously he can and should be impeached and removed, although none of that is a criminal offense. Trump can legally transmit the names of our covert operatives in another country to that country's leader. Is that a crime? No, because the POTUS has the power to classify or declassify. Is it impeachable? Of course it is.

BTW, the clip for Dersh in that first video is at about 5:20.
 
Dershowitz joined the impeachment defense team last week.

Regardless, obvious hypocrisy is obvious.

And, he said he joined to argue that abuse of power is not impeachable, NOT to be trump's lawyer.

I was responding to the incorrect claim that Dershowitz is simply creating an argument to benefit trump as his client, pointing out that Dershowitz has been very clearly saying that is not the case.
 
And, he said he joined to argue that abuse of power is not impeachable, NOT to be trump's lawyer.
If you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Dershowitz has been in the tank for Trump for a long time, and it is clear that he has no qualms about contradicting himself in the process. It's not like Trump actually cares about the law, all he cares about is getting his way. There is no justification for Dershowitz's blatant hypocrisy, or for you defending it.


I was responding to the incorrect claim that Dershowitz is simply creating an argument to benefit trump as his client, pointing out that Dershowitz has been very clearly saying that is not the case.
Hello? It's screamingly obvious that Dershowitz will invent any claim he can think of to defend Trump, regardless of the truth or any actual laws. That's quite clear based on his conduct for the past 2 years.
 
If you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Dershowitz has been in the tank for Trump for a long time, and it is clear that he has no qualms about contradicting himself in the process. It's not like Trump actually cares about the law, all he cares about is getting his way. There is no justification for Dershowitz's blatant hypocrisy, or for you defending it.



Hello? It's screamingly obvious that Dershowitz will invent any claim he can think of to defend Trump, regardless of the truth or any actual laws. That's quite clear based on his conduct for the past 2 years.

Wow, you have an incredible lack of reading comprehension.
 
If you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Dershowitz has been in the tank for Trump for a long time, and it is clear that he has no qualms about contradicting himself in the process. It's not like Trump actually cares about the law, all he cares about is getting his way. There is no justification for Dershowitz's blatant hypocrisy, or for you defending it.



Hello? It's screamingly obvious that Dershowitz will invent any claim he can think of to defend Trump, regardless of the truth or any actual laws. That's quite clear based on his conduct for the past 2 years.

Odd to consider that the only excuse that a guy who was caught at a known pedophile's house getting a massage from an underage girl has is, "Well, I didn't remove my underwear."

Sorta gives on the impression that he might not be so useful in an actual trial.
 
The many faces of Alan Dershowitz (Dershowitz at 5:00 into the video )



Here dershowitz is arguing the opposite stating that Trump is not being charged with a crime implying that impeachment is illegitimate




Will the real Alan dershowitz please stand up?


Great!
Now do Schumer.
Now do Pelosi.
Now do Nadler..

Oh, and Dershowitz is still a Democrat.
 
that may be true, but the videos exemplify the fact that he's not arguing what is true, only asserting what he thinks will bamboozle the public and the senate.

Exactly, he's a lawyer.
 
Dershowitz continues to embarrass himself:

There is no inconsistency between what I said during the Clinton impeachment and what I am saying now. I said then that there doesn’t have to be a “technical“ crime. I have said now there must be “criminal-like” conduct, or conduct “akin to treason and bribery.”

So there doesn't have to be a "technical" crime, but it must be crim-ish, and an impeachment definitely can't be pursued by liberals and black people.

Remember: this was the best lawyer Trump could find to defend him.
 
That's true enough, and we can disregard his current statements as self serving, because he's clearly not advancing a principle he believes in but whatever standard or principle helps his client.

Furthermore, it's a fringe opinion from what I've seen that impeachment requires an indictable offense. Just for example, if a judge shows up drunk every day, makes bizarre rulings, falls asleep during testimony, etc. clearly and obviously he can and should be impeached and removed, although none of that is a criminal offense. Trump can legally transmit the names of our covert operatives in another country to that country's leader. Is that a crime? No, because the POTUS has the power to classify or declassify. Is it impeachable? Of course it is.

BTW, the clip for Dersh in that first video is at about 5:20.

Careful with that. Take it too far and what's the point of any defense? (One may also note that the prosecution/accuser has the same motive to distort).



That said...

I'm not sure what his angle is here unless it's a simple love of being known for defending unpopular people. The intended heart of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was corrupt acts (not "crimes", as you note) in the attainment or exercise of office.

Hell, the U.S. Code didn't even exist - obviously - at the time the constitution was framed. They did not know whether it would be ratified and if ratified what, if any, federal criminal statutes would be legislated.
 
He's a lawyer. He's paid to defend his client.

He says he's not being paid, and he says he's not arguing for a "client". He's just making a constitutional argument, or so he says.
 
No crime is necessary for impeachment because impeachment is just an accusation, not a judgment. Clinton was impeached (accused) and went to trial for a judgment, he was acquitted of all charges. Trump has been accused, his trial starts tomorrow and ..........
 
Back
Top Bottom