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

[Athanasius68]

Yes. Intent is a component.

Ok. But nothing happened. The aid was released. No investigation.
No injury.

 

[Chomsky]

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?

Trump used his power of office to withhold funds for political gain.

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump used his power of office to withhold funds for political gain.

Funds were not withheld

They were released.

 

[Chomsky]

Funds were not withheld

They were released.

Again, after the investigation thwarted him. You're going in circles, here.

 

[BlueTex]

Dershowitz makes an interesting argument but a meaningless one at the same time. Impeachment is not reviewable by any body of government. Well settled law... Assume he is correct... Does that change the outcome in any way? Trump has been impeached.. there is no review... The senate may remove him from office or not... If they do, there is no review... none... You might as well be arguing about unicorns...

 

[Athanasius68]

Again, after the investigation thwarted him. You're going in circles, here.

More accurately after Congress threatened to withhold Defense spending.

 

[Athanasius68]

Dershowitz makes an interesting argument but a meaningless one at the same time. Impeachment is not reviewable by any body of government. Well settled law... Assume he is correct... Does that change the outcome in any way? Trump has been impeached.. there is no review... The senate may remove him from office or not... If they do, there is no review... none... You might as well be arguing about unicorns...

Dershowirz is saying there needs to be a crime associated with impeachment with respects to abuse of power.
I don't think he is right. But there should certainly be an actual act, not merely a claim that the president was thinking about doing something.

 

[BlueTex]

Dershowirz is saying there needs to be a crime associated with impeachment with respects to abuse of power.
I don't think he is right. But there should certainly be an actual act, not merely a claim that the president was thinking about doing something.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda... It's an opinion with no force at all... academic masturbation...

 

[Jonsa]

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?

no, I think his minority legal argument is bogus.

 

[iguanaman]

To say that a sitting president cannot be impeached for committing abuse of power is dangerous. You Trump supporters do not want to hold Trump accountable for his abuses. You all have set the bar so low now that a Dem president can do ANYTHING he wants to abuse or not because you all have excused ANYTHING Trump does.

They do not worry about anything after Trump since they believe he is King for life and will accept nothing less. Not one of them has any interest in what happens after Trump. It is an decidedly un-American ideology.

 

[uptower]

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?

Doesn't matter what 'wing' you think he is. He's wrong. If the powerful are free to abuse that power then whet checks and balances are there? Abuse of power is exact sort of "high crimes and misdemeanors" spelled out in the constitution. If not, it has no meaning anymore and America's government is no better than China.

And Dershowitz defended OJ Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein BTW. Jeffrey freaking Epstein. That's more pertinent to this impeachment that which 'wing' he is. He's a whore: all he does is who get guys off for money.

 

[Atomic Kid]

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?

I think that the argument made by Justice Curtis is worth hearing as it would appear to be a logical one even though it has been largely ignored in practice. I believe there have been at least 6 federal judges who have impeached, convicted and removed for conduct that wasn't necessarily criminal. Curtis looked upon impeachment as being a criminal process. Which I'm not sure if that is the reality. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 alluded to the all but unavoidable political aspects of impeachment as being why the trial is conducted in Senate rather than in the Supreme Court . So perhaps truth is that it lies somewhere in between and so it might be best described as a quasi-legal process.

For instance the constitution lays out the penalty of impeachment and conviction as being removal from office and perhaps in addition being barred from holding any future federal office. It also says that upon removal from office the offender can then be subject to criminal prosecution for what ever offenses he may have committed. Which would appear to be somewhat at odds with the double jeopardy clause if impeachment is truly a criminal process as Justice Curtis had argued

 

[iguanaman]

Ok. But nothing happened. The aid was released. No investigation.
No injury.

Yes failed "drug deals" or bank robberies are never illegal.

 

[uptower]

Ok. But nothing happened. The aid was released. No investigation.
No injury.

Like if I approach some dude, ask him to kill my wife and he goes to the police instead. Nothing actually happened, so no investigation, right?

Or if I go into a bank and ask for cash with a drawn pistol and drop it when the guard says "freeze"? I mean, I didn't actually manage to rob the place, so no crime was committed right?

Trump got caught and the aid was released after the whistleblower. The timeline clearly shows that.

 

[Anthony60]

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 is very left wing. He's defending Trump because he thinks the impeachment charges are 100% partisan and bogus.

Dershowitz has really just hit on the core of the problem with what the House did. They did exactly what the framers were afraid would happen if they made it to easy to impeach.

They made sure that it was a very high bar to remove a President in the Senate. They left it relatively easy to pass an impeachment in the House, since they figured that the Senate would be a check on a purely political, one party attack on the President, as we have today. They just thought that there would be enough leadership and brains in the House to recognize when there is no case at all to impeach.

We don't have that, so impeachment was pushed through because the Democrats think it will benefit them at election time. I doubt that will be the case, but these people are idiots.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Dershowitz has really just hit on the core of the problem with what the House did. They did exactly what the framers were afraid would happen if they made it to easy to impeach.

They made sure that it was a very high bar to remove a President in the Senate. They left it relatively easy to pass an impeachment in the House, since they figured that the Senate would be a check on a purely political, one party attack on the President, as we have today. They just thought that there would be enough leadership and brains in the House to recognize when there is no case at all to impeach.

We don't have that, so impeachment was pushed through because the Democrats think it will benefit them at election time. I doubt that will be the case, but these people are idiots.

That's not at all the core of Dershowitz's or Justice Curtis's argument. The core of it is impeachment is if impeachment is criminal justice proceeding, and there's just as much of an argument to made that it's not, then only impeachable offenses are those violate some kind of law or statute and there being no law or statute for 'abuse of power' that it can't be impeachable offense even if's true that the President abused the power of his office. Also it was Republican Senators that largely drove the impeachment of Andrew Jackson. Claiming that Jackson would have to have Senate consent to remove an appointed confirmed official. Which Jackson challenged the constitutionality of. But I'd bet that the Founding Fathers had not anticipated that a distinguished Senate Leader would essentially spit upon the juror oath and flat out announce his intention to completely coordinate with and impeached President's defense team efforts to exonerate him. Which is just absolutely shameful.

 

[JackA]

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?

That "abuse of power" is "open ended" only means that the Senate must weigh the seriousness of the abuse. The Andrew Johnson trial revolved around nothing more than an internal government personnel matter when Johnson appointed a cabinet member the Senate had rejected. Even so, Johnson came within one vote of being removed. Trump's lawyers are arguing that the President can do virtually anything, that his executive power is equal to that of a dictator and therefore he was within his Constitutional authority when he blocked an act of Congress in order to pressure a foreign government to help him scandalize his political rival in the upcoming election. Similarly, lawyers from the Justice Department recently argued in court that Trump could murder someone and even that would be beyond the reach of law while he was President. What the Senate must decide is whether Trump's abuse of power went so far as to warrant kicking him out of office.

 

[Hatuey]

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.

--------

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?

 

[Anthony60]

That's not at all the core of Dershowitz's or Justice Curtis's argument.

I said, "Dershowitz has really just hit on the core of the problem with what the House did." Not "...core of Dershowitz's or Justice Curtis's argument".

Just to be clear.

 

[Anthony60]

That's not at all the core of Dershowitz's or Justice Curtis's argument. The core of it is impeachment is if impeachment is criminal justice proceeding, and there's just as much of an argument to made that it's not, then only impeachable offenses are those violate some kind of law or statute and there being no law or statute for 'abuse of power' that it can't be impeachable offense even if's true that the President abused the power of his office. Also it was Republican Senators that largely drove the impeachment of Andrew Jackson. Claiming that Jackson would have to have Senate consent to remove an appointed confirmed official. Which Jackson challenged the constitutionality of. But I'd bet that the Founding Fathers had not anticipated that a distinguished Senate Leader would essentially spit upon the juror oath and flat out announce his intention to completely coordinate with and impeached President's defense team efforts to exonerate him. Which is just absolutely shameful.

But it looks like they did anticipate the corruption of the impeachment process by Nancy Pelosi though. Her political attack on Trump (and Republicans) will be stopped by the Senate, as they do their job, since they built that check into the process in order to stop a rouge House with a rouge leader like Pelosi.

 

[MTAtech]

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.

Nixon's articles of impeachment included abuse of power. So did Clinton's.

‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?’
How a liberal Harvard professor became Trump’s most distinguished defender on TV, freaked out his friends and got the legal world up in arms.

 

[Condor060]

Nixon's articles of impeachment included abuse of power. So did Clinton's.

‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?’
How a liberal Harvard professor became Trump’s most distinguished defender on TV, freaked out his friends and got the legal world up in arms.

The legal world isn't up in arms because they would know he is defending a legal theory. Its what he has dedicated his life too.

Liberals being up in arms is no surprise as anyone who speaks a positive word about Trump are immediately branded as cultist.

 

[HumblePi]

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?

Laurence Tribe is a scholar that teaches at Harvard Law school. Possibly his most illustrious former student is Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe catches Alan Dershowitz in humiliating hypocrisy: ‘He’s not to be trusted’

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe catches Alan Dershowitz in humiliating hypocrisy: ‘He’s not to be trusted’ – Raw Story

Harvard Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe called out President Donald Trump’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, Sunday on Twitter, noting that his opinions seem to evolve depending on who he’s defending.

Dershowitz is on a kind of press junket for the president, defending him in various media appearances. The former lawyer to Jeffrey Epstein is handling Trump’s defense as it pertains to the abuse of power. Dershowitz thinks that charge has no basis in law. In fact, impeachment trials aren’t actually legal proceedings, they’re political proceedings, because the Justice Department claimed that Trump can’t be indicted under the law while he’s president.

As Tribe said, Dershowitz seems to have changed his tune since former President Bill Clinton’s trial in the late 1990s.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes failed "drug deals" or bank robberies are never illegal.

The above are illegal.
Placing conditions on foreign aid is not.

 

[Athanasius68]

Like if I approach some dude, ask him to kill my wife and he goes to the police instead. Nothing actually happened, so no investigation, right?

Or if I go into a bank and ask for cash with a drawn pistol and drop it when the guard says "freeze"? I mean, I didn't actually manage to rob the place, so no crime was committed right?

Trump got caught and the aid was released after the whistleblower. The timeline clearly shows that.

The above is illegal.
Placing conditions on foreign aid is not.
Flawed analogy.

The timeline shows that the aid was released when Congress threatened to withhold the Defense budget.