Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[JimL]

That never happened.

As for Dershorwitz, his position hasn't changed. From the CNN link, but buried at the very bottom of the article where you obviously didn't notice: "You need criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery. It doesn't have to be a technical crime because at the time that the framers wrote the constitution there was no criminal code."

No, you don't need criminal type behavior akin to bribery and treason. For instance, if the president decided to take a year off to relax and play golf, that would be an abuse of power, an impeachable offence, but not the violation of a criminal statute. Dershorwitz position has changed, at least for the purposes of this defense, and so has Ken Starr's. I heard a funny comment made the other day during Starr's hypocritical speech at the trial. "Does Ken Starr know that he's Ken Starr?" The same could be said of Dershorwitz!

[NorrinRadd]

fify

Cute.

I'm willing to make a deal: Permanently disenfranchise every person who has supported or voted for Trump *and* every person who has supported or voted for either Clinton.

[Tassman]

how about if we have a businessman who was credibly accused of rape and battery, and yet gets elected potus?

fify

[Tassman]

That never happened.

As for Dershorwitz, his position hasn't changed. From the CNN link, but buried at the very bottom of the article where you obviously didn't notice: "You need criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery. It doesn't have to be a technical crime because at the time that the framers wrote the constitution there was no criminal code."

Dershorwitz pretends his position hasn't changed by saying he is "more correct now than he was then". But it has. Dershorwitz flatly contradicts himself:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/polit...-ac360-vpx.cnn

[Sam]

No. Since when do you bribe someone by withholding money?

Why folks use bribery and extortion interchangeably here is because the Zelensky administration had something it wanted from Trump -- a White House meeting to show support against Russian aggression -- and because the Zelensky administration had something it expected from the USA -- continuing military aid.

Trump asked a "favor" in return for both -- the WH meeting (bribery) and the security aid that was already due by law (extortion).

How is it that people here are still stuck on issues that were explained in October?

--Sam

[Sparko]

For the umpteenth time, it’s bribery.

No. Since when do you bribe someone by withholding money?

[NorrinRadd]

Does one want a president who appoints porn stars to official positions, ...

How about if we have a governor who was credibly accused of rape and battery, and yet gets elected POTUS? I think we should be able to impeach anyone who supported him or admits to voting for him, and revoke their voting rights.

[Mountain Man]

Actually - it did. And it is as obvious as the sun in the desert except to those as who choose not to see it.

More importantly, you focus on the idea that if the framers didn't mention a specific lawless act, or the criminal code does not detail a specific act as a crime, it can't be impeachable. But at the heart of every element mentioned in the constitution is a lawless leader that abuses his power as president. It is impossible to mention in a document every possible abuse of power that would be impeachable, but we are given examples of the same. And one of those examples is bribery. Blackmail is not mentioned, but blackmail is an especially heinous form of bribery, and it is basically what the president has done to Ukraine. He has said to them - you announce an investigation on Biden, or I will refuse to allow this country to help you fight off the Russian invasion. That investigation on Biden serves no purpose but to benefit the president in the upcoming election and has serious negative national security implications. The President has put his own personal gain over the best interests of the nation.

There is no more serious abuse of power than that, no more abusive form of bribery than that. You are playing a legalistic game in an attempt to excuse extreme excess at the peril of the nation.

How can you in good conscience ally yourself in this way MM?

Your description of events is about as accurate as Shifty Schiff's "dramatisation" of the phonecall.

[oxmixmudd]

That never happened.

As for Dershorwitz, his position hasn't changed. From the CNN link, but buried at the very bottom of the article where you obviously didn't notice: "You need criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery. It doesn't have to be a technical crime because at the time that the framers wrote the constitution there was no criminal code."

Actually - it did. And it is as obvious as the sun in the desert except to those as who choose not to see it.

More importantly, you focus on the idea that if the framers didn't mention a specific lawless act, or the criminal code does not detail a specific act as a crime, it can't be impeachable. But at the heart of every element mentioned in the constitution is a lawless leader that abuses his power as president. It is impossible to mention in a document every possible abuse of power that would be impeachable, but we are given examples of the same. And one of those examples is bribery. Blackmail is not mentioned, but blackmail is an especially heinous form of bribery, and it is basically what the president has done to Ukraine. He has said to them - you announce an investigation on Biden, or I will refuse to allow this country to help you fight off the Russian invasion. That investigation on Biden serves no purpose but to benefit the president in the upcoming election and has serious negative national security implications. The President has put his own personal gain over the best interests of the nation.

There is no more serious abuse of power than that, no more abusive form of bribery than that. You are playing a legalistic game in an attempt to excuse extreme excess at the peril of the nation.

How can you in good conscience ally yourself in this way MM?

[Mountain Man]

...extorting a foreign leader to interfere in the US elections.

That never happened.

As for Dershorwitz, his position hasn't changed. From the CNN link, but buried at the very bottom of the article where you obviously didn't notice: "You need criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery. It doesn't have to be a technical crime because at the time that the framers wrote the constitution there was no criminal code."

[Tassman]

Is it a crime to appoint porn stars to official positions?

Does one want a president who appoints porn stars to official positions, it would be inappropriate and unacceptable? To quote Alan Dershowitz in 1998: a president could be impeached even if they were not accused of a crime. "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, you don't need a technical crime,” he said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/20/p...uct/index.html

Trump certainly is somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to US liberty. Among other things by extorting a foreign leader to interfere in the US elections.

[Mountain Man]

Andrew Johnson wasn't impeached for violating criminal law, he was impeached, by a vote of 35 -19, for "abuse of power."

Johnson's impeachment is also widely regarded as a textbook example of how not to do it.

The argument for “abuse of power” is flimsy and draws on the worst possible precedent. Left-wing legal scholar Cass Sunstein, a former Obama administration official, actually argued in his 2017 book Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide that “abuse of power” is an impossibly broad standard: “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do.” The House Judiciary Committee staff, prepared entirely by Democrats, cites Sunstein’s book but ignores that passage. Similarly, the staff report ignored liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who testified before the committee last week that its “abuse of power” standard would apply to every president.

Worse, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee actually cite the impeachment of Andrew Johnson — which is widely regarded as a mistake — in arguing that Congress ought to impeach presidents on the basis of “illegitimate motives,” even if their actions are legally permissible.

...

Johnson was impeached by the House by a runaway Republican majority and acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

The Johnson precedent has been a cautionary tale for over 150 years, a prime example of what Congress ought not to do. Yet Democrats, with their forthcoming article of impeachment on “abuse of power,” are invoking the Johnson precedent as a positive inspiration.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...n-impeachment/

[JimL]

Is it a crime to appoint porn stars to official positions?

Andrew Johnson wasn't impeached for violating criminal law, he was impeached, by a vote of 35 -19, for "abuse of power."

[Mountain Man]

I understand that’s what you believe, but it seems the vast majority of the legal community, including Alan Dershowitz, would disagree.

If a president was to fire every executive official and replace them with pornstars would that be impeachable?

Is it a crime to appoint porn stars to official positions?

[firstfloor]

Trump’s ship of fools:

Trump has found the one constitutional “expert” who will take such a position, however: Harvard professor emeritus and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz, whom Trump added to his defense team last week. “Criminal-like conduct is required” in order for a president to be impeached, Dershowitz now claims, to the puzzlement of pretty much everyone who knows anything about this topic.

Since hypocrisy is something of a job requirement for working for Trump, Dershowitz is naturally on video making exactly the opposite argument in 1998. “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.

WaPo