Jump to content

Alan Dershowitz once said you can be impeached without committing a crime


Recommended Posts

 

Image result for Alan Dershowitz once said you can be impeached without committing a crime

 

 

Dershowitz has been on Fox News recently saying that even if Trump abused power, it is not an impeachable offense. He lied.

 

Zionist, Alan Dershowitz, goes full Hymietown lawyer sticking up for Trump. Payback for Trump playing favorites with Israel. Alan is also peddling is wares like an itinerant Gypsy. He just released a new book on January 1st. where he sucks Trump off.  

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alan-dershowitz-once-said-you-can-be-impeached-without-committing-a-crime/ar-BBZ9D32?ocid=spartanntp

(Full article at above link)

 

 

Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz said in 1998 a president could be impeached even if they were not accused of a crime. Now that he's helping President Donald Trump's impeachment defense, he's saying something different.

In August 1998, during the summer leading up to then-President Bill Cinton's impeachment, Dershowitz argued that a president does not have to commit a "technical crime" in order for it to constitute impeachable conduct.

"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," Dershowitz told "Larry King Live."

He added: "We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution." 

But on Sunday he told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "State of the Union" that in his defense of Trump he would cite former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis in saying the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

Curtis served as the chief counsel during Andrew Johnson's impeachment.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate trial begins on Tuesday.

Dershowitz also asserted on ABC's "This Week" that both obstruction of Congress and abuse of power do not meet the constitutional criteria for impeachment.

The Constitution says presidents can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," but it does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors." Dershowitz's argument hinges on the Senate agreeing that neither of those charges qualify as "criminal-like conduct."

But Dershowitz has previously argued that a President's conduct does not have to be criminal to be impeachable. They simply had to "corrupt the office of president" or abuse trust.

On Monday, Dershowitz repeatedly denied that his position has changed since the Clinton impeachment days. He said he still believes Congress doesn't need a "technical crime" to impeach, but that they do need "criminal-type behavior" related to "treason and bribery" to meet the threshold for impeachment.

"It's the same argument," he said on MSNBC. "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."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Maybe he was a good teacher, I never attended his classes. But what he clearly is, is a prima donna that craves publicity and won't STFU.

 

Professor Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, Emeritus.

Net worth  =  98 million dollars.

 

I will bet a Confederate Dollar that Alan is smarter than you are.          👨‍🎓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well DIP$HIT... there is a BIG difference when it comes to impeachment as to whether a President "COULD" be Impeached, versus as to whether he "SHOULD" be impeached... OBVIOUSLY, Donald Trump WAS impeached by the House of Representatives... without breaking ANY Laws, with NO evidence that could have PROVEN that any laws were broken, AND it was done on a TOTAL PARTY LINE VOTE... SINCE, ONLY a simple majority is required in the House !!... AND, as a matter of FACT, SO was Andrew Johnson impeached, in EXACTLY the same way, in the years JUST PRIOR to the civil war !!  <remember that point>

 

However, in front of the Senate, who is tasked to DECIDE IF a President SHOULD be impeached, and SHOULD he be removed from office... WITHOUT breaking ANY laws, without doing ANYTHING wrong, and THERE, it requires a 2/3's majority to actually REMOVE a President from office !! 

 

SO, Alan Dershowitz, who has dedicated his LIFE to the LAW, to the Constitution, and the freedoms and rights outlined there... HE is GOING to defend Donald Trump in EXACTLY the same way that Andrew Johnson was defended... HE is going to make the case that the FOUNDING Fathers intended impeachment to be used ONLY in the case where SERIOUS crimes were committed, with CLEAR and INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF provided by the House of Reps,... and only THEN SHOULD a Sitting, and Duly elected President be removed from office, and IF the standard was ANY LESS... that Congress would in FACT be NULLIFYING the votes of MILLIONS of American Citizens, and in FACT be committing TREASON !!

 

Andrew Johnson WAS NOT removed by a RADICAL House of Representatives in 1859ish... and NEITHER will Donald Trump be removed in 2020 !!  HOWEVER, the ACT that the Democrats used IMPEACHMENT to try to remove the President, with NO EVIDENCE, and were DEFEATED... was ONE of the factors that caused the CIVIL WAR to occur only a few years later... AND NOW, the NIT WIT Democrats can TRY AGAIN... but it will NEVER happen, BUT They have dedicated the last 3 years to DIVIDING our nation... AND, the last time we were THIS divided, a CIVIL was occurred, and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Americans DIED !!... Donald Trump will NOT be removed from office... AND, I would be SHOCKED if the Democrats are not dealt ANOTHER CRUSHING BLOW at the ballot box, during the 2020 election !!

 

SO... WHERE does that leave us?  DO YOU SOB's want another CIVIL WAR ?

 

YOU dumb dumb Democrats just DO NOT GET IT !!  The PEOPLE are STILL in CHARGE, and the FAKE Media and FAKE Polls do NOT win elections... AND, THEY are WRONG AGAIN, and THEY will not win based on LIES, CORRUPTION, and MANIPULATION... as MUCH as the Democrats WISH it was not TRUE !!  THEY are going to LOSE HOWEVER this DIVIDE ends up being RESOLVED... Why?  Because Americans DO NOT like fighting for the side of LIES, DECEIT, and EVIL... which is EXACTLY what the Democrats Represent !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

Image result for Alan Dershowitz once said you can be impeached without committing a crime

 

 

Dershowitz has been on Fox News recently saying that even if Trump abused power, it is not an impeachable offense. He lied.

 

Zionist, Alan Dershowitz, goes full Hymietown lawyer sticking up for Trump. Payback for Trump playing favorites with Israel. Alan is also peddling is wares like an itinerant Gypsy. He just released a new book on January 1st. where he sucks Trump off.  

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alan-dershowitz-once-said-you-can-be-impeached-without-committing-a-crime/ar-BBZ9D32?ocid=spartanntp

(Full article at above link)

 

 

Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz said in 1998 a president could be impeached even if they were not accused of a crime. Now that he's helping President Donald Trump's impeachment defense, he's saying something different.

In August 1998, during the summer leading up to then-President Bill Cinton's impeachment, Dershowitz argued that a president does not have to commit a "technical crime" in order for it to constitute impeachable conduct.

"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," Dershowitz told "Larry King Live."

He added: "We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution." 

But on Sunday he told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "State of the Union" that in his defense of Trump he would cite former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis in saying the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

Curtis served as the chief counsel during Andrew Johnson's impeachment.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate trial begins on Tuesday.

Dershowitz also asserted on ABC's "This Week" that both obstruction of Congress and abuse of power do not meet the constitutional criteria for impeachment.

The Constitution says presidents can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," but it does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors." Dershowitz's argument hinges on the Senate agreeing that neither of those charges qualify as "criminal-like conduct."

But Dershowitz has previously argued that a President's conduct does not have to be criminal to be impeachable. They simply had to "corrupt the office of president" or abuse trust.

On Monday, Dershowitz repeatedly denied that his position has changed since the Clinton impeachment days. He said he still believes Congress doesn't need a "technical crime" to impeach, but that they do need "criminal-type behavior" related to "treason and bribery" to meet the threshold for impeachment.

"It's the same argument," he said on MSNBC. "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."

 

 

 

 

Fuck off Nazi scum!

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Taipan said:

 

Professor Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, Emeritus.

Net worth  =  98 million dollars.

 

I will bet a Confederate Dollar that Alan is smarter than you are.          👨‍🎓

As we all know, the richer people are, the smarter they are. Dershowitz has connections in both NYC and Harvard. I am not in any competition with Derschowitz for either fame or fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

Image result for Alan Dershowitz once said you can be impeached without committing a crime

 

 

Dershowitz has been on Fox News recently saying that even if Trump abused power, it is not an impeachable offense. He lied.

 

Zionist, Alan Dershowitz, goes full Hymietown lawyer sticking up for Trump. Payback for Trump playing favorites with Israel. Alan is also peddling is wares like an itinerant Gypsy. He just released a new book on January 1st. where he sucks Trump off.  

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alan-dershowitz-once-said-you-can-be-impeached-without-committing-a-crime/ar-BBZ9D32?ocid=spartanntp

(Full article at above link)

 

 

Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz said in 1998 a president could be impeached even if they were not accused of a crime. Now that he's helping President Donald Trump's impeachment defense, he's saying something different.

In August 1998, during the summer leading up to then-President Bill Cinton's impeachment, Dershowitz argued that a president does not have to commit a "technical crime" in order for it to constitute impeachable conduct.

"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," Dershowitz told "Larry King Live."

He added: "We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution." 

But on Sunday he told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "State of the Union" that in his defense of Trump he would cite former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis in saying the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."

Curtis served as the chief counsel during Andrew Johnson's impeachment.

Trump faces two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate trial begins on Tuesday.

Dershowitz also asserted on ABC's "This Week" that both obstruction of Congress and abuse of power do not meet the constitutional criteria for impeachment.

The Constitution says presidents can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," but it does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors." Dershowitz's argument hinges on the Senate agreeing that neither of those charges qualify as "criminal-like conduct."

But Dershowitz has previously argued that a President's conduct does not have to be criminal to be impeachable. They simply had to "corrupt the office of president" or abuse trust.

On Monday, Dershowitz repeatedly denied that his position has changed since the Clinton impeachment days. He said he still believes Congress doesn't need a "technical crime" to impeach, but that they do need "criminal-type behavior" related to "treason and bribery" to meet the threshold for impeachment.

"It's the same argument," he said on MSNBC. "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."

 

 

 

Akin to treason or bribery, criminal type behavior..... not abuse of power......

 

Can you idiots actually READ?????? 
 

There’s constant abuse of power within the three branches of government. We wouldn’t even know the respective  limits without the occasional abuse of power..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, drvoke said:

Dershowitz has been on Fox News recently saying that even if Trump abused power, it is not an impeachable offense. He lied.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, ConservativeVoice said:

Well DIP$HIT... there is a BIG difference when it comes to impeachment as to whether a President "COULD" be Impeached, versus as to whether he "SHOULD" be impeached... OBVIOUSLY

 

 

Exactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ConservativeVoice said:

Well DIP$HIT... there is a BIG difference when it comes to impeachment as to whether a President "COULD" be Impeached, versus as to whether he "SHOULD" be impeached... OBVIOUSLY, Donald Trump WAS impeached by the House of Representatives... without breaking ANY Laws, with NO evidence that could have PROVEN that any laws were broken, AND it was done on a TOTAL PARTY LINE VOTE... SINCE, ONLY a simple majority is required in the House !!... AND, as a matter of FACT, SO was Andrew Johnson impeached, in EXACTLY the same way, in the years JUST PRIOR to the civil war !!  <remember that point>

 

However, in front of the Senate, who is tasked to DECIDE IF a President SHOULD be impeached, and SHOULD he be removed from office... WITHOUT breaking ANY laws, without doing ANYTHING wrong, and THERE, it requires a 2/3's majority to actually REMOVE a President from office !! 

 

SO, Alan Dershowitz, who has dedicated his LIFE to the LAW, to the Constitution, and the freedoms and rights outlined there... HE is GOING to defend Donald Trump in EXACTLY the same way that Andrew Johnson was defended... HE is going to make the case that the FOUNDING Fathers intended impeachment to be used ONLY in the case where SERIOUS crimes were committed, with CLEAR and INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF provided by the House of Reps,... and only THEN SHOULD a Sitting, and Duly elected President be removed from office, and IF the standard was ANY LESS... that Congress would in FACT be NULLIFYING the votes of MILLIONS of American Citizens, and in FACT be committing TREASON !!

 

Andrew Johnson WAS NOT removed by a RADICAL House of Representatives in 1859ish... and NEITHER will Donald Trump be removed in 2020 !!  HOWEVER, the ACT that the Democrats used IMPEACHMENT to try to remove the President, with NO EVIDENCE, and were DEFEATED... was ONE of the factors that caused the CIVIL WAR to occur only a few years later... AND NOW, the NIT WIT Democrats can TRY AGAIN... but it will NEVER happen, BUT They have dedicated the last 3 years to DIVIDING our nation... AND, the last time we were THIS divided, a CIVIL was occurred, and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Americans DIED !!... Donald Trump will NOT be removed from office... AND, I would be SHOCKED if the Democrats are not dealt ANOTHER CRUSHING BLOW at the ballot box, during the 2020 election !!

 

SO... WHERE does that leave us?  DO YOU SOB's want another CIVIL WAR ?

 

YOU dumb dumb Democrats just DO NOT GET IT !!  The PEOPLE are STILL in CHARGE, and the FAKE Media and FAKE Polls do NOT win elections... AND, THEY are WRONG AGAIN, and THEY will not win based on LIES, CORRUPTION, and MANIPULATION... as MUCH as the Democrats WISH it was not TRUE !!  THEY are going to LOSE HOWEVER this DIVIDE ends up being RESOLVED... Why?  Because Americans DO NOT like fighting for the side of LIES, DECEIT, and EVIL... which is EXACTLY what the Democrats Represent !!

Spot on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

As we all know, the richer people are, the smarter they are. Dershowitz has connections in both NYC and Harvard. I am not in any competition with Derschowitz for either fame or fortune.

You couldnt compete against a quadriplegic 3rd grader with half a brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angry Alan Dershowitz goes off on ‘two bullies’ Anderson Cooper and Jeff Toobin when confronted with his hypocrisy

 

 

‘That’s not what you said then!’: Alan Dershowitz crashes and burns when confronted with his own words on impeachment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s defense team:Christian fanatics, TV showboats and corrupt clowns

The impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump begins on Tuesday morning. If you’ve been closely following the Trump saga since he came down his golden escalator and declared his candidacy, as I have, you are not terribly surprised that it has come to this. Unfortunately, most of us who could see how he might seduce the faction of the country that had been primed for a demagogue like him over the past several decades also overestimated the patriotism of Republican officials, many of whom made it clear in the beginning that they knew what he was and have since rolled over for him like trained poodles. That phenomenon is what will determine the eventual outcome of the trial we are about to witness.

 

We have an incompetent and corrupt president, who has clearly committed multiple cases of abuse of power, being protected by his party — which is openly engaged in a cover-up of his high crimes. Leading Republicans are no longer even trying to pretend they are statesmen (or women). It is just an exercise of pure partisan resistance to any and all accountability for their leader.

 

The best illustration of that is the way Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has manipulated the trial procedures to be as opaque and hurried as possible. His rules for the media, and his demands that much of the trial be presented in the dead of night, are nothing more than an attempt to cover up the proceedings as much as possible.

 

Trump’s attorneys’ legal arguments show how contemptuous the president is of the process. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has called them “garbage dressed up as legal argument.” Nonetheless, Trump’s team seems highly confident that this is all they need to do, knowing that their GOP allies will do as they’re told and Republican voters will be shielded from the truth by Fox News and other right-wing media.

 

So what kind of lawyers would take a case like this? It appears that it isn’t top conservative legal talent. According to George Conway, the Trump critic and high-powered conservative lawyer (and husband to White House aide Kellyanne Conway), the top law firms won’t go near Trump. He has a bad reputation for not paying his legal bills and refusing to follow his attorney’s advice, making the lawyer (and him) look like fools. They also worry that the top law school talent will go elsewhere rather than be associated with this administration.

 

Trump has already gone through a slew of attorneys in his three years in office. His original White House counsel, Don McGahn, left long ago, as did Trump’s personal lawyers John Dowd and Ty Cobb, who handled the Mueller investigation. Also gone is Emmet Flood, who was on Bill Clinton’s impeachment team and would have likely been an asset in this proceeding.

 

So he’s left with his latest White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, a former corporate lawyer and Catholic activist. (Fox News host Laura Ingraham has called him her “spiritual mentor.”) Cipollone was highly recommended by his good friend Bill Barr and Trump’s other lawyers, Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani. From what other lawyers say about Cipollone’s legal arguments during the impeachment process so far, particularly the incomprehensible screed he sent to the House before the hearings (which was quite likely dictated by Trump), he is no longer concerned with his reputation as a serious jurist.

The second in command on the Trump team is Sekulow, previously known as a legal advocate for the Christian right. Like so many of his brethren in that movement, he apparently sees no barrier to empowering and defending a corrupt, libertine president. But then, Sekulow has more in common with Trump than he admits. He’s also personally implicated in the Ukraine scandal, which is not unusual for a Trump attorney. Since these guys are throwing out the common understanding of the Constitution, they might as well discard any notions of conflict of interest as well.

 

There are a couple of other deputy White House counsels added to the list, Patrick Philbin and Mike Purpura. Both of them are former Department of Justice attorneys who’ve been handling much of the stonewalling detail work. Jane Raskin, who was hired along with her husband last year to help Trump with the Mueller investigation, is also on board but not expected to be out front.

 

And then there are the Fox News “stars,” meaning Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray and Pam Bondi, who were obviously brought on because Trump wanted to hire the lawyers from “Law and Order” but was gently informed that they were fictional characters. (OK, I made that part up — but it’s sad that such a thing is so believable.) He settled for Fox News talking heads who can speak credibly to the only people who matter — his base.

 

I don’t think I have to explain who Starr is, other than to point out that aside from his role in the inane Monica Lewinsky scandal, he was fired from his most recent job for covering up a sex scandal at Baylor University. He is yet another alleged puritan strangely drawn to Donald Trump.

 

Dershowitz is also famous enough that I don’t need to run down his credits. He’s been all over TV the last few days, claiming that he isn’t defending the president but rather the Constitution and making all kinds of contradictory arguments in which he insists the president can’t be impeached for abuse of power or obstruction of Congress. His view is decidedly a fringe interpretation.

 

Robert Ray, another independent counsel from the Clinton years, is on the team as well. That’s a good thing, since he’s been presenting himself on TV as some kind of neutral observer when it’s clear that he’s a Trump partisan through and through. And finally there is Pam Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida and one of Trump’s favorites, presumably because she was so willing to please when he offered her a donation at the time she was considering whether to join the lawsuit against Trump University. She’s Trump’s kind of lawyer.

 

So what of Rudy Giuliani, supposedly Trump’s personal attorney and trusted legal adviser? The last we heard from him, Giuliani was begging to defend Trump against impeachment by “prosecut[ing] it as a racketeering case,” which he claims to have “kind of invented.” Apparently, the president was persuaded that Giuliani might not be all that helpful to his case, since he’s heavily implicated in the scheme himself and now under investigation in the Southern District of New York. Also, he is quite unhinged.

 

So here we go America. The third presidential impeachment trial in history is about to begin, and the president is being defended by religious right activists, corrupt politicians, crackpots and camera hogs. It should be quite a pageant. Go ahead and pop some popcorn, but I suspect you’ll be needing an adult beverage to go with it before the day is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...