OK, Trump voters, here are the facts:
1. Trump tried to extort a foreign government by withholding congressional approved military aid to get them to announce made-up investigations into the Biden family to benefit Trump in the election.
2. This is not conjecture; it is FACT. 12 witnesses have testified, including people that Trump hired; many emails, text messages and other documents prove it; Trump and Mulvaney literally have admitted to it on worldwide TV.
3. Not only is this a clear abuse of power and a violation of his oath of office, there are at least 3 underlying crimes: solicitation of a foreign government to interfere in our elections; withholding of congressional approved funding; obstructing congress by blocking other witnesses and documents.
The question here is whether or not you care that Trump is a criminal, and that Republicans are now using foreign governments to help them win election.
In addition, who do you think was paying Giuliani and his hired thugs, Lev and Igor, to do all of this? Russia. The same Russia that the Pentagon says is the #1 threat to our national security. Again, the question is, do you even care?
Actually, the larger question is whether you even believe in our Constitution, our democracy, and in our system of justice.
23
Sadly as with all members of cults, members of the Cult of Trump follow their Svengali blindly, and to the outhouse with reason, consensus, or the ramifications of consequences...
15
Trump, Trump's lawyers, Trump's lackeys, and Trump's MAGA cult:
"Trump can't be impeached for impeachable offenses."
The only thing sustaining that absurd contention is the GOP control of the Senate. If ever there was a real case of the emperor has no clothes, Trump is it.
What an astounding dereliction of duty by the majority party in what is supposed to be the world's finest deliberative body.
35
The House Managers despite the Republicans cover up efforts have the latter appearing as incompetent fools attempting to defend a crooked President by denying evidence.
Yes, that reads as an obvious assertion.
Point Made!
And McConnell blinked and requested a parlay. Schumer stood tall & rejected his phony overture. The Dems have flipped McConnell’s trap against him by thoroughly impressing the Public with factual substance and straight talk.
23
It should be quite clear that, at the time of the crafting and ratification of the US Constitution, there were no statutes (other than common law) to indict a president by. Law, in the form of statutes, arose as a result of subsequent Congressional acts, and subsidiary regulatory actions. Let's be clear, a president may set policy and take action by virtue of "the public good", but not in ways contradicting congressional statutes and laws without possible consequences in the form of impeachment. A president may, however, act in contradiction to congressional acts in an emergency BUT always risks the possibility of impeachment. (Trump's assassination of Sulemani, for instance, is impeachable -- but only if the House of Representatives perceives it to be illegal and NOT as a result of perceived Public Good. What does all this say of the Ukrainian affair? Clearly, Trump broke with Congressional authorities. His only defense is that he withheld Congressionally allocated funds "In The Public Good". Should he not be able to demonstrate this, the Senate should convict him. All other aspects of this trial are merely distractions from this one basic truth...
15
Dershowitz says his argument will be serious and scholarly. We can judge its seriousness when we see it. But it will not be scholarly. A legal scholar is someone who has no interest in the outcome of the case; that is, someone other than the attorney for one party.
22
According to research by the House of Commons Library, the first recorded use of the impeachment procedure in England was in 1376, when Lord Latimer was impeached. But impeachment fell into disuse in Britain centuries ago. The House of Commons Library explains why:
"Impeachment operated in an era when Parliament and the courts had very limited oversight of government power. Different mechanisms have developed in modern politics to allow for the scrutiny of the executive. These include parliamentary questions, inquiries by select committees and independent committees of inquiry. The growth of the doctrine of collective cabinet responsibility, and the use of confidence motions have both contributed to the disuse of impeachments in modern times. Judicial review also now provides an effective check on the legality of the actions of public officials and government ministers. The impeachment process, last attempted in 1806, has not been revised to reflect the fundamental changes that have occurred in Parliament."
We don't have confidence motions in the United States, but the other factors mentioned have even more importance here. Congress and the courts have many ways to check and balance the power of the president. Just look at what happened to Richard Nixon. Impeachment in the United States is not needed -- it should be obsolete here as well. It is now abused, not used.
1
If you had not gotten it before, I hope you realize now that it is actually Mitch McConnell who is the biggest danger to our democratic system of checks and balances.
He may be the senator from Kentucky, but he has hijacked an entire branch of the government.
Send his Democratic rival (Amy McGrath) some support.
33
I’ve paid attention and believe Mitch McConnell has put our country’s well being on hold for years to satisfy his political ambition. Close scrutiny of the facts reveals that Democrats have tried time and again to pass legislation that would benefit the average American. Mitch doesn’t let many come to light in the Senate, be debated, or voted on. A number of these bills wculd pass without partisan rancor.
Then there’s Merritt Garland, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, who never had a chance. And Brett Kavanaugh for whom Mitch skewed the hearings to seat him on the Court.
We won’t have a working Congress until Mitch is ditched!!!
25
Citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Polling says 70 percent of Americans want witnesses at the Senate impeachment trial.
Please let your senators know your thoughts.
24
The Democrats just want to keep the kettle boiling up to the elections. This is not impeachment. This is an ongoing political campaign using taxpayer money for partisan advantage. As soon as these articles are dismissed, they will come up with others and then others. This is nothing but abuse of the system and misuse of taxpayers’ funds.
3
@Edward
What is the motive?
When the hearings began in the House, Biden was polling double digits above Trump in key swing states.
The early polls first came out just prior to the time the plot to remove the ambassador began and these efforts in Ukraine became an earnest push for Giuliani. Just look at the state by state polls that were released last March and at the start of the year.
It must have shocked Trump to the core if he can't even accept poor crowd turnout even when it is raining.
With Trump's poor polling numbers throughout his presidency, to undertake an impeachment was a risk that was not at all a benefit for Democrats.
We clearly were in a winning position and had the upper hand. Not a time to rock the boat.
The House however, had a Constitutional obligation to proceed based on overwhelming the evidence of the extreme abuse of power by Trump.
As far as the Russia investigation is concerned, how can one call that a hoax, when Trump himself on national TV called them to look for the emails - and they seem to have obliged. According to the intelligence agencies the Russians interfered.
Evidence seems to contradict the Democrats using any of these efforts for political gain. to the contrary in fact.
This it is clearly simply a matter of Constitutional obligation.
18
It's not just Trump's legal defense making 'constititional nonsense.'
It's also 53 senators who agree with them! That's a frightening and dangerous problem for ALL of us.
19
Given the quality of the oral arguments so far from Trump's attorneys, it's not surprising their written submissions are nonsense. Apparently, he couldn't get better lawyers to represent him. He's got a talk-show host, a corporate lawyer who was introduced to Trump by Laura Ingraham, and Ken Starr, a right-wing lawyer from way back who was fired by Baylor University for covering up sexual misconduct by the football team. His constitutional "expert" is a criminal lawyer who seems to be still trying somewhat vainly to remain relevant by trying to invent a constitutional argument to help Trump. He is on tape contradicting his current theory that a crime is necessary for impeachment. Come to think of it, Rudy is also a former criminal lawyer who is trying to stay relevant by representing Trump in his effort to get help from a foreign government to help Donnie in the next election. Rudy was reportedly also looking into making a few bucks in the process. As a 40 year, now retired litigation lawyer, I'm embarrassed for the legal profession to hear the arguments. these guys are making. Unfortunately, they are probably enough to give the Republican Senators cover to acquit Trump.
18
As always when interpreting the Constiution, a central issue is what the language meant in the late 1700s. In my opinion, the phrase "high crimes and misdemanours" links the alleged misbehaviour to "high office." The phrase refers to misbehaviours that only people in high office could commit by virtue of being in high office. An ordinary person obviously can't abuse Presidential power. Only a President can do that. Hence "high" crimes and misdemeanours.
The word "high" also implies or suggests that ordinary crimes might not be impeachable offenses. For example, shoplifitng might result in a criminal conviction, but since it's not a "high" crime limited to persons in high office, it wouldn't trigger impeachment. However, since only a President could grant a Presidential pardon, accepting a bribe to grant one would be impeachable, even though bribery is common at all levels of society, .
It should also be noted that the Consitution refers to impeachment in the first two Articles. I think the Founders were acutely aware that the high office of President offered great temptation to misuse Presidential power. They wanted to prevent that, and to punish it if it happened.
11
Referenced in this article is "Moderate" Republican.
Please list for me the names of these so-called Moderates.
6
McConnell’s GOP-controlled Senate has just made it very clear --as they try to hide very damning evidence and cover up for trump-- that the USA now has an almost totally sham and corrupt GOP government! Their cabal daily lie, cheat, hide and steal to keep their power.
Trump and the rest of his mafia-like administration are turning our democracy into a corrupt GOP KINGDOM, where they can commit any crime without consequence, investigate and trash their “enemies,” take away our votes, our rights and resources, and prevent us from knowing the truth.
If we and the media allow this sham, kangaroo impeachment trial in the Senate to go forward with only meek complaints, we join trump and the GOP in killing our country’s and our families' future.
Moreover, we are foolish to think the 2020 election will save our democracy. The GOP and their Russian hackers and bots are already rigging it, while trump and his friends help!
We need to be in the streets NOW, calling for TRUMP’S REMOVAL NOW, before he takes away our rights to express our opinions or protest, as already tried in some states! Do it for your future and your kids.
9
One thinks Republicans simply cannot sink any deeper only to be mistaken.
Yes, they can and they do and they will!
If they do not defend Trump at any and all costs to the nation, to the individual and to themselves and bring him and themselves 'off' than they have lost their Trump-Roulette big way and all the bullets will fire back at them.
This is not a question of right or wrong or the American Constitution! It is about saving their own corrupt skins!
10
That the House did not frame its articles as addressing specific crimes was, politically, an amateurish mistake, given they must have known the specious defenses the opposition would raise in the Senate. Nevertheless, crimes were in fact committed by Trump and his minions: demands were made that Ukraine initiate investigations in order to guarantee the release of the already appropriated funds. Is this not extortion? The promise of an invitation to the White House for the Ukrainian president was based on the same demands. Is this not bribery? A team approach was implemented to effect these demands. Is this not conspiracy? The subsequent obstruction of the House inquiry is also a crime. That the scheme did not come to fruition is irrelevant in our justice system, only the intent and attempt to commit crime is a crime in itself. The House leaders made a big mistake in not spelling these things out. They compounded this mistake by ignoring the other blatant and manifold crimes also committed by this administration. Rushing and shortchanging the articles were foolish blunders, and those mistakes will ensure an unfair trial and, probably, the re-election of a manifestly criminal lout.
4
My feeling is that Alan Dershowitz opinion on impeachment has more to do with the content of Epstiens hard drives than the Consitution
6
Defense is one thing...
The blatant lies being told by the White House lawyers are quite another...
Secret basement hearings and on and on...sigh...
You might as well have hired Hannity to defend Trump.
The same level of reasoning, expertise, and morality is being used here by his defense team.
Why even get a legal degree?
Paul Krugman wrote an article about his take on "useful idiots."
I wonder is Trump's lawyers are aware that by making themselves "useful" in such a manner - they are, in a way, contributing to making their own legal profession less relevant by lowering standards to such an excess.
I guess their behavior matches the client, in a way, since Trump and the GOP are making checks and balances, truth, democracy, and our Constitution - more irrelevant each passing day.
11
The GOP might not believe it requires removal from office, but the belief that our president is blameless and did nothing wrong is insulting to me as an American.
16
The House voluntarily closed their deliberations and sent a bill of impeachment stating that there was overwhelming evidence for impeachment beyond any reasonable doubt. The Senate is supposed to consider those facts and make a judgment, not continue the House's responsibility of investigation. Nadler and Schiff have bungled their investigation by not allowing bipartisan participation in the subpoena process and now they object to the Senate doing the same. Calling this a circus is an insult to circuses.
2
Democrats, make an appeal to chief justice Roberts for witnesses and subpoenas. That way, we can see where he stands.
1) If he doesn’t call for witnesses and subpoenas we know that the Supreme Court is compromised because he, of all people, knows that any trial has to have evidence and witnesses
2) If he does call for witnesses and subpoenas, then the Senate Republicans will vote to overrule him, and that will have every single American looking at those senators as they go against the Chief Justice, as partisan hacks.
10
Pelosi was right in the beginning of all this. The partisanship of both the house and the senate make a final impeachment action impossible and it has been an example of our government in turmoil. Watching the senate undertaking today has been painful.....a constant litany by the Democrats of the president's crime in Ukraine and a constant commentary from the Republicans that the senate will not save the impeachment by adding evidence and witnesses. Not once has anybody put a weight on the crime....what were the damages caused by the delay in providing the money? Were shipments delayed? Did people die? Most people look to damages when it comes to a trial. Sure, he broke the law and should be censured but exactly what was the damage cost outside the costs of all these hearings and trials that will get nowhere?.....as predicted from the very beginning.
3
Can I be the only honest one here?
This is a farce by all sides. Despite all the speeches and investigation, procedures and whatever- nothing of it matters ! The law doesn't matter, nor does the Constitution, nor do the facts. Nobody cares about any of that. Everyone's mind has been made up - for years- and nothing will ever change it. Democrats want Trump gone - period. Republicans support him-period. That was true two years ago, one year ago, and is true now.
No matter what evidence is presented, no matter what eloquent legal arguments are made, they will change nothing. Nothing !
It is hilarious that people are actually debating facts and law as if they mattered because facts and law are irrelevant to the outcome. Both sides are going to vote the way they would have decided the day after Trump's inauguration. here is no possibility that anyone's mind will be changed.
Let's please end the circus and be done with it.
Republicans are trying to bury the impeachment proceedings to protect Trump from accountability for his defiance of our government by law. He's no charismatic leader but a rather weak man with a determination to be the center of attention. How eager they give up their liberty as individuals for this phony.
7
This is great. Chief Justice John Roberts presides, signaling complete compliance and agreement by the SCOTUS. Putin could not be more pleased. Oh, Trump and the GOP base, too.
4
‘Constitutional Nonsense’
As always - missing the point right in front of his nose and indeed most progressive commentators' noses - it simply does not matter if is is ‘Constitutional Nonsense’
What matters is how it is perceived the the PLURALITY of Americans who think this impeachment is a blatant show-pony orchestrated by Dems with no good direct evidence and no sound end-game.
This will go down in history as a monumental blunder by the normally reliable Nancy Pelosi - and I want nothing more than to see the end of the Trumpster.
Professor Dershowitz can try to spin this all he wants, but the truth is that an "impeachable offense" is anything the legislative branch decides is impeachable. It's not like there's an appeals process to overrule the final Senate vote. But, sadly, the Republican Senators have decided to spinelessly support the cowardly and corrupt, Mr. Trump, no matter the consequences, and our democracy will suffer for it.
8
@Lisa Kelly
Gerald Ford in the 70s:
“ High Crimes & Misdemeanors “ are whatever the House of Representatives say they are.
4
@tom boyd
Yes but he was being sarcastic, after the fact.
This isn’t a great piece. It primarily cites a liberal law professor, instead of any number of conservatives who think the opposite. Citing to Tribe and Dershowitz—both partisan polemicists—is worse than not citing anything at all. In other words, it’d be great to have a real analysis here instead of cherry-picked partisans.
2
Criminal activity is definitely not a necessary condition of impeachment--the Bill Clinton case is the obvious precedent.
4
There is no limit, according to many legal sources, on how many times a President may be impeached. In view of the latest information from the Ukraine, the House should consider additional articles of impeachment and bring them to the forefront. The GOP is engaged in a gigantic coverup and are traitors to our democracy. Just what is Trump and this bunch of misfits hiding.
6
@JWMathews
Agreed.
2
Analysis: ‘This Argument Is Constitutional Nonsense’ Scholar Says
Analysis: Scholar Says ‘Analyze This’ Is Constitutional
Nonsense!
Argument?
As I write, the vote to table Schumer’s amendment is going on. It’s a test vote. Whoops. No crossover votes. It’s all over except for the shouting.
2
If Trump is so concerned about corruption, why did he try to scrap the FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT by an Executive Order?
4
This is nonsense.
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" meant that- as is defined in criminal law statutes.
Obviously.
Where is the crime? There is none. The House admits this in their Impeachment "Indictment."
To paraphrase OJ's attorney, "If no crime is committed, Trump must be acquitted!
4
"Mr. Dershowitz argued that his position today was not inconsistent with what he said in 1998."
As an attorney, Mr. D. is not required to be consistent with his prior statements or positions. Attorneys are free to adjust their utterances in conformity to the needs of the party they are promoting.
So it is not that he is a hypocrite -- talking out of both sides of his mouth -- but that what he says is just words, in the manner of Kellyanne Conway.
2
Does Pam Bondy still have the $25,000 trump gave to her followed by the dropping of her trump U investigation? Where is the ABA?
3
print both sides of this issue i.e. many scholars say the opposite
1
Withholding aid to Ukraine while saying "will you do me a favor", then running an elaborate campaign to pressure the Ukraine into announcing investigations of the Bidens - to damage Biden's campaign chances is the very definition of the crime of extortion and more generally using the office of the president for personal gain, rather than to benefit the public.
A crime, and abuse of the power of the office.
Just political? Hamilton in Federalist 65 says, “…those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” https://reframes.wordpress.com/2020/01/19/unbribe-impeach-remove-and-indict/
He goes on to say, “… in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Sure got that right.
3
America is exposed as a fake democracy for all to see.
2
Constitutional scholars need to get out in the real world once in a while. Nobody actually cares what they think.
1
House Ds are putting the Senate to sleep.
And it's just the first hours.
Who's idea was this?
1
@rex reese
It was House dems' idea.
2
“Mr. Tribe [constitutional specialist at Harvard Law School] accused Mr. Trump’s legal team of using ‘bogus legal arguments to mislead the American public or the senators weighing his fate.’”
Dershowitz in 2020: “The framers intended for impeachable conduct only to be conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law.”
Dershowitz in 1998: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime [for impeachment]!”
3
It may be nonsense, but Trump has gotten away with nonsense for his entire life.
So has Midnight Moscow Mitch.
They are constantly emboldened by lack of accountability, better known as “getting away with it”.
4
We are witnessing the death of democracy at the hands of the GOP. RIP USA.
3
The argument made by Senate supporters that Trump was “protecting” Executive Privilege in withholding papers and witnesses in spite of Congressional subpoenas defies the logic of the Constitution.
Under their logic, no President, ever, can be questioned for anything, and any or all witnesses and papers can be withheld from examination by the Congress. A five-year-old understands that a parent who cannot interrupt his behavior is a parent that is ruled by that five-year-old tyrant.
Using their logic, Nixon would never have had to turn over any papers or suffer his appointees to be questioned by the House. His criminality would have gone unexamined and unknown to the public. Essentially this is what Republican Senators are saying. Dam- their eyes for the unpatriotic, destructive, unethical people they are. History will condemn them for the destruction of our democracy and our children will curse their memory.
3
Dershowitz’s former clients include OJ Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, Claus von Bulow and now Donald Trump. Dershowitz certainly has a “type”.
1
How is Justice Roberts able to contain himself listening to Trump's team of thugs?
1
Trump’s attorneys are absolutely awful, bottom rung, mumbling, stumble bums, making no sense whatsoever but making Michael Cohen sound coherent. Mr. Schiff and Me. Schumer, on the other hand, were polished and persuasive.
1
This is a travesty. The entire history of impeachment trials in this country relied on documents and witnesses to determine in an impartial manner a verdict.
If there is no impeachable offense -- produce the evidence and witnesses, Republicans. You are part of this cover up! Otherwise, why would this kangaroo process be orchestrated this way by Moscow Mitch?
Republicans, prove your president's innocence and cutout the coverup. Do you think the population is utterly stupid?
3
Seriously, except as "legal convenience" by those rightly accused of egregious behavior who are grasping at any wisp of any silly straw, why would ANYONE ever listen to someone like Mr. Dershowitz? His mental meanderings are just as vacuous and flimsy as everything this president has ever spouted on his own behalf.
I am embarrassed that my state's senators (Indiana) are fully in support of a president who abused his powers. This is a pathetic white-wash of corruption by the president and his enablers in the Republican party.
3
Let me get this straight:
Lying about a consensual sex act in the Oval Office is worthy of weeks of time and dozens of witnesses in a drawn out lengthy impeachment trial........,
but extorting a vulnerable ally using $millions of tax payer funds that were already allocated and approved by Congress for a political bribe/shakedown for personal political gain in order to trick voters with propaganda in the 2020 election, and all the while putting U.S. national security and Ukrainian troops in danger, AND THEN obstructing all documents and witnesses about it...., is NOT worthy of allowing any witnesses or evidence in an impeachment trial? These partisan antics risk destroying our Republic. It is shameful.
228
". . . President Trump’s legal team called on the Senate on Monday to “swiftly reject” the impeachment charges and acquit him. . . "
Good grief, the only aspect missing from this brief is for this "swift" acquittal to be held in the middle of the night, under a shroud of darkness.
Why the rush? What's the hurry?
For weeks, almost months, the Republicans have been yapping that the Democrats were dragging their feet about presenting the articles of impeachment against the president. Now that these documents have been delivered and Trump's legal team had all of, what, maybe two or three days top to review all of the material, now suddenly they want a "swift acquittal" decision from the Senate?
If ever there was a moment in time when a Republican Senator is at a crossroads, this is it - they can either allow themselves to be influenced and herded like sheep, or actually stand up and say, "Wait a moment. We should hear and see what the Democrats have" rather than be hustled along as if one's in line to see the circus.
If that's what this legal team is aiming for, then I have to wonder why bring in big names from the past to represent Trump? How much is their bill going to cost the American tax payer?
Talk about a charade.
7
Amazing how so many Fox talking points have filtered in.
What is more amazing is that not a single defender of DJT has mentioned the actual facts and acts of Mr Trump.
I enjoy watching intelligent people on the GOP side under pressure attempt to excuse what they know is wrong and out of bounds. Smart people defending what they know is indefensible.
We have hit the stage where both the facts and law are against you, so they have gone to the part where you pound the table and yell.
11
Polls suggest the majority are already convinced he is guilty. Slim majority in the CNN poll think he should be impeached. I am for witnesses and a secret vote.
4
 A sad joke at the expense of American society.
The only people who gain from this farce are the less who have lots of stories to write, the talking heads of the mass media, and all the politicians who get a lot of publicity. The US citizen gets nothing but the bills for this political fight and two thirds of the government(judiciary excluded) who are totally absorbed by their own petty political squabbles.
The "It's all a hoax" defense has been abandoned.
The American people now know because of the facts already collected, that in spite of Donald Trump's crimes and obstruction, the GOP's impeachment trial defense of Donald J.Trump is officially: "So what."
So what if the evidence already presented demands further investigation and records that need to be examined.
So what if he asked Russia, Ukraine, China, or any other foreign nations to interfere in American elections;
So what if he did not faithfully execute the law passed by congress to supply Ukraine with military aid and so diminished America's security;
So what if he lied and abused his power by obstructing the evidence of his plot and actions to subvert the next election.
His Republican defenders will eventually claim that the nation's Founders would not have judged these acts to be impeachable. They are wrong.
The framers of our Constitution expressly prohibited receipt of aid from foreigners in our elections, and especially did so in the case of the president. They knew the danger that a president might become a dictator by corrupting elections with the support of foreign dictators and kings. They may not have foreseen the complicity of the current GOP Senate majority, nor the rise of powerful propaganda media in service to one man, but their intent was plainly that Americans elect their government without foreign meddling.
9
If the Trump lawyers do not have a Lady MacBeth moment after today, then they have no soul.
When I think of all those who came before who fought and died for our rights and our Constitution and in the defence of democracy - it makes me ill to think of what is happening today in our GOP controlled Senate and in the White House and at these hearings.
What some will resort to in the making of a King, or in holding onto power, or in furthering their own spotlight as litigators, would normally, at a minimum, be their own undoing as a human being - if they are not either completely amoral or immoral in character.
They will be immortalized in history books for centuries to come as villains who had little regard for our democracy.
There is not enough soap and water in the world to wash away the impact of the lies being told on behalf of this president.
9
Robert is not doing his job. Trump's lawyers keep saying that no Republicans were allowed in the closed door hearings. We all know that at least 40 Republicans participated in these meetings . Roberts as judge should censor the lawyers for lying.
11
@Tom Suborning perjury is in fact a crime. Unfortunately, these people are apparently not under oath to tell the truth. That's the problem with people viewing this 'trial' as a trial-as-seen-on Law and Order or, for the older folks out there, Perry Mason.
1
Frankly it is absurd to hear people,two hundred and fifty years later, presuming to know precisely what our wise,but human and fallible founders meant,or implied. They weren't perfect or infallible; that is why there are amendments. If anything, it was the fact they had malleable minds which made them great. As the Republicans say, trump did it but it is not a "crime." Well,ok then. It is time to dispose of him through the emoluments clause. His actions were meant to gain him political and personal advantages.The republicans can't have it both ways. Either impeach him or use the 25th Amendment.
3
Mr. Dershowitz is a master at arrogant and dramatic presentations of provocative fringe arguments with an air of learned certitude in the hopes that they will be accepted as incisive lightning bolts of brilliance. Rather, Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments attempting to undermine the core legitimacy of the impeachment case being brought forth by the House Managers serve the purpose of confusing the public with obfuscatory linguistic fog. As the article mentions several constitutional experts have pointed out his fallacious process of cherry picking statements by our founding fathers, while ignoring the more complete record of their opinions that clearly support Abuse of Power as an essential rationale for removing a President. This especially true when that abuse includes illegally withholding congressionally mandated funds to illegally solicit a foreign government to undermine an upcoming domestic election. I’m afraid that Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments would have us ignore the central operational thesis of our democracy: the expression of constitutional freedoms must be protected at all costs from being sabotaged by autocratic tyrants.
8
The White House blocked access to all documents requested by the House. Simple obstruction of justice.
Now, the Senate denies the right to subpoena documents in the Senate “trial” and blames Democrats for not having the documents in hand which the President withheld.
Now we wait for the request for witnesses to be denied.
Americans know what trials are supposed to look like.
This is not a trial.
This is not justice.
Let’s be blunt: Republicans under Mitch McConnell will not stop until
every
last
vestige
of democracy
is destroyed.
10
We are watching our democracy being washed down the sewer by Trump and McConnell. They are converting our government into an untrammeled dictatorship. Trump aside, we might as well cancel Congress. No president will ever be held to account for actions again.
Senate Republicans have utterly abdicated their duty to the Constitution or the rule of law. I fervently hope they will be held to account in November.
9
How much did Trump say he would pay him and even more germane, does he expect to collect his fee? This is a brilliant lawyer who defended O.J. (on the grounds that it was the one-armed man, whose good arm fit the glove?) and Epstein due to his academic record at M.I.T. and now has crafted something out of Lewis Carroll:Even if he's guilty, he's innocent.
3
If the Trump lawyers do not have a Lady MacBeth moment after today, then they have no soul.
When I think of all those who came before who fought and died for our rights and our Constitution and in the defence of democracy - it makes me ill to think of what is happening today in our GOP controlled Senate and in the White House and at these hearings.
What some will resort to in the making of a King or in holding onto power or in furthering their own spotlight as litigators would normally, at a minimum, be their own undoing as a human being - if they are not either completely amoral or immoral in character.
They will be immortalized in history books for centuries to come as villains who had little regard for our democracy.
There is not enough soap and water in the world to excuse the lies being told on behalf of this president.
You can not expect McConnell to be fair in this trial. Here is Why:
Particularly, McConnell's personal interest is conflicted with his role as Senate Majority Leader in this trial.
McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao is Secretary of Transportation in President Trump's Cabinet, and in other words, President Trump is the boss of McConnell's wife. Thus, McConnell's wife's job security is at stake here.
It would be good for McConnell to recuse himself in this case, which would be good for the Senate, the Country and the American people.
2
@George
Don't forget that his brother-in-law, Gordon Hartogensis, was appointed by Trump to direct the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
1
So far no attempt to challenge the accusations. The defense is just trying to argue that the deplorable actions of Trump are not impeachable offenses. That is going to be a tough argument to make.
4
@MB
Let’s not forget OJ Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein in Dershowitz’s rogues gallery of clients.
Yes, everyone is entitled to a defense.
However, at what point does a lawyer pass on a client because the alleged crime is so abhorrent, that it offends the counsel’s ethics, morals or the common sense notion of right and wrong?
3
Impeachment needs trial. The Constitution should be a living evolving frame of governing. The Founders impeachment procedures is outdated. Let the People sits as jurors instead of the Senate during the impeachment just like another trial in the country. The Senate and House are accountable to its people. It will be truly impartial.
2
It is no wonder that some of the president's improper actions are not defined as crimes under Federal law. That law could not encompass every way an elected official could abuse the trust placed in him.
5
But if "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not an ordinary crime, it simply MUST be a political crime.
In that case, the vote is necessarily political.
It simply requires a 2/3 vote, nothing more.
Thus, if 1/3+1 of the Senate votes against, on political grounds, that's just fine.
Note that Nixon likely (not really proven, but close) committed the actual crime of accessory to burglery.
Whether before or after the fact was probably shown in the
missing 20 minutes.
1
Basic legal interpretation of legal provisions say that if a provision is clear on its face it can't be interpreted differently by using secondary sources. The Constitution is clear on impeachment. A violation is treason, bribery or other high crime or misdemeanor. The "other" clearly makes the non specified crimes denoted as "high crimes or misdemeanors" must correspond to the severity of treason or bribery. Any so called legal scholar who doesn't recognize this is not a scholar.
2
Chief Justice Roberts is what, a standby observer. He’s going preside over a trial without witnesses and evidence? All I see him do is smile. Wow, trump owns the Supreme Court also?
3
No one has a 'right' to be president. Just taking a step back for a bit of perspective - the attorneys representing the subject of this proceeding (the man in the Oval Office) seem to be invoking the sacred duty of defense attorneys in criminal cases to zealously advocate for their clients to the extent that every opportunity is provided for the exercise of a defendant's rights under the relevant law, in this case, the Constitution of the United States. While Alan and his mates may indeed need to be seen as playing that role here, let us be absolutely clear - Again, no one has a 'right' to be president of these United States. What we are talking about here is returning this man and his friends and family to the private sector. No one, as of yet, as far as I can discern, is calling for depriving them of their liberty or taking their property. This is, in essence, a job performance review with the ultimate penalty comprising being asked to clean out your desk and leave the building. That's it.
3
If you accept the argument being made by Dershowitz (i.e., that removal requires a crime), why didn't the framers say that? The fact that there was debate over the language strongly suggests that the framers rejected that notion and intended a different standard than the one proposed by Mr. Dershowitz.
4
Despite the fact that I despise Trump, I am unconvinced that the articles of impeachment can hold water. The legislative and executive are coequal branches, so I see no possibility that the executive obstructed the legislative by refusing a request. If the judicial had ordered the executive to comply and the executive refused, then ABSOLUTELY impeach! But that didn't happen. As for abuse of power, there may be something there, but upholding that article creates far more problems than it solves.
Have I ever heard of a trial without witnesses or evidence. In fact, yes, almost every trial presided over by Justice Roberts. Lofgren and Schiff are on a fool's errand.
6
If the Roberts reference is about his role in the SC, these are not trials. They are appeals from prior verdicts. Attorneys from both sides make their statements and there is no conviction, only rulings from the SC to uphold or overturn a decision. So yes, without witnesses and evidence, what Republicans propose is not a jury trial as contemplated in the constitution.
14
@Charles Becker
"Have I ever heard of a trial without witnesses or evidence. In fact, yes, almost every trial presided over by Justice Roberts. "
1. Apellate litigation
2. Bench trials
3. Nolo contendere
However,71% of Democrats, 56% of independents and 40% of Republicans say Senate should call additional witnesses to testify.
49% of voters say House should send articles of impeachment to Senate, while 35% said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should wait for more information.
51% say Senate should remove Trump from office.
21
@Charles Becker Sorry, Mr. Baker, the Constitution grants the House of Representatives "the SOLE power of impeachment," effectively excluding both the Executive and Legislative branches roles in that task. The only exception would be a claim of "Executive Privilege," a rather hazy but clearly limited doctrine that covers the President's direct communication with his subordinates and does not cover communication regarding illegal acts. That exception in this case, however, is moot since the President has not claimed "executive privilege" with regard to either oral or written communications.
It may seem odd to those who are accustomed to the courts settling disputes between the Congressional and Executive branches via the route of judicial review. But while there is a role for the judiciary in most such disputes, the Constitution clearly does not provide for it in the case of impeachment.
This may seem
7
McConnell has no fairness.
He refers to material from the whole House of Representatives as being from the "House Democrats". According to that orientation, Donald Trump was impeached by the House Democrats and will be tried by the Senate Republicans.
The founding fathers of the US did not say that Impeachment was partisan and that each part of the Legislative Branch should be named by its majority party. Seems like the US is falling apart.
19
@Will Hogan
McConnell just likes being in power. He is a mean little man.
1
Because Schiff has been disingenuous from the VERY BEGINNING--he knew of the whistleblower and his complaint but lied and said he didn't, and he also publicly misrepresented the President's phone call to the Ukrainian president in front of Congress, calling it a "parody"--he lost any standing of conducting a "fair" impeachment. He conducted an unprecedentedly UNFAIR impeachment investigation in the House. Why? If Trump's guilt is so clear, why was the House investigation so one-sided and so secretive? In addition, why was the House investigation so incomplete? The Senate Democrats want White House records and staff as witnesses. Why didn't the House pursue subpoenas of these witnesses in court to overrule executive privilege if they felt their arguments for their testimonies were so necessary and compelling?
3
@CA-Renee Repeating lies does not make them true. But, forget all that. Every impeachment trial has allowed witness testimony. Why not this one? Especially since the defense team contends what Trump did was proper, commendable even. Let's hear all about it.
1
Whenever a person starts bringing up Schiff lying- it’s hard to not laugh. Trump has lied more than 15k times about things large and small - so please spare us the outrage. (BTW- Schiff did not lie about the whistleblower- that is just another Fox-induced fevered dream)
@CA-Renee
To answer your last question, because the Dems didn’t want to spend years in court. (This has been Trump’s MO throughout his adult life - Keep things in court as long as possible. Justice delayed is justice denied.) It has taken 9 months for the Don McGahn subpoena decision to be made, and it is going to be appealed, so that isn’t even resolved yet.
The first part of your statement is either disingenuous or shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and therefore doesn’t deserve much more than this response.
1
AS an outsider, why is this process given so much attention. The media talks about a 'trial' but will the Senate just vote along party lines.
These Senators are not seeking justice but re-election! Justice left this process years ago!
21
I am waiting to see when Mr. Trump mounts a propaganda push to actually use the "Impeached" as a money making label.
Looking back, one can find a number of hugely successful "branding" campaigns entirely based on negative labels associated with highly disreputable individuals! One thing is certain: Mr. Trump is the only one with all the rights to the label "impeached."
5
@Eddie B.
"Impeached!" Bourbon seems in order.
1
This really is simple:
1) Establish the FACTS
2) Establish The Time Line
3) Establish the Motivation
Requests/Demands for Facts have be denied by the Executive, So there is obstruction.
The best Defense is the truth, and Trump can't produce it, so we will be confused into a sense of uncertainty by their arguments, each designed to obscure the truth and consume scarce impeachment resources to refute.
The question is how far McConnell will go to enable this miscarriage of justice, and what will happen to McConnell's power when this is over.
20
The notion that a president must have committed a federal statutory crime is an historical absurdity. When the Constitution was written, debated and adopted in 1787-89, federal criminal atatutes did not yet exist, nor did the framers have any idea that federal crimes would one day be encoded in federal statutes. Indeed, even the feferal crime of bribery, one ofvthe things soecifically listed in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment, was not defined in federal statute until 1962! So the phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors" was clearly not a reference to what we today know as federal criminal law.
In fact, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was a legal term of art with a history under English law dating back 400 years, to 1388, and would have been well understood by Madison, et al.
But then, constitutional nonsense and legal absurdities seem to be the order of the day under this Administration.
15
Alan, who I know personally, is full of it. My argument in the previous sentence is about as solid as his argument that he will make Friday. It provides no legitimate proof and in fact from everything that is publicly known and provable easily comes out both with accuracy and technical detail. Pay no attention to the man behind the paycheck. 
7
While we’re trying to follow this impeachment trial, keep in mind that the legal expertise of Dershowitz in scholarship and practice is criminal law. So, his high profile, celebrity clients include the likes of OJ and Epstein, cases in which he provided defense. His constitutional law muscles atrophied decades ago. Tribe and Katyal are far more credible with decades of constitutional law scholarship and practice with numerous cases argued before the Supreme Court. The latter know what they are talking about while the former, not so much.
16
Is this the same Dershowitz that said he didn't think the Nixon gang should be judged by 'liberal and black' denizens of Washington? Some liberal.
What he's really saying is that, so long as the president doesn't break any criminal laws, he's free to do whatever he wants. There's no such thing as an abuse of power.
So he can use funds allocated by Congress however he wants. He can direct troops to do whatever he wants. He can declare war on whomever he wants.
Any power reserved to the power of Congress or the various states can, under Dershowitz's theory, be assumed by the president.
Congress is looking for any excuse to exonerate the president--and it doesn't matter whether the excuse is legitimate. Dershowitz knows that. All he is doing is providing an excuse.
If the case is dismissed, the House should recharge and resubmit, this time including bribery (which they should have included in the first place).
17
@Justin Emoluments as well. Trump hotel prices fluctuate with him in residence and he bills the Treasury for costs associated with his frequent and un necessary visits to his own properties when the US has plenty of places already for a POTUS to stay. We pay for golf cart rental for secret service to follow him around on the links. If he wants to stay in his own personal world that is fine but not at my expense.
Enforce the subpoenas in court. It’s worth the wait.
Republicans are not broadcasting these inane "reasons" for senators who already possess legal acumen.
Their arguments are intended to misinform senators who have very little legal knowledge, and to misinform voters for Nov 3, 2020. Such disinformation is meant to give senators "reasons" (even if unsound) to keep trump in office, and to give reasons to voters to re-elect trump & republicans.
Most voters won't be able to understand how unsound the GOP's "reasons" are.
Disinformation will continue for months, until the election.
15
We don't need impeachment we have the transcript, It was a perfect call, case dismissed.
2
@ RS
Uh, no. We don’t have the transcript. We have a doctored version of the transcript. The transcript is locked away in a super-secure server because the call so perfect.
1
@RS we dont hahavhahave thetranscript. We have their notes on the call. Entirety different thing.
1
We must resist this so-called "nonsense" --it's actually criminal collusion and covering up--with every ounce of our being. This cannot be the new normal. It cannot. If we normalize this, nothing stands.
With each passing day, I'm more convinced that it is going to take mass protests (as in in our millions) in the streets of DC to bring home to this GOP why they are not going to be allowed to continue their crime spree.
Our branches and safeguards are not holding and may well fall entirely. If they do, it's time "we, the people," were heard. If it takes a bullhorn and placards...so be it.
I've watched this GOP dismantle every institution that makes this country a beacon of hope to others. It's time they were stopped. Enough of the hopes for the hail mary pass a Collins or Murkowski might provide. I'm sick of the big tease act. I'm sick of the way we're constantly told that there are still members across the aisle who have functioning moral barometers when all evidence suggests the opposite.
This is a rogue party who put up a rogue president. Together, they are dismantling this democracy. Enough.
21
Herein lies the problem of modern American society:
“For any moderate Republican senator who may not like what the facts already show about his campaign of pressure on Ukraine, the theory provides an alternative rationale to acquit the president”
Those who don’t like the facts they are presented with just replace reality with their own imagined environment and try to drag the rest of us who actually live in reality along. ENOUGH ALREADY!
8
Here's why we need to teach civics again--if we did, the Republican's augments about vote stealing would never be a valid argument.
The notion that the Democrats are taking away anyone's vote is nonsense. Impeachment and trial is required by the Constitution between elections because we are a representative democracy. You didn't vote for president in the first place. You voted for state electors sworn to vote on your behalf.
Each four years you get only one vote for an elector. You also get to vote for your representatives to take care of business on your behalf between your presidential choice. That's the way this representative democracy works.
Further proof of your one vote is that in case of an electoral vote tie, the House picks the president. If they tie then the Senate breaks that tie. You don't get to vote again, you don't even have a say because you've had your say with the vote you cast for YOUR representatives.
Your vote is history. Your vote in the future is not the issue--you still get that. Impeachment and trial is about today because tomorrow may be too late.
6
Why anyone would expect Trump's defense team to make logical arguments is beyond me. The whole MO is to make things up that can be sold to the adoring base. No appeal to reason can work against these tactics.
9
Before we wander too deeply into the weeds, it's worth repeating this until it gets through.
Innocent people do not behave this way. Innocent people do not behave this way. Innocent people do not behave this way. Innocent people do not behave this way. Innocent people do not behave this way. Innocent people do not behave this way.Innocent people do not behave this way.
How many times must this be said before it gets through? An innocent person would welcome the chance to clear his name. An innocent president would provide witnesses, documents, records, notes and data and would see it as his patriotic duty to cooperate.
An innocent one.
Shame on everyone involved in excusing this traitorous behavior. There is no excusing their role in this sorry debacle. They *will* be judged by history.
18
There is NOTHING to prevent Bolton and others from coming forward and spill their guts once this impeachment trial is over. If Bolton is writing a book about this, who's to say that some intrepid reporter will not snag an interview with Bolton where he will say what he has to say. Apparently, the GOP is willing to take the chance on all of this story unfolding with or without them. History will not be kind to the GOP. Shame on them!
7
All Democrats have to say is “flood the switchboard with calls” . . . So much for the strength of their case. Maybe this isn’t going to be as easy as their scheme sounded down in the basement.
1
Re: "...Even if he did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime..."
Were I someone who voted, for / carried any 'Republican' membership card' / similar items, etc...this whole grotesque episode would've seen such cards, etc., long, ago shredder-fodder, returned to the Republicans...
However, I have NO such political affiliations; The few politicians I admire / affiliate, with / vote, for...listen to people like G. Thunburg!
2
And a trial with no evidence or witnesses permitted.
America’s descent from self-described greatest democracy in history to your average banana republic is complete.
13
What to expect from Trump? A fake legal theory.
7
The Senate will never vote to impeach.
5
The lawyer for Trump lied in front of the Supreme court Justice. He stated that none of the GOP went to the skifs meetings. He lied to Justice Roberts.
The Trump people are vultures they just lies, we saw the GOP coming and going to the meetings are we crazy we are not. I hope someone holds him for accountable for his lies.
Justice Roberts you know that he was lying please don't let this lie go by without intervention.
Trump supporter's what say you now?
14
@Tony A total of two lawyers hav enow lied in front of Justice Roberts, you would have thought the second mouthpiece would have taken Schiff's correction to heart. They lie just like their client.
Thank you Dr. Tribe. Your analysis is spot on and Dershowitz is playing with fire by defending the indefensible.
In fact the whole Republican Party has gone rogue in defending the indefensible. I am sickened to my core at the actions by McConnell and the corruption of the GOP.
Praying for America. When the GOP gives the acquittal you can be sure that the Mafia Boss occupying the White House will feel more emboldened as well as his cult followers.
Anyone who defends the abhorrent criminal is mad (insane).
8
"The president’s legal case would negate any need for witnesses"
I think that the presidents case negates any need for witnesses, trial, congress,crown jeweles. Oops, not crown jewels, he definitely needs crown jewels.
2
You stopped me at "or in other words".
This impeachment is constitutional nonsense. The argument is exactly correct. Get this absurd circus over with already.
I must wonder what Justice Roberts will be thinking as he listens to Dershowitz's oral argument.
4
I don't think Bolton would have any repercussions resulting from testifying now, even if feloniously blocked by Trump & Co. If he chose to testify he could right now. Even if it was just a long media interview with Stephanopoulos in front of cameras.
We know he wants a book deal but I distrust the coy gamesmanship he is playing out now, teasing all of us. Is he holding out for some leverage or the highest bidder?
If he knows the truth whether damning or exonerating. Now is the time. Trump can't threaten him. Unless Trump has other dirt on Bolton. I think he has dirt on Dersh and a few others.
2
This entire sham impeachment is a desperate attempt by the Democrats to cover up Joe Biden's and Hunter Biden's corruption. They have failed. They will also fail to cover up other Democrats' equally vile corruption (cough-Paul Pelosi Jr.-cough.)
1
Yes! Brilliant analysis on your part! The way to cover up the Biden “corruption” is to begin an impeachment inquiry that puts the Biden issue on display for the entire world to see. The entire issue would have passed under the radar and died a quiet death if not for the inquiry. You are a genius! And probably a “stable” one at that.
1
The Senate majority leader from Kentucky's rules for impeachment trial seems to challenge the state Of Tennessee for the Title of Home of the Monkey Trial.
9
The principal ruling the GOP Traitor Party: “We must all hang together, for surely we will hang separately!”
One way or another..... hang they will.
4
We served 22 years with the navy my son is an active duty marine. Why would we want to serve for a puppet government Mr Mc Connell ??
Shame on you for trying to block testimony and witnesses.
History will look back and call you out for what you really are...a big fake for serving your country and constitution.
6
Legal scholar = DNC political hack
4
I hope NYT will allow me this slight departure from the topic.
ALL MEDIA MUST STOP with the divide and conquer BS. Headline appearing on your front page right now: Parties Clash Over How to Run Impeachment Trial.
We, the people, are ensnared in the most horrific of nightmares. A constitutional crisis of epic proportion, and unprecedented. This is the unvarnished truth!!! Doesn't matter what party you favor. This is tragic, so stop making it out to be some kind of competition. Our Democratic Republic is hanging on by a thread. This ain't the GD super bowl.
9
Donald Trump asked where is his Roy Cohn - but he ended up with Clarabelle the clown from his three ring circus.....
Mitch McConnell thought he would run the show and keep his place for the elections... HE IS LOSING ON BOTH COUNTS..
Everyone sees the sham - the fraud - he had no option but to let the evidence in /so what does the show the rest of the Republicans.... DO IT HONESTY - OR LOSE YOUR ELECTION....
WHERE DO YOU THINK THESE CLOWNS WILL GO - -
TO GET PAID 175 k STARTING SALARY ???
3
I don't care about this impeachment nonsense -- I hope it ends quickly. I have no interest in it. Those who do need to find a satisfying hobby. Just a waste of time and money as was that silly Russian Collusion baloney. The front page of the NYT is mostly a waste of time as are the op-eds. And please stop with articles/op-eds on Harry and Meghan or has the NYT become a tabloid? I could care less about those two and they certainly do not belong on the front page -- another waste of space. How about articles on global warming/climate change and especially human overpopulation not only in the world but in the US? And I want to see articles and op-eds on speciesism/animal rights. Humans already have plenty of rights but animals are still slaves.
6
@Carol
In other words, you don’t care about your country.
Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live here, too, and we are left caring as it falls apart as other people live a gaslit fantasy world.
2
Listening to Schiff, you would think that politicians have a right to a fair trial They do not. The right resides exclusively with the defendant as set forth in the Sixth Amendment. It is an individual right which empowers the individual against the state. The state cannot commandeer that same right for its own purposes. Then there could never be a fair trial. He also claims that it would take too long to go through the appeals process if they subpoenaed Bolton and the other witnesses when in fact it could go before the Supreme Court on an expedited basis in a matter of days, where it would be denied, which is the real reason the House did not subpoena Bolton and others. Now they want the Senate to do their job but then again they don’t because they don’t know what the subpoenaed witnesses will say. Schumer’s proposed amendment which is being read as I write serves the same purpose. It is a joke.
6
Interesting that you suggest that the Supreme Court would expedite review of disputes about witness testimony for the impeachment trial - on the same day that they declined to hear a dispute between lower courts about striking down Obamacare. They might easily decline to hear a case about the impeachment until after the election, the same as the Obamacare dispute, and for the same reason - to protect Trump and the GOP from public outrage that would affect the 2020 election.
9
Thanks for the pretzel logic.
4
Presenting an argument saturated with wild assumptions about what would or wouldn’t happen (what a witness might or not say) and positioned against a backdrop of implied innuendo is, as the Georgetown law Professor points out about the DJT (aka: the Human Stain) legal team, is not only wrong it is “not worth taking seriously”.
One might be able to argue successfully that a duck is not a duck even though it walks, quacks and swims like one. Even a successful logical argument doesn’t change the fact that - it is still a duck
5
"To Republicans, the latest claims and disclosures are evidence that House Democrats put together a slapdash investigation that did not cover enough bases before they rushed to an ultimately partisan vote on the House floor. It is not the Senate’s job, Republicans say, to do what the House failed to do." (NYTimes, 16Jan2020)
This is a red herring by the Republicans to duck their duty. "Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch ... Congress’s oversight authority derives from its 'implied' powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances." (Wikipedia)
The House, faced with obstruction by the Executive branch regarding administration witness, documents, attempts to force lengthy court actions, etc., did what they could to avoid yet more foreign interference in the next election. And made a very convincing case that the POTUS is guilty of abuse of power and obstruction.
But in any case, the Senate, as part of Congress, is required to provide oversight of the Executive branch. Ignoring evidence that has come to light after the House action is shirking their constitutional duty. Blaming the House for their inaction is pure partisanship, and unconstitutional.
21
The president's case "defies consensus"? It defies sense completely. Parts of it are so bad if I submitted it in court I'd expect to be sanctioned.
But then, I thought the same thing about Bush's brief in Bush v. Gore.
21
Obstruction of Congress is the more important and better article of impeachment. Proving it is not necessary because it is out in the open. Democrats should drop the first article and make the trial about the second one. If Republican Senators want to say that the President is entitled to hide evidence about what he is doing and thereby obstruct the possibility of impeachment, they should be made to say that clearly and openly and face reelection on that as the main issue.
Many voters feel betrayed by our current constitutional system, which they feel has been used to flimflam them and which is prone to gridlock. Their desire for major reforms, shown by many of them in supporting Sanders, was stymied, so they went with someone who had no commitment to the system.
The alternative to Trump was, and still is, to scrape the bulloff the system to see what was really going on, explore fixes, try some, monitor the results, and repeat. We need the sort of process we use when aircraft crash. It is unfortunately true that the bull holds our current system together and keeps it working even if creakily. Putting unneeded defense, health care, or fossil fuel workers out of jobs will crater the economy unless there are plans to get them working on something else, so as long as such socialistic planning is not on the table, their current jobs are safe.
6
I have two problems with the Democrats's case.
a) Joe Biden is not currently the nominee of the Democrats. Hence to call him Trump's political opponent is a stretch. He might be, but "might be" is not strong enough for impeachment.
b) The military aid to Ukraine WAS in fact sent. The fact that it was delayed hardly justifies impeachment.
Let me offer an explanation of Trump's conduct which comports with the beliefs of many NYT readers although not with the actual articles of impeachment. In delaying the military aid to Ukraine, Trump was actually trying to please Putin or more nicely, create better relations with Russia.
In that case "he was trying to influence the election" is no longer the explanation. Is it worth impeachment in that case? No, for moving the embassy to Jerusalem might have been done to please Netanyahu. That hardly justified impeachment.
The Democrats have a very weak case and just because one Democrat says to another that it is a strong case, does not make it a strong case.
4
Thus is a grossly deficient and illogical argument.was this a draft you meant to edit? Needsxwork
8
If blackmailing a foreign head of state for one’s own political gain, is not a crime, then what is? I was not for impeachment until the phone call was exposed (which we now know was just the tip of the iceberg). Trump is not above the law and you should read the Constitution if you think he did nothing wrong. Very sad.
9
"Just because one Democrat says to another that it is a strong case, does not make it a strong case."
Just because Trump says he should be acquitted does not mean he should be.
8
There are 3 factors to consider, even for this sham of a trial. 1, Did the president do it? 2, Was it wrong? 3, Is it serious enough to remove him from office? For No. 1, it's obvious he did it. His own abbreviated transcript shows he did, regardless of his motivation or lack of implementation. For No. 3, it's pretty obvious that the GOP senators will not feel it warrants removal, and that is OK. So the key, for both this "trial" and the future of the democracy, is No. 2.
If the Senate decides that, as Nixon once claimed, anything the president does is not illegal, it will be endorsing the very sort of behavior that the threat of impeachment is designed to prevent. Even Trump's hamstrung justice department determined the whistle blower was acting within guidelines consistent with its statute and the non-partisan GAO has determined that Trump's attempt to with-hold funds violated statutes governing how such funds are distributed. Trump is basically saying he can do whatever he wants because he was elected president to act on whatever HE thinks will benefit the country. If GOP senators endorse such behavior they might as well pack up and declare Congress is on permanent recess because, like tariffs and declarations of war, and judicial oversight, they will have ceded all operational authority to the executive branch.
11
I've been listening to it and so far, Trump's attorney has lied by saying that Trump released his Ukraine phone call and wants to give him points for that. He didn't release it, he released an edited transcript. He complained that the House Judiciary hearing was held in a basement -- and the President was not allowed to attend, and thinks that was unfair. He's muddying the waters. It was held in a sound proof skiff and it wasn't a trial yet -- the trial is proceeding now and Trump doesn't even care enough to attend or to provide any evidence to exonerate himself. What a farce it appears this is going to be.
18
There is very little in Republican defense team's presentation concerning the charges against the president. But they are mounting all kinds of attacks on Mr. Schiff.
19
It’s worth considering that the impeachment hearings are not pre-empting regular programming on the major networks. I can only find it on CNN, MSNBC and PBS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Kavanaugh/Blasey-Ford hearings were carried on the big 3.
This show the level of interest for these impeachment hearings.
4
It's not easy to "pooh pooh" the Republican Party claims about about the impeachment rules, given the rapidly changing world we live in.
All of the old rules we grew up with, are "flying out the window".
For example, who would ever believe, that you could say you were going to pick a Democratic Primary candidate to support, and them pick two of them, instead of one? In the recent past, people would have scorned you for pulling a stunt like that.
When non-standard behavior becomes the norm, anything isn't just possible - it's acceptable as well. Nowadays, "honor" is historic artifact; it's seen as something that lived under Abraham Lincoln's stove pipe hat, and is now totally unnecessary.
2
Poo, poo. Interesting choice of word, given the Republicans are dishing this out by the trunkful and saying “it’s a delicious stew”. Its easy because they are making it so!
Flying out the window. Well, today is Wordsmith day, I guess. You make it sound like a force of nature. All the Human stain is doing is what he and his family have been doing for generations. Acting rude, obnoxious and entitled. When he us voted out the AG of the Southern district of NYC will indict him on RICO charges.
Dem candidate. Yeah, so gotta agree here. But I’d take it a step further. Not only does the Times equivocate and NOT pick a candidate but they attempt to provide sone sort of “let us show you our logic” approach. If the Op-Ed didn’t have a title you’d be hard pressed to not say: “ Wait a minute...who’d they pick?”
Honor. This is just a word in the dictionary until someone acts in a way that manifests its meaning. Many people can provide the definition but go blank when you ask them to “show you”. Action is the path to demonstrating your morals. Honor, like energy, can neither be created or destroy and can always be demonstrated or not. Even if DJT had it removed from the dictionary or banned from conversation, the idea and act of being honorable will still be there and available. Its there whether you use it or not.
Seems like letting the next election decide things may be a leap of faith. We’ve now seen evidence showing that Trump, et. al. will do absolutely anything to get and maintain power. Why would anyone think that the same thing won’t happen again? If the Republicans are allowed to pervert the Constitution now, why should we assume a traditional transfer of power is going to happen? If the fix is in, I seriously believe our democracy is finished. I guess his constituents believe “triggering the libs” is worth an autocracy.
13
Sadly, you are absolutely correct. Remember Michael Cohen’s statement that’s he feared for the peaceful transfer of power?
2
When the facts are not on your side the best defence is to hammer away at the process and thump the table occasionally. Unfortunately the facts don't go away. They still remain. Even if the process were redone, would the facts change? No. Cut the chase. Facts are facts, at least in a normal world.
15
@Roger You are correct, facts are facts. They will come out eventually, regardless of what happens at this "trial." I don't expect Trump to be removed from office...yet. There will be a lot of ugly facts coming out between now and November; still more books to be published.
2
So Larry Tribe and the Mikhail guy disagree. Hardly an overwhelming rebuttal. The fact is that the House Members have applied an amorphous "abuse of power" claim that shifts to whatever they think might work. It lacks specificity and provides no legal context for the impeachment. If he asks his secretary to fetch his lunch, is that "abuse of power"? What about a Congressman that makes his staffer walk the dog? Lacking legal substance and specificity, the charge leaves any President open to subjective prosecution. No surprise this partisan impeachment lacks a real claim. As for the second article, executive privilege hasn't disappeared. That claim is dead on arrival.
1
I wish there were more qualification requirements for people running for office and especially president. This last 4 years has been a complete waste of time, but that's 21st century America. Thanks Mitch, Lindsay and Donald.
9
I'll never forget encountering Merlin's teachings to Arthur in The Once and Future King. I was 14 when I learned that 'might makes right' - or does it? Or should it? Heady stuff for both Arthur and me.
Now I see that it's true. Millions of Fox propagandized Americans who believe the earth is eight thousand years old and can't find Australia on the map are determining the direction of our country. Our once and future republic is being dismantled this week, at the mercy of a base that worships at the shrine of a liar and ignorant vulgarian. Those in Congress exist to do their bidding, or lose their positions.
Saying this doesn't make me a liberal elite - it makes me a frightened and despairing American. We are living a defining moment in our history. Defining of what, remains to be seen. But it's not looking hopeful.
13
Trump Supporters: You are the real victims here... This country you say you love, the freedoms you cherish, the opportunities you enjoy, the Constitution that protects you did not come freely. Heroic men, women and children sacrificed heart life and limb to keep OUR Democracy alive for us and our children...
That which we all cherish is now under real attack today, not from foreign enemies but from fellow Americans...
OUR country was built on the rule of Law and Order and Justice... usually, mostly and thankfully decided on by fair and IMPARTIAL jurors who see evidence and listen to witnesses... This is the only way to make a fair judgement of innocence or guilt.. It is what you would expect and at least hope for, if you were a defendant.
Who we are, who we aspire to be is under attack by Trump, McConnell, Graham, and all of the Republican Congress...
They intend there not to be ANY witnesses, they intend not reveal all the evidence that is still coming in and they want to hide it as much as possible behind closed doors so that you will not know the truth.
Imagine that you are that defendant and someone is holding back vital evidence or a witness that can reveal the truth?
14
Feel kind of sorry for all those folks who paid a lot of money to get a law degree from Harvard. By his association with that institution Dershowitz’s display of pretzel logic (for money) devalues its reputation.
You don’t have to be in who’s who to know what’s what. And, anybody paying attention knows what is going on here. The senate republicans are culpable too. They have debased the senate by turning this trial into a Kangaroo Court. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts can help save the day.
9
The Trump attorneys must pound the table, since neither the law nor the facts are on their side.
10
Remind me. What actual "crime" did trump commit?
3
@bored critic Bribery.
@Joel
Where he did give the aid (which obama refused to give and dems supported that decision) and didnt get the investigation he asked for? To commit actual bribery, both sides of the transaction must execute their portion. Which didn't happen
It makes sense that Trump would put Dershowitz on his legal team. They are both cut from the same cloth: enormous egos, claim to be the smartest guy in the room, yet dealing with alternative facts to fit their realities. It was even funny to see Dershowitz distance himself from the ridiculous 110-page brief Trump’s team wrote. “I haven’t read it and I’m not involved”. Sounds a lot like Trump’s “I don’t the guy” after a close associate gets indicted.
7
What do you expect of this “crack legal team” of friends and lawyers for the likes of Jeffrey Epstein and O.J. Simpson, all of them skilled at parsing words like “crime” and the “Constitution” down to a contentious game of Scrabble to cover up the rot at the heart of their defense.
15
And don’t forget Pam Bondi, former Florida AG who was supposed to be investigating Trump University until he gave a her a big campaign donation.
3
Holy cow, as the great Phil Rizzuto would say, the president’ s council just lied before the Chief Justice, when he said republicans were not allowed in the House hearings. Dozens of republicans attended.
15
@DavidJ
Not in the beginning they werent.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m shocked at the ineffective opening remarks by Trump’s lawyers. I think I could have argued the case better than these guys. “Ridiculous” is not a legal argument.
No wonder McConnell wanted a two-day limit. These guys are embarrassing.
13
Ah, I'm seeing the Republican strategy coming into focus, the same as used in the House committee hearings: Impuge the proceeding as if it were a criminal act and assassinate the character of witnesses of fact.
4
Quoting Dershowitz from the article;
“These are very smart, legally informed people,” he said. “They understand the law. They can certainly see through ruses and efforts to distract and divert.”
Indeed it is a diversion and distraction meant to confuse the Senators with yet more definitions of what millions of our nation already know was a crime of bribery, and possibly Treason, by aiding the enemy that is Russia by holding back defenses of Ukraine.
8
Brilliant propaganda does not need to be brilliant...just repeated. All the Americans who repeat ANYTHING Republicans lie to them about are complicit in a vast right-wing conspiracy.
It is beyond tiring to care about the USA anymore. Just steal your money, there is nothing else here.
3
After Trump is acquitted by the GOP-controlled Senate, he will be emboldened to even more egregious acts and conduct open corruption. The Republicans will again make up ridiculous rationales and excuses to allow his illegality to proceed. How the Republicans can live themselves and still maintain their holier-than-thou attitude is unbelievable. But listening to McConnell, Graham, Cruz, and Rubio reveals the moral bankruptcy of the party and its followers. Our nation is ruled by the most despicable of straw men.
8
The Democrats need to take a page from the GOP playbook: make it simple and keep repeating it and keep repeating it.
5
If the House of Representatives represents Citizens based on numbers per district, an actual ratio of population to Representative, and the Senate is made up of two Senators for each State, with no reflection of population. Can't it be deduced that the People have spoken. The Don was Impeached. Plan and simple. The Senate is arguing if he should remain in office. Whatever smoke and mirror tricks these Scholars profess, it does not undo the fact that the Don was Impeached. The People have spoken.
16
Until the de facto gerrymandering of the Senate is ended there can be no real democracy in the US.
6
So far the Trumpy argument boils down to this: "Mr. Schiff and the Democrats are the enemy of the American people, the enemy of our democracy, the enemy of the Senate, the enemy of our judicial system, the enemy of the truth, the enemy of fair elections, the enemy of our children and grandchildren."
10
As for that last part in our children and grandchildren, that’s what Trump is. He is ignoring the climate threat and destroying the planet.
9
@Robert
And he is correct
2
@Robert Sounds like Otter's legal argument to save the Frat in Animal House.
1
The whole of the Democrats argument comes down to "we don't like Trump" and "we didn't like the last election" so we are going to try to throw this guy out. In short, the Democrats are making a lot of fuss because they have nothing - no evidence and no case.
6
@Grace
For shame! Start giving this matter the consideration it deserves or forevermore hold your peace.
17
@Grace
I’m assuming you haven’t kept up on the impeachment process. There is plenty of evidence to back up the Articles of Impeachment.
And this isn’t about undoing the last election or disliking the President.
This is about love of our country and upholding the Constitution.
10
Anyone who is impeached has to have won an election by definition, you cannot impeach the loser.
4
As a retired attorney for the federal government, I spent many years mentoring my junior colleagues that they must grapple with the other side's best arguments and refute them in order to present a winning case. The Trump team's method is the opposite - they simply ignore any arguments or facts that do not support their position. That they try to argue that Ambassador Sondlund said there was no quid pro quo when his most recent testimony unequivocally said the opposite is mind boggling to me as an attorney. The worst trial judge would see right through this nonsense, but we shall see how it plays with the Republican-controlled Senate.
20
@Phillyboy61
Trumps team is not ignoring their arguements because there are no legal arguements to ignore.
1
Is this the role model we want for our children?
Would we choose this in a Presidential candidate?
If cheating on an election to falsely slur a candidate and obstructing Congress when he got caught is not impeachable—using hundreds of millions of dollars and compromise of US national security to do it—what IS impeachable?
This is not complicated—except for the lies and obstruction.
19
If the quality of the prosecution's argument is shown by the banner behind Schiff saying "you should infer guilt from the refusal to obey a subpoena", then the prosecution should be summarily dismissed.
That's the same as "if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind if we search your house." Any first year law student knows that is precisely what the Constitution and judicial review are intended to prevent.
The prosecution, aided by The Times, is just insuring Trump's re-election.
3
"The prosecution, aided by The Times, is just insuring Trump's re-election." That doesn't follow from your argument.
1
@zan There is a big difference between drawing an inference and kicking in a door. Trump's credibility is on the line, and that is a matter for the jury to decide. Drawing a negative inference from a person's insistence on hiding evidence is fine. Excluding evidence obtained illegally is a matter for the judge to decide, before it ever gets to the jury.
1
It is interesting for me to read comments that completely dismiss legal point of view that differ with the Trump-hating echo chamber so common here, yet throw full weight behind arguments that they find agreeable. It is clear that it is simply not possible to have a logical discussion. As such, the Senate actions will mimic those of the House in that the majority will muscle through the process and, in the end, nothing will come of this so-called impeachment.
3
"..so-called impeachment." Why so-called? It is real.
8
William, it’s not trump hating. It is rather your parties hate for the rule of law and constitution when it doesn’t serve their needs.
2
@William He's already been impeached.
It may well be that the House Judiciary Committee felt that they cannot prove that Trump is guilty of the indictable crime called bribery and mentioned in the Constitution by name as an impeachable offense. To prove that, the HJC needed documents or witnesses from the White House or the Defense Dept showing that Trump's withholding of military aid was in exchange for something of value from that little ... president of Ukraine. Unfortunately, such documents are unlikely to exist and getting those witnesses to interrogate (I meant to testify) will take many months. All that Dems had was proof that Trump requested a favor. A request of favor is not bribery and is not abuse of power. Note that Dems never used the words "bribery" or "extortion". So, they had to go with abuse of power related to the withholding of military aid, because that was illegal. Without proof, impeachment for bribery would quickly be dismissed in the Senate and the House may want to keep that accusation for the future if evidence to support it will surface.
3
Can Trump be truly innocent, misjudged, and impugned, and America be better off with his acquittal? Is his way the path of rectitude, common sense, and the route to a glowing future? Is his stability as a genius the bedrock of statesmanship that will elevate America to new heights of enlightenment and prosperity? Or is he an odious caricature of America’s worst vices, enabled and protected by equally odious caricatures? History teaches us that evil always fails regardless of the time frame. Goodness always prevails, as a law of nature, until it doesn’t and the world of humanity will end. So, here’s to goodness and the fall of Trump, whenever that occurs, as it will.
It is not Trump that is on trial, it is the American people and the very way of life to which they have been previously accustomed. Trump’s guilt is evident, the key question is how much will the people be allowed to derive from it. Like a luckless defendant, framed by law enforcement, the people can only rely on a dodgy public defender like McConnell to protect their interests. If Trump is the murderer of propriety in America, then it is the people who will suffer. It is their future at stake, not Trump’s for whom intransigence and that of his enablers, even in the face of overwhelming proof of wrongdoing, is the best and only defence.
The most important man in America today is Adam Schiff: he carries the weight of America’s fortunes in the face of Republican sophistry and practised indignation.
8
It is very beautiful to behold.
Trump’s legal defense team doing a fuming at the mouth Brett Kavanaugh because they cannot defend the indefensible.
Just beautiful.
10
It would appear that Mr Dershowitz is reaching in order to remain in the public eye. In reality he is simply adding to the three year cover up of Trumps high crimes and misdemeanors. His legal experts on the other side appear to out number him by a large degree.
4
“Murphys law: what can go wrong will go wrong “
Everything that could possibly go wrong in this administration has gone wrong thus far. The system is broken.
4
@Darrie
And who is breaking it? Do you really think trump is different from other presidents? From the president dirty hillary would have been? She was as corrupt as they come.
1
“Constitutional nonsense” becomes irrelevant if Republicans continue ignoring the Constitution.
7
The kangaroo court is now in session! So many words for what is simply lying and covering up presidential abuse of power. The real trail shall be in November at the election. Then, to follow up on impeachment as his removal.
4
YAY, am article in the NY Times that actually compares Trump's behavior to the Constitution.
If the NY Times had spent the last three years comparing Trump's behavior to the Constitution, instead of asking Democrats about impeachment, we wouldn't have fallen so deep down this rabbit hole.
The Democrats are playing softball and yelling at their own left fielders.
The Republicans are driving tanks around the field.
The umpires (The media) keep demanding that Democrats enforce the rules.
We the Fans need to decide what kind of game we want, and make the teams and the umpires understand, because soon Replicans will be driving tanks around the stands.
4
Constitutional scholars are full of it. Seriously, these people live in ivory towers and don't worry about the real world. Impeachment as they see it would be a farce. No one would know what would be impeachable conduct in advance. You could say, as Beria supposedly did, show me the man and I will show you the crime.
The people who wrote the Constitution named two very serious, well-defined crimes and then generalized that to include other crimes. Do you think they meant treason, bribery and any other misconduct that may later be found to be problematic? No. The principle of ejusdem generis simply states what is common sense. Impeachment must be based on treason, bribery or similar serious, well-defined crimes.
Otherwise you get into the position where a president could be impeached for conduct that was not a crime when he did it. You create a crime after the fact. The people who wrote the Constitution flatly forbids those kinds of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.
Bill Clinton should never have been impeached. Donald Trump either. Neither president committed treason, bribery or a similar crime. Save impeachment for a president who does.
2
Trump’s behavior with respect to Ukraine is the essence of bribery. A public official demanding something of personal benefit in order for him to perform his official duties.
7
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was not a "generalized" term, but was a legal term of art with a 400-year history funder English law, dating to the impeachment of the Earl of Sussex in 1388. That is the history Madison would have been steeped in as a lawyer schooled under the English legal system.
What's more, to suggest that the phrase was a reference to violations of federal criminal statutes -- statutes that didn't exist in 1787 (and indeed, bribery would not be defined under federal statute until 1962) -- is a legal and historical absurdity.
1
John Stroughair, then the House should have charged the president with bribery.
1
Trump and his legal team make a mockery of our Constitution and his oath, which he's laid waste to. Such blatant disregard for our highest office — the president should serve the country and the people, not himself, not for personal gain. Trump desperately wants to rule as an authoritarian, like the dictators he so admires. It's beyond tragic for our country that the Republicans eagerly enable the degradation of our Constitution and the separation of powers. We must vote against this come November and in every election.
6
Everybody needs to stop pretending that McConnell and the other GOP care at all about the rule of law or democracy. There’s no “difference of opinion” or “different interpretation of the law”. They’re crooks. They know they are. They just think they can get away with it.
5
Harold Meyerson at the American Prospect has an interesting idea. I’ll call it the MLB-Impeachment Rule (MLBIR): if you cheat to win the top prize, you get fired.
Why should MLB managers, etc., be held to a higher standard than the President of the United States of America?
6
My personal opinion which I wish I didn’t feel obligated to give, apologize for the language in advance, is that he is a liar and cheater... who deserves no respect, lives outside of accountability by the laws that constrain every decent common person daily and by that nature completely diminishes my respect for the office and who or whatever powers our government. I want to trust and it is important but by facts and logic I cannot. I see Mitch as the long corrupted queen easily guarding the evil win in conjunction with complicit evil bishop(s) on the chessboard when only a knight and four divided pawns are remaining to oppose.
5
Every New Yorker of at least a certain age knows that trump is a criminal.
He is acting exactly as I feared he would on the day he “won.”
9
Although Savage hits most of the high notes here, there is an even greater analysis in "LawFare" by Bob Bauer- former White House Counsel to Obama. It is a very readable get-in-the-trenches of the almost lunacy of Alan Dershowitz's Talking-out-of-both-sides-of-the-mouth Cross Talk.
My prayer is- Dershowitz will be given a prime-time spot so the world can see and hear the cognitive gyrations of a man who is clearly hanging on to fantasy. I believe that even the average Joe will come away with the conclusion; Trump needs to be removed.
4
How much did Trump pay his lawyers to sell our country down the river? I am sickened.
7
The Senate “trial” of the Articles of Impeachment:
When just okay is not okay.
1
Dershowitz now argues that impeachment applies only to crimes or "crime-like" conduct analagous to bribery and treason.
Is unlawfully withholding publicly-appropriated money in order to induce a foreign politician to do a personal political favour not analagous to bribery???
Is trying to persuade a foreign leader to announce an investigation into an American politician in order to affect and interfere with democratic elections not analagous to treason???
6
The POTUS is not above the law. Trump cannot be protected by executive privilege when his is engaging in corruption. Trump and his ridiculous defenders are the hypocrites, the enablers.
6
Listening to Sekulow and Cipillone lie through their teeth.
Same cover-up.
And they aren't even articulate.
How did they get where they are? Incompetents full of reductio ad absurdum arguments.
6
Welcome to the Impeachment Trial and Tribulations!
In this corner, fair, clearheaded presentation of facts.
In that corner, pompous obstructionist ignorant decadents.
Citizens of the Land of Lincoln vs. Mad Hatters in Wonderland
8
@Ken A thousand times YES.
4
The fool and his legal team are equally guilty of hoodwinking America, and McConnell and company are only too happy to oblige.
They’re all deplorable and disgusting to the core.
7
What the Democrats did to the Republicans in the House, is now being returned by Republicans in the Senate.
Is there anyone who is not surprised by this?
One thing is clear to me is the framers did not want to subvert or manipulate constitutional structure and make impeachment a tool of political struggle, which is what this proceeding has become in this case. It is exactly what the founders wanted to prevent.
I feel the Democrats should focus on bringing forward an electable candidate if they want political change.
DLW
22
@DLW...actually, they were much MORE concerned about the unchecked subversive Executive idiocy that oozes from the swamp-infested WH, now entering its FOURTH year.
And nothing was "done" to the RP in the House either. Because this is the laziest, most ineffectual RP in history, the laziest have discovered it's a lot easier to fool certain people by being a blowhard crying foul than to actually DO anything. After all, as sycophants to their "leader," they're learning from the best.
56
@DLW
And you conveniently forgot about Ken Starr and the Clinton witch hunt? The Democrats at least were open minded about the witch hunt against Clinton. You Republicans are nothing but a cult. I dismiss all cults.
66
@DLW
This is complete nonsense. The president has broken many laws and has caused possibly irreparable harm to our democracy and to our standing in the world. He has been legally impeached and should be removed from office.
73
The Republicans need to play hardball in the senate just as the Democrats played hardball in the house. President Trump was not allowed to have his lawyers cross examine any of the witnesses. Why should the Republicans in the senate allow additional witnesses to come forward. The Democrats had their chance in the house and they did not bother to bring them forward. They lost their chance and hopefully the Republicans will not give in to their demands. The Democrats didn’t give in to them. Fair is fair.
3
@KMW
Every Republican on every House committee involved in impeachment proceedings was given equal time to question witnesses. Most used their time to grandstand and obstruct rather than probe testimony.
1
If the Democrats stopped complaining about obvious Republican roadblocks and started playing real politics they would choose a strong candidate in Kentucky against McConnell and campaign as follows:
1.Do you want your health care taken away?
2.Do you have or want a living wage job?
3.Do you want food on your table?
4.Do you want your kids to have a good education?
5.What has Mc Donnell done in his 35 (!) years as a senator, besides enrich his shipping magnate wife? Time to end the corruption and elect a new face to represent the state.
This might put the fear in him. Who knows, Kentucky just elected a Democrat governor.
13
@max friedman From the ground here in Kentucky, there's a number of factors that make Mitch tough to beat, despite his unpopularity. In fact, he's never been particularly popular within his own party here, but he is power, and it's difficult to beat incumbents, even by great candidates. Mitch has faced tougher opponents than Amy McGrath, in my opinion, and the biggest obstacle to a Democrat winning isn't any enthusiasm for Mitch -- it's that so many Kentuckians don't vote.
Personally, I like Charles Booker as a candidate better than McGrath, because of his grasp of the bread-and-butter issues that you mention. But he doesn't have much of a state-wide profile (much less of a national one, like McGrath), he's relatively inexperienced, he's from Louisville, and he's African-American. Sadly, that last aspect is probably what dooms him from winning a state-wide election. While Kentucky did just elect an African-American Attorney General, Daniel Cameron, that's not saying a lot since Cameron is... wait for it... a McConnell protege.
2
When Clinton was impeached, the facts were already to be presented after a special prosecutor had been at work for four years. The Senate did not have to acquire more evidence nor witnesses to be able to consider the merits. McConnell knows that in this case, there are more facts to be found which will clarify what the Senators would want in order to render a reasoned decision as to the merits and their relevance to the articles for impeachment. He does not want to have them considered, he wants to dismiss the entire proceedings and to the impression that Trump is the victim of partisan misuse of the Congressional authority to impeach and remove the President.
McConnell became a devoted adversary of liberal democracy when Bork was rejected by the Democrats. While Bork was famously opposed to liberal democracy and strongly in favor of a President with unitary authority because of his reactionary views, McConnell thought that he represented the kind of views which he liked and resented those who opposed him with a deep and abiding animosity. McConnell has been on a crusade to replace our democracy with a strongly restricted one which favored a ruling elite of private power brokers. Trump as the would be king is exactly what McConnell has longed to see along with the Federalist Society and people like Barr who cannot believe in any government based upon the consent of the governed.
11
So often I have heard or read of Americans bragging about how their country is better than all others - a beacon, a shining light on the world stage - and how their system of government is superior because they have ‘checks and balances’ and ‘the rule of law’ and their much touted Constitution. Well, Trump and his minders have proven it is a house of cards. You can’t ensure that a group of Republican senators, who were elected because the voters believed they were honest people with integrity, to demonstrate that integrity by acting impartially in undertaking their duty, even though they swore they would do so. The days of American superiority, perceived or otherwise, are coming to an end unless you can pull your act together. For those many Americans who recognise they are the victims of the failures of those they should be able to rely on, I am sorry for your loss.
23
@Concerned
Actually, the dems have proven that
1
Amen. You capture it perfectly. Ever since Citizens United 10 years ago, the US democracy went from a government for the people to a government for Big Business and the “Oligarchy” that is blossoming in the US.
5
@Concerned Thank You!
1
“...it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Essay 65, 1788.
Further, “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL (author’s emphasis), as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
Hamilton foresaw that impeachment as a punishment for the abuse of public trust, for official misconduct, was sufficient for extortion or bribery and not to be reserved solely for criminal violation.
Alexander Hamilton nullifies a mendacious argument against Congress’ power of impeachment for non-criminal behavior.
Rome will fall on Trumpist heads, or on ours.
17
In all the arguments one way and another about the basis of Trump's impeachment and the process of the Senate trial, one thing is absolutely clear.
IF no witnesses are heard at the trial, and
IF the Senate votes not to remove Trump from office,
every president in the future will safely assume the constitutional freedom to use presidential power to solicit foreign interference in American elections.
From the time of the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump has solicited foreign interference in our elections at least three times that we know about.
Does anyone think that after a "no-witness" Senate refusal to remove him from office, Trump will become MORE cautious about undermining American democracy? Or that his successors will feel obliged to be any different?
Is this how dictators will come to power in the United States?
34
Sadly, yes. My son said after Trump was elected he hoped that Trump would not be the last President elected in his lifetime (35 years-old then). I fear he might be prophetic.
1
Listening to Schiff’s argument, he has made a good point that the Constitution requires the Senate to TRY impeachments. Refusal to evidence and testimony negates the concept of a trial. He should put Roberts on the spot and request an opinion and ruling.
26
If it's not a statutory crime for an American president to cheat on his or her re-election, then the law is the problem. Not the impeachment for doing the cheating.
If it's not an "ordinary" crime to bully and bribe a foreign government into helping the president cheat, then the law is the problem. Not the impeachment for committing it.
If it's not breaking the law to refuse to pass on foreign aid that the U.S. Congress ordered be granted Ukraine, let's focus on the need for new laws. Not on the impeachment that recognizes the wrongdoing.
If it's not breaking the law for an American president to put his personal desires above the public's national security needs - like halting an out-of-control Russia from rebuilding an empire and violating international law - then, guess what....?
9
So, if (as Donald's hired guns say) impeachment requires a crime and (as those same enablers claim) a sitting president cannot be criminally investigated, charged or tried, then no president can ever be impeached. This is what Donald's defense strategy boils down to, and it needs to be spelled out so every citizen can see through the smoke and mirrors the GOP is using.
20
If Trump’s team wants to stand by this argument and Republican Senators want to support it, at least make him expressly and unqualifiedly on the record admit that he abused the powers of the presidency and obstructed Congress. Then, all people will know where everyone stands.
7
Question for Mr. Dershowitz: If the GAO says the withholding of Congressionally approved funds from Ukraine was illegal, how is Trump’s behavior not considered “crime-like” conduct?
17
This impeachment puts the Republican senators into the excruciatingly painful position of having to acquit a man whom they know to be guilty. They will never forgive the Democrats for having " forced " them to do this. We never forgive those who make us feel justifiably guilty.
11
So may be the right question should be:” is bullying a crime?”
1
Since the US constitution depends so much on interpretational and hence, politics, why can't it be totally overhauled? Just asking.
3
It could be, through the difficult and slow process of amending it. Can’t be changed by a committee.
2
@AW I doubt the Constitution will be reformed. Reason: The forces for change are divided and the politicians/ law makers in Congress are controlled by lobbyists and monet trumps ethics and commonsense.
1
This argument is the legal argument equivalent to “ I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I would still be elected” He is daring the Senate with a dimwitted argument. If they are so craven or spineless to go for it, we will have crossed the Rubicon into authoritarianism.
16
The Democrats case is based on a CIA spy's account of havin hearrd that a conversation took place where the subject might or not have been spoken. The CIA spy wants to have Trump removed from office.
Motive and opportunity.
Then it was brought to court by a politico from the opposition party who did not read the call, but gave his own opinion about it, telling any one willing to listen that the POTUS was guilty, because, well, just look at him; and how he had all this like, proof and stuff, but the Congress should just wave a magic wand and declare him guilty. To great cheer from his party.
In a court of law this would not fly. The case would have been a mistrial right there and we would have moved on.
But not here where the Democrats only intention is to invalidate the elections of 2016.
Can we just let the people decide in November? or will you go out and chant 'not my president' again?
4
@AutumnLeaf
Your choice of words is interesting - apparently to incite and not inform.
1. the "whistle-blower" was an intelligence analyst - may or may not have been an operative (i.e., in the field). Your use of the term "spy" (as was Barr's) is inflammatory, not certified factual and has the effect re-directing and closing off meaningful discussion;
2. Rep. Schiff read the phone "transcript" - it was a re-creation of the call intended to transmit all of the salient elements of the call and not a full transcript. Rep. Schiff then paraphrased the call to provide context to what was contained on the re-constriction;
3. Several witnesses were deposed in full committee hearings (attended by both Dems and Republicans who had opportunities to ask questions) and subsequently 12 witnesses gave gave testimony in open committee hearings;
4. In a traditional court of law with impartial jurors, Trump would be convicted of bribery as well as obstruction of justice;
5. Impeachment does not "invalidate" an election. Trump was elected, was sworn in as the 45th President of the US - neither of these facts would be changed - and the Presidency would remain in the hands of the GOP in the form of VP Pence.
6. Yes, the real adjudication will come in Nov 2020 as the Senate Republicans are as mindful as a room full of zombies and will refuse to seriously consider the facts in this case.
5
In a court of law, the defendant can not intimidate and/or browbeat witnesses into defying subpoenas (that’s a crime in and of itself, BTW). As a result, the court would not need to rely on second-hand witnesses or whistleblowers as much because those with FIRST-HAND knowledge (Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc.) would be compelled to testify under threat of perjury.
Also, in a court of law, Trump would not be permitted to disparage the legitimacy of the court itself. That’s what gag orders and contempt powers are for (just ask Roger Stone). Note also that Trump would be tried by a jury of his peers, not a collection of his sycophants (ie, GOP Senators). Nor would he be allowed to “coordinate” with said jury (ask Paul Manafort about that).
And finally, while Trump could plead the 5th in a court of law, that would mean keeping his mouth shut entirely, not commenting from the wings with his unsworn accusations of “treason,” “coups” and tales of Deep State conspiracies against him (that’s how Flynn lost his no-jail time plea deal).
So if you’re a Trump supporter, you should be thankful indeed that Trump is NOT facing a court of law. Indeed, much of a Trump’s legal efforts focus on preventing Trump from ever being tried on the MERITS because, as his team knows, the evidence is quite damning.
2
@AutumnLeaf Trump is Pres and can do anything he chooses because he is Pres; Ignore all crimes; vote in Nov; got it; you watch FOX
WOW! The hypocrisy is REALLY rich these days:
"No crime committed by Trump", so not impeachable. Even though GAO clearly stated he broke the law. Isn't breaking the law a crime?
however
These same BOZOs (McConnell, Star, Graham) said "OMG High crimes" in 1999 when Clinton had an affair.
Any shred of dignity/decency/principal/character - GONE.
Willing to sell American democracy for retention of power.
15
@DKM Double parking is breaking the law but it is not a crime. Claiming a deduction which you are not justified is also breaking the law but it also is not a crime.
The Democrats are inflating the notion of crime, and making it a huge enough umbrella so that it covers Trump.
I am not buying it.
1
Interesting that Republicans demand that a President should have committed a crime? Is that a Federal Crime the President should have committed? Well, there were no Federal Crimes when that Nation was founded. But I bet the Founders would have agreed that had John Adams asked Russia to help him defeat Thomas Jefferson, John would have been guilty of 'High Crimes'. I guess Republican are only strict constitutionalist when it suits.
9
Trump is the defiant outlaw to his supporters. The Jesse James, one who outsmarts the detested powerful elites, time after time. The whole lot of them are suspending their disbelief to enjoy his act. One day reality will force them to see what he’s doing and where it’s going to end. Then Trump’s run will be over.
5
Trump's team, including Dershowitz, and many of the comments display a sophist's reading of the Constitution and a remarkable ignorance of history.
Impeachments by the House have, from the beginning, been for misbehavior, more than for behavior that would be considered crimes. See their own list:
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Impeachment/Impeachment-List/
Dershowitzet al. would claim that all these impeachments for abuse of power, etc. were unconstitutional? They might as well deny climate change and evolution while they are at it.
In turn, the Senate trials led to the impeached being convicted for "non-crimes" and acquitted for crimes. Was that unconstitutional?
Or, is the claim that impeachment for the President is somehow limited, in a way that doesn't happen to fit the words in the Constitution or the history of the House?
3
1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson by his chief defense counsel, Benjamin Robbins Curtis, a former Supreme Court associate justice.
Did anyone else notice this “former”? Was resigning from the Supreme Court while still continuing to practice law common?
2
All depends upon what is, is.
We need to focus upon real big problems including global warming and the defunding of the commons by foolish anti-government attitudes which hurt all of us. Trump is a jerk who is a symptom of our dysfunctional democracy.
The Republicans have been disintegrating our liberal democracy and replacing it with an oligarchy of theocratic and plutocratic ruling group since the 1970’s. They all should be given a long vacation from public office so that we can restore our republic
9
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could impeach the whole treasonous Republicant party and remove them from office for not upholding their sworn oath to protect the constitution? And the GOP senators who are not upholding their oath to be impartial jurors.
They need to change the rules of impeachment and do like criminal court hearings where the jury is comprised of non-political citizens. The GOP senators are playing complete partisanship and it is disgusting to watch their sleaze at trying to defend someone who is corrupt to the core.
5
@Casual Observer But the Democrats seem to be saying, "never mind climate change and global warming," it is the phone call to Zelenskiy which they really care about.
Fine, that tells me what the Democrats care about.
I admire Greta Thunberg.
I do NOT admire the Democrats. All they are doing is playing a game to harm Trump and most likely, they will harm themselves and inflict on all of us, four more years of Trump.
They should have indicted him for his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Every Jo, Bob, Sam and Mary would have understood that. Plus it was so trashy, the public would have eaten up an impeachment based on that.
8
We are appealing to British history for American law? No thanks.
1
@Don Q Just how do you think American law was formulated?
The Revolutionary War and the formation of the United States of America IS British history. Before they crossed the brink into War, all of our Founding Fathers considered themselves British subjects.
5
@Joel I understand our history. We broke away from Britain and started our own country for a reason.
1
The array of fools, hacks and showman who litter Trump's "legal team" is really quite striking. Dershowitz, Bondi, Gym Jordan and the others are incapable of mounting any kind of compelling argument in his favor, retreating into the haze of distraction and misdirection at every turn. Even the soulless Kellyanne Conway and buffoon Guiliani are in on the act. These people belong on SNL, not the Senate floor.
11
We are now officially a Banana Republican nation!
Aren’t protest votes grand.
9
Republicans and Trump supporters have no shame. Neither will American voters if we return these traitors to power in November.
8
Dershowitz the great-constitutional-scholar, speaks from both sides of his mouth.
Dershowitz in 2020: “The framers intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal-like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law.”
Dershowitz in 1998: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime! If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of the president & who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”
11
I say we let Merrick Garland decide.
6
I am re-reading Philip Roth's Plot Against America for a book club. I have read this novel several times, but this time it is so eerie. In Roth's re-writing of U. S. history, Charles Lindbergh, a Nazi sympathizer, defeats FDR in 1940. Lindbergh had admired Hitler (at least to some extent) and was an anti-Semite who called for an isolationist policy. Trump is a Putin sympathizer as well as a sympathizer with other thugs who reign in other countries, and the result of this Senate impeachment will be free to continue doing such truly horrific things, calling on Russians, etc., to do all they can to assure that he wins another four-year term. Our democracy is not just slipping away. It is tumbling away thanks to McConnell and crew. Very tragic.
6
If only the GOP handled Trump the way they handled Johnson after his “acquittal!”
1
It's amazing that after 250 years this hasn't been settled. But it sure seems impossible to argue an impeachable offense must violate a penal code when no code existed when the Impeachment statute was written. It's very Putinish.
4
If the articles of impeachment require a crime, then it’s back to the House to spell some out.
3
Raise your hand if you are utterly sick to death of Trump and his camp, as I am. I can barely even look at a photo of any of them without feeling physically ill. Trump, Pence, Barr, Pompeo, Dershowitz... the list goes on and on. In the name of -- what? Power? Ego? Money? -- they are willing to debase and destroy our democracy. And they have an entire, comfortably numb, Republican Senate to aid and abet them. Sick of them!
8
@JenD " I can barely even look at a photo of any of them without feeling physically ill. "
Fine, but that attitude disqualifies you as a member of the jury.
And indeed the Democrats do not have a case against Trump in THIS matter of Ukraine. What they have is an (understandable) dislike of Trump which they are trying to convert into a real case against him.
I would like to know what Dershowitz would propose as a remedy to a president who extorts a foreign government to get them to interfere in an election. A rigged election?
2
Bribery is an impeachable offense. Punto finale. "The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the US upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery _or_ other high crimes and misdemeanors...." There it is in black and white.
3
Of course it is constitutional nonsense--but, in 2016 the American people voted for nonsense and we get a full dose of nonsense each day.
2
"I was correct then. I am even more correct now" - Dershowitz
2
The Republican liars club is working overtime. They will step into their own snare and pay dearly on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.
2
I am by no means a legal scholar or lawyer, but wasn't it clarified through the process of the Mueller investigation that it is illegal to accept help from a foreign entity in election matters? And didn't the GAO report issued last week say that Trump's withholding of Congressional approved and appropriated funds was illegal? That's two laws broken by my non-lawyer count.
24
McConnell has his eyes closed, his hands over his ears, and is repeating, “Na, na, na, ..., na”. over and over, again.
2
You are correct. And, outrageously, Trump made the infamous Ukraine phone call exactly one day after Mueller testified. Another, healthier person would have breathed a sigh of relief having dodged a bullet regarding the Mueller report. But Trump’s pathology is so corrupt that he couldn’t resist committing the same act a second time.
3
Hurray to Mr. Savage and the Times for going beyond he said/she said, and being willing to point out the obvious: what he said is nonsense.
6
Dershowitz is irrelevant and this is his chance to be seen,sell books and get on tv. He is a 1 trick pony the Von Bulow case on appeal a long time ago and nothing since, why does anyone pay any attention to anything he says.
10
This is all well and good, but Trump's camp is betting on the public's lack of effort in trying to understand the issue. A reporter on TV last night noted that several people in Iowa told him they "had heard" of some impeachment-like events in Washington, DC, but knew little more than that. If people don't try to know what is going on, how can any of them be expected to parse this discussion of whether there's even a crime?
8
A "high crime" is one you commit when you're high. Trump is never high so he's innocent of a "high" crime.
The Democrats just want to use a rare and obsolete definition of what a high crime is based on an antique document that has no relevance in Trumpocratic rule. He can't be accused of violating the Constitution because he never read it, so it's just a random charge. There is no evidence that Trump read the Constitution, therefore he can't be charged with violating it. That's just the Democrats' opinion. For example, when you're pulled over by a cop for speeding, just say, "Speeding is your opinion. I wasn't looking at the speedometer so I couldn't have been speeding. If I had looked at the speedometer it would have been the car's opinion, not yours or mine."
8
Ha. I would love to try this argument if I’m pulled over for speeding, and reference Trump in my explanation.
I wonder how it would go for me.
1
@Elli
If they accuse you of speeding, tell them you will sue them for slanderous libel because as officials of the State they have no right to presume that you are the kind of person who would break the law and you'll sue them in court. That's how Trump does it.
1
"The president’s legal case would negate any need for witnesses. But constitutional scholars say that it’s wrong."
No need to be a constitutional scholar. A basic understanding of the English language and a reasonable dose of common sense is all that's needed to know "it's wrong".
10
I think it’s hilarious that Mr. Savage chose to use the case of Warren Hastings to make the case that “high crimes and misdemeanors” can really mean abuse of power and maladministration even though the Founders considered and rejected those terms. Mr. Hastings was overwhelmingly found not guilty and not impeached. Many of the 16 charges brought against him were rejected unanimously. But in the end Mr. Hastings was left in deep debt from legal fees, left his job and never served in public office again. He had been charged with abuses of power while serving as governor in India for abusing the Indian people. Over the subsequent years Britain learned of the difficulty of controlling the area and gave many of the powers Hastings implemented to subsequent governors. And Hastings ended up being one of the few governors to not profit from his tenure. Years later he was called before Parliment to give expert testimony on Indian relations, and once he completed his testimony, was given a rare standing ovation, because his impeachment was seen as a partisan undertaking and because he was held in such high esteem by the majority on Indians that he ruled over. I’m not sure the example of Governor Hastings is what we want as our example of how we view potential impeachment of our current and future presidents. Maybe experiencing this is why the Founders rejected maladministration or abuse of power as terms to put in the Constitution for grounds of impeachment.
1
If a coastal elite liberal professor by the name of Alan Dershowitz had opined in a manner detrimental to Trump then republicans would have branded him the Nutty Professor.
I myself take greater trust in the words of a signatory to the Constitution
Alexander Hamilton wrote;
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective.
The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
Hamilton argued why the Senate was the only body capable of providing an impartial trial. Senators of today need to weigh their inner constitution against these words;
"In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers?"
Most law professors are extremely liberal. Tribe, for instance, despises Trump for his politics. It would be a complete shock if he were to take any position that was favorable to Trump, whatever the legal merits of that position might be. If you are going to cite an extreme partisan like Tribe, you might as well cite AOC. The aspect of these charges that has been largely overlooked is the lack of evidence that the withholding of aid was done to benefit Trump politically. You may say that this is so obvious that it does not need to be proven but things are not always what they seem. In any event, Trump will be acquitted.
3
Perhaps you are correct but, if you read Mr. Dershowitz's opinion of the Clinton Impeachment, he said the precisely opposite thing he said about Trump. I.e., he said at the time of the Clinton Impeachment that it was not necessary for an actual crime to have been committed for Clinton to be impeached and removed and now he says the opposite on behalf of Trump.
Try coming up with a better defense for the perspectives of the legal prostitute that is Alan Dershowitz.
1
@Tim Lewis Exactly! No proof has been given that influencing the election was Trump's primary motive. It could just be that he hates Democrats. It could be that he was trying to please Russia. Any number of possible reasons.
The election is far away and Biden is not the nominee. So to say that Trump was trying to get Ukraine to interfere in the election is a big stretch.
And that worries me because the thin reasons which the Democrats offer against Trump are far too similar to the reasons given by Stalin against his opponents.
A reason must be CLEAR. If something can be "stretched" into a reason then the law dies. I do feel that Democrats with their hatred of Trump are destroying the rule of law.
1
Create confusion and chaos by making things up. That is the Trump logic and his lawyers are doing as told by their leader.
5
This impeachment it's just the warm up for the real impeachment that's coming next. McConnell we'll regret moving things along so quickly. Within weeks sufficient evidence will come forth to bring further impeachment proceedings against the president. Think about it; we're talking about Donald Trump here. Wish I could get Vegas odds on this, I'd bet the farm.
3
If the meaning of taking an oath devolves to nothingness, then we will have crossed the Rubicon into a desperate new world.
An oath is an oath. The senators took one promising a fair and impartial trial. They should be impelled by inner virtue to that promise.
If not, we must force them to adhere to their sworn word, so help us God.
2
The Democrats were unable to name a crime so they invented a catch-all category whose elements cannot even be identified but which they justify by insisting Trump’s conduct is somehow worse than any specific crime, so the normal rules of criminal procedure and the protections of the Constitution do not apply. Using this same twisted logic, they would deprive Trump of his right as an individual to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment and shift that right to his prosecutors and to society in general. In other words they are advocating mob rule which they would fan by engaging in demagoguery. Talk about abuse of power. It hits them in the face.
2
Edward, I suggest you reread the Constitution starting with the Articles.
1
One of the potential witnesses was privy to the whole interaction with Trump. And he resigned.
He called it the president's "drug deal".
McConnell must be on something himself to not want to hear from Bolton.
6
Hey, Charlie, the Constitution defines impeachable offenses as "treason, bribery or other high CRIMES and misdemeanors."
It's clear the the House Democrats have contrived to fashion non-crimes -- i.e., the opinion-based ground of "abuse of power" -- into "crimes."
As for the article on Trump refusing to comply with a Legislative Branch (Congressional) subpoena, Trump as the Chief Executive has every right under the Constitution to ask the Judicial Branch to rule on it, but the House Democrats purposefully refused to permit a judge to do that in order to make their purely political impeachment deadline before Christmas. So, that article is dead on arrival.
And, if they do not have to find a "crime" to impeach a president, that means it's all a subjective, partisan political ruse by the House in the first place, as Alexander Hamilton warned about back in the late 1700s.
1
Scott, I suggest you read what Hamilton actually thought. Once you have finished reading the articles of confederation you should actually read the Constitution and the rights of each branch. Funny how trump supporters disregard rules that do not help him.
2
Here is what I think is going on. During those one-on-one meeting, behind closed doors with no records made, between Trump and Putin, Putin laid out for Trump’s benefit, all of the dirt Russia has on the GOP leadership, and likely some Democrats. Trump has used this information to bludgeon the GOP into submission. This is why, despite overwhelming evidence, they want a speedy impeachment trial and acquittal.
4
The politics of this affair leave enough shame for all parties involved. Trump and Pelosi will forever be stained. The legal scholars can weigh in as much as they want. The founders wanted to prevent the President from acting like an omnipotent monarch. That is what this argument is all about. Did Trump asking Ukraine to investigate a crime in 2016 violate the constitution and constitute Trump acting like a monarch? The fact that not one Republican and some Democrats voted against in the House is a sure sign this isn't one of those cases.
1
If the Dershowitz position is correct then it would be necessary to write an entire criminal code that would apply only to the president. Some of the worst offenses that a president could commit are not covered by the criminal statutes or by common law. We have an excellent example of that type of offense before us now. Or suppose a president pardoned a convicted serial killer because he had been a major campaign contributor. Should these types of conduct be unimpeachable per se.
4
It’s almost guaranteed that Trump is going to be acquitted. Then why all this drama and circus by the Republicans? May be to find a way to make it look less blatant.
3
If Senate Republicans allow Trump to get away with this - attempting to use government resources to bribe the leader of another country to help him politically and then making every effort to obstruct the investigation into those actions - based on the argument that this offense is not criminal and therefore not impeachable, we are done. Let’s just leave Trump’s future abuses as president aside for a minute, though we can expect him to go wild, and consider other future presidents. What’s to stop any and all future presidents from abusing their power? Dershowitz believes he’s doing the honorable thing and defending the Constitution as it was originally conceived by our founders? No. He’s destroying our democracy.
2
Talk about "constitutional nonsense" and the pot calling the kettle rusty.
Where exactly does a president abusing his or her powers end and the committing of an ordinary crime begin?
On January 20, 2017, Trump was sworn in as the 45th president when he took the oath of office. He stated the following:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Since when is violating this oath of office NOT a crime?
Alan Dershowitz can dance around the US Constitution all he wants. The bottom line is the president parlayed his position as president into personal gain for himself.
Trump was and continues to be unfaithful to the US Constitution.
There's just one of the crimes he has committed.
8
I see Mitch has made a statement suggesting the democrats are trying to undo the election. What drives me nuts is the hypocrisy of the republicans. Everything they are doing now is a complete 180 of what they were going after Clinton for. I don't remember anyone saying during Clinton's impeachment that the republicans were trying to undo the election. Mitt Romney is also saying if everything is an outrage then nothing is an outrage. That may be the case in the media but there are two articles of impeachment that clearly spell out what Trump did was wrong. If Obama hired his kids as advisers and gave them security clearance or asked China to help with the election, I'm pretty sure the republicans would be all over that citing conflict of interest protocols and foreign interference would vote for removal from office. But with Trump, anything goes, apparently. This is a dangerous precedent.
4
If abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, then I guess we've been unknowingly living under a tyranny since June 21, 1788. Who'd have known if it weren't for Trump?
1
Mr. Trump’s lawyers evidently see no need to build a reasoned defense. They know the outcome in the Senate is preordained; therefore, all the “defense” requires is a smokescreen.
Don’t play into their hands by making reasoned analyses of Mr. Trump’s “case”. Say, simply and frankly, that the ‘fix’ is in.
5
The article says it was straight up "illegal" to withhold the funds from Ukraine, yet there is no punishment if it happens anyway.
It sounds like crazytown: "It's illegal to do it, but if you want to do it, just go ahead, nothing will happen. But! It's illegal, just so you know...
I'm pretty sure Trump is loving these kind of rules.
2
Campaign Finance law violation, seeking assistance in a Federal election from a foreign power.
Hobbs act violation, seeking a bribe from a foreign nation.
Impoundment act violation.
Barr will not charge.
Congress is not a part of the judicial branch that enforces criminal or civil law.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors does not refer to a criminal code.
Newly discovered evidence is a fundamental part of the rules of evidence, both at the Federal level and at the state level. The Parnas Papers and the GAO decision that Herr Trump violated the law were not available at the time but are relevant.
There are legal conclusions that are accepted when a party withholds evidence and witnesses it controls.
There are myriad exceptions to the hearsay rules, ranging from business records to immediate noting of conversations and events.
McConnell continues his assault on the political structures of the nation:
A trial
with no documents
with no witnesses
with restricted press coverage
held into the late night and early morning.
While Tater Cheney has earned deep ignominy for his history,
M. McConnell is proving to be the Shiva of American Democracy: Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds.
1
"In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added." McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) ...Chief Justice Marshall
Article II, §4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Unless there is a "Crime" accused in any of the articles of impeachment passed by the House, such impeachment is unconstitutional on its face.
Legal theories are for the theorists; the real jury in this matter is the public, which will vote in November. These arguments citing Hamilton and Madison are so similar in kind to theologians arguing about the meaning of the Bible or the Koran. As with all these discussions, the proponent has reached a conclusion and then tries to massage the historic documents to fit his theory. What nonsense!
1
The simple argument against the president's stance is also the strongest: if he had nothing to hide, he would not obstruct witnesses. If McConnell were not also corrupt, he would not configure this trial to suit Trump. It's alarming and shameful that one of America's supposedly best legal minds is involved in the sham arguments against the Constitution.
5
Correct. And, obstruction is still obstruction.
3
Sadly, the modern approach to facts and reality is drown them out with noise, regardless of the veracity of your argument or integrity of the speaker.
The vaunted Harvard law professor, Ken Starr and Barr all have been cited saying numerous things that are directly opposed to their current positions displaying the lawyer slime that so disgusts average citizens that it all becomes noise. Noise that none of us want to hear. Ever again.
Laurence Tribe is 78. Alan Dershowitz is 81. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86.
Some people get wiser as they get older, even if they may lose a bit of speed.
Other people, alas, lose some of their cognitive abilities, more than cancelling out any gained wisdom.
One's basic integrity (or lack thereof) often does not change at all through one's life.
Oh -- and Trump is 73 and McConnell is 77. You know what I'm saying?
1
There's a saying in the law: when the facts are bad, pound on the law, when the law is bad, pound on the facts, when both the law and the facts are bad, pound on the table. The Trump team is doing a lot of table pounding.
2
Just Lie and cover up and spew ludicrous defense logic. It is hoax! etc. The Trump presidency has been nothing but one lone cover up aided and abetted by the GOP from day one.
This is the dismantling of the Republic. No hyperbole. The great and most fundamental subversion of our nation that has ever happened by a long shot and what do the GOP do ? Disgraceful is too tame a word.
Do the people, or the people in red states anyway, not realize what is being lost? Or have they been dumbed down so far that they can not even feel comfortable having an opinion or a opinion that is critical of the GOP and corporate elite?
This is the steady march into dictatorship make no mistake.
Done willingly, with endless servings of propaganda and coercion to be sure.
People look back at the rise of histories monsters and ask how could the people have allowed it? This is how. Just watch what is done to cover up what the guy in the white has done, make note who is doing the covering up and how. These are the enemies of America make no mistake.
2
I keep on reading from many sources, including here at the NYT that McConnell is running a "farce, fake, cover up" trial.
Considering that his interest, as well as that of the Republican party (house/senators) are more than likely aligned to not lose power come 2020... it would be ill advised to lose Trump's base.
Maybe the "farce, fake, cover up" trial is really for Trump and his followers to believe?
1
Did Trump willfully abuse the power of his office for personal political gain and did he wholly, overtly, and persistently obstruct the House investigation? The facts are incontrovertible in affirming his guilt.
Given the dishonorable and politically expedient tenor and condition of the ongoing impeachment process in the Senate under a delinquent GOP majority those facts will almost certainly to be rendered irrelevant.
The resulting damage to the power of the Constitution to guide right and credible action and governance will thereby have been grievously damaged.
4
I fought the law, and the law won.....only in the American Songbook anymore. Certainly not the US Government.
1
As we have seen previously, Mitch McConnell will bend the Constitution to his will rather than to true meaning of the words written by the founding fathers.
Just ask Merrick Garland.
3
I wish there were 4 GOP senators with enough of a spine to see through these lies and corruption, to declare themselves “Independents,” and thereby deny McConnell his majority standing.
McConnell's only legacy will be “the man who gave away the power of the Senate.”
It’s shameful, really.
4
For over a decade now Mitch McConnell has been making an art out of "Constitutional Nonsense" has he not?
4
Bribery and extortion are crimes.
4
The Democrats and their "scholars" will be losing and then whining until November. The voters will decide and given the state of the economy the Democrats will not have an outcome they want. Vote for America--Vote Republican.
1
“Vote for [my ideal version of America; one in which the well being of corporations outweigh the well being of the people, one in which the weak and fearful minded are soothed by the corrupt and self-serving carpetbagger in chief, and the America in which, through gerrymandering and census fraud, we may continue to steal the voice and rights of those they undesirables we deem ‘unamerican’]. Vote Republican.”
There, I fixed it for you.
4
McConnell and the republican senators might very well succeed is shutting down this trial before it has a chance to begin. And short term, they may pat themselves on the back.
But Americans are not fools, and the majority of us will never forget this shameful charade. The GOP will rue the day they ever supported Trump.
2
If the President did nothing wrong and cared about the good of the whole country and not just his base, he would want a full trial with witnesses and evidence to prove his innocence.
Instead, we get reminded that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in our country, and simultaneously are told that no evidence or witnesses will be allowed, which means nothing is proven by this sham at all, aside from the fact that the GOP clearly places party before country.
Disgusting.
If you are innocent, let the evidence be shared under oath.
If you are not, continue to shout about the witch hunt and sham impeachment.
No witnesses and no evidence means the GOP and the President all know the proof of guilt is there.
2
McConnell and trump along with Fox have made the Republican Party a criminal enterprise. Sadly, they didn’t have to try very hard.
5
How is bribery and extortion not "ordinary crimes"?
4
If the Senate acquits, perhaps the House can draw up another article for solicitation of bribery, which plainly also happened here.
1
The Republicans don’t care about our democracy, they care only about money, which in their sullied minds, they equate with democracy. I thought we fought many wars in the past to free ourselves and others from the chains of dictators. Well, they deserve the chains they have forged for themselves,
2
Clinton had four charges of impeachment, the two he was convicted of in the House were perjury in front of a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Since Ken Star conducted the investigate and not the House Judiciary Committee.
Fast forward to today there was no special prosecutor so the Judiciary Committee conducted the investigation. The two charges against Trump are Abuse of Power, which Clinton was charged with also but acquitted, and obstructing Congress.
Clinton was not charge with any criminal offenses due to his impeachment after he left office, civil litigation yes; which we all know is a lower legal standard.
Our Conservative friends want to accept that Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction Congress are two different things entirely?
I think the Framers would beg to differ. If the House did not conduct the investigation and a special prosecutor instead did and came to the same conclusions for the two articles of impeachment....well we wouldn't be taking about what happened in England nearly 250 years ago.
The case would be crystal clear. Trump would be held to the same standard as Clinton. What makes the two different and the same, is Trump's abuse of power was both personal and political, like Clinton's, but then he actually violated the law by withholding up nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine. It is irrelevant that it " eventual" got there as Trump's defense team will try to explain.
This is the damning difference that the Senate will weigh.
2
So proud of Senator Mitch McConnell.
Doing God's work.
1
If a crime is necessary for impeachment, which it is not, surely "individual 1" from the SDNY case should suffice for his role in campaign finance misdeeds. Or the emoluments clause. Or the very real, and patently illegal, bribery that took place with Ukraine. Any number of actions by this President shows how unfit he is to be President. Trump, and his subservient minions, have to go.
2
At this time without comments and documents it is simply a cover up . Trump will not release his taxes , another coverup. The Republicans that stay loyal to him seem brainwashed. Or he has inside info on them.
5
This so-called trial - on the GOP side - is more like a Magician’s Show:
Slight of Hand
Shell Games
Saw the Constitution in Half - and Pretend it’s still whole
White Rabbit Rules - drawn out of hats
But 12 working days? For elderly Senators that might lead to multiple heart attacks.
1
Right? Wrong? Nonsense?
Lawyers don't care. Whatever sticks the walls and works is all that they care about. Winning.
In this case it something for Senators to hang their vote on so they can say "don't blame me, it's the constitution" whether right or wrong. Its just like Trump's standard MO of being just vague enough for plausible deniability while everyone knows what he means.
1
The new "Democratic legal Norm": Guilty even if proven innocent...
Didn’t GAO determine a crime was committed?
5
It is surreal that the likely result of this sham of a trial will be the vindication of Trump in the eyes of tens of millions of Americans reinforced by the likes of Fox News.
It almost seems like mass hysteria and it’s going to take a significant effort to get enough voters to the polls to out vote his rabid supporters.
234
@Bronx Jon Nah, just means he got away again, but a sham trial is no vindication--but rather is a Banana Republic indication.
41
Lies are uncovered by truths. People who think that they can make reality be as they want by deception are silly.
16
@Bronx Jon "...vindication of Trump in the eyes of tens of millions of Americans..."
Well, those tens of millions don't care one bit if Trump and his sycophantic Repubs are utterly corrupt. Indeed, that is the primary attraction for them - his followers really wish they could be just like trump - lying all the time, being totally corrupt, stealing from people, and getting away with it. That is just who they are. It has been eye-opening to to find out what Republicans really value - and it has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. It has only to do with money and power to dominate the majority of normal Americans. They could not care less about anything else.
73
Now three years in, I believe Washington D.C. resembles Nuremberg more and more. All the lemmings just fall in behind you know who.
2
A mock trial being run by a mock turtle.
9
How is it McConnell has so much power while dismantling the balance of power between the branches? Disgusting traitor.
6
Since at Harvard Dershowitz cannot be fired due to academic freedom, at least they could change his title from Professor Emeritus to Professor Ignominius.
3
It is time for the New York Times to step up and stop playing bothsiderism for the sake of subscriptions. PLEASE
call this out for what it is. These people are traitors to the constitution trying to take down our Democracy and it looks like they may be winning.
9
Let’s remember on this historic day that the two previous administrations got away with egregious, unconscionable crimes without anybody being impeached or investigated.
Crimes like war crimes, torture, unconstitutional mass surveillance, regime change coups, drone assassinations of American citizens etc. etc.
So, yeah, not really excited about impeachment of Trump for “obstruction” or temporarily holding back on arming Nazis in Ukraine.
1
So what does John Roberts do during Midnight Mitch’s brazen attempt to decimate this Senate Impeachment trial.
C’mon Supreme Court Justice Roberts!!!
Say SOMETHING!
You gonna just let McConnell stomp all over on our US Constitution and DO NOTHING?
America must deluge Justice Roberts with calls!
2
@JM
Perhaps you should investigate what the Chief Justice's role is in this trial?
You might start here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/at-impeachment-trial-chief-justice-roberts-will-do-just-what-rehnquist-did-nothing-in-particular/ar-BBZ1Kip
Where is Robert Mueller?
Why have democrats not called on him to comment (behind closed doors) on their loose ends?
2
The argument being put forward by Dershowitz treats everyday Americans as if we are a bunch of idiots. The arrogance of this argument is beyond my imagination. Of course Trump's abuse of his office is a high crime. Of course he got caught extorting Ukraine into helping him cheat in the presidential election. Of course he should have been impeached and of course he should be convicted by the Senate.
The coverup being run by McConnell/Trump is all the proof this everyday American needs. Time will tell if the right thing gets done here. I'm not holding my breath.
2
Call your senator and request the presence of complete evidence and requested witnesses at the impeachment trial: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
4
As I have said before in other articles, the House voted Articles of Impeachment thereby doing their "job." They chose NOT to call certain witness, e.g. John Bolton because this was such an "urgent matter" of the utmost importance. They had to rush it and could not wait for this to wend its way through the courts. Now they want a "do-over? They said their case was rock solid, a slam dunk, a strong case, yet they now insist that the Senate (a place which they have no role sans Prosecutor). If they made their case and it is so strong why do they need more witnesses? If it was really that important they would have gone through the motions in the House.
People need to remember this is "Political" not "Criminal." The House wants to have their cake and eat it too but for fairness alone (and a Fair Trial for all who think the House deserves a "Fair Trial), this is not a trial for fairness to them but for the President. He is the "Defendant" not the House.
Very few people in this Country believe this is really the way to go and are tired of these games.
Whatever happened to Congress doing the "People's Business?" Yes. I know. Congress approved bills they knew very well were going nowhere in the Senate. That is the game they play.
I always thought Nancy Pelosi was a smart woman. She may be smart but I believe she was "outsmarted" by her "Left Wing."
5
@Rozie James: For that matter, it's not put of the realm of possibility, that McConnell vould be outsmarting himself, by doing his dirty deeds unfer the cloak of darkness; which at the very least. has already earned him a new nickname...
"Midnight Mitch."
There is also a real risk of this backfiring.
1
@Rozie James Lot's of words, signifying nothing. Simply an emotional outpouring of ignorance to soothe black hole where thinking humans have a heart and soul.
And just to address a factual matter, the majority of we the people have enough evidence in the indictment to warrant conviction and removal by trial in the Senate.
2
@Rozie James
if your house is on fire do you call the fire department or mail them a letter?
They didn't want to wait for the courts to force the administration to testify
The republicans were whining about no fact witnesses. Well now they can have as many witnesses as they want. And guess what? They aren't going to call any because Trump is guilty as charged.
3
"Many senators went to law school" and will see through the bogus argument.
That's funny. As if legal reasoning, logic or integrity will have any bearing whatsoever on how GOP senators conduct themselves.
17
The one who should be able to “see” through the dense Republican obfuscation is Senator Paul, because he is an ophthalmologist, not a lawyer.
1
Dershowitz and the rest of Trump's legal team aren't engaged in serious legal persuasion.
They're simply trying to provide an argumentative fig leaf for Republican senators to hide behind.
16
If you believe pink elephants can fly, then you are likely to also believe that Trump did nothing wrong and that Democrats impeached him only because they don't like him and want to undo the 2016 election. Most same and rational people know that elephants regardless of color can't fly. Likewise we know Trump is guilty as Sin. He could and perhaps should have been impeached for many more breaches of duty as outlined in the Mueller report. Daily we see a president who behaves totally unpresidential and is totally unfit for the office he holds. Trump is a thug, a fraud and a person lacking all human decency. Failure by the Republican Senators to convict him makes them complicit and equally guilty and unfit for office.
30
I still do not know why the a House did not use the Mueller Report for at least a charge or two. That way half of the Articles would be based on crimes and half on ‘high crimes.’ The Republicans would be boxed in.
Does this sound familiar?
“When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”
President Nixon, 1977
24
Alan Dershowitz was my criminal law professor the first year that he taught at Harvard. Even then, I suggested that he sometimes substituted wit for analysis.
Unfortunately, Mr. Dershowitz has now become a caricature of his former self.
416
@JJM America is now in a Dictatorship; one party controls it all;will do anything to stay in power. Putin dissolved his Government; expect Trump to do the same.
37
@JJM Dershowitz is just following the long standing tactic of all lawyers - ignore the truth and try to sell a story some people might believe. He has nothing and he knows it, which is why he and his cronies are so hysterical in their appearances on TV - they need to sell this story to the American people but they are lying and they know it.
43
@JJM All of this "nonsense" as the article states is proof beyond doubt that there is no such thing as the application of truth and partiality in the legal system -- and it doesn't matter which country. That shouldn't be surprising because humans have beliefs and hence biases.
5
We are a democracy for the rich, white and powerful. History will judge us poorly.
23
What has failed to be mentioned time and time again, even by Democratic lawmakers is the unique position of president and how that role needs to be executed. The position arguably creates the most powerful person in the world and, to be seen as a just and righteous country and society, that position must be held by someone of unimpeachable character. Anything less makes the United States a bully which has been proven throughout human history to cause more problems than it solves. Trump is a bully and the world knows it and since he has become our leader our rule has been unjust. These past 3 years the peoples' of the world have been wanting our failure, wanting our comeuppance, wanting our fall and they are fully justified in their desires because we are abusing our power.
The Ukraine affair is just the most obvious demonstration of how Trump is abusing his power. If it was the only example there may be leniency for his actions but there is so much evidence that he has abused and continues to abuse his power that, for the sake of this country, he needs to be removed. The Republicans, by covering up his actions, further demonstrate that they fear his power and know he will use it to hurt them. This is the reason why he needs to be removed - that he doesn't care how his abuse of power will effect the rest of us as long as they all fear him. That he uses his power as he wishes and that he does so with great regularity makes him a menace to our country.
21
Mr. Tribe says that team Trump is using “...bogus legal arguments to mislead the American public or the senators...” I disagree.
It is a subtle difference, but the senators know exactly what the arguments are. They are not being "mislead" at all.
Dershowitz is doing nothing more than giving them cover. Regardless of the clownishness of the lawyer and his argument, you can bet that we will be hearing it from Republican senators, and see Trump tweets repeating the same nonsense, as long as it takes to get it embedded in social media and Fox news parrots.
11
A few months after Scalia died, the George Mason University School of Law was renamed the Antonin Scalia Law School, in exchange for a large anonymous donation. A portent of things to come. George Mason was cancelled.
4
Say the mayor of Chicago got the bank account of the Cook County DA frozen until he opened an investigation into the mayor´s political rival. Does that sound like a crime ? Extortion, bribery, abuse of office, take your pick.
16
You have me on the edge of my seat. What did happen when the mayor of Chicago did that?
@Timothy Platt
Excellent analogy
Mr. Dershowitz didnt know about Curtis' arguments in 1998 and he's a "constitutional expert"? Trump and minions may correctly believe that many Americans fall for their lies but not all of us.
8
Trump’s people are just blowing smoke in an effort to obscure his behaviors. Submitting nonsense as a defense is just part of their attempt to confuse the issues beyond any reasonable consideration. Republicans hope that the public will buy into the politically motivated case of lies defense so they can bury the facts and the narrative, and dismiss the charges without a rational public hearing.
7
They do not are about the law or morality. These lawyers only care about keeping Trump's base so that the cowardly GOP senators will continue to cover up and protect him. All they have to do is give a couple sound bites to Fox News and whether those statements are accurate will not matter to those listening to his twitter feed and/or Fox. Seems they hungrily swallow up all kinds of partisan lies.
3
What logical conclusion can a seriously made impeachment case reach when the entire ruling rstablishment is untiringly busy in protecting a corrupt and unworthy President? This is perhaps the worst moment of constitutional breakdown in recent US history.
12
With all the breathless accusations and the constant tv panel coverage of the senate trial, one thing is clear to many, right or wrong, they do not see the offenses rising to impeachable level. Even the most naive would not negate the evidence that Trump was up to wrong doing and that he should be censured. Nobody would say this crude and obnoxious person rises to presidential level but that level is not up to him. Should a president be presidential? Absolutely. Did anybody ever expect Donald Trump to be presidential? Vote him out but this political charade is just that.....a partisan attempt to toss out an unpopular churl.
2
@bellicose
"one thing is clear to many, right or wrong,they do not see the offenses rising to impeachable level"
They are wrong. This is textbook abuse of power, which is the reason for impeachment.
And the solution to just "vote him out" is absurd given that what Trump is trying to do is to undermine the election!
1
@bellicose
Since when is using our tax dollars to extort a foreign country for help with their election not impeachable?
Clinton’s dalliance deserved censure. Trump’s action deserves not only impeachment, but prison time.
No other politician could get away with misappropriating tax dollars to bribe a foreign official without jail time. Don’t believe me, ask your representative:
“If you used my tax dollars to bribe or extort a foreign public official for help with your election, would you go to jail?”
Ask them. I’m serious. I’m genuinely interested in the answer.
2
NYTimes:
Mr. Dershowitz said he intended to model his presentation on an argument put forward at the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson by his chief defense counsel, Benjamin Robbins Curtis, a former Supreme Court associate justice.
Wikipedia on Benjamin Robbins Curtis:
He successfully persuaded the Senate that an impeachment was a judicial act, not a political act, so that it required a full hearing of evidence.
Let the trial begin on this basis!
8
Your opening contention, that our President's legal team wants us to disregard his "bullying" is flatly false. Attaching a "constitutional" scholar's ridiculous opinion to your falsehood doesn't make it more truthful, and certainly not more palatable.
In endless, countless pieces such as this, continuing to shade the truth for the past three years has done little but whet our appetite to overwhelming re-elect our President.
You have lied outright, you have misled and horridly mischaracterized every moment of Donald Trump's firsts term; let's hope you're all out of energy for this in his second.
2
@J Brian
By all means, supply us some evidence of any of these alleged falsehoods. Do you have any? Any?
2
Please enumerate the lies, if you are honest you will have a hard time.
3
The NYT explanation spells it out "Can you explain what President Trump is accused of doing?
President Trump is accused of breaking the law by pressuring the president of Ukraine to look into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a potential Democratic opponent in the 2020 election." If he is looking into former VP then there is nothing impropper. Biden is not exempt from scrutiny for his actions as VP just because he is a candidate in 2020
3
@cw Except he has only the best working in our Justice Department and FBI to take that look the VP. Further, when there is no evidence this would indeed be an abuse of power even were a foreign ally not involved as it is an ABUSE OF POWER and violation of statutes that protect government employees from witch hunts in the performance of their legal duties and responsibilities to the Constitution.
Of course responsibilities, fealty to an oath, duties, integrity on any issue, legal actions are all alien unknown concepts to any cretin crawling out from under a rock in the 21st century supporting any republican talking point. Period.
2
@cw
If it wasn't improper, why did he secretly ask a foreign country to do it, instead of using the vast array of US law enforcement at his disposal?
If it wasn't improper, why did the White House initially try to hide the call?
1
Did 99% or 100% of the constitutional scholars vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016?
2
@Erik
Oh, I bet a majority of them did. You probably think this proves them to be biased shills. It more likely proves that anyone who understands the constitution and who cares even a little bit about the rule of law would never vote for Trump.
2
Your argument is ridiculous. Dershowitz admittedly voted for her and is still putting forward his argument. It would not be a valid litmus test anyway. Most scholars people with advanced degrees lean left. I think you have cause and effect backwards. Study and critical reflections of history are less likely to produce conservative ideas. It’s not because they may be liberal they are biased but because they operate more on facts than fear they tend left.
3
"Mr. Dershowitz said that if the House had the evidence and the votes to charge Mr. Trump with bribery, then it needed to say so explicitly."..........Dershie, dershie, dershie.
You also say impeachment can be based on "crime like" behavior. So, though withholding the aid is not the crime of bribery, it is "bribery-like" and impeachable, wouldn't you say?
3
Constitutional scholarship of any persuasion is worry number 101 on a list of 100 things Republicans care anything about. While is would be satisfying (though hardly consoling) to castigate the Republicans' behavior throughout the reign of this regime it is pointless to try and shame persons who are fundamentally and unabashedly shameless.
2
Bill Clinton committed a "technical crime", perjury, by lying when asked at a deposition about his relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky. Donald Trump committed the supposedly non-crime of leveraging his power to influence foreign policy granted to the POTUS, as well as US taxpayer funds, for his own personal political gain. In other words, using his power to stay in power, in the manner of tin pot quasi-democratic dictators. It is supreme sophistry and hypocrisy to argue the first was a gross abuse of power and the second wasn't. Yet the entire GOP is in lock step claiming just that.
7
The Constitution apparently means whatever the heck the Republican Party wants it to mean.
If you don't like rule by Republican tyrants, rebel. That's your only solution to this problem.
Impeachment sure as heck won't work. And who has faith in elections anymore?
Americans need to stop the climate change denial. The evidence is clear and overwhelming. American democracy is dead. It's time to create a new country, better suited to the security and happiness of those of us who don't like this present one.
5
@617to416 - I acknowledge that my response is trite but nevertheless I suggest to you that if you are unhappy here, you should leave.
@Tim Lewis
I already have Tim.
2
Let's jettison the loaded word 'impeachment' and just call it what it is - firing a completely incompetent and dangerous employee. Not one of us would hire this bloated creature to dog sit, why is he allowed to continue on as caretaker for the most dangerous arsenal on the planet and in charge of the security of 330 million people? He's a psychopath who has never read the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect, his 'best people' have to a person been guilty of criminal behavior, and he's the biggest mistake a major party has ever made, just by allowing him to campaign under their auspices.
Donnie loves the words 'You're Fired!' - just get rid of this blight on our nation so we can start healing. And that goes for 'wax museum guy' Pence, too.
9
@signalfire - Trump was duly elected. If you are suggesting that we wait for the next election and forget impeachment, that obviously would be fine.
Dershowitz is yet another (formerly) distinguished person willing to debase himself for a brief moment in the spotlight. Like Giuliani, he seems willing to do anything--including destroying his future--for relevancy in the present moment. How short-lived and pathetic.
6
If the Constitution is "nonsense" the Republic is lost.
3
How is this happening? I don’t mean the constitutional and legal nuances and technicalities that allow for this type of thing to happen.
I mean, how is this happening, as in, how are human beings who have read history books allowing this to go on? I am NOT advocating for physical violence, because that usually backfires.
But I am saying that the United States is watching a man accused of aiding, abetting, and participating in Epstein’s human trafficking scheme defend a man who used campaign funds to pay off an adult film star in a government chamber led by a man whose wife is under investigation for self dealing.
How? How is this happening? How is no one stopping this insanity? I don’t understand how this is being allowed to continue by people who COULD stop it. Senior career officials within the Justice Department, senior career officials in the intelligence services and FBI, and the State Dept., and wealthy corporate executives who started as immigrants or as children of parents who fled the Holocaust.
How is it that so many people with the physical means to stop this are doing nothing but watching it happen? It’s terrifying.
12
Wonder how many and to what degree the men in this story are potentially compromised? I sure do. They like their privileges and seem to have closed ranks to prevent anyone from revealing what they are hiding, peccadilloes, payoffs, whatever. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
1
There is no reasonable defense for Trump’s behaviors because his actions were done on impulse and in defiance of the rules society has established to support mutual trust.
Trump is not stealthy about his disgraceful behaviors. He has no shame and no respect for the duties and responsibilities of our President. The people who defend him know who they are defending, someone who they think will give them what they want but they are misguided. The real Trump is a liar, a cheater, and has no concern to ever do the right thing by anyone. He’s a one man show, and he buys his way out of the trouble that results from is carelessness.
Eventually, the Republican Party will find itself disgraced by this individual and they will reject him. Trump never keeps the companionship of reliable and honorable people who trust him. That or the Party will lose the respect that it has enjoyed and become known as a collection of cheaters and liars, and fade away.
6
Seems his lawyers are unable to mount an adequate defense to cover his unfit words and deeds, while also unable to convince their client he should resign before destroying the integrity of the Office and blowing apart the country,
Past time to put legal jousting aside and examine the very real effects of your arguments, Dershowitz.
4
Alan Dershowitz will say whatever he is paid to say.
He is a criminal defense attorney and Trump isn't accused of any criminal offense. Dershowitz's role is to obfuscate.
2
These "legal experts" are unable to separate their personal beliefs from the laws they swore to uphold.
During the Kavanaugh trial we saw a textbook example of "sexual McCarthyism" (words of Alan Dershowitz, lifelong liberal and Professor at Harvard Law School). There is no evidence Kavanaugh and Ford were ever in the same room together. Other witnesses alleging crimes committed by Kavanaugh admitted lying under oath but were never punished. She was never cross-examined. Instead, we were told these experts "believed" Ford (did they believe the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case too?) as if that is a matter of law. Their anger at Trump dictated their opinion.
HRC destroyed 30,000 emails after she was subpoenaed. Isn't this a textbook example of obstruction of justice? Where were they then?
The President is accused of high crimes though no one can produce a law that says the President can't withhold foreign aid for any reason. All foreign aid is quid pro quo. Biden withheld the same aid for a different reason. The reason is irrelevant as a matter of law. (The GAO report deals in technicalities between government agencies. Obama had many GAO determined technical violations of the law).
The Democrats ran on impeaching the President, then they gnashed their teeth whining about how sad they are but they "must" impeach him. Stop wasting my money. Get this farce over with.
When these experts can seperate their personal feelings from their opinions, I'll pay attention.
4
Clearly, the only defense acceptable to Democrats and ‘progressives’ herein is no defense whatsoever but a guilty plea and removal from office.
You know, Mr Trump, submit yourself to the mob that’s been trying to get rid of you since before you were even nominated.
We need to get back to ignoring sitting VPs grifting fat jobs for their unqualified, ne’er-do-well sons.
2
We have Dershowitz to thank for OJ Simpsons acquittal, Epsteins "cushy plea deal with Florida prosecutors" and now Trumps soon to be acquittal if McConnell succeeds with his bogus trial. Dershowitz has ensured that "all the best people" have been free to walk the earth unencumbered.
3
Imagine that you were accused of a crime which you insist was a hoax. You repeatedly exclaim that your actions were “perfect.” And because this accusation is a hoax, sham, joke, you are going to defend your innocence by insisting that any individuals that can shed light on your innocence cannot testify on your behalf. Furthermore, any documents, messages, or recordings that will exonerate you shall not be made available. People are just going to have to believe you and have faith in the integrity of your character, even though you happened to have publicly lied over 15,000 times in the last three years. Surely, the world will see that you have been railroaded, and everyone will join you in exclaiming your innocence.
7
2016 - M.A.G.A. comes 2020 - M.A. GAGA.
“Epistemological nihilism,” to borrow a phrase from Michelle Goldberg.
‘Sophistry’ is the best euphemism for talking circles around oneself, all in order to say absolutely nothing. Most sophists are more than happy to accept payment for their services, amusingly enough.
2
#MoscowMitch has declared that there is no democracy in USA. He is the de-fecto king and will wield his power that way he likes it; essentially rendering the democracy mute in America. This has been the mail goal of Putin to undermine American democracy in the eye of world..
It seems #MoscowMitch has done that for him.. Trump seems to be a side show..
I implore all Dem presidential hopefuls; unite ; stop the primary; and fight against these dark forces(#MoscowMitch & Trumps) first. If they win; you may not have country to run for presidential election; no matter who wins primary.
4
"Your honor, we have truckload of hard evidence and a dozen witnesses to prove that the crime was committed."
"Okay, and the defense?"
"Your honor, we demand that you disregard all evidence, and we will not allow any witnesses to testify about anything, ever.
"We also demand that you dismiss all charges, resign, give up your legal career, and declare The Constitution null and void."
"Oh, well, that seems equally reasonable and responsible. Maybe I can get part-time work at a big box store."
4
The fact that some of the same lawyers who argued in Congress that Clinton should be impeached for Abuse of Power and some of the same senators, such as Mitch Mcconnell, who voted to convict on that charge, now say such a charge is fraudulent shows how shameless they are.
4
“The president’s legal case would negate any need for witnesses.”
Actually, Dictator Don’s latest obstructionary tactic posited by his legal clown car negates the Constitution.
2
One thing is abundantly clear. And it is that Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are not only traitors to this country, their oaths of office, the law, rules of conduct, the Constitution, and basic morality and human decency itself they are, in fact, full of it from their heads all the way down to their toes. It's hard to imagine two more despicable, self-serving, hypocritical, duplicitous, fatuous liars. And their end game seems to be the literal destruction of this country via the commission of an every series of corrupt and illegal activity. I try to something good in everyone, yet, as far as I can tell, neither of these men has a single redeemable quality.
6
Nonsense is, and always has been, their strategy.
We look silly waving our arms and shouting how outrageous they are.
The only solution is to hunker down, register voters like crazy, and work hard to defeat them in November.
1
Well, Trump thinks that the constitution is nonsense, so it matters little if their argument is constitutional nonsense.
4
The only hoax being perpetrated is by the Republican Senate.
5
By any definition, Trump has committed multiple forms of treason, to the US, to civilization, and to the planet.
He is a danger to us all.
Democrats exist, and in fact they are now in the majority. Pretending they are criminals and low-lifes who lie for a living is pure nonsense.
We care about you, about our country, about the world, and about a habitable planet.
Using cheating, lies, bullying, and setting up the biggest financial bubble is setting us up for the biggest crash every.
2
The mythomania of Trump and his attorneys is staggering. They have a specious argument that is defensible only by stonewalling Congress and its corrupt Senators. Watching this charade by the GOP is maddening.
4
I wonder, as I often have for the last three years, what does this president have to do for his followers to say, “ENOUGH”? It’s sickening.
3
A Senate job must have to be very enticing and profitable enough to induce you to throw democracy under the bus! Or is it the realization that you would be unemployable if you leave the Senate?
4
It is a federal crime to solicit "a thing of value" from a foreign government in connection with an election. 52 USC 30121(a)(2). End of story.
6
The GAO argument is specious. Trump did release the funds to the Ukrainians before the end of the fiscal year as the law requires. Everything else and the construct that a President is prohibited from setting the timing within a fiscal year is garbage.
1
McConnell said Merrick Garland was his proudest moment......
That this unfair trial will probably succeed-imagine how excited his perverse tendencies will rejoice
2
70% of the US are HS grads. So what are these people hearing? What are kids learning? It's OK to commit crimes as long as you are making money for everyone. That if you can hide witnesses and documents it's almost like it never happened. Even THO we saw him and heard him. Remember your leader said. Don't believe what you are hearing and seeing. Plus the dead bodies in the street...."I don't know nothin"
3
The nonpartisan GAO says Trump broke the law, and I say if it looks like a skunk, walks and smells like a skunk, it's Trump. Do your duty Senators, vote to remove before the stench has so saturated your existence that it can never be washed off.
5
What does Trump have on Dershowitz? Dershowitz appears to be willing to do or say anything in some kind of fight for his own name and reputation.
3
As someone who I am no longer friends with and have removed all vestiges of her from my life, over our collective national nightmare playing out at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue I wish that I could say that I just don't care, because that is what she said to me. "I don't care." I truly wish I could be so nonchalant but I can't, I really can't. People say it is silly to let a vote for the Sewer Rat divide us, but I think of my 2 1/2-year-old--grandson, who will grow up in a world ravaged by climate change and she voted for a man who says it is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Well, in my book that is a good enough reasaon.
5
What defense is Dershowitz going to introduce next? If trump has a fit, you must acquit? Or how about, If evidence we won't admit, you must acquit? I guess either will do, and it's a pity Johnny Cochran isn't around to articulate them before the Senate.
5
Dress all the legal scholars like Roman gladiators and set them loose on the Senate floor, then let the crowd go wild. Sheeesh, who’s not a scholar these days.
Down down we go, where it will end no one knows.
spin, lie, cheat,
rinse repeat,
at the end nothing shall be left,
the people, the republic bereft
I guess the money was good
said the dark shadow beneath the hood
no qualms, no shame
they drove into the abyss, broken and lame
a people overfed and indifferent
tempts fate
make the hour, mark the date
The Republicans are trying to provide legal backing for their position that, while they may consider removing Trump from office for an ordinary crime, they will not remove him for abuse of power.
Expect Trump to postpone (with Republican support) the 2020 election "until its integrity can be ensured" if he looks like losing it.
The majority of Americans not the Electoral College math, want law and order to return not only to the Executive Branch but to the entire GOP.
There is evidence already and more coming in to throw Trump out.
9
He said he would be happy to be exonerated. He said he'd love for his people to testify, since the "perfect call" did nothing wrong.
OK - call the witnesses. All of them. He's got nothing to hide, so why would Mitch try to hide things?
9
Impressive "mind yoga" on Dershowitz's part to be able to twist his pro-Trump argument into such a pretzel. The rest of us can see it, plain as day: Trump has committed a host of offenses that warrant impeachment and removal. He's only been charged with two of the most recent.
7
Mr. Dershowitz makes an argument that is absurd on its face. Imagine that President Trump boarded a plane to Moscow and refused to return or to carry out his duties as President. Though far fetched such scenario is obviously not outside the realm of possibilities. And while it would presumably violate his oath of office, it would not be a crime.
Apparently Mr. Dershowitz believes the country has no recourse other than the invocation of the 25th Amendment. And considering the brain power of the President's cabinet that's little comfort.
4
I assume that dershowitz doesn’t believe in any kind of afterlife. My beliefs, and those of the duplicitous evangelists who put their faith in trump, tell me that eternal damnation awaits them, any lawyer defending trump, and all republican Senators who fall in line behind mcconnell as those parties act to destroy “the last, best hope of mankind”.
As a recent comment stated, I’m glad that I’m old. But I am so sorry and sad for my grandson, who will surely grow up in a far more inequitable world than I did.
1
The fundamental right to petition the courts for redress is not only being denied to the President, he is charged with an article of impeachment for doing so. It is not ‘obstruction’ for a citizen to ask the judicial for a ruling, and Congress is a co-equal branch of our government...they can’t just run roughshod over the Executive and Judicial branches rights. But that is exactly what the Speaker and the House intend to do...violate the Constitution in effort to score political points before an election. So, just who is interfering with the 2020 election?
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article II, Section 4.
For all the self-appointed "originalist" "scholars" out there, what do you think "Misdemeanors" covers? Any fair reading of what the founders wrote tells one that Trump's actions are, at least, "Misdemeanors."
For all those in the Dershowitz camp, who believe that the articles of impeachment must be dismissed because there is no constitutional basis for any parts of them, you need to be reminded about a fundamental pillar the founders believed and the Constitution was intended to guarantee.
The founders feared too much power enuring to the Executive. They feared a return to monarchy; they feared an autocrat unchecked by Congress.
Congress was intended to be the most important branch, notwithstanding the checks and balances that John Adams first put to paper.
If Dershowitz displayed any intellectual coherence in his professed fear that the system gives the state too much power, he would maintain that Trump is engaging in an overreaching power grab.
But Alan is not as bright as he wants everyone to believe, and Alan is way too insecure, so he gravitates to people like Trump, who stroke Alan's fragile ego.
In any argument about the Constitution, better to listen to Tribe and Gertner than to listen to Dershowitz.
3
Spurious legal arguments - just high paid, high profile 'attorneys' defending their client.
Of course, some might conclude that a certain amount of straw-grasping is at hand....
1
This is not a trial. Calling it a trial assumes an impartial proceeding is taking place.
6
Here we are at the predictable stage of, "Sure, he did it. But so what? It's not a crime." The next stage is, "Okay, it's a crime and he did it, but we're not going to do anything about it. Get over it." Then what? If we're truly lucky Trump won't completely destroy our nation before we can vote him out in November. But if luck isn't in our corner...
8
Abuse of power. What could be impeachable about that? We need more of that. Let's leave Donald Trump in office so he can abuse his power some more.
1
I thought the House should have included bribery in the articles of impeachment because this defense of the President was easily forseeable. Pelosi just didn't have the votes to include bribery.
It doesn't matter if Dershowitz's opinion has any validity. Republicans are in control and it gives them enough political cover to dismiss the proceedings. Democrats are praying four GOP Senators side with them, but don't bet the ranch on it.
3
And Senator McConnell's "rules" for the trial are nothing but a Potemkin village trial. All for show.
Maybe McConnell can make up rules for the 2020 election
as well: Putinesque-style election with only one real candidate.
8
It doesn't matter if Trump's position is "Constitutional Nonsense" or not. What matters is repeating them enough so the average citizen believes the impeachment is nothing more than politics as usual.
4
I think trump should be removed. but as a lawyer it is amusing to read the times denounce Trump's lawyers for writing one sided briefs. does the times tell its lawyers to be sure to be fair to the other side? I doubt it. one thing though. one sided shouldn't mean ignoring the law and the facts, including precedents, because then you lose your credibility and become unpersuasive.
1
And then there is McConnell who brazenly declared his incapability of impartiality, setting the rules and openly telling the public that he plans to acquit the accused.
His mere presence, let alone his influence on this process degrades it to a farce.
What he got away with in the Garland affair, simply emboldened him. Arguably he should’ve been impeached for that.
6
The activities President Trump is accused of committing are a criminal violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The quid pro quo about the Ukraine security aid meets the definition of an offer to authorize the payment of money or anything of value to influence a foreign official in his or her official capacity.
4
A new book, “ Stable Genius”, documents Trump’s desire to repeal the FCPA. It also documents Trump’s complete lack of understanding of how a law, passed by Congress, can be repealed. He is corrupt as they come.
1
Thanks to Senate Republicans and Trump's hack lawyers, we Americans are now living in two nations: the civil one that honors the rule of law, and a maniacal one that does not.
Back in the 1860s, it was the Mason-Dixon line that divided us. Today, it's the Monarchists-Delusion line.
If the Republicans and their defense lawyers make a sham of the impeachment trial, as their president goes scottfree tens of millions of Americans will go berserk in a kind of rage, to quote Trump, "like you've never ever seen before."
6
The President's legal team could deploy another, equally reasonable Dershowitz-style defense: even if Trump did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it should not matter because a majority of American voters never elected Donald Trump to be President in the first place. They elected Hillary Clinton. So it is actually she who should face legal sanctions for any abuse of power Trump commits; and it is she who should be removed from whatever office she happens to be leasing at the moment. This is no more a mockery of the law than Trump's defense is using now.
1
It's too bad that the Founding Father's didn't intend for the party in power to make up the rules to exonerate even the most devilishly corrupt behaviors, then we'd be good.
2
My response to Prof. Dershowitz's admission that most Constitutional scholars would not/do not agree with his interpretation of the Constitution on the issue of impeachment is to quote the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "while everyone is entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts." Mr. Dershowitz, while you have a reputation as being an innovative defense attorney, your expertise in this area does not give you credibility as a Constitutional scholar!
2
Two votes are taken. A vote to acquit or convict on the charges, and if conviction passes a second vote to remove from office.
A Republican with a conscience could vote to convict on the charges with a plan to vote against removal. Why? To let the voters decide in November. Salvation. Jesus loves Republicans too.
Since we're a couple of weeks from the Super Bowl, let's look at this "trial" with a football analogy:
The referees, weeks from the big game, declare they favor the 49ers. They admit they're working with the 49ers to ensure all rules are bent to go their way. A violation that should be a "holding" call against the 49ers is now said to be just helping the opposing player adjust his uniform. The Chiefs are 7 yards out from a touchdown and a receiver makes a 10 yard catch. "No touchdown" declare the compromised refs, "we moved the goalposts at halftime".
Ridiculous you say? Yeah, it is. Yet this is the majority Senate body lead by a rogue referee.
3
Scholars are well and good but Dershowitz is an ICON. A historically democratic Icon to boot. So his argument about this will carry a lot of weight. Lots of swing voters will be tuned in. Hope those scholars have an Obama level of rhetorical skill. They are going to need after Friday.
We all need to face the reality of our situation.
The Vichy GOP can get away with running a sham impeachment trial because they CAN get away with it.
Our system of government gives broad powers to the President and the majority party.
The Vichy GOP aren't going to do anything to jeopardize their position of power and they have a rock solid core of voters who will go along with them.
There is only one solution and that is to vote for every Democrat in every election every year, local, state and federal, even for dog catcher.
The Vichy GOP is obstructing the laws of this country to let someone they all know is unfit get away with an abuse of power.
And if you don't vote for the Democrat, you are allowing it to happen as well.
4
There was violation of public trust?
I do not think there was abuse of power unless Mr. Trump aimed primarily not to stop any seeming corrupt practice Mr. Biden and his son involved themselves in but primarily to do damage to that Mr. Biden regarding the most ultimate fray, the world wrestling in politics for President!
@M. C. Major
That is what he did. Why do you think what he really wanted was an "announcement" of an investigation, not the actual investigation?
And why wasn't he looking into any other kind of corruption?
1
@GS I think he wanted Ukraine to initiate an investigation – however, if the primary purpose in his demand for an investigation was to rein in supposed corruption that had come to his attention, and this may have been due to Joe Biden’s involved duties, and not just to do harm to Mr. Biden, I think he committed no wrong at all. Possibly the only worry, in my view, should be the apparent disrespect of Ukraine’s sovereignty – as he forced an investigation instead of asking if such an investigation could possibly be started to its benefit. There might have been irony in trying to help that nation through forcing it to do an investigation!
There was violation of public trust?
I do not think there was abuse of power unless Mr. Trump aimed primarily not to stop any seeming corrupt practice Mr. Biden and his son involved themselves in but primarily to do damage to the one Joe Biden – mere Democrat?
Scheduling trial for 1pm is perfect for cable news. Leaves time for evidence and testimony from 9am to noon daily. I’d like to see
MSNBC - far left highlights from House & Rachel interviews
CNN - center views of evidence
FOX - the far right spin on why evidence and testimony aren’t relevant.
1
Whether or not a crime is required for impeachment and removal may be an interesting topic of discussion for scholars of Constitutional history - and the consensus view may be right; however, we are far removed from 1789, and we now live in this fast-paced modern world where the decision to remove would have broad worldwide ramifications. That said, in order to reach a bipartisan consensus on the issue of removal a crime would almost certainly have to be alleged; otherwise, the process will always look to one side or the other as a political hatchet job.
During the Watergate affair Nixon collapsed because a broad consensus was reached among the American public for removal - because of his crimes. People understand crimes; academic debates do not resonate with the general public. That is the value of requiring a serious crime to be the predicate for removal. It is, therefore, about time we establish this precedent now with this impeachment.
1
Whatever ends up happening in this impeachment trial, ultimately it is the American voter who will need to hold the senators accountable. We know that the POTUS legal team will try and divert attention away from the facts, and we know the Republican Senators will attempt to find cover under those arguments. The gamble that is being played is that their Republican base will hold them in power regardless of those facts. If the American voter comes out to vote in 2020, we can see that they over played their hand. If we vote them out of office, then we can maybe see if repent for them knowingly going along with someone who is obviously unfit. We can then see who is left standing in the minority and what they may do to repent. Our Democracy was always our right, and we must take this right seriously and show up. If we don't take it this seriously, then these same senators will be even more emboldened to only look out for themselves and not ourselves.
4
It doesn't seem to be a stretch that if democrats want to accuse the president of a crime, they must not only explicitly state what that crime is but also provide evidence that the crime has been committed.
They haven't, which is at the root of all their problems.
AACNY, Please read the 61 Material Facts attached to the Democratic Brief. It is clear that you have not been paying attention to the crafts.
2
@AACNY
He confessed. It was what caused the impeachment inquiry to be launched.
2
This: "Many legal scholars say senators should not take this argument seriously. They point, among other things, to evidence that for centuries before the American Revolution, the British Parliament impeached officials for “high crimes and misdemeanors” that constituted abuses of power but were not indictable offenses. The pattern informed the framers of the Constitution, who echoed that concept."
Is the only argument we need, especially for these "strict constructionist" republicans who like to cite original intent. The meaning of the term was well known for centuries before the founders wrote the constitution. They used it because of that. I don't suppose they imagined anyone would try to pretend it meant anything other than what it means. "High Crimes" is obviously a euphemism for noncriminal crimes that are "high" because they violate the normally expected and accepted uses of public authority granted to those who serve in office. As difficult as it may be for republicans the idea of fairness is intrinsic to all government processes.
1
Trump's crimes in office began with fomenting revolution in his "American carnage" inaugural speech and continued through thousands of violations of the emoluments clause (profiting from receptions at the Trump hotel from which he did not divest himself), both against the constitution he took an oath to uphold. And that was just on his first day playing the role of president. Sadly, we know the rest.
The Constitution says:
"
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Clearly that wording implies that impeachment is not a criminal process and that the criminal process is separate, but still available, should the impeached's offenses also be criminal.
1
I have a simple question that no one has asked. Since these "Senator-Jurors" have sworn to be impartial, why is no one removing those senators who have announced publicly and repeatedly that they are not impartial? I am thinking quite specifically about Mitch McConnell who has said more than once that he is not impartial and that he is taking his marching orders and working in coordination with the defendant. Why is it 'constitutional' for him/them to be jurors when in no other trial in any other setting in this country such a juror would be immediately dismissed?
5
So true! A judge would have removed them from the jury for bias.
2
Precisely! I hope a motion will be made to disqualify any and all impartial jurors stating with McConnell and Cotton.
1
When Alan Dershowitz vigorously defended murderers, like Von Bulow or Simpson, he argued that he wasn’t merely serving his client but serving the American people as a kind of role model: delivering the constitutional protections afforded to all citizens under the Sixth Amendment. Although a few murderers were acquitted, we all benefit.
But an impeachment is not a criminal proceeding and Sixth Amendment protections don’t apply.
What justification can Dershowitz offer if the vigorous defense of his current client, Donald John Trump, irreversibly erodes the separation of powers principles that have protected our democracy for 240 years?
In taking on this case, Dershowitz reveals the truth: he‘s always been in it for fame and wealth. The constitution was merely a clever excuse.
1
Dershowitz, like his client trump, is an unabashed, ego driven grandstander who just wants to see his name “in lights.”
1
“These are very smart, legally informed people,” he said. “They understand the law. They can certainly see through ruses and efforts to distract and divert.”
This does not mean that the Republican senators will refuse to ride the coattails of efforts to distract and divert for partisan reasons. Understanding the law does not mean the senators will follow it.
I have a question, rather than a comment and hope someone can help me.
If, in November, the House remains as a Democratic majority AND the Senate goes to a Democratic majority, can the impeachment charges be reinstated? Can there be new charges and a second impeachment?
I truly do not know, but it is interesting to think about.
Thank you to anyone who can help me.
In a recent NPR interview, Alan Dershowitz admitted that he has always felt “ambiguity” when defending a client—including OJ, von Bulow, Mike Tyson, etc. He implied that there was ambiguity in Trump’s defense. But acquittal in the case of impeachment potentially has such dire consequences for the nation that it seems absurd for an attorney to apply the same standard as for a criminal trial.
If he really feels ambiguity when it comes to Trump, he shouldn’t defend him. Sometimes a hired gun should decline to be hired.
1
So, we can’t impeach because no crimes were committed and the DOJ says we can’t indict a president. Is this now the new republican Trumpian doctrine? Autocrats can only stay in power if the judicial system looks the other way. More than Russian interference, this is Russian indoctrination.
2
Dershowitz's arguments defy logic for two reasons. First, the technical one. According to this article Dershowitz argues that only actual criminal offenses that violate the public trust are impeachable offenses, as he defines "high crimes and misdemeanors." In his historical analysis he says that while there were few codified federal crimes 200 years ago there were common law crimes that would have been considered by the Founders.
Well, I sincerely doubt there were any common law crimes involving violation of the public trust 200 years ago. Common law crimes were ordinary offenses committed against property and public safety, like burglary, robbery, arson, et cetera. How can Dershowitz defend such a position? Is he saying that what we consider to be ordinary crimes would constitute impeachable offenses?
The second and more serious problem with Dershowitz's view is that if it is accepted Congress in the future will find it impossible to remove a President from office except for treason or bribery. That is, unless a contemporary Congress should attempt to codify an impeachable criminal offense, something that would be laughable. Restrictions such as these were clearly not intended 200 years ago.
It is appalling to me that the majority of Republican Senators are probably going to fall for Dershowitz's gibberish.
1
The defense's argument, largely due to the legal obfuscations of legal busybody Alan Dershowitz, (remember him from the OJ Simpson defense team?) amount to arguing about the number of archangels that can dance on the head of a pin, and is about as relevant, to boot. It has been generally accepted that an impeachable offense is what the House of Representatives says it is, but most people who have followed this train-wreck of a presidency have no trouble finding impeachable conduct in the actions of the current occupant of the White House. The outcome of this trial is not in doubt, due to the unforgivable lack of spine in Republican Senators, but that's not the point of this. The point is to get everyone on record as to where they stand on removal for both history, and the voters this November, to judge.
Recalling Lincoln's memorable phrase, Trump's base is fooled all of the time, but the rest of us aren't even fooled some of the time.
2
Olympic athletes perform daily, twice-daily, and thrice-daily acts of physical conditioning that stretch the boundaries of athletic capabilities and endurance. This is what causes records to be broken, ”raises the bar,” decade by decade, and makes previously unimaginable feats into day-to-day realities.
The President’s tweets have performed daily, twice-daily, and thrice-daily acts of mental conditioning on his millions of followers, and on the GOP. This has raised the bar, making what used to be considered profane, uncivil, outrageous, and illegal behaviors into day-to-day realities.
That is why no one should be surprised by the previously unimaginable, outrageous notion of conducting an internationally televised trial without witnesses. The Senate’s GOP members have raised the bar, never to be lowered - even for (gasp!) a Democrat in the White House.
2
A video has surfaced of Dershowitz asserting during the Clinton impeachment that commission of a statutory crime is not needed for impeachment. I guess he changes his principles according to whether he likes the perpetrator. Legal scholars have pointed out that what Trump is accused of doing: using funds appropriated by Congress to extort help for his re-election campaign from a foreign leader, is an action only the president has the power to take. Therefore, Congress would not be inclined to enact a general statute addressing that. And of course, the House, not the president or law professors, has the sole power of impeachment.
That said, Trump may have committed statutory crimes: solicitation of a thing of value for his campaign from a foreign national, 53 U.S.C. §§ 30121 and 30109; and obstruction of a congressional investigation, 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
1
"it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime.".....So Republicans think the whole thing revolves around whether he was charged with a specific crime rather than whether he committed one? In my book that is pretty much tantamount to admitting that he is guilty.
1
Senate Republicans: most of you understand, in quiet moments, that your president is without honor or honesty, that his thirst is not quenchable, that you have been dragged along in this grotesque parade away from the principles that made your party relevant. The impeachment trial is perhaps your last opportunity to end your own collaboration. To do what’s right, i.e. to call for witnesses, the baseline of fair court procedure, is sure to cost you the approval of this president and his angriest supporters. It will frustrate some of the donors you rely on. It may earn you the wrath of evangelicals who’ve gone cheap for power. On the other hand, if you stand by while this president continues to defile the Constitution, twist the courts to his advantage, consolidate power to his family, exploit racial hatred, and remove protections to our air and water - if that’s the legacy you choose, then it’s my weary promise that not many years from now, your own neighbors will forget they knew you. Your grown children will roll their eyes behind your back, and your grandchildren will openly revile you for the damage you have done. Many of you have been in power too long to remember the sting of conscience. Remember it now. Whom you support, you become.
1
“These are very smart, legally informed people,” he said. “They understand the law. They can certainly see through ruses and efforts to distract and divert.”
I fear Mr. Mikhail puts too much faith in REPUBLICANS. They are very happy to deny climate science. They are very happy to believe in 'trickle-down' economics. They are very happy to blame the poor for society's ills.
REPUBLICANS will wrap themselves up like a pretzel in order to make a buck and to get their tax-breaks. Shame on them all.
The only way Senator COLLINS, R-ME, votes with the Democrats on anything in this so-called trial, is if she gets permission from McCONNELL so she can have some cover in her next election in 2020. It will be interesting to see how he lets her vote. Peace.
1
What we seem to be able to conclude from this list of lawyerly comments is the old adage “You pays your money and you takes your pick”. Lawyers can prepare any case you wish but in the end the judgement rests with a jury of your peers. The Jury in this case is a jury of Donald Trump’s supporters – not only his peers. In my opinion the formal impeachment articles, the arguments against Mr. Trump are not convincing because Mr. Trump can legitimately argue that he was trying to get to the bottom of the Russia Collusion hoax which bedevilled his administration from day 1.
I would dearly like to see Donald Trump removed from Office and I hope he will lose the 2020 Presidential Election.
1
Suppose a state experienced a natural disaster. And suppose the president refused to release federal emergency aid until the governor supplied dirt on one of the president's rivals. Is there any question in anyone's mind that the president had committed an impeachable offense? Is there any question in anyone's mind that what Trump did was far worse than than what the hypothetical president had done?
6
In our modern world, any bunch of words that can be strung together is a defense, as long as 40% of the people say it is a viable defense. Consistency with the law, logic, English grammar, or common sense is not needed. One only has to string a bunch of words together, and if it is in defense of the GOP, the GOP courts will uphold it. Fox News is a master at this.
3
As I read McConnell and the Republicans attitude towards how to deal with the impeachment of Donald Trump is reminiscent of H.L. Mencken’s adage that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Like Mencken, they have demonstrated their contempt for the American public.
2
First, and perhaps most important is to stop using impeachment for the Senate trial. Trump has already been impeached by the House. It's over. The Senate procedure can and should be called a removal trial. You cannot have a removal trial until the impeachment is over. The Senate is more like a trial but the the jury and indeed all players are and always will be biased. But bias is one thing and outright fabrication and exaggeration should not be allowed. There are facts and we should be able to recognize them as facts. There is no such thing as alternative facts. If the WH lawyers want to argue around the facts or try to dismiss them out of hand, they can but I hope the public can see through it.
2
Republicans are saying "don't bother us with the facts. We've already made up our minds and our opinions say 'Not guilty'."
Generally, in most trials, the judge will caution the jury that the opening arguments of the attorneys on both sides are not considered as evidence, and that the only real evidence will come from witnesses who are testifying under oath.
McConnell doesn't even want to have the record of the House trial accepted by the Senate. Perhaps he wants to keep his blindfold on, by blocking the record from the House impeachment proceedings to be introduced into the record in the Senate because it would clearly show that the president blocked all the witnesses subpoenaed and documents from being used as evidence in the House.
Yes, Mitch, the statue of Justice does wear a blindfold, but it isn't for the purpose of rigging the system. Everyone knows what a trial should be, but you don't. If you block a meaningful trial from the House, it will come back to haunt you and the Republicans in the future.
12
So what can ordinary patriotic Americans do?
It’s very simple especially for all those fox and friends simple minds.
There apparently are TWO US CONSTITUTIONS.
One that the republicans and Moscow Mitch adhere to when it’s convenient.
Like denying a sitting president a Supreme Court nomination and allowing a president to obstruct congressional laws by refusing ALL subpoenas for facts, documents and witnesses.
And the other US constitution which was drafted and signed by the founding fathers of our nation.
How do we defend our democracy when we have those who are tearing up the laws of our democratic republic?
11
@Mandarine :
How do we defend democracy when the minority wins every time?
1
Trump has wantonly breached his public trust responsibilities and instead behaves as if he was king, exactly what our founding fathers sought so fervently to protect the country from. Trump's actions are not justified by what Trump says or Dershowitz for that matter, and to ignore those public trust responsibilities is to ignore the constitution and the expressed warnings of our founding fathers.
5
When a nation of laws becomes a nation of lawyers, “justice” becomes merely the byproduct of riches, power, tribe, fame, and ultimately, savage cleverness.
6
Alan Dershowitz has sold his soul, and so far we can only conjecture what lies behind that.
But guess what? The legal and constitutional arguments don’t matter in this trial. The Senate Republicans simply aren’t going to remove Trump. They’ve already told us that.
Actions do matter, though. The ideals of our Republic will live on, and history will judge accordingly those who scorned them.
8
"High Crimes" has always been construed to have nothing to do with statutory law, much less criminal law.
Team Trump is creating a fake constitutional restriction on Congress's power to impeach and remove a president.
5
When lots of people are afraid of someone, that means that someone is dangerous. Lots of people are afraid of Trump. Trump is dangerous. Full Stop!
5
@jimfaye
No one is more threatened by Trump than the democrats. He has bested them at almost every turn. Everything in their arsenal has been fired at him, and, yet, they have failed to take him down.
What power was abused? None. The President withheld aid to Ukraine for a combination of reasons—most of them reasons Obama withheld the aid. The difference is that Trump withheld the aid for a time because he wanted assistance from Ukraine to investigate a very troubling situation involving a man who could potentially become President. What is wrong with that? The Dems did the same thing regarding Trump before the 2016 election. This is pure politics.
6
What is unlawful here is the executive branch withholding aid already appropriated and approved by Congress, without the consent of Congress. This is about checks and balances. What is unethical is asking a foreign government to investigate your political opponent AND you releasing this aid is contingent upon the investigation.
4
Time to turn off fox and friends.
President Obama NEVER with held financial military aid from Ukraine.
President Obama placed sanctions on Putin for interference with our 2016 election.
3
Funny how you're so sure of yourself, yet vague. Tell us, did Obama withhold foreign aid for a country in a dangerous position to not only investigate Trump, but for a public announcement to investigate him? As far as Biden goes, the fact remains that the prosecutor never levied any charges at him. The fact no evidence has been presented, not even anything from Trump, to justify an investigation says a lot. But let's face it, you don't care. We know if Obama had done even half the things Trump did, you'd be blue in the face calling for removal, but for right wingers, there's no such thing as abuse of power, just people you don't like using it. In your eyes, Trump is a god can do no wrong, an unhealthy relationship with a leader if you ask me.
3
We have a clear cut case of bribery! How it's worded is less important that what unfolded. Do we condone this behavior or do we make "scholarly" convoluted excuses for it?
8
The scary thing is that most GOP Senators seem to be taking their oaths lightly. Why not review evidence? Why not question people who have knowledge of events? If the President is innocent there should be no concern. I fear dangerous precedents are being set! Regardless of party we should stand for justice and the Constitution!
15
In 2016, Lindsey Graham predicted that if the Republicans nominated Trump, he will destroy the Republican Party, adding “and we will deserve it.”
Now We are watching his prediction come to fruition.
5
The facts establish that Trump engaged in serious misconduct. Impeachment is based on misconduct by a high official. "High crimes" refers to the type of misconduct that only applies to violations of one's oath of office and the public trust. There is no specific requirement that any particular laws be broken. So, Dershowitz's argument is 100% untenable. It shows how indefensible Trump's position is that he cannot come up with any credible argument against removal from office.
7
Simply stated, If witnesses are not called, there is no "trial." Call it what you want but it is not a trial.
15
Trump's defense is similar to that used by angry teenagers. Just state your position loudly and don't pay any attention to the facts at hand.
Trump and team complain that the whistleblower was not exposed. Sorry, but whistleblowers have legal protection. The fact that there is a whistleblower is irrelevant, the only thing they did was point to the event, they had nothing to do with the actual event.
Trump and team complain that they were not able to mount a defense during the impeachment proceedings. When has there ever been a defense during a grand jury investigation? Never! The time to have a defense is during the *trial* and now their best defense is that there should be no trial because there was no defense during the grand jury investigation.
9
Anyone who try to compare Trump’s trial to Clinton’s should remember that beside the obvious difference between the seriousness of the charges against them, Clinton was capable of compartmentalizing and continue to function as president . Trump, who hardly focuses on his job as president under normal circumstances, is completely consumed by the impeachment predicament he’s in, is doing nothing remotely connected to running the country .
It is just one more proof that he is unfit for the job and the urgency of removing him from office, either through impeachment or election.
8
@Ran :
More basic, all witnesses were questioned in Grand Jury hearings.
2
@Ran
Trump signed a new China trade agreement and a revised NAFTA agreement, while democrats were giddily handing out their impeachment pens.
The president hasn't stopped at all.
The founding fathers—noble as they were—still had their faults we would not care to repeat today. Among some of the most avoidable would have to be the practice of the duel. How very often matters of honor were settled in this way. Alexander Hamilton (mentioned here in this article), for example, could not avoid acknowledging Vice President Aaron Burr’s challenge for a duel after he had viciously attacked him in the press. The “Gentleman” should have both fired into the ground. Hamilton fired High. Burr fired straight. Hamilton was killed. The country suffered.
For those who always say, this or that person or thing is “the worst ever” probably have forgotten or perhaps never knew, what it’s like to stand perfectly still as someone fires accross from you a small metal ball with the force of a canon.
Would our cut President stand still? Maybe. But he avoided military service, so he’d have a willing second for sure.
Let’s stop all the nonsense, nitpicking “scholarship” and disingenuous moralizing. The Democrats want Trump out at any cost, period. They fear that he is succeeding and will do or say anything to prevent his re-election. Trouble is, they don’t have the votes or the evidence, come to that. The Mueller fiasco is an excellent example of what can happen when you bluff with an empty hand. People generally don’t try it twice in the same game.
6
So did you at least look at the Mueller report or did Hannity do that for you?
Of course, if the so-called legal scholars are anything like those partisan hacks who the House brought forward to testify in their impeachment fiasco. President Trump is represented some of the most brilliant legal minds in history. He will triumph and go on to re-election. Too bad he can't be re-elected over and over again. Forever Trump! Thank you.
4
Trump’s lawyers think they could get away with legal nonsense to mislead the public. If they’d have their way, he simply couldn’t be impeached regardless what he has done. Spineless Republicans know the full gravity of his criminal misconduct and they make a mockery of this impeachment trial, It just reveals their moral turpitude.
This will send a wrong message to young people, as they see Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuse of power for personal gains – financial and political – as normal behaviour.
The Framers were right about not relying on voters to remove an abusive president, nor letting him serve out his term.
The House has done its constitutional duty to impeach Trump. It’s up GOP senators to do impartial justice.
6
For every attorney representing Donald Trump in these proceedings their respective bar licensing bodies should keep a sharp eye on their conduct and comportment. I would not put it past any of them to play fast and loose with rules, procedures and tenets in order to ensure a victory for their client. And that calls into question their character and fitness as attorneys. And they don't get a free pass here because their client is the President of the United States.
1
Well, maybe this exercise in constitutional, legal and political theater will help further define what is and what isn’t an impeachable offense.
One thing is clear, though, that if you are going to impeach someone at least define an offense that remains consistent throughout. Otherwise it seems as if it’s all made up as you go along— and then becomes partisan in appearance.
4
@Jules
Telling is that democrats started with bribery, brought only vague articles, and are now back to bribery. Senator Schumer even reprised "foreign interference" when announcing the articles' delivery to the Senate.
One could say the democrats are taking an "Everything but the kitchen sink" approach. Throwing things against the wall, hoping some will stick.
In total, Donald Trump and his legal team contend his president authority is unlimited.
It cannot legally be a foreign policy goal to have another country help him win election, or else suffer a dangerous delay in military funding already appropriated by Congress.
Abuse of office and power must bring accountability.
And there is the factor of Trump deploying non-state department actors to secretly maneuver in another country, demean a US ambassador, render her frightened, while strong arming the president of that foreign nation.
3
Dershowitz isn't really arguing his case in the Senate. He's creating a sound bite that can be played over and over on Fox, until 40% of Americans believe that Trump hasn't done anything improper. After all, they will have heard no arguments to the contrary.
7
Dershowitz is famous for the infamous clients he has represented in his career. To me, he’s infamous for his “torture warrant” proposal, which would have allowed courts to issue torture warrants to police to extract information from suspected terrorists. The man’s legal mind is appalling.
If the theory that the president can be removed from office only for committing conventional crimes is correct, doesn’t that mean the president is immune from removal for abuses of office that are misdeeds unavailable to the rest of us, such as extorting or bribing a foreign government for his own benefit? Murder yes, treason no?
Is election help from a from a foreign government an emolument, or does that mean only things like gold ingots, fancy China, or private archipelagos - or perhaps safe haven in exile?
Those not so enthralled in the cult of Trumpism that they can make no rational judgments when it comes to the president, this majority of Americans can clearly see no ordinary crime is needed to remove the president for grave offenses committed while and as a part of being in office. Even if we let the president take Air Force One for joyrides to far flung golf courses at our expense.
Only someone delusional, or highly paid, or lusting to bask once more in the national spotlight, could come to any other conclusion. That is exactly why the Constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors and not jaywalking, tax cheating, assault, highway robbery, and other crimes on the books.
The president is not a king, no matter what William Barr says.
8
In the Clinton trial, the Senate found that he had indeed broken statutory law by committing perjury/lying under oath and attempting to influence witness testimony. However, the Senate (including some Republicans) found that those statutory violations didn't actually rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors intended by the Framers as impeachable offenses.
So, Clinton can break the law and NOT meet the high crimes and misdemeanor standard, whereas Trump needn't even break the law in order to do so.
Consideration of the facts is warranted in any impeachment scenario, often including facts that are non-criminal yet highly distasteful (see Clinton).
Still, let's not pretend that certain Presidents should be subject to lower standards (whether pertaining to whether the violation of statutory law is dispositive of impeachment or whether non-criminal behaviors and facts should be considered in impeachments) than even very-recent history would support.
1
@Stephen
Yes, Clinton actually perjured himself and democrats gave him a pass so their credibility here is weak.
Why does it seem the GOP is always two steps ahead of the Democrats? Are the Republicans smarter and craftier, or do they just have better legal counsel? For years, McConnell has demonstrated this uncanny ability to pull something out that stops the Democrats in their tracks.
2
@Tom
Democrats did a great job with Nixon's impeachment. They realized it was a political event and knew they had to convince Nixon supporters. They operated in a bipartisan fashion from the very beginning. The process was fair and tight. Leaking was out.
Contrast that with how the leftwing has pushed Speaker Pelosi on impeachment. The "investigation" was hurried, partisan and produced questionable charges.
Majority Leader McConnell is a genius, but democrats owe a big part of their impeachment problems to progressives, whose judgment isn't the greatest.
Simply because the GOP are totally bereft of scruples and are impervious to shame.
3
@Jack Shultz
But, the GOP WINS... and on the most important issues to this country. Supreme Court Justices. And now Impeachment. Democrats need to take a critical look at their party, and quick, on how to think ahead, act more boldly, become craftier and more creative, and grab media attention with an effort on swaying public opinion.
2
Shouldn't we have a higher standard for a president than, "did terrible things but didn't actually break the law"? Or, "he would have broken the law if we had written a law about that, but we never thought a president would do that in public"?
7
This argument was successful cover for the political deal which saved Andrew Johnson. It was also successfully used by Mr Dershowitz to defend Bill Clinton on it’s merits and precedent from removal (for nothing that was anyone’s business but his his wife and Ms Lewinsky).
This trial is looking more rigged than the Johnson trial.
Senators who find nothing wrong withholding aid they themselves appropriated and directed be spent per the Constitution are not living up to their oaths of office and should themselves in turn be impeached.
3
It seems to me they are crafting their legal argument to give FOX News easy-to-digest sound bites. Senators should, hopefully, see through it.
2
Bowman and others should just save their strength for other, fairer fights. If ever there was a rigged “trial” this is it. How ironic that so-called “American justice” becomes such an amorphous street fighter when the stakes are highest.
1
The problem that commentators and experts face when analyzing this impeachment is Trump doesn't care about legalities or tradition or anything that matters, but is only focused on the "show." And here he has defined the rules of engagement. By declaring that "everything is perfect" "he did nothing wrong" "no crime", etc., he is telling Americans that Congress is wasting their money. His team and Republican supporters in Congress have defined the show and they're playing to an audience that only cares about the show. President Clinton tried to say that what he did was not impeachable while finally admitting to having done something he shouldn't have. Trump will never admit to doing anything wrong at anytime, and that is all 38-40 percent of voters care about.
1
How will The Chief Justice & The USC’s explicit Presider over this Senate Trial conduct himself? Will he be an honest procedural manager or a diminutive partisan hack?
It is noteworthy that ‘only’ The President’s Trial asserts the above requirement. Is that because The Highest Judicial Official of this nation is so for life? And is therefore beholden to no citizen or Public Official for maintaining his personal livelihood & welfare.
He’s The Decider in Chief in overseeing that this Trial is conducted fairly & not anyone else. And that’s on who the media, public Officials & common citizens need to primarily focus upon. Like a military court marshal this is a judicial venue but not a political proceeding.
2
Sometime the forest is lost through the trees. We don't have to go back to the Federal Papers to see how ridiculous is the argument made by Trump's attorneys. Imagine the president decided to drop a nuclear bomb on Tehran and declare war (assuming he could get the military go along). Or imagine he started some other war and just lied about it in messages to Congress. Even most Republican senators would consider these impeachable offenses although not crimes. Or take Dershowitz's other theory that if the President commits obstruction, it is not a crime because he did it. The only way to deal with it then is impeachment. Perhaps OJ will be a character witness!!
2
Dershowitz _et al._ don’t need to convince GOP senators of the legal merits of their novel “Constitutional interpretations,” they only need to get airtime for their twisted sophistry on Fox News and the rest will take care of itself.
I’m appalled by the unwavering fealty of Trump’s addled masses. I guess life’s so much easier when it’s uncomplicated with legalities and critical engagement. I’d certainly like to expect more from the senators—who, by the way, are expected to represent all of their constituents, not just the Fox News viewership—but as Upton Sinclair puts it, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
4
It might be very useful if a group of nationally prominent
constitutional scholars would hold a solemn national teach in
to instruct the country about the history of what
the terms used in the Constitution meant and continue
to mean.
Some national media have tried to do this, NYT
in particular, while others do nothing more than
exhale propaganda smoke. As a result, what is missing is the type of
electronic media event needed to exert the needed institutional and collective pressure upon the trumpican senators not to engage
in a travesty wherein words mean whatever "we want
them to mean".
If we were a parliamentary form of government, all would be needed is a vote of no confidence. No legal theories or interpretations required.
18
@Hmmmm
While that is true, the outcome could be the same - if the party in power has a majority as the Republicans do in the Senate and all vote as one.
1
The defense might make no constitution sense -- but it makes psychological sense -- for Trump and his followers. It is just everything and the kitchen sink to keep from being overwhelmed.
If you don't pay attention to this, you will fail to deal with the issue.
8
@unification
What possible factual argument could be made to convince the occupant’s followers? They will not read any news or listen to anyone who doesn’t unreservedly and loudly applaud their choice of occupant.
2
Dems’ proceedings in the House were a complete sham and fully partisan. Republicans need to dismiss the case in the Senate and move on to more important things that Americans care about.
If you don’t like Trump, go vote next November. You will not remove Trump from being President any other way, no matter how hard you try.
7
Yes, tell Trump to move on to infrastructure repair. For some reason he was not able to get that done even when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House. But at least he managed to destroy the quality of school lunches for young children! I guess that’s an accomplishment of sorts?
5
@JP
And what of the Constitution?
Is the only problem with the impeachment merely House procedure? What of the substance? Shouldn't the Senate look into the substance? And since it is Republican controlled, shouldn't the Senate demonstrate to the American People what proper procedure should look like? Instead, you advocate for a great sweeping under the rug. No thanks.
Republicans are establishing the precedent that future impeachment trials will refer to. They are effectively removing impeachment from the Constitution, all to please Trump. I'll say this; Trump isn't worth that. One other thing; shame on the Republicans.
2
The case is clearly not a sham. Trump withheld appropriated funds for personal gain. There is no honest argument about that fact. The argument that the impeachment was wrong simply because the House voted along partisan lines merely means, to many, that the Republicans were derelict in their duty to uphold the rule of law.
2
Does not the ruling on it was against the law for them withholding the money count as anything?
14
@Mark The Welder
The problem is that the money was released and within the prescribed timeframe. Was it really a crime if Ukraine received the funds on time and the president never benefitted? It is debatable and hardly the slam dunk democrats are portraying it as.
1
@Mark The Welder :
Read the news more closely. Neither the Rule of Law nor the US Constitution mean anything to Trump, the GOP Congress, the GOP base, or the GOP courts.
3
‘Constitutional Nonsense’: Trump’s Impeachment Defense Defies Legal Consensus, "and logic".
6
The “rules” for this “trial” could come right out of The Mad Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland.
Really, we’re through the Looking Glass!
On a sane note: ONLY the GOP would propose “12 hour working days.”
18
Everyone does know this ends in an acquittal right?
It's been a foregone conclusion since day one.
Message to the unhinged Left: Please don't act surprised, disappointed or outraged here when the inevitable becomes reality. YOU SHOULD BE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN !
What should really worry the Dems is the Pandoras box they opened. The next time the Republicans control the House under a Democratic President, we will see an impeachment.
This is all they accomplished here
6
@Norville T. Johnson
So the House should ignore any and all impeachable abuses of presidential power because the Senate majority party will acquit anyway? I wonder how many of the occupant’s loyal followers in the Senate and House said that about former President Bill Clinton case including Senator Lindsey Graham?
3
@Norville T. Johnstone :
Support the Rule of Law or not.
Defend the Constitution or not.
Sometimes it is better to defend something important and lose than not defend it at all.
I get no Conservatives hold that value.
3
@Norville T. Johnstone
Impeachment will be dead after this and so will the Republican party.
Dershowitz says there was no crime therefore impeachment was not proper. The president had to have committed a crime for him to be impeached according to Dershowitz. The reason there is no crime is because Mueller could not indict the President. If Mueller could have indicted the president there would have been many crimes committed by the president. Dershowitz has twisted himself into a catch 22 form of legal pretzel logic.
12
@Richard Bryen Mueller certainly could have indicted trump, and in my view he should have. Let the attorney general fight him on that one. Mueller revealed himself to be a partisan republican when he claimed his resistance to indictment was baked into the constitution. In fact this is merely a justice department policy that was worthy of a challenge. And who better as the poster child than the man who is not only a crooked president, but who is incompetent and a very bad person as well?
CNN aired two clips of Alan Dershowitz. One was from the Clinton impeachment where Dershowitz said " A President can be impeached without having committed a crime." This past week Dershowitz said "A President cannot be impeached if said President has not committed a crime." It would be interesting to see what Dershowitz would say when he is asked about his contradictions.
19
It seems to me that trying to follow the rules laid down 240 years ago is like trying to follow bible rules in today's world. It simply is nonsense and needs an update before we elect anybody to any office in the good ole USofA.
2
How do we call ourselves a democracy when our legislative branch does not up hold the Constitution!!!
19
I would like to hear professor Dershowitz explain the difference between a "technical crime" and a crime.
8
They say if you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law; and if you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts. Here Trump doesn't have either the facts or the law on their side, so they have to invent alternative facts and law. It is shameful!
21
We might as well crown Trump Emperor right now. We all know he wears no clothes, but so what? His lies don’t matter to Mitch et al, much less the truth. Our democracy is a sham when officials like Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr and Devin Nunes openly conspire with the White House and henchman Rudy to subvert the Constitution and make Trump Supreme Ruler. I am afraid, very afraid. But are our representatives so out of touch that they fear Trump’s base over the rule of law? November 3 won’t be just a backlash, it will be a tsunami of righteous disgust.
24
@jammitt Amen to that. So let's all make sure the next Blue Wave smacks Moscow Mitch and Don the Con right in the face.
3
@jammit
I hope so but the farmers and evangelicals in the swing states who elected this corrupt occupant are still wildly enthusiastic about him.
2
Honestly, it doesn't even matter. Trump has been tried, judged and sentenced in the court of public opinion to be a dirty, cheating, lying politician (just like he was as a civilian man). Whatever happens in the Senate is of no impact -- just a bunch of mostly boys playing with marbles. What's done is already done and we can thank Pelosi for it. Trump is a dead fish -- but yes whatever crack he fed to the economy is keeping us quite high. Get the whole thing over with and let the senators get back to campaigning.
5
Have GOP lawmakers thought through the dangers they are putting themselves in by supporting this sham trial? Lifelong scofflaw Trump and his sleazy-to-the-core personal attorney William Barr are going for nothing less than a full-blown autocracy, and the GOP is on a path to giving it to them. This duo have already used government power to go after political enemies and their apologist Dershowitz brazenly asserts that the president has a constitutional right to abuse presidential power. Just last week, Barr declared in a speech that he should have full backdoor access to every GOP lawmaker's iPhone.
What does the GOP think will happen once these two crooks are done arrogating absolute power to themselves? Do they think the new king will reward them for their loyalty? He won’t need them any more and he has betrayed his closest associates time and again. Do they think he will always be on "white men's" side? The career con man has never been on anyone's side but his own, as his dupes have repeatedly discovered when it's too late. Do they think they will be able to vote him out? There will likely not be an election in 2024, because Trump knows he will be in jail if he ever leaves office. Once he turns on them and starts picking them off one by one, with no checks left on executive power, what will GOP lawmakers do then?
10
As Commander in Chief Trump should have been impeached after sharing the stage with Putin in Helsinski and stating he believe Putin over American National Security Agencies. Was that not treason?
23
Mr. Dershowitz's 180 degrees change from his 1998 constitutional argument reminds me of a quote from Emerson,"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
2
It's amazing to me that Alan Dershowitz, a criminal attorney, would have the chutzpah to stand up in public and make a constitutional argument, never mind one which runs counter to the opinions of most real constitutional scholars. He'll be like a first year law student writing a paper which he thinks brilliant but is really silly. Dershowitz has a reputation, earned or unearned, of being an innovative criminal lawyer(I, for one, don't fault him for his list of past clients), but he has zero qualifications for the very important task at hand. Why isn't he embarrassed?
7
@LSR
He doesn’t care. He’s retired. He just wants the attention.
Gerald Ford said, when trying to impeach Justice Douglas for dating younger women, that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives thinks it is. Federalist 65 states that an impeachable offense is POLITICAL (caps in original). What does Dershowitz think of that?
2
Remember the great Soupy Sales' "Words of Wisdom" ?
"Show me an impeachment trial, where the POTUS calls it a hoax; whose defense team includes the hypocrites Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz; while Republicans considered the initial investigations akin to a "kangaroo court" yet will stop at nothing to prevent evidence and testimonies from coming to light..
And, I'll show you what looks an awful lot like a cover-up."
And I agree with what someone else mused about Lev Parnas; could he be the "new John Dean?"
3
Dershowitz is the fig leaf that Republicans have used for years to get the media into “he said, she said” mode.
One study (funded by big tobacco) says fisher erred don’t cause cancer, so we can’t really know.
One study (funded by big oil) says climate change is a hoax, so we can’t really know.
2
I wonder what the current faculty of Harvard Law School think of their Emeritus colleague’s opinion.
I also wonder if Dershowitz has read the Federalist #65, carefully.
From his multiple appearances of Fox TV, Dershowitz seems to lack a coherent legal strategy, and is putting out these specious legal arguments to appeal to the ill-informed deplorable crowd. “Yeah, yeah, no crime, no time.”
Let’s just say if Dershowitz is representing Harvard Law School, he’s certainly doing them no favors. Emeritus Professor indeed.
6
Come on Dershowitz would never defend someone who was guilty of criminal behavior like Claus von Bulow, O.J., and Jeffrey Epstein.
With a record like that, how can one doubt his believe in the innocence of his clients.
1
Lawyers are very slippery fellows. They can make black seem white and vice versa. Mr. Dershowitz is particularly slippery. What we need here is not so much sophistry but simple common sense...which the majority of Americans seem to have more of than many legislators...and many lawyers.
4
Don't expect witnesses or additional documents.
Trump's lawyers are not making a legal argument, they are making a rhetorical argument which will allow the Senate to acquit without dealing with the damning facts.
History will not be kind to Trump or his Republican lackeys. After the lies and projections fade, the truth will emerge.
Let the Republicans know how you feel on November 3rd. Vote.
11
The Only Nonsense is that there is this Unjustified impeachment at all.....it all so shows how Our Justice department was letting Biden and his son get away with selling out influence without being investigated!
2
Wow! Your own argument completely undermines the defense of the president you support! You just admitted that the DoJ should do the investigating. So Trump’s use of Giuliani and a foreign government to investigate Biden is indeed, an abuse of power! He should be impeached! Thank you!
1
The country is divided between a basket of Democrats and a basket of Republicans and these entire impeachment has been partisan except the opposition to impeachment which has been bipartisan and independents are possibly opposed to it too.
Under such circumstances the divided states of American should become united by voting in the 2020 elections when the democracy by the people off the people and for the people restores the power to the people not their representatives.
I have followed ever minute of the impeachment proceedings and I can think too and do not need any arm chair scholars on how to think or my senator from Kentucky Mitch McConnell to be put in a spot to be the juroro. The legal case should be decided by the people and so I call for dismissal of the impeachment articles so that we the people are not insulted by our reps before the Nov. 2020 elections. The impeachment of Clinton was wrong but at least it did not usurp the power of the people because it happened after his reelection.
6
@Girish Kotwal Dear Girish, the opposition to the impeachment is hardly bipartisan. Your Senator McConnell signed up for the job and this is one of the tasks. He has put himself on the spot by declaring that he will not be impartial and will not review evidence.
Would you care to try that strategy next time you are called to jury duty?
21
@Girish Kotwal
By your logic, no 1st-term president could/should be impeached thereby giving that person carte blanche to do whatever he/she desires irrespective of the offense. That is not a country in which I would desire to live. From day 1 of his presidency, Trump has run roughshod over the truth and the Constitution. While he likely did neither knew or understood the significance of having Russia weigh in on our election, he absolutely knows (or should know) now that foreign participation/influence in our elections is neither legal nor beneficial to the interests of the U.S.. Allowing Trump, or any president, to corrupt our democracy merely because he has another election in which the People can vote him out of office says it akin to allowing someone to run through a red light because, there is another one up the road! Checks on power and corruption are placed in our system for a good reason.
1
@Girish Kotwal
Do you think your representatives should follow the Constitution, or the opinions of their particular "basket" of constituents in their party? Don't forget, Kentucky has a democrat basket with one or two members in it. Doesn't McConnell owe them something too?
The only way this works is for representatives to follow the Constitution. You should settle for nothing less.
We are currently witnessing a power grab in real time. Basically, the Trump legal is arguing that the President has unlimited power and is not subject constitutional restraints or oversight by Congress. It will be interesting to see how much Republicans will continue to support Trump if he is defeated in November and refuse to leave office.
17
And now which law enforcement group will physically remove a delusional Donald Trump who as Commander in Chief might call for military intervention to keep this from leaving.
Capitol police?
US Marshall’s?
DC police?
Military Police?
FBI?
You KNOW Trump will resist wirh maximum force. I can just see him now trying to use Melania as a human shield...
And the absolute most incredulous part is that these GOP Senators are defending Trump as he decimates their very own congressional powers defined in the US Constitution.
What in God’s name is wrong with these GOPers?Are the just nuts?
They’re slinging the sledgehammer on themselves!
This is just beyond belief.
1
@Dearson
They will test the political winds in their districts/red states and decide. An unpopular, Senator Graham desperately hopes his 180 degree switch on the occupant will save his Senate seat. For the red states and red districts, Fox News pundits will tell them “who” to support and “why.”
The only logic that explains the GOP's argument is they anticipate Trump will never leave office.
They are now close to achieving Rove's great dream; Permanent GOP rule, and they see Trump as their agent to that end.
12
@Chris Morris
Yes, this is the frightening conclusion.
But the Constitution means whatever the Republicans, and Republican appointed SC justices, say it means. Corporations = people, money = speech, and the 2nd Amendment's opening clause about citizen gun rights being connected to maintaining a well regulated militia doesn't mean a thing.
Constitutional interpretation is neither about original intent nor a plain, commonsense reading. It's about expediency and today's conservative values.
21
If Trump lawyers want to keep Bolton and others from testifying by arguing that trump’s actions don’t amount to impeachable conduct,
will they sign on to a statement of agreed facts that acknowledge that Trump withheld congressionally-appropriated military aid and official meetings while using back-channels to pressure the Ukrainian president into delivering to Trump in-kind campaign contributions?
Otherwise, bring on Bolton,Mulvaney,Blair, Duffy and others....
7
It seems useless to argue constitutional interpretation. The bottom line is that senators, representing the people, will vote for the impeachment. If impeachment process failed in the senate, then it means that people don't want to impeach the president.
If the majority of the people don't agree with the senate result, then our system is a problem, at least to select the senates.
2
Nowhere does the constitution define 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and therefore nowhere does it require that impeachment require accusation of a criminal act. Even so, Trump has committed at least two crimes just in the Ukraine affair; violation of federal election law (52 U.S.C. Section 30121 (a)(2)) and violation of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act. It's been said that 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' means whatever a majority of Congress says it means and the real reason for this is that impeachment and removal from office aren't subject to judicial review. Trump can't appeal his impeachment to any court, nor can he appeal a conviction. The house and senate have the final say.
8
The framers of the US constituion did not foresee that their imprecise language will make lucrative work for lawyers this century. It's like theology -- interpreting scripture. No wonder.
Example 1: an act by a president of public official in this century may or may not be impeachable because things were different in the fall of 1787.
Example 2: The "the right to bear arms" certainly includes bow and arrow and, at its most sophisticated, a flintlock. But the gun lobby argues the constitution allows one to own AK47 and assault rifles. Gun opponents argue that's not what the framers had in mind.
Example 3: A "militia". Can any group for an army?
6
I was always taught that if a majority of the House impeached, and 2/3rds of the Senate voted to convict, then the President would be removed. The fail safe that the Founders devised to ensure an impeachment is not spurious was the super majority requirement for conviction. The language “other high crimes and misdemeanors” leaves it up to the Congress to define. So how can Dershowitz claim that abuse of power, on its face, is not impeachable? Or that there must be a criminal violation? He can argue that impeaching for abuse of power is not advisable, that its a terrible idea, but it certainly is allowed by the Constitution. Or am I missing something?
8
“These are very smart, legally informed people. They understand the law. They can certainly see through ruses and efforts to distract and divert.”
Mr. Mikhail, you’re talking about career Republican politicians in a Republican-controlled Senate. I defy anyone to believe that Lindsey Graham, for example, is behaving like a “smart, legally informed” person who is capable of seeing through “ruses and efforts to distract and divert.”
The lust to gain and maintain power and favor apparently trumps (ha!) any amount of intelligence and legal training.
18
It's not necessary for Trump to present a coherent, legal defense. His defense doesn't matter in the least. Whether he committed a crime, or overstepped his office doesn't matter either. Republican senators and millions of Americans decided long before now that Trump did not violate the law, or if he did he's entitled to because he's Trump. The entire "trial" is meaningless. To even call whatever this is the senate is engaged in a "trial" is laughable. Constitutional scholars no longer have any sway, if they ever did. The constitution itself has become obsolete.
12
@Ms. Pea You know, I don't think any of this would be such a huge issue if Trump hadn't pre-emptively blocked Bolton and Mulvaney from testifying in front of the house and now McConnell is continuing to attempt to suppress. Because it makes Trump look bad. This is about getting information out to the voting public.
Trump and the Republicans can't answer one fundamental question that the Democrats inexplicably don't hammer repeatedly: if Trump is innocent, why is he preventing all witnesses from testifying, and obstructing all facets of the investigation?
As Republicans used to say frequently, if you have nothing to hide, no witness could possibly cause harm.
Also, McConnell likes to say he is conducting this impeachment trial like the Clinton trial, but Clinton was deposed under oath for *five hours*. Trump could not withstand 15 minutes of testimony under oath.
Trump and the Republicans are a stain on democracy.
24
In their boisterous, raucous approach to the law, Senate Republicans and Trump's defense lawyers are revealing in preparation for the president’s impeachment trial that they’re neither interested in facts nor protocol.
Though the trial has not yet begun, these two obstructionist groups have publicly decried the process as “rigged” by “political partisans” (Democrats). If Senate Republicans were responsible, impartial lawmakers, and Trump's lawyers were responsible, impartial legal advocates, they would honor the impending proceedings with a prudent Silence.
In a case of grand irony, Trump’s lawyers -- and Senate Republicans under the obstructionist influence of “leader” McConnell -- demand a speedy acquittal of the president, yet McConnell’s refusal to allow witnesses, and the defense lawyers’ jeers -- and controversial records -- foreshadow a more prolonged proceeding (see Kenneth Starr’s strange tenure as Baylor University president during its rape scandal and Alan Dershowitz’s hobnobbing with Jeffrey Epstein, etc.).
In the end, Trump may be acquitted. If that happens, his legally challenged lawyers and congressional buddies will have played a significant role in disgracing their nation’s rule of law.
6
Generally, I agree... but the President’s lawyers are supposed to his partisans in the trial, partial to his side and defense, just as the House managers are the prosecution and supposed to do the best they can to press their case and get a conviction. The President’s teams does not necessarily even have to believe he is innocent to do their job of providing him the best defense they can.
That said, they are also supposed to be honest.
Pottree -- you hit the bull's-eye with your last remark: that Trump's lawyers are supposed to be honest -- key word, "supposed".
I trust these loudmouthed hyper partisans as far as I could throw them -- which, considering Dershowitz's weight alone, would be about a quarter inch.
These ethically challenged derelicts are no different than their ethically challenged derelict buddy in the White House.
(Next up in the Attorney Hall of Shame: Giuliani.)
1
Notice that they are avoiding saying that, outright, Trump is innocent of doing anything that is unfit for the President of the United States.
6
If the Senate Republicans believe this is a viable argument, they will need to go in front of their constituents and say “we believe that the President should be allowed to abuse his power however he wants and the Senate should sit on its hands unless he also commits a crime in connection with that abuse of power.”
7
@JSD Republicans (who watch Fox News) don't think he abused his power - their argument is that he was doing his job investigating the Bidens for corruption. Which falls flat on more angles than an MC Escher drawing.
So, if the president orders an underling to take an action that would be disastrous to the nation that would be ok. But if the underling refused and so the president shot him dead, that would be impeachable because murder is a crime?
Talk about "constitutional nonsense".
Where exactly does a president abusing his or her powers end and the committing of an ordinary crime begin?
On January 20, 2017, Trump was sworn in as the 45th president when he took the oath of office. He stated the following:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Since when is violating this oath of office NOT a crime?
Alan Dershowitz can dance around the US Constitution all he wants. The bottom line is the president parlayed his position as president into personal gain for himself.
Trump was and continues to be unfaithful to the US Constitution. There's just one of the crimes he committed.
12
Alan Dershowitz's position now is that to impeach and remove a president from office there must be a crime. This is counter to what he said in the Clinton impeachment, but regardless of his inconsistency he is not the one and only Constitutional authority although he would like all to believe that he is. Just because he goes on all the TV shows and talks over all that disagree with him that doesn't make him right. The legal outcome of this trial has already been predetermined, but Trump wants a whitewash of all his crimes so that he can say that he's been completely vindicated.
Trump is corrupt and the results of this trial will not change that. He must be removed from office unfortunately we will have to wait until November to do so.
6
I suppose there’s no chance of Trump just remaining In Switzerland and never be seen or heard in the United States again.
5
According to Noah Feldman, Technical crime and crime-like conduct are the same. Dershowitz is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
We are also told that Trump cannot be accused of a crime while in office. What is it? - impeachment can never happen since it has to be a crime (which weren't defined at the time the Constitution is written) but then Trump can't be charged with a crime while in office.
They are also saying that it is OK for Trump to have extorted Ukraine and withheld aid and get another foreign government to interfere in our election and cheat to win, again.
So therefore we have no laws, no protections, no autonomy, our elections are there for interference by a foreign nation and there is no way to remove a corrupt and dangerous president accused of abuse of power or a crime. My head is spinning.
3
Ah, shopping for Constitutional subject matter experts at its best. The Gang of Three that Pelosi produced during the House investigation were somewhat entertaining, but for the wrong reasons. Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt did a wonderful job of removing objectivity from the conversation while replacing it with agenda and animus. Turley was the only one adding insight and perspective that was meaningful. And yes, now we may have to listen to Dershowitz. Where's my lawn chair and beverage?
Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that lying, cheating, stealing, bribery, abuse of power, are allowed by the President?
Ironic how these Constitutional conservatives Republicans are now embracing all manners of judicial interpretation to save their president.
4
Who is going to pay for the completely hopeless impeachment trial? Why cannot the president ask the president of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? As far as I know Hunter Biden had no qualification to earn $50K a month for that Ukrainian company. Obviously he is paid for a ridiculously high salary because of his father. If this is not corruption, what is? Many times I heard democrats talking about decency, but where is the decency in the democratic party?
3
He asked for the investigation while withholding military aid in exchange for it. Do you not see the difference?
1
@widereceiver What are Ivanka and Jared's qualifications for their positions and security clearances. If that's not corruption and nepotism, then what is?
1
A difference of opinions! Legal scholars on one side saying "this" and the other side saying "that".
@Max de Winter
No, a broad consensus says "this" and only a few paid advocates say "that."
Vote trump's enablers out of office. It's the only way.
3
The craziest part is that Dershowitz is not even claiming Trump didn’t commit a crime (the GAO establish led that he did commit a crime by illegally withholding the funds to the Ukraine).
He is arguing that though Trump did in fact commit a crime, he should get off on a technicality because the House didn’t specify the particular crime in its Articles of Impeachment.
2
You simply don't understand. But deep down you do and are scared. It's the Chamberlin thing. You are law abiding (for the most part), reasonable (except for occasional moments of pique) and do truly care for the disadvantaged (though you don't want them next door). It's the Chamberlin thing. You are willing to listen to the Beast's point of view - to compromise. And the Beast will eat your lunch and when It's finished your lunch ... It's the Chamberlin thing.
1
As a common citizen, with only popular articles and snippets of history educating my view of the proceedings, the whole process is bewildering. The whole foundation of the constitution we have been living on is so shaky? So open to misinterpretation? Why is it so difficult to clearly phrase that he ignored congress, a representation of the whole of the American public, with regards to withholding money from Ukraine? How can a democracy claim that the will of the people is less important than the will of the President? Why is it not clearly criminal? How can the President claim to be a representative of a democratic people and not a king if he does so?
I don't get it. When a kid who is indirectly responsible for the suicide of his gay friend can be convicted, when a girl who urges her boyfriend to suicide can be tried, why can a President, who sought directly (by his own admission of the phone call), personal gain, by going against the will of the people, not be tried clearly?
Oh why was RBG not the chief justice presiding over this......
3
The arguments of the Trump legal team are in a word, specious. They (Trump and his henchmen) argue that he didn't commit a crime, that it's a political hit job... That what he did was perfectly within his authority. Yet, they refuse to permit a full examination of the evidence--documents, witnesses with _direct_ knowledge of the events. Their mind is made up, so (please) don't confuse me with the actual facts of the impeachment process or what Trump is accused of & impeached because of. Better to confuse everyone else.
Their excuse/argument that it's (a) a "witch hunt" and (b) they're following the precedent of the Clinton impeachment process is particularly galling.
Every impeachment process is driven by a political undercurrent; Andrew Johnson (replacing a Sec of War), Clinton (the desire to remove him & latching on to the Lewinsky) & now with Trump. In the case of Nixon there were strong criminal overtones, however, at the end of the day, each situation addressed the issue of abuse of power by the POTUS.
Lastly, the Founders placed a high bar to remove someone by impeachment, a 2/3 majority, in an effort (IMO) to better ensure impeachment was done in a thoughtful and deeply considerate fashion & not on a "political whim." That someone is not actually removed doesn't mean that the articles of impeachment weren't appropriate/valid. What is required is a true sense and commitment to the constitutional issues & not petty political considerations.
7
For those who question whether in fact Trump committed a crime, thereby justifying his impeachment, please refer to §30121 which provides:.
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
14
@RobertB
Law now means NOTHING to the GOP.
3
Reading Dershowitz's tortured justifications is the same as every single argument I've read over the past fifteen years in favor of basically anything Republican. Crazy mental gymnastics.
The thing about impressive gymnastics is that although they're entertaining for a while, most people can't do them. Keep asking people to do bigger and bigger tricks. At some point people are just going to throw up their hands and say, "No, I actually can't do the triple cartwheel into backflip".
Right now we're seeing a lot of people try, and faceplant. Sometimes it's common sense that tells when you can't pull it off, sometimes you have to learn by injuring yourself, I guess.
5
@Dan What "tortured justifications" are involved in the simple question as to whether President Trump withheld foreign aid for his own personal benefit? You can use all of the colorful and acrobatic language that you please, but in the end you have not provided any sound reasoning. In fact, nothing that you wrote even has a connection with the matter at hand.
1
@John
Dan wasn't saying that this impeachment involved tortured justifications, but rather that Dershowitz's defense of Trump's actions involves tortured justifications. Which it does.
It's a foregone conclusion that Trump will not be removed so any argument that passes the smell test will work. All that's required is to give 34 senators the ability to find NOT GUILTY and the worst criminal in modern history goes free.
Once freed from impeachment, the self centered narcissist will claim complete vindication and proceed to commit even more brazen and larger transgressions of common decency, law, and international mistakes. Trump's magical understanding of human weakness has him "dialed into" the mind of 40% of Americans who simply don't understand that their advocacy will make their lives worse than before.
A rougher ride lies dead ahead along with the end of democracy as we've known it. I am resigned to the cruel reality we're enjoying the final days of what has been a great time for the middle class. Their ploy was simple. Throw so much garbage news out there, overwhelm the media with nonsense, and people will simply stop listening at all.
16
Prepare to see the base spectacle of "conservatives" who insist we adhere to the Founder' ideas and words trashing those ideas and words. Hamilton, you have been warned!
2
Sadly, Mr. Savage is presuming that the strategically dispersed supporters of Trump have some respect for historical norms, legal precedent, or any truth that thwarts their desires. They do not have positions or arguments, they have unrelenting resentments and vengeful passions. To will unwaveringly is a virtue, to seek any kind of truth or justice that does not bolster "your side" is being a loser. It looks like almost all Republicans have finally stepped off the planet and joined "the base" - proud to be ignorant. Impervious to evidence or argument.
There is some comfort in remembering that this kind of know-nothing approach finally failed to stop the public health campaigns against smoking. But look at those zombies besieging Virginia as they recite the Remington PR invention of a mythical Second Amendment Right that is still selling assault rifles as well as handguns at a stupifying rate.
We may squeak through this latest form of militant ignorance so useful to the spineless nihilists in the Senate, but surely that they exist at all in such numbers is dispiriting.
6
Trumps lawyers advise all presidents to do the same?
That’s how I read it!
This is the most frightening aspect of Trump’s “legal defense.”
8
"Claims that Martians are living in Canada are widely disputed." There. That doesn't show favoritism to either side, does it?
5
So we have gone from Trump's incessant trumpeting of a "witch hunt" to his legal team's desperate hunt for an argument to defend their poor maligned witch. Watch the Senate chamber turn into a dance hall, as the clever ladies and gents on Team Trump dance around the facts.
6
Trump and Co. are just trying to write their own script, a la The Apprentice. Fling spaghetti at the wall and see if it sticks.
5
In the coming days the senate will be deciding whether the United States is a republic or an autocratic regime led by fools. The world is watching and the fear is that the latter will happen.
11
Look at these folks getting all strict constructionist and original intent. Nino would be proud!
2
Alan Dershowitz needs this attention to put the Epstein attention in the past. He doesn't really care if what he proposes as truth is barge. It will get him off the hook for being one Epstein's loyal clients.
Thank you, Professor Tribe. You are a scholar among mere men.
3
I’m SURE that Mr. McConnell is very concerned about the opinion of constitutional scholars.
11
I practiced trial law for many years before retiring. No matter what court a lawyer is in - - federal, state, or other tribunal - - it is basic that a lawyer who misleads a court acts unethically. In my experience, this means, for example, an ethical lawyer does not cite a case as an authority while omitting material language in the court opinion that cuts against the lawyer's argument. It is the ethical advocate's job, in such a situation, to bring the opposing argument to the court's attention and attempt to distinguish it. It is the unethical lawyer who hides the language and hopes the opposing lawyer or judge does not realize his trickery.
I read that the President's legal team argued in their legal briefs that there needs to be a crime committed by the President for there to be an impeachment, but they failed to cite the main legal precedents on the other side of this argument, e.g., the Hastings case and George Mason's arguments at the Constitutional convention. They apparently hope to fool enough senators to have the President acquitted. These lawyers should be reported to their State Bars where they are licensed to have them defend what I believe is their unethical conduct.
31
Jefferson’s reasoning for not having the supreme court decide impeachments, that they would preside over a second trial in the ordinary course of law, seems to imply a crime must be committed for an offense to be impeachable conduct.
Except that then the role of Congress’s role in impeachment would be mute and unnecessary. An impeachable offense can also be a crime...or not.
2
This is Trump and the GOP running scared from the truth.
15
And why are these lawyers willing to do Trump's bidding? What has Trump promised them. We know he has promised something because he is transactional. Maybe a dukedom? We are in serious trouble!
1
Perhaps the simple notion of fame, or better yet, infamy.
1
Before Lev Parnas started singing, more than 500 constitutional scholars signed a letter, posted online, that debunks the notion that impeachment requires violation of a criminal statute. Since there were none of those yet, the constitutional phrase “high crimes” meant what it did under English common law involving breaches of public trust by anyone holding high office which, if committed by a non-office holder, might not even be a crime.
But today’s GOP are being disingenuous because they would find a reason not to hold any trial if Trump had committed a crime. In fact, Mueller found ten violations that 1,000 US federal prosecutors wrote saying they would likely indict if committed by anyone not protected by DOJ policy.
Crimes were committed but not indictable. Public trust violated but not impeachable. One party rule that makes our democracy ungovernable as such,
11
Dershowitz gives his game away when he says "crime-like conduct" is a basis for impeachment. Trump's clear, concerted effort to coerce the head of a foreign state to intervene in our election process and then impounding Congress-approved aid to that state may not technically be a crime. But it certainly has the appearance of criminal bribery. Moreover, the fact that the Trump administration took great pains to conceal the shakedown adds to its illicit stink. "Crime-like" is the perfect description.
7
"...for centuries before the American Revolution, the British Parliament impeached officials for “high crimes and misdemeanors” that constituted abuses of power but were not indictable offenses."
Isn't that just one of the good reasons we fought our revolution?!! Indeed, it was easier then to accuse a political opponent of an abuse of power and call it a high crime when in fact it really wasn't.
1
No it was not one of the reasons for the American Revolution.
No, because if that was the case, they wouldn’t have chosen that same language for the US constitution. The Revolution was fought over taxation without representation, not the merits of English Common Law, which is a system we kept.
1
Mitch McConnell and his 52 colleagues are all on trial. They will become co-conspirators in the Obstruction of Congress charge and will be duly "convicted" in the court of public opinion. They have no principle, no scruples, and no shame; and we the people will not forget.
Sentencing date: 11.03.2020
24