Asian Sexy Babe
Toronto Escorts

Alan Dershowitz claims abuse of power isn’t an impeachable offense

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,457
113
There is so little case law on what "high crimes and misdemeanours" actually means that it could in fact mean almost anything. It depends what Congress is willing to put up with at any given time. And that in turn underlines that impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.

So Dersh can say virtually anything he wants. No president has actually been impeached. Is authorizing a break-in of your rival's hotel suite at the Watergate Hotel a "high crime or misdemeanor"?.... Who knows?

Is extorting a bogus investigation of a political rival by a foreign government a "high crime or misdemeanour"?... Who knows?

Dersh is a bit senile and very closely linked with the whole Trump-Epstein clique. He's basically become a Trump house-pet. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the brilliant mind who appealed the Klaus Von Bulow conviction 40 years ago.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,347
113
Room 112
There is so little case law on what "high crimes and misdemeanours" actually means that it could in fact mean almost anything. It depends what Congress is willing to put up with at any given time. And that in turn underlines that impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.

So Dersh can say virtually anything he wants. No president has actually been impeached. Is authorizing a break-in of your rival's hotel suite at the Watergate Hotel a "high crime or misdemeanor"?.... Who knows?

Is extorting a bogus investigation of a political rival by a foreign government a "high crime or misdemeanour"?... Who knows?

Dersh is a bit senile and very closely linked with the whole Trump-Epstein clique. He's basically become a Trump house-pet. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the brilliant mind who appealed the Klaus Von Bulow conviction 40 years ago.
Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,457
113
Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
That's pretty much a very small minority position now, isn't it? Just you and a few of the other die-hards?

You couldn't sustain that argument on any in depth view of the facts.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,906
1,172
113
There is so little case law on what "high crimes and misdemeanours" actually means that it could in fact mean almost anything. It depends what Congress is willing to put up with at any given time. And that in turn underlines that impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.
Exactly, it's a political process. In regards to Dershowitz' opinion, I believe he thinks that the President has the authority to conduct foreign policy in a manner he sees fit. When a President acts outside his authority, the Congress can vote to override his authority and/or challenge him in the courts.

In any event, the Congress can impeach and remove the President for almost any disagreement. Being a political process though, the Congress has to sell it to the American public.

So Dersh can say virtually anything he wants. No president has actually been impeached. Is authorizing a break-in of your rival's hotel suite at the Watergate Hotel a "high crime or misdemeanor"?.... Who knows?
I thought Nixon was being impeached for the cover-up of the crime. Did they ever demonstrate Nixon personally authorized the break-in?

Is extorting a bogus investigation of a political rival by a foreign government a "high crime or misdemeanour"?... Who knows?
You have essentially tried the case in your mind with your use of dismissive words "extorting" and "bogus". When I heard the transcript, I thought it was bad form, but not an impeachable "quid pro quo", "bribe" or "extortion".

Dersh is a bit senile and very closely linked with the whole Trump-Epstein clique. He's basically become a Trump house-pet. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the brilliant mind who appealed the Klaus Von Bulow conviction 40 years ago.
We now seem to be trying not just the President, but also the defense attorneys. I wouldn't advise hiring celebrity lawyers or TV lawyers. I think having attorneys that don't draw attention to themselves would be the best course. If I had to explain why Trump chose these people, I'm guessing he knows what he is getting with these choices. Washington attorneys seem to be quite politically ambidextrous.

I don't know, is it a good idea to have Adam Schiff on the impeachment team?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,775
17,584
113
Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
Trump says he got the idea from Putin himself, and Parnas is revealing that it was the Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs who were pissed at Biden coming down on corruption and getting in the way of their money laundering that started them wanting Trump or whoever they could pay, to get Biden out of there.

They never found any dirt and even Parnas says Biden was clean now.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,565
113
Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
Yet, no mention of "corruption" in his phone call to the Ukrainian President. Only "do us a favour" and "announce the reopening of the Biden investigation"!!

The only corrupt individual is Trump!!
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,457
113
We now seem to be trying not just the President, but also the defense attorneys. I wouldn't advise hiring celebrity lawyers or TV lawyers. I think having attorneys that don't draw attention to themselves would be the best course. If I had to explain why Trump chose these people, I'm guessing he knows what he is getting with these choices. Washington attorneys seem to be quite politically ambidextrous.

I don't know, is it a good idea to have Adam Schiff on the impeachment team?

I'm not "trying the defence attorneys" any more than I'm "trying the hockey players" when I suggest that Jason Spezza is too old to be a first line forward at this stage in his career. There are probably a few hundred top notch consitutional litigation attorneys in their intellectual prime who could handle an appeal to the SCotUS far better than Dersh, who is in his late 70's or 80's. It's simply a fact.

Your favourite TV channel, CNN opined that Trump wants to have well known, TV-savvy lawyers because he is essentially going to "try the case" on Fox News. There is little or no chance the president will get convicted in a GOP senate. So the real stakes are the impact of the hearings on the 2020 elections. With this in mind, the lawyers' forensic abilities are secondary to their high profiles on national media.

I think Schiff is fine. He's bright and presents himself well.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
GAO Is Wrong - Dershowitz Confirms Trump Had Right To Withhold Ukraine Funds


Authored by Alan Dershowtiz via The Gatestone Institute,

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" - the Impoundment Control Act- "does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ."

Yes, it does - when it comes to foreign policy.

The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.



To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.

Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money— which was eventually sent without strings —he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.

To be sure, the statute requires notification to Congress, but if such notification significantly delays the president from implementing his foreign policy at a time of his choice, that too would raise serious constitutional issues.

Why then would a nonpartisan agency get it so wrong as a matter of constitutional law.

There are two obvious answers:

In the age of Trump there is no such thing as nonpartisan. The political world is largely divided into people who hate and people who love President Trump. This is as true of long term civil servants as it is of partisan politicians. We have seen this with regard to the FBI, the CIA, the Fed and other government agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan. There are of course exceptions such as the inspector general of the Department of Justice who seems genuinely non-partisan. But most civil servants share the nationwide trend of picking sides. The GAO does not seem immune to this divisiveness.

Even if the GAO were non-partisan in the sense of preferring one political party over the other, it is partial to Congress over the president. The GAO is a congressional body. It is part of the legislative, not executive, branch. As such, it favors congressional prerogatives over executive power. It is not surprising therefore that it would elevate the authority of Congress to enact legislation over that of the president to conduct foreign policy.

In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.

If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15462/trump-had-right-to-withhold-ukraine-funds-gao-is
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,040
4,313
113
Dershowitz's argument falls apart when the real reason is considered.

There is an abundance of direct and congruent evidence that the motive was to motivate Ukraine to "announce" an investigation into his domestic political rival.

Trump et al self-servingly insist the withholding of the $400m was in furtherance of deterring corruption in Ukraine. With nothing more than their say-so, and despite ample written (and "transcribed") evidence that only spoke of Biden by name.

He was not conducting foreign policy.

He was abusing his power to extort a foreign government to smear a personal political rival and therefore asking a foreign power to interfere in domestic elections.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,794
2,787
113
There is so little case law on what "high crimes and misdemeanours" actually means that it could in fact mean almost anything. It depends what Congress is willing to put up with at any given time. And that in turn underlines that impeachment is as much a political process as a legal one.

So Dersh can say virtually anything he wants. No president has actually been impeached. Is authorizing a break-in of your rival's hotel suite at the Watergate Hotel a "high crime or misdemeanor"?.... Who knows?

Is extorting a bogus investigation of a political rival by a foreign government a "high crime or misdemeanour"?... Who knows?

Dersh is a bit senile and very closely linked with the whole Trump-Epstein clique. He's basically become a Trump house-pet. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the brilliant mind who appealed the Klaus Von Bulow conviction 40 years ago.
Dersh has gone Full Rudy! LOL...How much longer do you think it will be before Dersh gets indicted?

#ETTD
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,794
2,787
113
Why do you dismiss it as a bogus investigation of a political rival. Sure looks to me like it was a clear case of corruption.
Trump was well within his purview as POTUS to withhold the aid until he was comfortable that the Zelensky administration was serious about combating corruption. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt places on Earth for years.
You are completely incorrect. Trump unlawfully withheld funds approved by Congress. He broke the law.

Biden threatened to withhold aid but the aid was never withheld. Had Obama decided to do so, he would have had to return to Congress and ask them to withdraw or suspend the aid.

Trump broke the law. Obama did not break the law.

Had Trump genuinely been concerned about Ukrainian corruption he could have returned to Congress and asked that the aid be withdrawn...but he didn’t. He committed an illegal act by unilaterally ordering the aid suspended.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,347
113
Room 112
Trump says he got the idea from Putin himself, and Parnas is revealing that it was the Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs who were pissed at Biden coming down on corruption and getting in the way of their money laundering that started them wanting Trump or whoever they could pay, to get Biden out of there.

They never found any dirt and even Parnas says Biden was clean now.
Parnas is under indictment. You can't believe anything he says.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,347
113
Room 112
You are completely correct. Trump unlawfully withheld funds approved by Congress. He broke the law.

Biden threatened to withhold aid but the aid was never withheld. Had Obama decided to do so, he would have had to return to Congress and ask them to withdraw or suspend the aid.

Trump broke the law. Obama did not break the law.

Had Trump genuinely been concerned about Ukrainian corruption he could have returned to Congress and asked that the aid be withdrawn...but he didn’t. He committed an illegal act by unilaterally ordering the aid suspended.
That is not a violation of the law. If it was why doesn't that appear in the Articles of Impeachment?

The aid was never withheld because Biden got his wish - the prosecutor looking into Burisma was fired. It was a clear quid pro quo.

Why was Hunter Biden hired by a Ukrainian gas company to sit on their board and paid $83K per month? We need answers to that.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,347
113
Room 112
Trump says he got the idea from Putin himself, and Parnas is revealing that it was the Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs who were pissed at Biden coming down on corruption and getting in the way of their money laundering that started them wanting Trump or whoever they could pay, to get Biden out of there.

They never found any dirt and even Parnas says Biden was clean now.
Give it up on the Putin bullshit already. That train left the station last year.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,040
4,313
113
That is not a violation of the law. If it was why doesn't that appear in the Articles of Impeachment?

The aid was never withheld because Biden got his wish - the prosecutor looking into Burisma was fired. It was a clear quid pro quo.

Why was Hunter Biden hired by a Ukrainian gas company to sit on their board and paid $83K per month? We need answers to that.

Using your same logic.... what qualifications does son-in-law Jared have in government, foreign affairs etc?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
LOL! So many dreamers here. For a moment, I thought I was on MSNBC.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,794
2,787
113
In any event, the Congress can impeach and remove the President for almost any disagreement. Being a political process though, the Congress has to sell it to the American public.

I thought Nixon was being impeached for the cover-up of the crime. Did they ever demonstrate Nixon personally authorized the break-in?
If I recall correctly, Nixon only learned of the break-in after the fact. His crime was in his efforts to cover it up. Nixon actually could have said that he “never knew and never met” G Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt and he probably wouldn’t have been lying...LOL!



We now seem to be trying not just the President, but also the defense attorneys. I wouldn't advise hiring celebrity lawyers or TV lawyers. I think having attorneys that don't draw attention to themselves would be the best course.
Trump is all about optics and how things play on TV. Having a lawyer of Dersh’ stature enthusiastically arguing his case looks good. It also plays well on Fox and makes Liberal “heads explode”. Trump is the master of creating these theatrical scenes and making them into reality.


I don't know, is it a good idea to have Adam Schiff on the impeachment team?
I think it would look bad if he was not on the team. It would be spun as a tacit admission that Schiff had done something wrong in his management of the impeachment hearings. It would look weak.
 
Toronto Escorts