Alan Dershowitz says Trump Impeachment Invalid Requires Criminal-like Conduct

a reply to: Lumenari

That made sense...??🤔🙄
Trump is the first word you utter in the morning...

Unreal!


That's your defense to your only rebuttal 😅

While the senate will not let Trump get impeached, which makes my post pointless, I still found this interesting:

Nikolas Bowie Twitter , wrote a NY Times response article about things Alan Dershowitz said during his defense. You can read the link and see their relationship at Harvard Law School.

New York Times link

What He Is Accused of Are Crimes.
Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress have long been considered criminal and merit impeachment.

By Nikolas Bowie
Mr. Bowie is an assistant professor at Harvard Law School.

Here are a few paragraphs:

Common-law crimes are no harder to define with precision than crimes written down in a statute. Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.” If someone is accused of burglary in a state where the crime isn’t defined by statute, no defense lawyer would respond by announcing that burglary is vague or made up. Burglary is an established crime, even where its definition exists only in legal treatises and judicial opinions.

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”

As for “obstruction of Congress,” that’s not only a common-law crime. Versions of the crime have also been listed in the federal criminal code since the 19th century.

a reply to: game over man

I think Dersho was talking about the "listed crimes" not being crimes.

He wasn't just doing a shallow eclipse of "the charges" 🤓

Democrats (in all their primeval glory) are trying to convince people of something else as usual 🤓

a reply to: game over man

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.”

Wow. He's really trying to equate a tangible and quantifiable crime (burglary) with a subjective and ideological disagreement ("abuse" of power). That's quite the leap... but I'm not surprised. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that rot.

Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.”

As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.”

But here's the thing: Burglary is defined by a specific, observable tangible fact... the very specific action of entering a building without permission or authorization with intent to commit a crime. Abuse of power is in fact a vague, subjective and intangible belief.

In other words, with a burglary, someone either entered a building unlawfully or not. There is no gray area. Abuse of power -- both in general and in regards to the Dem's desperate impeachment -- is subject to opinion. Whereas you might see Trump's actions as an abuse or an obstruction of Congress, I see Trump doing his damn job. Because it is in fact the President's job to execute and enforce the laws, and I EXPECT our President to investigate and encourage investigation of suspected criminal acts, especially when those criminal acts are committed by a sitting Vice President and other elected and non-elected government officials.

But ya know what opinions are really good for? Deciding who to vote for and who NOT to vote for. I didn't vote for Trump in '16. I had no intention of voting for Trump in '20. Until the criminally corrupt critters decided to shove a big fat middle finger in the faces of the voters to remove their duly elected president all to protect their own sorry arses from their own criminal corruption.

Okay. So be it. I'll shove my big fat middle finger in their faces in the voting booth when I cast my vote for Trump.

I wonder how many others are going to do exactly the same as me...

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: game over man

Wow. He's really trying to equate a tangible and quantifiable crime (burglary) with a subjective and ideological disagreement ("abuse" of power). That's quite the leap... but I'm not surprised. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that rot.

"Abuse of power" is inherently subjective. You consider it abuse because you don't like what Trump did. If you approve of investigating Burisma, it's just fine and there is no problem. Therefore, Abuse of Power is an entirely political charge. There are no objective standards by which this (so-called) crime can be judged.

OTOH, burglary is objectively defined. If I break into someone's house and take something, I've comitted burglary. It doesn't matter if you approved of it or not, it's still burglary.

As for "Obstruction of Congress," LOL is that even a thing? I notice how they didn't call it "Obstruction of Justice." I guess even Adam Schiff couldn't bring himself to claim that what he did was justice.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

"Abuse of power" is inherently subjective. You consider it abuse because you don't like what Trump did.

Um... I hope that is a collective "you" and that you are not addressing me specifically, because I have no problem with Trump refusing to release our hard-earned tax dollars unless and until the necessary and appropriate investigations are conducted -- or at least begun. No sense whatsoever in throwing good money after bad.

Otherwise, I said pretty much what you said. So I obviously agree!

Burglary is an observable and tangible action... abuse of power is subjective and intangible. With that kind of logic, next they'll charge him with violating "separation of church and state" for praying to an omniscient and omnipotent God!

a reply to: Boadicea
Sorry. I did mean that as a generic "you," and not you personally.

a reply to: Boadicea

With that kind of logic, next they'll charge him with violating "separation of church and state" for praying to an omniscient and omnipotent God!

very effective analysis

There have been a number of politicians in US history that were solely impeached for Abuse of Power. None of those cases were considered invalid or unconstitutional. Why is this case different?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
with a fully partisan house vote?
with no other articles?

yea sure

cheese and rice

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: JoseGarcia
originally posted by: Lumenari

JoseGarcia:George Soros paying for a lot of such was likely a great buddy of Goebbels. Certainly he was in sympathy with Goebbels strategies & goals. How treasonously hideous.

I confess to not knowing that association; I do wonder why he has to puppeteer the machinations of the Democratic Party instead of just getting out there and running himself. Is he so vulgar or repulsive (unlikable/un-electable)? It is interesting how the Democratic Party has acquiesced to the idea of "the buying of an office IS A-OK".

Why would he run? He'd have only 4-8 years to lead, he could just keep buying the candidates and stay in the shadows for as long as he's alive.

a reply to: shooterbrody

From what I can find, James H. Peck's impeachment for Abuse of Power was fairly partisan. I can't find an actual list of how people voted but the counts in both the House and Senate match up pretty closely to the actual breakdown.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
James H. Peck was elected president when again?

exactly....


not at all like any other event......

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The fact that they might have gotten away with it once doesn't really change anything. It's very hard to take "Abuse of Power" seriously, because it's such a subjective offense.

And "Obstruction of Congress" absolutely cannot be taken seriously, since it looks like they just made it up.

Did any of read the article? Why am I being assaulted of being far left? I am absolutely not far left. Do you people just gather here for the stars? Seems like it. Weird vibes in here. Someone said they are going to give people a fat middle finger in the voting booth. What is the matter with you? You want to go work as a volunteer at a voting booth in your local community to have some random flip you off? Seriously, life is more important than politics. Someone of a different political, religious, or cultural background could save your life one day.

Without spending much time on this, burglary can also be defined as breaking and entering, unlawful entry, trespassing, theft, larceny, etc...I think this is what the other Harvard Law person meant after Alan mentioned him in his defense. He is arguing not me, I'm presenting the article and getting absolutely castrated for being nice, anyway he is saying abuse of power/abuse of office is a law and criminal offense. My state has laws for it...in life you can either empower yourself to research things on your own and learn from that experience or you can take other people's word for it and not learn on your own. Does your state have laws for it? Googling abuse of power will only show results relevant to the impeachment trial on TV and the Internet. You need to be more specific in your Google search.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Last time I checked there is only one section in the Constitution that covers impeachment for Presidents and civil officers. Can you show me the clause that lays out different requirements for Presidents to be impeached?

If not, then the impeachment of James H. Peck is a valid example.

a reply to: xuenchen

The President's Team should show some bawls, and ask the Chief Justice to overturn the Impeachment that occurred in the corrupt U.S. House, because Schiff/Vindman/Ciaramella filed a false whistleblower complaint, with ICIG Michael Atkinson's assistance.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Last time I checked there is only one section in the Constitution that covers impeachment for Presidents and civil officers. Can you show me the clause that lays out different requirements for Presidents to be impeached?

If not, then the impeachment of James H. Peck is a valid example.

Its not even the same charge
Cheese and rice

What utter crap

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: game over man

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.”

Wow. He's really trying to equate a tangible and quantifiable crime (burglary) with a subjective and ideological disagreement ("abuse" of power). That's quite the leap... but I'm not surprised. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that rot.

Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.”

As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.”

But here's the thing: Burglary is defined by a specific, observable tangible fact... the very specific action of entering a building without permission or authorization with intent to commit a crime. Abuse of power is in fact a vague, subjective and intangible belief.

In other words, with a burglary, someone either entered a building unlawfully or not. There is no gray area. Abuse of power -- both in general and in regards to the Dem's desperate impeachment -- is subject to opinion. Whereas you might see Trump's actions as an abuse or an obstruction of Congress, I see Trump doing his damn job. Because it is in fact the President's job to execute and enforce the laws, and I EXPECT our President to investigate and encourage investigation of suspected criminal acts, especially when those criminal acts are committed by a sitting Vice President and other elected and non-elected government officials.

But ya know what opinions are really good for? Deciding who to vote for and who NOT to vote for. I didn't vote for Trump in '16. I had no intention of voting for Trump in '20. Until the criminally corrupt critters decided to shove a big fat middle finger in the faces of the voters to remove their duly elected president all to protect their own sorry arses from their own criminal corruption.

Okay. So be it. I'll shove my big fat middle finger in their faces in the voting booth when I cast my vote for Trump.

I wonder how many others are going to do exactly the same as me...

This is waaaay too complicated for the people you're trying to explain it to.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So you can point to the law that states Abuse of Power of Contempt (the charge brought against Peck) is illegal? If not then please explain how a judge abusing his power of contempt is fundamentally different than a President abusing his power to take down a political rival?