Dershowitz: Supreme Court could overrule an unconstitutional impeachment

The Hill ^ | 05/31/19 04:08 PM EDT | Alan Dershowitz

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Donald John TrumpOcasio-Cortez returns to bartending in support of tipped workers: 'Still got it!' Trade wars have cost stock market trillion: Deutsche Bank analysis Dollar stores warn they will have to raise prices over tariffs MORE has said that if the House were to impeach him despite his not having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he might seek review of such an unconstitutional action in the Supreme Court. On April 24, he tweeted that if “the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all.”

Yesterday, when asked by a reporter if he thinks Congress will impeach him, the president responded, “I don’t see how. They can because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it.”

Commentators have accused Trump of not understanding the way impeachment works and have stated quite categorically that the courts have no constitutional role to play in what is solely a congressional and political process. Time magazine declared in a headline “That’s Not How It Works,” and Vox called the president’s argument “profoundly confused.”

Scholars also echoed the derision. The influential legal blog Lawfare wrote confidently that “The Supreme Court Has No Role in Impeachment,” and my friend and colleague Larry Tribe, an eminent constitutional law scholar, called Trump’s argument simply “idiocy,” explaining that “the court is very good at slapping down attempts to drag things out by bringing it into a...”

[Repeal 16-17]

I could see President Trump going to court to challenge being impeached even if just to troll the Democrats.

[Dark Knight]

Mueller was able to use evidence that was clearly inadmissible (counterintelligence does not follow the regular rules and fruit of the poisoned tree is in effect). The origins of the evidence involve perjury and obfuscations (never heard of parallel construction until this case). If the Chief Justice presides and does not allow any significant evidence of wrong doing, can he dismiss out of hand without a vote?

DK

[PubliusMM]

Granted that distraction is the game, I still find Dershowitz to be a calm voice of reason among the lefturds who have been left to procreate without limit in the political life that is DC.

[KevinB]

If they do impeach Trump there is nothing Trump can do to stop it or overturn it.

Did you read the article?

[poconopundit]

What a great quote by Jefferson!

Thanks, mosaicwolf.

[M Kehoe]

Hi.

Imho, it’s simple. We live in a binary universe. Either the House democrats impeach President Trump or they don’t.

Do or do not.

Or STFU.

5.56mm

[plain talk]

Yep. Trump can’t do squat about an impeachment except whine and tweet. The SC won’t touch it.

[ml/nj]

Suggesting that the Supreme Court has no role in the impeachment process is absurd. The Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial. He doesn't have to sit there like a ventriloquist's dummy as Rehnquist did. He could dismiss the whole thing with a summary judgement.

ML/NJ

[Jim Noble]

“judiciary has no role in clearly laid out powers of the constitution? Gee that’s novel.”

Well, it may be novel, but it’s absolutely true.

Impeachment is a plenary power of the House. Trial of impeachment’s is a plenary power of the Senate. In the case of presidential impeachments, the Presiding Officer is the Chief Justice of the United States.

Other than the power of presiding over a Senate trial of the President, the judiciary has zero to do with impeachments.

[Ken Regis]

Bump

[Pollster1]

Not sure where Clinton's dalliances fall in. It may be that the Constitution is fairly loose about the required reasons for impeachment.

Bill Clinton was a sleaze, but that is not grounds for impeachment. His voters knew that and voted for him anyways. It was the perjury - lying under oath on a topic that the judge had specifically ruled was germane to the case. That was one of the most serious non-violent felonies in existence. Clinton should have been removed from office for that major crime, not for one of his many "dalliances".

[HotHunt]

According to Pelosi, the number is 38 democRATS are for impeachment.

200 are not telegraphing their vote.

Sounds like an impeachment vote might a little premature.

Not to speak of the fact that the American people are against it.

[Jim W N]

I like the idea of construing the Constitution so that impeachment is strictly reserved for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

[TigersEye]

The Dems know full well that impeachment alone does not remove a president from office. If they do it, and the senate does not convict and remove him, which they won’t, the Dems will have to deal with a significant percentage of their idiot base that don’t know that.

[Liz]

STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANE-—Bill Clinton gets impeached

David Schippers was asked by his friend, Congressman Henry Hyde, to be Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee. Schippers, a lifelong Democrat, accepted and took the job in April 1998. The Hyde Committee was holding an inquiry on whether Clinton had committed impeachable offences in his handling of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit..... during which Clinton committed perjury regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The committee in December 1998 voted to impeach Clinton........a decision supported by Schippers.

On December 10, 1998, Schippers said to the committee:
“The President, then,
<><> has lied under oath in a civil deposition,
<><> he lied under oath in a criminal grand jury.
<><> he lied to the people,
<><> he lied to his Cabinet,
<><> he lied to his top aides,
“And now he’s lied under oath to the Congress of the United States.There’s no one left to lie to.”

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).

The Senate voted not to remove the impeached president.

==============================

hat tip canuck_conservative

Even make-up couldn’t hide that angry red lying face.
The sweaty brow and finger wagging tells us everything
we need to know about the guilt of this scumbag.

=================================

<><> Lewinsky recently came clean; a sitting President, Bill Clinton, suborned perjury from her;
<><> Suborning perjury is an impeachable offense;
<><> another penalty was loss of Clinton's law license.
<><> all of Clinton’s crimes happened while he was a sitting president:
<><> 47 Oral Office visits from Monica; subornation of perjury, lying under oath, hush money, etc etc etc.
<><> Clinton lied under oath about suborning Monica.
<><> Five charges against him were for obstruction of justice.
<><> Clinton had Lewinsky give Linda Tripp written instructions on how to properly perjure herself in the Willey sex matter.
<><> Bill’s pal, Vernon Jordan, arranged a $40,000-per-year cushy govt job for Lewinsky;
<><> she got the job after she signed but before she filed a falsified affidavit saying she had NOT had sex with the president.
<><> Clinton's pal, UN Amb Bill Richardson, personally visit Lewinsky at the Watergate to offer her a govt job to shut her up.

[frank ballenger]

Every black in the House and Senate is a totally biased, prejudiced racist who hates President Trump.

They think their hate is grounds enough, as Maxine thinks.

[frank ballenger]

All the Dems say when Donald Trump is no longer president they can indict him and imprison him.

Billy C is no longer president.....
Neither is B. Hussein Obummer….

[Liz]

Mueller's report contains the claim that Russia taped
Bill Clinton having phone sex with Monica Lewinsky
Washington Examiner ^ | April 23, 2019 / FR Posted by deplorableindc

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report mentions a claim that Russians recorded President Bill Clinton having phone sex with White House intern Monica Lewinsky — but the reference was redacted from the version released to the public.

The redaction is likely to anger Republicans, because the allegation has been known since at least 2001 and the Mueller report's reference to a claim that President Trump watched prostitutes urinating in a Moscow hotel room was not struck out.

Clinton allegedly was recorded by Russia in the 1990s, allowing Russia to learn of the affair before American officials. A reference to the Clinton intercept was redacted from the Mueller report to protect “personal privacy,” but sources told the Washington Examiner that the context makes clear what was blacked out.

[Liz]

All the Dems say when Donald Trump is no longer president they can indict him and imprison him.
Billy C is no longer president..... Neither is B. Hussein Obummer….

PLUS........Obama is still impeachable.

[wjcsux]

Dershowitz is a classic Liberal, he’s not aligned with the Marxist dirtbags that lay claim to that label nowadays.