Posted on 01/28/2020 9:00:11 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz gave what may be the most persuasive case against impeaching President Donald Trump while in the well of the U.S. Senate on Monday evening.
Speaking as a representative of Trump's defense team, the lifelong liberal Democrat urged senators to not "let the feelings about one man, strong as they may be, cause irreparable damage" to the fate of other presidents. "Passion and fears of the moment must not blind us," he pleaded.
Giving a clinic on the history of impeachment in a matter-of-fact and understandable way, Dershowitz explained the derivation of the idea of impeachment and explained that it was to have been the breaking of a defined, limited law and not an amorphous and generalized idea of bad conduct. "Dishonesty is a sin and not a crime," he told the lawmakers.
Before Dershowitz took the lectern before the Senate, there was considerable debate about an obviously strategically-timed leak of information from former National Security Adviser John Bolton's unpublished book.
Dershowitz had an answer to the New York Times's leak in which Bolton believed the worst about President Trump's delay of aid to Ukraine, saying it was "inconceivable" to the founders that a quid pro quo was an impeachable offense.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Consider the following hypothetical case that is in our news today. The Israeli Prime Minister comes to the United States for meetings, let's assume that a Democratic president tells Israel that foreign aid authorized by Congress will not be sent, or an Oval Office meeting will not be scheduled unless the Israelis stop building settlements. Quid pro quo. I might disapprove of such a quid pro quo demand on policy grounds, but it would not constitute an abuse of power. Quid pro quo alone is not a basis of abuse of power.
It's part of the way that foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. The claim that foreign policy abuses can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives – that the president was interested only in helping himself – demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague, subjective and politically malleable phrase abuse of power as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president. Now it follows that if a president – any president – were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power.
Let me repeat: nothing in the Bolton revelations – even if true – would rise to the level of an abuse of power or impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution – you cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit."
It is inconceivable that the framers would have intended such politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as "abuse of power" and weaponized as a tool of impeachment.
He did well, hopefully a few wavering GOP senators got an education.
Yeah, demonicRATS engage in a lot of behaviors that don’t result in conception.
Blah, blah, blah. Witnesses are coming, and we will be subjected to more Kabuki theater, to include some from the GOP.
I really wonder how much Kool-Aid the Democrats have drunk. It is obvious that this is just politics. It really is a coup. No laws were broken. There is no impeachable offense. The Democrats just don’t want to face Trump in Nov 2020 and so they are trying to remove him from office and ignore the Will of the People. They say they are doing this to “save democracy” but it is obviously the exact opposite.
No one can run a country along these lines. This won’t work out well for the Democrats under any circumstances. Anyone with a long-term vision beyond a few months should be able to see that. It’s suicide for the Dems.
So let the witnesses come. It will not change the facts one bit. It will keep all the democrats who are running for
president in their seats and off the trail.
Alan D was on fire, but he used logic and reason, neither of which will work with the demonRATS and probably won't sway mittens, collins, mudcowshit, and a couple of other weak kneed pubbies.
He was 'in the words of a cnn guy, jeff tubber'...Brilliant.
I WISH someone would address the ‘PERSONAL BENEFIT’ that Trump is supposedly trying for. He has been slandered and libeled to the ends of the Earth and takes no salary.
WHERE ARE THE PERSONAL BENEFITS???
Witnesses are immaterial. No way the Rats are getting 20 republicans to vote removal. The Rats want to delay the trial to help Biden by keeping Bernie, Warren, Klobucha tied up in DC and unable to campaign.
DNC is at it again, helping the candidate they want, Hillary-2016 redux.
First Democrat that I can believe in since Zell Miller.
Exactly my thought as well.
well if there isn’t personal benefits then there’s nothing to talk about.
RE: WHERE ARE THE PERSONAL BENEFITS???
Allegedly, it was to weaken and “slander” ( note the quotes ) a leading Presidential opponent running against him using the resources of a foreign country.
My counter is this — So, in order to be protected against any possible investigation of corruption, all one has to do is ran for President and that makes you immune? I thought no one is above the law...
That’s okay....call Bolton... my only precursor is that Joe, Hunter and Eric be called and subpoenaed FIRST, under OATH, to testify.
It was good and all, but the 3 main media conglomerates didn’t blocked it out, so it didn’t happen.
From now on, EVERY President should be impeached. Start the process day 1 as soon as he's inaugurated. Hell, start the investigation as soon as he is elected so you can be ready to pass the articles on inauguration day. Do it again and again until it's a completely meaningless act. Then when the left whines, just say:
Apparently only Dems can engage in opposition research. And remember, she hid the payment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.