Dershowitz argues that cheating in an election, or even arresting your opponent, is not impeachable

UncleScoopy

I wish I was joking. I’m not.

The president’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued that any action to aid re-election could be considered in the nation’s interest and therefore cannot be impeachable.

In essence, per Dershowitz, the President could start a war under false pretenses to improve his election chances, solicit foreign interference in an election, have his opponent falsely arrested and imprisoned or even cancel the election – and it would not warrant removal from office.

20 thoughts on “Dershowitz argues that cheating in an election, or even arresting your opponent, is not impeachable”

  1. I knew Dershowitz was twisted back in ’95 when he tried to claim O.J.’s blood was at the crime scene because Mark Fuhrman had secretly put it there. The only way that could’ve happened is if: 1) Fuhrman is a psychic who knew Simpson was going to murder Nicole on that night; 2) He snuck into Simpson’s house prior to that night and took blood out of OJ’s arm while he slept; and 3) He planted the blood (and the glove) without any of numerous officers seeing him. And of course, the ironic twist is that he did all this planting work – risking life in prison – so he could frame a *guilty* man. He felt like OJ was not going to leave enough evidence behind, so Fuhrman added to it, that li’l rascal. With theories like that, I assume Dershowitz is an acid head.

  2. I didn’t always agree with Allan Dershowitz, particularly on matters of Constitutional law, but I always respected him. I used to respect Mayor Giuliani too. My how times have changed.

    The bottom line is that while Trump’s legal team can argue legal theories about what is or is not impeachable, Congress can impeach and remove a president for any reason that will secure a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Even if the stated reason conflicts with the Constitution, say if the Congress removes a president for being a Muslim. That would be a religious test that is specifically forbidden by the Constitution. But the decision of the House and Senate on Impeachment is final and is unreviewable by the courts. In practice then if not in theory, Congress can impeach and remove a president for any reason. But there has never been a successful impeachment and removal because only something with broad bipartisan support can get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for it. As soon as it was clear there was broad bipartisan support to convict Richard Nixon, he announced his resignation making impeachment unnecessary. Trump’s Impeachment has thus far failed to get a single Republican to indicate they would vote to convict. In fact, there are Democrats in the Senate that may vote to acquit.

    Instead of impeaching Trump without any bipartisan support, the Democrats should be focused on finding a candidate that will beat him in November. But right now if I had to bet, I’d put money on Trump winning in November. At least there would be a huge silver lining in Trump’s reelection as far as I am concerned. The Courts of Appeal would most likely have Republican appointed majorities in most if not all circuits. There would also probably be 6 and possibly 7 conservative justices on the Supreme Court. But much as I (a former president of my law school’s Federalist Society chapter) would like to see that, I will vote for a moderate Democrat. Please nominate one.

    1. Dershowitz has always been the ultimate skunk who stinks for gold. Which doesn’t mean you wouldn’t want to have him for your lawyer.

  4. Dersh then concluded with, “and also ‘underage’ has no meaning either, when it’s the President, or someone working for him”.

  5. Reelection? Hell, he could decide it is in the national interest to stay in power for the rest of his unnatural days. Per Dershowitz whatever he would do to achieve that wouldn’t be impeachable either.

  6. Shocking explanation coming from a pedophile who was involved in a child sex-trafficking ring. And I’m sure his co-counsel who covered up rape at Baylor University agrees with him one hundred percent.

    I think the seven stages of Hell needs a revision with Trump and his team.

    1. Over the past 50 years or so, the families of people who became vastly wealthy in post-World War 2 America seem to have grown accustomed to doing and having whatever they want, without personal consequences. The rot seems to have become very deep in some of them.

      They are moving to oligarchical control of the United States, because they see that as part of the natural order of things. Given how thoroughly so many Americans believe whatever the propaganda machine the wealthy have built spits out (including NOT believing the “liberal mainstream media”) I can see no reason why they will not achieve that. It is a great tragedy, but you cannot save people who are passionately devoted to their own subjugation.

      Or maybe I am just in a lousy mood.

      1. “Passionately devoted to their own subjugation” is not the phrase. It should be more like drawn to simplistic black-and-white world views, easy answers, and to treating politics like professional sports, where what manners is having your team win, no matter what and by any means (because your team will lie about the means and you can pretend they were OK).

        Don’t get me started on professional sports. They are a scam, and Americans spend far too much thought and money on them, to the immense enrichment of the team owners, who have special tax and other legal breaks.

        The NCAA is a real piece of crap too.

        Yep, I ‘m in a lousy mood.

        1. Roger you are correct

          #Bondi #atkinsontranscript

          Censorship

          Why are these not reported but this BS and 2nd or 3rd hand leaked acts of Bolton’s book are headlines?

          Is it because of politically off center reporting? Is it because of who pays the bills for the propaganda we see? Is it to manipulate the rational of those that watch MSN and control votes?

          As stated above and by
          Alexis de Tocqueville in an account that many feel is misrepresented somehow: The “American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

          We are and have been way past this point for a number of years and is this alone is reason that we are were not a sustainable democracy. Without what so many great patriots in government are trying to do. These patriots do sit on both sides of the aisle but 1 side is corhorsed into not trying to break up the norm we all have been forced to accept.

          1. Can someone with a magic decoder ring translate what Midwest Conservative is trying to say? I cannot tell. For example he is saying something Congress bribing the public. This is the opposite of reality. Congress has been bribed with the money of richest 0.1%, and it is spending the public’s money to benefit that 0.1%. That is why the defense budget is huge, and the social spending budget shrinks, as it did under the Clinton welfare reforms.

            If it not worth decoding Midwest “Conservative”, at least let me know if what he is saying is hilarious. I would hate to miss out.

          2. It’s the latest distraction the right is trying to wave in front of their base. Since Trump is obviously and undeniably guilty of doing everything he is accused of, they have only three options to justify his exoneration:

            1. Guilty, but not impeachable
            2. Not guilty because of a legal technicality (the process was originated improperly).
            3. “What aboutism”

            This is about strategy #2, with a kicker of #3.

            Midwest Conservative is referring to the fact that the ICIG’s House testimony has not been released. There is no suggestion that this will show Trump to be innocent, of course, because he obviously is not, but they claim it will show that Schiff, the ICIG, the whistleblower and others somehow conspired improperly to originate or further the investigation. Of course even if all that were true, it would have no bearing on Trump’s guilt, which has been verified through the testimony of many witnesses, and has been totally confirmed by Lev Parnas and John Bolton, but the accusation will provide a distraction for low-information voters who do not think things through that completely. They will be able to think, “It’s just a plot to overthrow my hero.”

            It’s basically the impeachment version of the most desperate defense argument in the book: “You can’t find my client guilty for the million dollars worth of heroin in his possession, or his e-mails confirming how he bought and sold heroin, or even his confession, because the investigation was not properly authorized.”

            Of course the impeachment process is not a judicial proceeding, so there are no official rules of procedure or admissibility other than what the House, and subsequently the Senate, say they are. The Constitution is not always completely clear, but on this point it is explicit. “The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. … The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

      2. Agreed. It’s not only that, it’s we’ve built this corrupt system of capitalism in which citizens own personal survival it tied to the wealthy and their corrupt perpetual drive for greed.

        So, if you do manage to try to untangle this system to give power back to the people, you’ll have every rich man within their power to have a fit and destroy everything around them and then blame the ‘oversight’ for causing it.

        For example, the health industry has been pushing a ‘reduction in force’ due to the horrible nature of the ‘health insurance tax’ coming next year. So they do layoffs citing this as the reason. Then guess what? The tax looks to be repealed. But those people don’t get their jobs back, the stock goes on a bull run because they now are not liable for it, and then the executives in these for-profit health insurance industries sell their stock options for tens of millions of personal gain.

        This is the blowback you deal with whenever you threaten their power or greed in the slightest. You has executives threatening to cut jobs because Obama ‘made them offer health insurance.’ You’re going to hear this same thing come this election. ‘Bernie will cause the economy to fail, 401Ks will drop, people will lose their retirement.’

        No, it’s the wealthy who caused this situation to begin with. They’ve caused this class warfare to start, because millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions .. is NEVER enough. Only infinite wealth and power and trying to become a ‘god’ is what these people strive for at all costs.

        It’s time for these individuals to be brought back to reality: that 7.7 billion people were not put on this earth to be slaves for a small few.

        1. I agree with you, Indy, and I want change. But I hope change can come with less carnage than the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the decades of Stalinist & Maoist tyranny.

          I do not blame the revolutionaries for this danger. I blame the rulers who cling to unjust power until an explosion occurs. This is, in a way, the story of the American Revolution (“no taxation without representation”). But explosions are always dangerous.

    2. Seven deadly sins, nine circles of Hell.
      “It’s Pedantic Man! We’re saved!!”

      Apart from that, I agree. Maybe the new circle could involve a wheel of rotating knives?

  8. Could someone ask Alan Dershowitz if his argument would change if the person the President decides to murder to aid his re-election is Alan Dershowitz? Because while I disagree with him, I am willing to see his side of things and make an exception.

Comments are closed.