Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 20, 2020

Two of President Donald Trump's leading defenders said Sunday that the Senate will not vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him, though both argued the president committed no impeachable offense, outlining what is likely to be the heart of Trump's defense in his trial.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Dershowitz plans to argue on the Senate floor that "even if everything that is alleged by the House managers is proven or taken as true, they would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

"If my argument succeeds, there's no need for witnesses. Indeed, there's no need for even arguments, any further arguments. If the House charges do not include impeachable offenses, that's really the end of the matter, and the Senate should vote to acquit, or even to dismiss," Dershowitz said."

"He said it didn't matter whether he thought what Trump did was acceptable, only if it was impeachable."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead impeachment manager, called Dershowitz's argument that abuse of power is not impeachable "absurdist."

"That's the argument I suppose you have to make if the facts are so dead set against you," Schiff said on "This Week."

"You have to rely on an argument that even if he abused his office in this horrendous way, that it's not impeachable," Schiff said. "You had to go so far out of the mainstream to find someone to make that argument, you had to leave the realm of constitutional law scholars and go to criminal defense lawyers."

Schiff said "the mere idea" of Dershowitz's argument would have "appalled the founders," who were very concerned about foreign election interference. He argued that such action goes to "the very heart of what the framers intended to be impeachable."

"The logic of that absurdist position that's being now adopted by the president is he could give away the state of Alaska," Schiff said. "He could withhold execution of sanctions on Russia for interfering in the last election, to induce or coerce Russia to interfere in the next one." excerpts

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-19 06:20 PM | Reply

oh, and this reality check for Trump's lemmings here:

"If you argue that, well, the House needed to go through endless months or even years of litigation before bringing about an impeachment, you effectively nullify the impeachment clause," Schiff said. "The framers gave the House the sole power of impeachment. It didn't say that was given to judges who at their leisure may or may not decide cases and allow the House to proceed.

"The reality is, because what the president is threatening to do is cheat in the next election, you cannot wait months and years to be able to remove that threat from office."

I've said both these things all along; that Trump's defense would end up being, "yeah, he did that, but it's not impeachable" and that the Congress should not give up it's responsibility for impeachment as prescribed in the Constitution to the Courts.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-19 06:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There goes his legacy in the crapper.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-20 02:48 AM | Reply

There goes his legacy in the crapper.

#3 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

His views and arguments have remained consistent regardless of the letter following the name of politician: __________________________

For some on the left, a consistent standard means his legacy is in the crapper.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 10:48 AM | Reply

For some on the right, a trial that has no witnesses and a pre-determined outcome in collusion with the defendant is perfectly fine.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 12:04 PM | Reply

Dershowitz is rolling over for Fat Nixon. His Epstein file must be pretty incriminating for him to whore himself out like this.

#6 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-20 12:27 PM | Reply

"If the girdle fits, you must acquit!"

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 12:34 PM | Reply

Trump knows that the Republican controlled Senate will not convict him so by claiming that he did nothing wrong, when his is, in his words, exonerated, he will be free to continue doing exactly what he has been doing. That is, he will do whatever he can to assure himself of winning reelection, including enlisting the help of people like Putin and and the Saudis. And when people object, he'll sight the Senate trial results as confirmation that what he's doing is not a crime and therefore he's free to do whatever he wants. And if he wins reelection, he will use that as a mandate to get even with his enemies, which will include anyone who worked to get him impeached.

OCU

#8 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-20 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"His views and arguments have remained consistent regardless of the letter following the name of politician:"

Are we talking about Dershowitz or Trump here?

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-20 03:00 PM | Reply

"The House on Monday submitted its rebuttal to the White House's argument that the impeachment articles were "constitutionally invalid," charging that the President's assertions the about the articles was "chilling" and "dead wrong."

"President Trump maintains that the Senate cannot remove him even if the House proves every claim in the Articles of impeachment. That is a chilling assertion," the House managers wrote in their nine-page brief.

"The Framers deliberately drafted a Constitution that allows the Senate to remove Presidents who, like President Trump, abuse their power to cheat in elections, betray our national security, and ignore checks and balances. That President Trump believes otherwise, and insists he is free to engage in such conduct again, only highlights the continuing threat he poses to the Nation if allowed to remain in office."

www.cnn.com

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

There goes his legacy in the crapper.

#3 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

His views and arguments have remained consistent regardless of the letter following the name of politician: __________________________

For some on the left, a consistent standard means his legacy is in the crapper.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 10:48 AM | Reply

Why are you so wrong about so much???

www.cnn.com

See Dershowitz's big flip on impeachment
In an interview from 1998 about the Clinton impeachment, attorney Alan Dershowitz says it "certainly doesn't have to be a crime" to be impeachable. This is opposite of his defense of President Trump over the weekend.Source: CNN

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-20 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Silly Laura, opinions change when you are being blackmailed. Alan is one of many that have been ensnared by Trump and his mobsters.

#12 | Posted by bored at 2020-01-20 04:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

His views and arguments have remained consistent regardless of the letter following the name of politician: __________________________
For some on the left, a consistent standard means his legacy is in the crapper.
#4 | Posted by JeffJ

I thought you were smarter than that. 5 seconds on Google and post #11 point how the huge flip by Dershowitz.

If it has to be a criminal law violation, what were the framers thinking? The first criminal laws weren't passed until 1790 on the federal level. They were basically piracy, counterfeiting, and beating up ambassadors. Under Dershowitz's argument, Trump could literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in 1790 and a few years after and not be impeached because he hadn't violated a federal criminal law in 1790.

Do you really think that's what the Founders had in mind? Because they certainly said otherwise.

#13 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-21 12:40 PM | Reply

Trump is a murdering pig. He should fry for solemani's death. We have become israel's bitch. Those murderers have corrupted our values.

#14 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-01-21 12:52 PM | Reply

I'm still waiting for Mackris to give us a legal reason why Impeachment requires violation of a criminal law.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-21 02:17 PM | Reply

why Impeachment requires violation of a criminal law.

#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

It doesn't. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal remedy. Given how you worded your #15 post I'm pretty sure you understand this.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 02:19 PM | Reply

why Impeachment requires violation of a criminal law.
#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
It doesn't. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal remedy. Given how you worded your #15 post I'm pretty sure you understand this.
#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yes, but apparently Mackris, Trump's legal team, and 53 Republican Senators don't understand this.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-21 04:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort