The Dershowitz Defense: How Dershowitz Made The Case Against His Own Defense

Below is my column in USA Today on the Dershowitz defense and why he reached the right conclusion for manifestly the wrong reason. Dershowitz has maintained that his views were distorted by the media and critics, but at base his argument is still deeply flawed. The problem is not (and never should be) that he is at odds with the vast majority of constitutional scholars. The problem is that he is at odds with the vast majority of constitutional sources. Moreover, his examples if anything proved the case against his defense.

Here is the column:

The saying “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low,” is often attributed to the late Columbia Professor Wallace Stanley Sayre. Late last night, retired Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz seemed to both prove and disprove that statement. 

Dershowitz launched into a criticism of the entire legal academy for disagreeing with his theory of impeachable conduct and even called out a fellow Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe for (like Dershowitz) changing his views. That was the petty part. But this was the Senate floor and the stakes are hardly low with a presidency in the balance. 

I found myself, again, thrown into the fight through a video played by the House Managers on the Senate floor declaring, in contradiction to Dershowitz, that impeachment can be based on abuse of power and non-criminal acts (The managers cut off the clip before I ended the line with “but it is just not easy.”).

Dershowitz has right conclusion

I hold a different interpretation but not necessary a different ultimate conclusion from Dershowitz. I do not believe that the House managers have sufficiently rebutted the defense of the president and specifically established the necessary intent to hold the Ukrainian aid for solely political purposes (as opposed to a policy concern of corruption or sharing costs with allies).  

While I praised Dershowitz’s presentation of his theory on Monday as cogently and powerfully argued, I still believe that he is fundamentally wrong in maintaining that impeachable offenses must be based on actual crimes or “crime-like” conduct. However, the tight argument on Monday seemed to gradually loose more and more definition with every hour and day. Dershowitz declared that “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly, you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

It was a surprising and baffling statement. Where his definition of impeachable offenses would proscribe too little, this argument would protect too much in presidential misconduct. Clearly everything that a president does in office will come with a patina of politics. However, this argument would make that common denominator into an absolute defense. It is akin to saying that the Navy cannot commit maritime crimes carried out in water. Politics is the common element of presidential conduct just as water is the common element of naval action. That is why the argument becomes circular.  Presidents cannot be impeached for politics but he argues all is politics for presidents.The rhetoric seemed to outrun his reasoning at that point.  It came across as a tad too trite, Simpson-like construct that, if it is political, there must be acquittal. 

While Dershowitz encourages senators not to consider the overwhelming view of academics (who he described as biased and dishonest), his narrow view of impeachment quickly unravels using the very hypotheticals that he raised.  

For example, Dershowitz repeatedly cited how President Abraham Lincoln’s call on General William Tecumseh Sherman to release Indiana soldiers to return to that state to vote in the key 1864 election. Dershowitz also noted that Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus but was not impeached for either act. The examples however prove the contrary to Dershowitz’s position. Get the Opinion newsletter in your inbox.

What do you think? Shape your opinion with a digest of takes on current events.Delivery: DailyYour Email

Degrading our defenses for political benefits or suspending habeas corpus are non-criminal act that show why we cannot limit impeachable conduct to the criminal code. They are examples of potential impeachable abuses of power. While Lincoln could defend his authority or privileges in the courts, it is precisely such abuses that militate against the narrow definition advanced by Dershowitz. Otherwise, a president could be impeached for accepting a small bribe but not denying an entire nation the protections of its army or the great writ. 

Dershowitz makes case against himself

Dershowitz also made the case against himself in his earlier writings that President Trump could give Alaska back to the Russians. He wrote: “Assume [Vladimir] Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution.” 

So under this theory, Trump cut literally give away whole states without facing impeachment because we do not have a crime for “wasting or converting or abandoning sovereignty.” That would leave critical swing senator, Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), running for the Russian Duma because Trump believed the Russians were bamboozled by Secretary of State William Seward in the 1867. Indeed, for want of a crime, Trump could not only trade foreign aid for the investigation of Joe Biden, but he could give Delaware back to the Dutch.  

The fact is that there is a host of non-criminal acts that could not just put lives but the nation at risk. If those acts are committed for purely personal reasons, they can be impeachable. It is the most difficult type of impeachment to prove, particularly if you are not alleging collateral criminal acts. This is not just the narrowest presidential impeachment in history but the first to allege only non-criminal conduct. If there are other reasons for a president to have acted (even unwisely or catastrophically), a case for removal cannot be made. In other words, it is not impossible (as suggested by Dershowitz) but it is highly difficult when faced with countervailing reasons for the same conduct.  

The hypotheticals raised by Dershowitz would make for lively exchanges in a faculty lounge. They hold a bit more of a chilling quality on the Senate floor. The stakes are not so low when the Republic rests in the balance. We are unlikely to loose Alaska or Delaware in the process, but we can loose a badly needed (if highly difficult) option for non-criminal but abusive conduct. 

The case for such an option was vividly shown by Professor Dershowitz himself.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

71 thoughts on “The Dershowitz Defense: How Dershowitz Made The Case Against His Own Defense”

  1. First, there was no call for an investigation of Joe Biden; we know that because there is no evidence of a call for an investigation of Joe Biden. Secondly, as Dershowitz reminds, motivation is irrelevant; why? Because no crime has been committed. The investigation of Burisma, therefore – whether it be in the public interest, the president’s interest, or both – simply does not matter.

    Even if it did… House Democrats would have us believe that motivation matters; well, unfortunately, we do not try people in this country simply for thoughts or motivations – we try them for crimes.

    And finally, I think Turley needs to get off this “abuse of power” kick. I think he should toss the phrase entirely because virtually everything politicians do is an abuse of power. Ask a fiscal conservative and surely he will tell you, for example, that taxation without the express approbation of the People, or constituents, is an “abuse of power.” And in the eyes of the Framers, Franklin in particular, he would be precisely right.

    The point is there has to be positive evidence of a crime, or, an egregious “abuse of power.” Flying in drugs from Columbia to fund covert ops, selling federal arms to the drug cartels, gifting shiploads of taxpayer dollars to our enemies – all of these might be examples of an egregious abuse of power. Surely we can think of others, but the point is they must meet this higher standard – treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors – not necessarily statutory, but, egregious “crimes” against the state – such that, the matter is unquestionable as evidenced by universal bipartisan, and public, support.

    1. Well, another scratch and paste that needs a slight “edit,” oh well… Turley, btw, should also appoint a second to do his proofs because a lot of his “prolific,” which is admittedly difficult, needs an edit.

  2. To Paul Schulte on what witnesses I would have testify in my extortion/bribery criminal prosecution of Trump:

    First will be the Honorable John Bolton (he of the “call the lawyers on this Trump drug deal”). Of course defense counsel will argue like mad that Bolton has/had a confidential relationship with Trump (kind of like a husband-wife relationship, until the divorce) and should be prevented from testifying. Next would be the bag man Sonderland. He knows it right from the horse’s mouth (i.e., from Trump). However, Sonderland may not make a good witness for the prosecution, as he is not too bright and could trip all over himself in cross-examination. Rudy G, another bag man, could be called. But I have doubts about Rudy’s veracity (HA!). Rudy can be expected to prevaricate from the git-go. Mick Mulvaney would be good, too: “Yeah Trump required a quid pro quo from Zelensky before Trump wold release the military aid millions — But get over it!”). Once I prosecute Trump, I am sure there will be many more eyewitnesses to his crime who will feel safe to come out from hiding to testify against him. After all, he has no real friends among his “employees.”

    1. RDKay – Executive privilege attaches to all of those you are calling and Guiliani is the President’s personal attorney, so attorney-client privilege attaches. Now, do you think you can get past that? And does, what the President did, rise to a crime?

      1. Paul Schulte: Just as attorney-client privilege does not apply where the commission of a crime is involved in the communication, so I would argue that executive privilege is inapplicable here.

            1. RdKay – but it is complicated. The House managers could not make a case, how could you? You would have less power.

              1. The House Democrats didn’t try to force the issue of witnesses. Because…at first they did not want to. The battle over witness subpoenas would have had to go through the courts – from U.S. District Court to U.S. Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. This would have taken the country to the November election unless the Supreme Court asserted immediate jurisdiction. The latter was unlikely because the Supreme Court would have wanted to stay out of this mess if at all possible. So the House Ds decided to go the route of minimal evidence (but still enough to convict in my opinion). But when Bolton ultimately waived his volunteer’s flag, this gave the Ds renewed vigor. However, by then the matter was already at the Senate. Of course, the Republican Senate wanted nothing to do with Bolton (they loved him earlier), or any other witnesses.

                As a federal prosecutor prosecuting Trump for both bribery and extortion, I have the authority to subpoena witnesses. If executive privilege was raised – or some other confidentiality claim – I could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. Again, there is no attorney-client privilege (or executive privilege, I would argue) where the communications involve the commission of a crime.

                Further deponent saith not.

                1. Paul, I forget to say that a witness under subpoena can still refuse to testify under the 5th Amendment. Then, as prosecutor, I could give the witness immunity from prosecution against him. For example, Sonderberg is on the stand under subpoena. He “takes the Fifth.” I guarantee that the government will not prosecute him based on anything he testifies to about the Zelensky affair. Then the judge will require Sonderberg to answer my questions upon pain of jail for contempt of court for refusing to answer my questions.

                  1. Yeah, I know. Trump could pardon Sonderberg. But Trump is such a loose cannon that Sondenberg could not be certain that Trump would pardon him. Would you want to count on a pardon from Trump?

                2. RDKay – you have yet to lay out the basis for the crime(s) for which your would overcome privilege. The President is working within the bounds of a mutual treaty with Ukraine when he asks for a favor. Where is the crime? If the House could have prove bribery or extortion they would have charged it. They didn’t and they had a Star Chamber to look for it.

                  Remember, appeals to the Supreme Court work both ways. 🙂

                  1. Paul, the facts (evidence) support the crimes of both bribery and extortion. Again, I will not be your tutor. And that is all I will be saying on this particular subject.

                    1. Paul, the facts (evidence) support the crimes of both bribery and extortion.

                      Thanks for the a**-pull. Been an education.

                  2. The President is working within the bounds of a mutual treaty with Ukraine when he asks for a favor
                    ___________________________________
                    No he is not. Trump was not following the procedure described in the treaty. Not even close.

                    But that is beside the point. You have to be nuts to believe trump was expecting Ukraine to conduct an investigation. That is just plain ridiculous. Only people who think Trump is guilty believe that.

                    An investigation by Ukraine is worthless. In no way would an investigation in Ukraine benefit Trump. What Trump wanted was an investigation in the USA of the Bidens. And that is exactly what he successfully got with a little help from the swamp.

  3. While we’re on the topic of how future Presidents might behave in their own election interest while exercising powers uniquely vested in the Presidency —
    What is to stop Congress from setting up a non-partisan Election Integrity Office with fast, strong investigative powers to intervene rapidly when requested to stop a potential abuse of power in the works?

    So partisanized has most of the country become that few are recognizing the structural problem that this Ukraine scandal, the Clinton-Steel dossier, and the Watergate coverup all exemplify. The President has an expectation under Article II to assure the integrity of national elections (as far as conformance to federal laws go), while at the same expected to aggressively compete and win. The same uber-powerful person is obliged to occupy both roles — referee and competitor. Structurally, this is asking for trouble — over and over.

    Congress could substantially authorize Election Integrity to a specialized investigatory unit whose personnel are scrupulously vetted and oathed for neutrality in the election outcome. The leadership of this unit would be understood to be politically beyond the reach of the President in any short-term sense.

    Impeachment is too slow and formal a process to provide quick rulings on alleged misconduct. And, bringing an impeachment during a campaign is bound to be viewed as political interference of elites to tip the election in a desired direction.

    I never once heard either side (House, WH) speak of the possibility that Congress could take legislative steps to diffuse the conflict of interest. That’s truly disappointing, a sign that Congressional leaders and the WH are blinded by polemics and no longer can come at recurring, complex problems with a legislator’s mindset.

  4. Dershowitz will never make love on Epstein island again and he will not be invited to the party scene anymore He needs to think about his legacy

  5. Jonathan: A criminal defense attorney knows that when the facts and the law are not on your side you obfuscate and assert propositions no self-respecting constitutional scholar would ever make. To that extent Dershowitz played his role perfectly. You say Dershowitz “has the right conclusion” but for the wrong reasons. Now if we want to indulge in hypotheticals suppose Trump calls Putin the day after the Senate acquits him and says to the Russian leader: “Vladimir, you can take over all of Ukraine if you help me get damaging information on the Bidens. I know your people have already hacked into the computers at Burisma so anything you can dig up will be appreciated. Joe Biden has been ahead of me in the polls so I need a game changer.” Of course, such an offer would be contrary to stated US policy. But if Trump believed his re-election would be in the “public interest” Dershowitz would give him a pass.You argue that the House mangers failed to establish “intent” to prove Trump held up military aid to Ukraine for purely domestic political reasons. Had the Senate voted to hear from witnesses like John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and even Pat Cipollone–yes that Pat Cipollone- perhaps we would have learned of Trump’s intent. Bolton claims in the manuscript of his book that all three were present during the fateful May Oval Office meeting. Cipollone, one of Trump’s lawyers in the Senate impeachment trial, argued that no witnesses should be called to testify. If Cipollone was at the meeting as Bolton alleges then he has a serious conflict because the legal ethics rule-“advocate witness rule”- prohibits a lawyer from acting both as an advocate and a witness. No wonder Cipollone didn’t want witnesses to testify. We will probably learn the truth someday but not because the Senate chose to conduct a fair trial. Mitch McConnell will perform two acts on Wednesday. First he will preside over the vote that acquits Trump. Then he will walk over to the White House and place the King’s Crown on Trump’s head!

  6. Dershowitz is correct. He understands what a constitution is; many academics do not. A constitution is a document that stipulates how a government must function – period. To attempt to explain it as academics do is a perversion. The US Constitution spells out EXACTLY what a president may be impeached for and “abuse of power,” which is an arbitrary term that may be interpreted in many ways, is NOT one of them. Neither is “obstruction of Congress.” The Founders intended for the Constitution to be interpreted literally, and they made no provision for the substitution of the ideas of future academics for their intent.

  7. Prof Turley says we need a “non-criminal abusive conduct” option for impeachment. So what parameters does he suggest? What is “non-criminal abusive conduct” defined in any understandable manner that is not a matter of opinion – or what is commonly called “politics”on the world stage? Giving Alaska back to Russia? – good grief!!

  8. Q: Is it right and proper for the US government to investigate possibly criminal situations by US citizens in a foreign country? Yes.
    Q: Was it right and proper for Biden to use a clear quid-pro-quo to get a prosecutor fired in a foreign country? Yes.
    Q: Is anyone above the law by virtue of being a presidential candidate? No.
    Biden has bragged about doing foreign policy right by getting a prosecutor in Ukraine fired. Even though there was no quid-pro-quo that is immaterial — moot.
    That’s it. Read and repeat those to fill your entire time as defense. Or, better, 30 seconds and done.

  9. So under this theory, Trump cut literally give away whole states without facing impeachment because we do not have a crime for “wasting or converting or abandoning sovereignty.”

    Does the theory incorporate a franchise to cede territory w/o the consent of Congress? If not, of what good is this example?

    1. Bear in mind that Alaska was PURCHASED from Russia. It was an owned possession of the United States, as were the states west of the Mississippi that were part of Jefferson’s purchase. They were purchased by executive order and members of Congress were unhappy with both.

  10. Mr. Turley: I believe that you have used the word, “loose”, where you meant to use, “lose”, throughout your opinion piece.

    Other than that (and, for what it’s worth), I think your argument has considerable merit.

  11. I wish the Democrats had appointed thoughtful non-politicians, like you, to address these matters, and not the craven politicos that we’re anointed as managers. Putting divisive, politically motivated politicians in charge of a case steeped in questions of political advantage and motives seems to me to be the greatest blunder of all.

  12. Dr Turley, please move on. Circling the same bush ISN’T going to change anyone’s mind BUT it will give the Dems nore fodder to go on national TV and continue this charade.

    Enough already, PLEASE. Let this matter conclude because as you and I know, the Dems are already scheming on another American Tragedy!

  13. As a proud member of the unwashed rabble, i think many, many people think there is Turley’s view, there is Tribe’s view and there is what the constitution says. What we have endured through the last months is exactly why the founders established the Senate as a check on the lower house. They feared “legislative despotism” and that is what Schiff and Pelosi gave us.

  14. Prof Turley forgot to mention that Dershowitz contradicted his contrary opinion in the Clinton impeachment.

    And Prof Turley is wrong in this:

    Turley: “I do not believe that the House managers have sufficiently rebutted the defense of the president and specifically established the necessary intent to hold the Ukrainian aid for solely political purposes (as opposed to a policy concern of corruption or sharing costs with allies).”

    But we can’t forget that Trump lazered in on an investigation of the Bidens, not corruption in general. Trump’s insistence that Zelensky make a public announcement that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens is a critical fact here. The cost-sharing with allies was an entirely separate matter. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander conceded that what Trump did was “inappropriate” – but not impeachable, he said. This is the equivalent of Mulvaney’s statement that Trump did it – “but so what.”

    Some one correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe that Prof Turley has stated an opinion on whether if the Democrats’ charges are true that would require a finding that Trump is guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor. Is that because the Prof wants to retain his current good standing among Republicans – for future use?

    Prof Turley is bouncing on a very shaky limb here.

    1. Spend the 30 minutes & listen to the Con Lawyer Robert Barn’s opinion that Paul posted below.

      I thought it well worth the time.

    2. RD, you’re much too generous to our host who has revealed his true colors by posting nonsensical right wing memes (there is no “there” in his latest Bernie post and he mistates the facts on the 2016 primary where Bernie got his ass beat 56%-43%, and in fact Tulsi has been on a her own CNN Town Hall) and by saying we don’t know Trump’s motives in his Ukrainian shakedown, demonstrates that he was born yesterday. Not only does Trump show approval of foreign corruption by making his best friends Putin, Lil Kim, MBS, and Erdogen – all murderers to boot – but by the principle of “missing witness”, his failure to produce documents and witnesses which he has control over and which would act to clarify this “question” can be legally assumed to be guilty.

      Elsewhere JT has stated that if true, the charges are serious. Too bad he avoids the obvious, but that’s all the GOP can muster on this cover up.

          1. Tony – you flunked logic, didn’t you? A fact has no bias, it just is. Now, you can cherry-pick facts to support your bias, which is a totally different proposition. Still, in and of themselves, facts are neutral.

  15. Why did Trump & his team even have Dershowitz?

    I agree with Mark Stein/Fox commenter & Lionel, the lawyer from Lionel Nation.

    Trump/team should have listened to the charges presented to the Senate, stood & said: No charges to defend against.

    As there were no legal charges, just fake charges.

    And we’d all saved Weeks.

    Now, where & to whom do we send the bill for all our wasted Ph’in Time??? LOL

    BTW, I don’t know who’s telling Trump to hire these idiots, (John Bolton etc), but he needs to fire them, I think.

    1. Correction:

      “Trump/team should have listened to the charges presented to the Senate, stood & said: No charges to defend against.”

      (And Then Just Sit Back Down!)

  16. I will agree that at a few points Dershowitz went too far, in general, the Founders wanted a crime and a High Crime, at that. I am inserting a discussing between Robert Barnes and Viva Frei on what constitutes what is impeachable.
    https://youtu.be/NyN9R_MCWSA

    BTW, JT Vivi Frei would like to interview you. 😉

    1. Barnes is very persuasive – but…. I did not listen to his entire discussion, and don’t know if he discussed whether Trump’s “extortion” or “bribery” of Zelensky is an actual criminal violation. I say it is. I believe that when Trump held over Zelensky’s head the hammer of withholding the Congressionally-approved $390 million in military aid – that constituted the crime of extortion. Look up the definitions of the crimes of bribery and extortion. Trump’s demands that Zelensky make a public announcement to investigate the Bidens upon pain of Trump stopping the military aid to Ukraine constitutes criminal extortion or bribery.

      1. RDKay – Zelensky says he did not know money was being withheld. BTW, Shokin has filed suit against Biden in Ukraine.

          1. Even if true, so what??? If the Bidens don’t like the Ukrainians investigating them, then Hunter should have taken the bribes and influence money here from an American company.

            Plus, if pressuring the Ukainians is such a horrible thing, then why aren’t you mad at Biden??? Dang, he done it and then bragged about it.

            I think you have selective partisan moral outrage, and thus are NOT credible.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeeky – thanks for responding to this. For some reason, if people end with a link and no more text, the link disappears, so I have nothing to respond to.

              Again, what is the big deal. Even if they told them there was a hold, it is why there is a hold. Zelensky says he does not feel pressured. Sholklin says Biden got him fired and is suing. There, we have it.

              The Paper of Fake Record has spoken

              1. I will respond by saying only that long-time Republican Senator Lamar Alexander conceded (minimally) that what Trump did was “inappropriate.” That goes to both the facts of what I call extortion and Trump’s intent.

                1. RDKay – there is stuff on here that is inappropriate, however it is not criminal. Just sayin’ 😉

                    1. Squeeky – did you see the dresses for the Grammys? After seeing those, what is the problem with mixing plaids and stripes?

                  1. If I were prosecuting Trump in criminal court for the crime of extortion or bribery before a neutral jury, I would feel very confident of getting a conviction based on the evidence of record today

                    This is notwithstanding Prof Turley’s assertion that that there is insufficient evidence of the commission of a crime. BTW, it appears that the Prof’s contention that there is insufficient evidence is not based on the facts of what Trump did, but rather on some question in the Prof’s mind about Trump’s intent or motive. To me, the Prof’s contention that Trump’s motive is unclear is ludicrous because of Trump’s goal of forcing Zelensky simply to make a public announcement that he would investigate the Bidens. Knowing this, a juror should reasonably conclude that, in Trump’s mind, once Zelensky made such a statement he would be locked into actually ordering an investigation of the Bidens. Either way, a statement that an investigation of the Bidens would be undertaken, or an actual investigation would be a strong talking point for Trump and the Republicans in defeating Biden’s effort to become the Democratic nominee or to defeat Biden in the election if he did become the nominee. Biden has been seen by most people as the strongest election nominee the Democrats could select. Anyone who doubts Trump’s motive just isn’t looking objectively at the evidence we have before us..

                    1. RDKay – everything I heard was either hearsay or double-hearsay or triple-hearsay. My understanding of the Federal Rules is that none of the witnesses would be allowed to testify.

                    2. Anyway – if Trump is a criminal defendant, anyone who heard something directly from Trump could testify. That is not hearsay. Anyway, Trump himself said it – “But first do me a favor.”

                    3. Pat, if motive is the question, your point about the public announcement is powerful evidence, but so is Trump’s history of not caring about corruption and foreign leaders. His idol is Putin, he loves Lil Kim, buddy’s with Erdogen, and who knows what sleazy deals he and Jared are swinging with MBS. Did I mention all 4 are also murderers? You have to have been born yesterday to not know what this was about, and from missing witnesses, the Senate GOP cover up, and even the head in the sand pose of our host and most posters here, you also have to not know what happened to believe the WH story.

                      PS Paul says he gets his news from YouTube and Facebook, so don’t expect much.

                    4. bythebook – I do not get my news from FB. I have several people I follow on YouTube who give me varying views on the same topic.

        1. Paul, read more, and not Facebook and YouTube.

          The Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Secretary says they knew by July 25th that the aid was being held up. Zelensky’s aides were told by Sondland and probably Guliani that aid was dependent on a public announcement on investigating the Biden’s, which is why Zelensky was scheduled to appearon Fareed Zacharia’s show before the deal hit the fan. Zelensky’s obvious goal was to avoid as much as possible angering our unstable president and broiling himself in US politics. Of course he would not say he was being held up. Use your head.

          It is not in question that Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor who was doing nothing about Burisma or anything else, which is why the US SD, the EU, the IMF, US Senators from both parties, and the Ukrainian parliament wanted him out. See Greg Sargent piece in the WaPo dated 1/30/20 for a discussion with links to real time reports on bipartisan USSenate support for removing Shokin.

Leave a Reply