With the exception of one vote on one article of impeachment (by Sen. Mitt Romney), the acquittal of President Donald Trump went as predicted with a party-line vote. Notably, however, the vast majority of senators, including a significant number of Republican senators, expressly rejected the core defense offered by Professor Alan Dershowitz in their statements –rejecting the position that impeachable offenses must be based on criminal allegations and does not include allegations of abuse of power. What we did not see, as discussed in this column in The Washington Post, was a bipartisan rejection of Article II.
Here is the column:
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once wrote that “Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law.” The Trump impeachment case suggests the same is true about bad cases making bad law. The fact is that the greatest danger in the Trump impeachment was never the president’s acquittal or his conviction. It was the adoption of the extreme views advanced by both sides in the trial.
Every line of work — from law to carpentry to software — has its own house rule about how bad results come from bad beginnings. There is even an initialism for this: GIGO, or garbage in, garbage out. Unless senators use their closing arguments this week to clarify that they are not endorsing either the prosecution or defense premises in reaching their verdicts, this will go down as the GIGO impeachment: precedent created by false assumptions in both houses.
The House blundered in rushing an impeachment by Christmas rather than waiting a couple of months to submit a more complete case with added witnesses, court orders and evidence. Instead of seeking to compel such direct evidence, the House pushed the vote to impeach on the basis of what my co-witnesses called by the Democrats admitted was an inferential case. There is no question that you can make an inferential case for impeachment, but it is the difference between a strong and a weak case. Rather than wait a couple months to strengthen that record (as I suggested at the Judiciary hearing), the House muscled through an impeachment after the shortest investigation of a president in history.
The greatest concern in the House’s case was always the obstruction-of-Congress charge. The House declared that the administration’s failure to yield to demands for witnesses and evidence was by itself a high crime and misdemeanor. The problem is that other administrations have raised the presidential immunity claims made by the Trump administration, and those claims were supported by legal opinions from the Justice Department. Both Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton were able to litigate their privilege claims all the way to the Supreme Court before facing impeachment.
While Democrats have denounced the lack of bipartisanship in the Senate, they have not shown such bipartisanship in this impeachment or, for that matter, the Clinton impeachment where Democrats voted unanimously to acquit. The obstruction charge should be rejected on a bipartisan basis — not because both sides agree either with the underlying claims or President Trump — but because future Houses should be warned that such abbreviated investigations are a rush to judgment.
The greatest blunder of the White House, meanwhile, was its baffling decision to build its defense around the widely discredited theory of Alan Dershowitz that an impeachment requires a criminal allegation.
This was snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The White House had strong arguments to make in its defense. It did not need to argue that a president can never be impeached for abuse of power.
That idea provided the most dramatic — and damaging — moment of the trial. Dershowitz’s argument — “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” — produced audible gasps. It was an argument that would have made Richard Nixon blush and suggested that any abuse of power short of a criminal act would be by definition unimpeachable.
The damage had been done. The president’s defense was then tied inextricably to this extreme and chilling argument. Lost were the myriad strong points raised by the president’s other lawyers. After Dershowitz sat down, the Trump impeachment became the Dershowitz defense. And by embracing this highly flawed logic, the defense robbed the president of the very legitimacy that he would seek in a more straightforward and law-based or fact-based acquittal.
Historians will always question whether a vote to acquit was based on an erroneous standard that held that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
Senators can still rise to this messy occasion with a bipartisan position on these two troubling elements.
First, at a minimum, Democrats should join Republicans in rejecting Article II. That will lead to more thorough House investigations in the future.
Second, Republicans should join Democrats in rejecting the Dershowitz defense and, while voting to acquit, they should reaffirm that abuse of power is an impeachable offense, even without an allegation of a criminal violation.
When Holmes made his first statement on bad cases, he added a rarely quoted explanation: “For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance … but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.”
This is a great case marred by passion and distortion. What is surprising is that both blunders were not “accidental” but premeditated by the two parties. It undermined the legitimacy and authenticity of the actions in both chambers. Even if the senators cannot agree on what is appropriate for impeachment, they should at least agree on what is not appropriate. That will not make a bad case great, but it might provide a redeeming moment for the Senate as an institution.
The vote of the Senate as a Jury in effect indicted Pelosi for filing false charges and that act by the Senate also served to impeach Pelosi. Do you think the left has the honesty to take the next two steps? First vote her out of the Speakers position and second vote he out of the House of Representatives along with Schiff,Nadel, and those she illegally seated after they
refused to take the required ‘oath of office,’ namely The Squat,
I don’t think they have the guts nor the moral values. But come election time………
The real jury takes over, the voting citizens.
The vote of the Senate as a Jury in effect indicted Pelosi for filing false charges and that act by the Senate also served to impeach Pelosi. Do you think the left has the honesty to take the next two steps? First vote her out of the Speakers position and second vote he out of the House of Representatives along with Schiff,Nadel, and those she illegally seated after they refused to take the required ‘oath of office,’ namely The Squat,
I don’t think they have the guts nor the moral values. But come election time………
From The Column:
Republicans should join Democrats in rejecting the Dershowitz defense and, while voting to acquit, they should reaffirm that abuse of power is an impeachable offense, even without an allegation of a criminal violation.
……………………………………………………….
Professor Turley clearly rejects the Dershowitz defense. And it is highly significant he has. If legal scholars, like Turley, in law schools around the country, reject the Deshowitz defense, it means that historians are likely to feel the Senate accepted a flawed argument.
Consequently Dershowitz’s flawed defense could become the historic talking point most-discussed in years to come. And if revelations continue leaking out, regarding intrigues in the Trump White House, then history is likely to view Trump as a rogue president enabled by a rogue senate majority.
Guiliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman will be coming to trial during the fall campaign. They are charged with Campaign Finance Violations. It seems they suspiciously tried to transfer $325,000 to Trump’s reelection effort. It’s hard to see how their trial won’t become a major distraction that mocks the aquittal.
Before this year is over, Trump’s aquittal could be widely seen as the sham it really is.
Let’s see if they go to trial. Most people charged with federal crimes cop a plea. For good reason, that you get half off the sentence if you fall on your sword.
Now that Lev has shot his wad for his new handlers, and it’s missed the mark, he’d be a fool not to take a plea.
If they offer one anymore.
“Professor Turley clearly rejects the Dershowitz defense.”
Peter, that is pretty stupid. He rejects an idea of Dershowitz but clearly not the entire defense. It is this lack of reading comprehension that makes so many of your comments appear stupid.
Historians will never be able to explain this whole mass of confused wigglewamp laid out by the House and bandered about in the so called trial in the Senate.
Turkey suggests that they do not need a high crime or misdemeanor to impeach or indight.
Even if the defense’s argument was that the President was not guilty by reason of Shoemaker-Levy 9 colliding with Jupiter instead of Saturn the acquittal would have been just as equally assured. It was predestined before he was impeached.
I tend to believe that this entire impeachment process was understood by those participating to be a fruitless exercise in theatrics. As such its effect in terms of setting precedent remains hollow since nobody believes, if they are honest with themselves, that it fostered any credibility. I doubt if the next impeachment of a president was to occur there would be any serious consideration of the mechanics of what took place today. Unless of course if it was to be another charade based upon a crime similar to “orange man bad” then they will certainly use today’s example, since it surely set the standard to which all future political chicanery could be measured.
I agree it was theatrics but they do not think it will be fruitless. Just as Nancy intended to rip it up no matter what Trump said, and we can see that from videos circulating of how she took it to her left side and pre-ripped it. Theatrics is precisely the intent. Nancy shows she’s on board with the new theories of action. Read article below
it was intended from the start to motivate the Democratic base. There is a current trending belief in prediction analytics that almost all other factors pale besides turnout of the core party people. So all decisions by going in that direction.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944
She was caught on camera pre-ripping the paper so her arthritic hands could get the job done. What a cheat.
Professor, I thought you were all ‘Bravo Alan!’ the day after Dershowitz was on the floor? A couple of days to ponder on a thin argument altering your initial reaction? If so, cool. Totally respect that.
So, beyond the confines of the trial, this is how it shakes out : a U.S. president clearly being worked by a Russian leader tried to attach the type of side benefits on to a deal the way he did routinely in New York construction deals got caught up in not knowing his market in Washington. He had the numbers in the Senate, so when the House sent a case with some holes the Senate kicked it out of town.
Further prisms to consider:
-No matter what the strength of the House case was, the McConnell Senate was going to kick the case to the curb. McConnell controls dark money in Republican circles and used it to arrange votes.
-Staggering Russian success in draining U.S. prestige, military and diplomatic support in Ukraine. We’ll see if the feedback loop kicked into gear by being caught actually proves beneficial for the Zelensky government. It actually could — but it will no doubt come through further war between Trump and the State Dept. on the ground.
-And no, this has nothing to do with the kindergarten “oh Trump sent anti-tank weapons to Ukraine and Obama didn’t” argument. Tank support is only good in favorable terrain on the eastern border. The strength of the Russian move was Spetznatz work in activating ethnic Russian irregular units throughout eastern Ukraine and once the plan took hold the damage was done quickly. So anti tank weaponry had limited effectiveness (at the border, yes; not so much further in). Even less effective if the Russian leader was told of the strategic move beforehand (which no doubt Trump did).
And hey, thumping your chest about the support you gave that someone else didn’t rings a bit hollow if you cut off the aid in a blackmail attempt. So there’s always that..
“Professor, I thought you were all ‘Bravo Alan!’ the day after Dershowitz was on the floor?”
Elvis, did you actually understand what Professor Turley was saying? I don’t think so.
“a U.S. president clearly being worked by a Russian leader tried to attach the type of side benefits on to a deal… … ….”
Elvis, can you take your fairytale and make it fact based? I don’t think so.
I believe I quoted him exactly there, Allan. Glad to know when I relate experience you immediately doubt it. You’re exactly who I want to shake up.
“I believe I quoted him exactly there”
Elvis, was this one of Turley quotes? “Professor, I thought you were all ‘Bravo Alan!’ the day after Dershowitz was on the floor?” I don’t think so. Are you lying or did you just lose your place.
Are you able to understand what the Professor says? It is becoming apparent that you do not have that facility. You say you want to shake up people, but I think you should start with yourself. Your comments are a bit stale.
I wonder what parts were actually quoted in your storyline and whether or not they were quoted in context.
I guess my answer to the question I asked: “Elvis, can you take your fairytale and make it fact based? I don’t think so.” would be a resounding NO.
Allan, are you a lawyer? If so you’re rhetoric is weak. You tend to ask these yes/no questions that probably expose the same sort of internal thought processes. To that end:
“Elvis, did you actually understand what Professor Turley was saying?”
Yes, I do.
“Elvis, can you take your fairytale and make it fact based?”
Yes, I can, but the proof is literally everywhere. I suggest starting with witness testimony in the House inquiry.
Since I know you’ll require a research paper of ‘proof’ while providing none of your own, I’ll just let you rage on like I know you’re going to right now.
Elvis, based on your comments, NO you do not understand what the Professor was saying.
You think you can make your fairytales fact based but if that were the case you wouldn’t have needed fairytales.
Don’t tell us where the information lies, write it here on the blog when you are responding to others. As soon as you do and as soon as you have to explain your position your thoughts seem to become stuck and non productive.
No research papers are needed. One only needs a modicum of proof to validate that there was human intellect behind a comment.
“Allan, are you a lawyer? If so you’re rhetoric is weak. You tend to ask these yes/no questions…”
I certainly do sometimes rhetorically if you understand what that means (apparently not) and sometimes I ask yes/no where fact is concerned. That is where you become hard pressed because your knowledge of the facts is very limited.
Elvis the anti tank missiles were provocative but insignificant. They don’t really alter the equation much more than blankets.
Everyone ignores or forgets Ukraine is contiguous to Russian border and within its cultural sphere for a thousand years.
Russia could park its tanks along the Dnieper by nightfall and nothing could stop that since they are friends of “Donbass” which all the supposed Ukrainian and NATO backed might can’t quite erase
They might be parking their tanks in the Estonian capital in a day and a half.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/
How’s NATO deterred the Russians all this time since Stalin? Actually through a combination of superior economic and social and political and cultural power, and a lot of NUKES. That NATO fully has plans to use.
This article was from 2016. It talks about new plans on both sides to possibly use tactical nukes. This was almost exactly 4 years ago. The treaty about that has recently lapsed. The situation is worse now.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/09/problem-with-nato-s-nukes-pub-62727
It’s dangerous to be provocative towards Russia in Ukraine. Trump should fulfill his promise to de-escalate tensions with Russia and not let the war mongers increase them. He’s backed away from this instead, intimidated by the CIA and the usual suspects, intent on portraying him falsely as a “Russian asset,” ever the scurrilous sort of thing directed at people more interested in peace than war, such as a previous generation’s Red baiting.
Irresponsible talk about open military conflict with Russia as if it were a game, advances the risk of nuclear war.
Agreed on everything but the plans to actually use nukes over Ukrainian invasion. Wildly game planned, for sure. But I’m not sure NATO will actually use them because, while there is significant resource there, it’s not enough to kick off WWIII.
Looking forward to the article.
i agree, because Ukraine is not in NATO. It is not under the nuclear umbrella.
But the aggressive Pentagon planners WANT Ukraine in NATO. Like they acceded a lot of other countries, contrary to the assurances made to Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded.
Here it goes too far. Ukraine is on the Russian border, and not just way up north. Right in the center.
“But the aggressive Pentagon planners WANT Ukraine in NATO.”
Placing Ukraine in NATO makes the world more dangerous and Russia more combatative. We can protect Ukraine in the same way whether in or out of NATO if that is our desire. We need Ukraine as a buffer state.
This was all intentional. The “conservatives” who favor a very strong executive branch saw that there was 0% chance of Trump being convicted, so they took advantage of it. They injected their view into the trial defense and now we have what many will view as the Senate voting for an imperial presidency. I hate it, think this is very wrong for our country, but can’t blame them for it.
Nietzsche taught us that concealed under sanctimonious invocations of high conscience, we can find baser motives: seething resentment, bottomless hatred, lust for revenge. Romney may not see it, but we see it in him. @DineshDSouza
I am very happy with the acquittal. but why are we using 18th century reasons of law in the 21st century?
Reading comprehension is a lost art. Take this sentence, ““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”
That does not imply that anything a President does is okay.. It means that the “quid pro quo” part alone is not enough. Because every act one takes, whether a President or not, has some “quid pro quo” in it. But that is only one kind of quid pro quo. There are other kinds of quid pro quo.
What Dershowitz meant was that “election benefits-quid pro quo” is not enough. If on the other hand, Trump had said, “Ukraine, send me $1 million, or I will withhold aid!” – that kind of quid pro quo goes way beyond just “election benefits-quid pro quo”.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Also see this video with Dershowitz explaining this:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/31/chris-cuomo-alan-dershowitz-quid-pro-quo-trump-national-interest-cpt-intv-vpx.cnn
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
the only reason for the impeachment was because the biden family name was mentioned in a corruption scandal.
I agree. I think Dershowitz should have recognized the politics in anything he said. His sentence should have reversed two phrases.
“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”
Change to.
“if a president does something in the public interest which he believes will help him get elected that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment”
In my mind the second sentence is much clearer and less likely to cause confusion or unecessary argument. Dershowitz is an expert at these things so I wonder why Dershowitz chose the first sentence over the second. Was he simply making a point that quid pro quo was how the world functioned or was he thinking of something else?
Your chronic confusion has been derived from using the wrong frame to evaluate it. Among the prolocutors of this conflict have been lawyers (Mueller, Schiff, Nadler, Dershowitz). They’ve offered a legal discourse and a legal idiom. This has never been a legal conflict. This has always been a social one. The same applies to subsidiary conflicts like that over Brett Kavanaugh. The conflicts over ‘free speech’ on campus, the ‘hate’ laws in Canada and western Europe, the conspiracy between tech companies, the media and cruddy lawfare outfits like the $PLC are all instances of this conflict. It has been escalatingly severe for 60 years and there’s a great worry that a bloody crisis on the horizon. There aren’t ‘good people on both sides’. There are decent people on one side leavened with some inconsequential flotsam and jetsam and insufferable people on the other side, leavened with a large mass of inert and sentimental people. You need to learn where you stand.
“There aren’t ‘good people on both sides’. There are decent people on one side leavened with some inconsequential flotsam and jetsam and insufferable people on the other side, leavened with a large mass of inert and sentimental people.”
*****************
+10
“They’ve offered a legal discourse and a legal idiom. This has never been a legal conflict. This has always been a social one.”
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND A SOCIAL CONFLICT THAT IS GELLING INTO A POLITICAL CONFLICT
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-law-and-jurisprudence/article/concept-of-the-political-a-key-to-understanding-carl-schmitts-constitutional-theory/B36170189282C9F3CD7D2C216288833B
“The House blundered in rushing an impeachment by Christmas rather than waiting a couple of months to submit a more complete case ”
_________________________________________________
It’s time you got off that horse, professor, unless you can say how the outcome would have changed. If Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo all testified that they talked about withholding aid in exchange for investigations of the Bidens and then dismissed the idea, is that impeachable?
Seems to me that while you’re a big advocate for freedom of speech, you’re not very big on freedom of thought.
An angry partisan mob of Trump haters didn’t triumph; unacceptable evidence wasn’t accepted; the will of the people wasn’t overborne. That’s not a hard case or bad law. That’s a just result.
new investigations have been started. it’s groundhog day just like after the Meuller report
the intensity of this conflict is going to go up not down.
Proving that, if you’re going to do something, no matter what it is, do it well. Hack factor 10 always bogs down.
The institution of Congress has weakened itself as a branch with this impeachment stunt. Its primary role is lawmaking. While impeachment is a form of that, we can see that if it is undertaken with the near certainty of failure, then it must be regarded as theatrics.
Theatrics are the norm for inconsequential legislative bodies like the Russian Duma. the irony is that Democrat leadership has diminished one of the key institutions that actually differentiates us from them. There is a strange logic at work in history however and the rapidity of communications and events and global markets actually will lend itself more and more to a stronger Presidency no matter which party is at the helm. Perhaps that trend is inescapable.
Certainly Pelosi has not escaped it
the logic is like this. attack this president with a failed impeachment and make him stronger,. fail and act petulent and make him even stronger. Or, hail mary style defeat him and make the next president stronger. there was no possible outcome in which the office was not strengthened by this farce.
If Jimmy Trafficante were alive, and holding his office in the House before they expelled him for “corruption,” he would have voted against. Not because he was corrupt but because he had a sense of history and appreciation for the relative status of the Congress vis a vis the executive branch. His last speech laid it all out like prophecy/.
What many people find frustrating is that Trump is under constant scrutiny and Obama got a free pass, not just by the press but by Republicans and the DOJ. After all it was Obama who was deposed by Robert Mueller FBI, NOT Trump, documented published evidence Obama lied to 4 federal agents but very few people know about this because it was buried by the press. The media’s protection of Obama made them not credible and even suspect. It’s Obama who should have been impeached NOT Trump
Maybe, people are so very tired of all the corruption covered up by the media industry. It seems to be catching up with immoral men and women employed in the legal industry. How long are we supposed to put up with the nonsense? Re: Media malpractice=Public Corruption at epidemic levels of support by William Barr of the U.S.D.O.J. and the Oversight Committee Members: Re: We have been witnessing the media industry covering up for illegal activities of governing officials for decades. The attorneys are in charge of all the false faces and false facts. How many politicians are attorneys? How many attorneys work in Congress and in the U.S. Senate? FBI? U.S.D.O.J.? Federal agencies all over the country? Oversight Committee in Congress? The U.S. Senate Judiciary? Office of Civil Rights? The U.S. Department of Labor? How many stonewalling a process is supported by the attorneys in these placements and in the state courts? FCC? Robert Mueller and his investigation cost how many millions of dollars paid to how many attorneys involving how many other attorneys for the people charged in that process? Robert Mueller lll covered up for decades of corruption and fraud supported by these politicians in power and working in many federal agencies. That would include many of his own friends and affiliations employed in many law firms while he was employed by Bush and Obama’s Administration. What about all the attorneys employed by many media corporations, newspapers, at a local, state and national level of employment? What do they suggest to be stonewalled from the view of the public? White House Staff? This entire process is a show put on by the Democrats and the Republicans in public service now. If they truly wished to hold anyone to any accountability then they would be holding William Barr accountable. The Oversight Committee Members have become stonewalls covering up for their own personal and political agendas, year after year. There has been “NO” oversight until now? Why? Because Vice President Biden’s family is involved in corruption? What else is news? No one knows more about corruption than the Trump Administration. He came into the process suggesting that he was to “drain the swamp.” It is an impossible task and he never intended on addressing any fraud or corruption involving any states in the union during his presidency or campaign for his next election. That is one of the reasons why we have so much corruption, year after year. No one wishes to hold any states to any investigations or accountability during the campaigns and elections. That is all politicians do now. They constantly raise money and find ways to “win” the next election. One big circle of injustices and the media has been the winners in this process. So much money paid and so many books are written by anyone involved in politics. Nancy Pelosi is surely not an honorable woman in power but she controls many of the Democrats and they are not able to investigate into anything other than what she feels is relevant. The attorneys are sitting in many elected seats and employed in many of the federal agencies and they are making everyone look pretty foolish suggesting that they are “Constitutional Scholars” of law. No one is above the laws? We never heard any phone conversations transcribed involving Bush or Obama’s Administration. I am sure some of those conversations would become very interesting to hear or witness transcribed. The media industry has become way too involved in politics and personal agendas of political parties. We do not have investigative journalism but we do have so many people employed in that industry making money in a most deceptive manner. We should have been investigating into the illegal conduct of state attorneys and state officials during the Bush and Obama Administration. Yes, Trump’s administration became involved in many “obstruction of justice” practices during his time frame in office. In a couple of years he and many of the Republican politicians in power supported many illegal actions of our state governing officials. Why did anyone stop any investigations into the “obstruction of justice” actions in the hands of the U.S.D.O.J. and the FBI? It surely involved William Barr and many republicans in power, now.
Elizabeth, about your remark:
“That is one of the reasons why we have so much corruption, year after year. No one wishes to hold any states to any investigations or accountability during the campaigns and elections.”
Perhaps this is not actually right.
In Chicago for example there used to be a form-fit between the “Outfit” ie the mafia and the Democratic party machine. For example. Former Outfit lawyer turned snitch for the FBI, in Operation GAMBAT, testified that he had bribed a judge to to fix a murder trial.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/08/judges-on-the-take/
In his book Robert Cooley, the snitch, lays out how Democratic party operative and “First ward alderman” Pat Marcy helped arrange all of that.
He also explains how they used to go buy votes in the Chicago housing project Cabrini Green for $5 a signed, blank, absentee ballot.
These investigations were started under President Reagan’s FBI. One might ask, was the motivation for the big push, to crack a Democratic stronghold in Chicago? Maybe it was, and maybe that was yet a good thing. Or maybe it has not worked out quite so well over time, who knows. But, here’s a contemporaneous story about these momentous anti corruption prosecutions that were very successful.
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/20/us/5-indicted-in-latest-inquiry-into-corruption-in-chicago.html
Operation Gambat and Operation Greylord, another lawyer snitch case, both decimated the “Outfit” in Chicago.
What wasnt destroyed by those investigations was also wiped out by casino legalization in NW Indiana, which deprived organized crime of its best revenues. By the way. President Trump had the first casino there, long since sold. And so he was instrumental in defeating that system of corruption, albeit indirectly. 1995 or so.
HOWEVER since Chicago politics since the era of the Daleys has actually DECLINED in quality since then, it begs the question, is a decrease in corruption always good? In other words, since the mob has moved out of the business of politics in Chicago, and is a pathetic shell of its former dastardly reputation such as depicted in the movie “Casino” built on the exploits of Tony “the Ant” Spilotro, and since politics there has been taken over by radicals like “Lori Lightfoot,” is this necessarily a good thing? Its at least a question worth considering.
There are studies on Chinese corruption in the PRC across various different top leadership which suggests perhaps that is not always the case. But that is too far afield for this.
The 2 articles of Impeachment presented to the
Senate were riddled with falsehoods.
No witness could change that.
The Dems just handed Trump another 4 years.
“Impeachable conduct is whatever Congress says it is” President Gerald R Ford – who campaigned to impeach SCOTUS Justice Earl Warren. and became president via agreeing to pardon Nixxon.
I had hoped that at least one of the Democratic presidential candidates would vote against Article II. However, they voted against their own self-interest. So, if a Democrat gets elected, they are screwed under the Trump model.
There were at least two Democrats – Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema – who I expected to vote against the charges. However, they voted with their party. Manchin is screwed; he’ll never be elected to anything again in Republican West Virginia. I don’t know about Sinema. Although she was branded as a left-winger, she has proven to be a moderate. We’ll see.
Sam McGowan – Sinema is voting for Trump 19% of the time. Sadly, that does not make her a moderate. People in Arizona have long memories. Little Jeffy Flake wasn’t even able to raise enough money to run in the primary. That is why he “decided” to retire.
So the malleable term “abuse of power “ can remove a President? Hold on folks it’s okay for the House to abuse power and Fast and Furious is okay but an unproven accusation of something that never happened which was confirmed by the so called victim several times can take down THIS President? Get a grip, Prof, your preening in this article has bordered on the egocentricity you accuse the President of.
Mitt Romney surprises and affirms the Constitution and the law. Too bad the rest of his GOP colleagues decided to turn their back on the Constitution and their oaths!
Trump will now proceed to shred what is left of our country. Retaliation will be built on the Dershowitz version of the law: if the President does it, it’s legal. Nixon would be very surprised because his Republican Party knew it’s was wrong and told him to go. They respected the Constitution.