Trumpie lawyers Ken Starr (left) and Alan Dershowitz. Hitler himself would have been proud of their Constitution -debasing arguments.
"This is a president who already has few constraints on his behavior and now there will be even fewer with these crazy arguments, and he will be running around saying he's exonerated. He's being let off the hook by the Republicans but he is not going to be set free by the American people, I hope. Because they get this was not a fair trial with no witnesses, no documents - a total stonewall.".- Sen. Maisie Hirono, on Rachel Maddow, Thursday night,
"This is the dawn of American authoritarianism, and Republicans are not only not trying to stop it, many are openly cheering it. The rest of us — many of us, anyway — are aghast, overcome and exhausted." - Charles M. Blow, NY Times today
"Say goodbye to the rule of law. Thanks to the Republicans we now have a dictatorship." Bill Maher, Friday night, 'Real Time'
Americans ought to thank Alan Dershowitz for his scintillating defense of President Donald Trump. Carried away on a crescendo of bluster, the retired Harvard law professor broadcast the true meaning of the acquittal preordained by crooked Senate Republicans: This president is exempt from any legal consequences, even if he seeks foreign assistance to rig his own election.
Americans ought to thank Alan Dershowitz for his scintillating defense of President Donald Trump. Carried away on a crescendo of bluster, the retired Harvard law professor broadcast the true meaning of the acquittal preordained by crooked Senate Republicans: This president is exempt from any legal consequences, even if he seeks foreign assistance to rig his own election.
While the Dershowitz defense provoked an eruption of astonished guffaws and jeers — with “preposterous” the most frequent term of derision — it is significant precisely because it is so absurd and so blatantly disdainful of American constitutional values. "- Joe Conason
"The state of the union is upside down and inside out and sauerkraut. Trump has changed literally everything in the last three years, transforming and coarsening the game. On Friday night, he became, arguably, the most brutishly powerful Republican of all time. Never has a leader had such a stranglehold on his party, subsuming it with one gulp." - Maureen Dowd, NY Times, Sunday, Feb. 2, 'Trump- Unrepentant and Unleashed'
"The state of the union is upside down and inside out and sauerkraut. Trump has changed literally everything in the last three years, transforming and coarsening the game. On Friday night, he became, arguably, the most brutishly powerful Republican of all time. Never has a leader had such a stranglehold on his party, subsuming it with one gulp." - Maureen Dowd, NY Times, Sunday, Feb. 2, 'Trump- Unrepentant and Unleashed'
We learned yesterday (Denver Post, p. 5A) Trump is ecstatic that the "Senate is on schedule to acquit him by Wednesday". Well, it's terrific for this criminal and reprobate but a sad day for the rest of the nation. Now, Trump's cult of lawless vipers - especially the lawyers who concocted this BS of "mixed motives" justifying anything, can brag "there was nothing there" and certainly nothing impeachable. Leave the poor little wannabe dictator alone, do.
Those with IQs over room temperature digits and a basic sense of morality and constitutional insight know better.
The consensus of pundits on MSNBC following the Thursday Senate trial on Trump's impeachment is that we are in "a very scary moment" and (in Chris Hayes' words) "in a time of great national peril if Trump's lawyers arguments for acquittal are codified". This is no exaggeration and the most radical exponent of the destruction of constitutional law was Alan Dershowitz. He basically argued that a president like Trump can be anything he wishes (presumably even shooting someone on 5th avenue) if he "believes it's in his own political interest and the national interest." In effect, a mixed motive delivers absolute power effectively putting any scumbag beyond the law and accountability.
Those with IQs over room temperature digits and a basic sense of morality and constitutional insight know better.
The consensus of pundits on MSNBC following the Thursday Senate trial on Trump's impeachment is that we are in "a very scary moment" and (in Chris Hayes' words) "in a time of great national peril if Trump's lawyers arguments for acquittal are codified". This is no exaggeration and the most radical exponent of the destruction of constitutional law was Alan Dershowitz. He basically argued that a president like Trump can be anything he wishes (presumably even shooting someone on 5th avenue) if he "believes it's in his own political interest and the national interest." In effect, a mixed motive delivers absolute power effectively putting any scumbag beyond the law and accountability.
Tony Schwartz, co-author of the book, The Art of the Deal, agreed with the panel's takes and also warned if Trump is re-elected he will carry out a personal "pogrom" on all 200 odd figures who appeared on MSNBC and criticized him in any way. Indeed, he conjectured Trump may even sic his pet toady Barr on any who attacked him. He then noted that Lev Parnas - one of Rudy Giuliani's tools "had good reason to be afraid of William Barr."
I tend to agree and also with former Republican Charlie Sykes who argued that after the coming vote for acquittal- and especially after refusing to accept witnesses- the Reep Senators in swing states (including Martha McSally (AZ) and Cory Gardner (CO)) will face a backlash and the Dems could well retake the Senate.
Back to Dershowitz: Blogger Joe Conason has perhaps given one of the best takes on his "performance" last Thursday, regarding the nonsense that Trump is basically above the law. Now, to be fair, in a tweet Thursday night Dershowitz insisted his arguments were "mischaracterized", writing:
"I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that asking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said not to create strawmen to attack.
But are those really straw men? Of course not, given Dershowitz is condoning extortion - bribery to get help, so indeed it is a case of "anything goes." As I pointed out in my Sept.. 25th post, 'Don't Be Misled By Overthinking':
"As FOX's own judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano informed anchor Shepherd Smith yesterday afternoon, Trump basically openly admitted to committing bribery which is an impeachable offense. To jog memories, recall this all began when Trump pressured the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in a July phone call to investigate the son of Joe Biden, the former vice-president and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to compete for the White House in the 2020 presidential election.
Indeed, Judge Napolitano noted the Founders ranked bribery right up there with treason - which crime Trump is also likely guilty of. Napolitano was referring to the fact that Trump sought the help of a foreign country (Ukraine) to gain leverage to destroy his potential political opponent - Joe Biden. And worse, he used the withholding of over $450m in already taxpayer- allocated foreign aid as an extortion tool.
As Napolitano put it, in an earlier historical time "beheading was the punishment" - though he would "hesitate to prescribe such for Trump". Well, I wouldn't. But I would hang him first, or maybe electrocute him in an old electric chair- as he earlier insisted ought to be done to Joe Biden. .
My point? If this FOX- based judge Andrew Napolitano could recognize the objective evidence for bribery and an impeachable offense, then any other sentient person could as well, including the daft Derswhowitz - who as wifey put it, "has shattered whatever Harvard creds and dignity he once had".
Back to Joe Conason - who writes in his recent blog post, first directly quoting Dershowitz:
"As FOX's own judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano informed anchor Shepherd Smith yesterday afternoon, Trump basically openly admitted to committing bribery which is an impeachable offense. To jog memories, recall this all began when Trump pressured the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in a July phone call to investigate the son of Joe Biden, the former vice-president and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to compete for the White House in the 2020 presidential election.
Indeed, Judge Napolitano noted the Founders ranked bribery right up there with treason - which crime Trump is also likely guilty of. Napolitano was referring to the fact that Trump sought the help of a foreign country (Ukraine) to gain leverage to destroy his potential political opponent - Joe Biden. And worse, he used the withholding of over $450m in already taxpayer- allocated foreign aid as an extortion tool.
As Napolitano put it, in an earlier historical time "beheading was the punishment" - though he would "hesitate to prescribe such for Trump". Well, I wouldn't. But I would hang him first, or maybe electrocute him in an old electric chair- as he earlier insisted ought to be done to Joe Biden. .
My point? If this FOX- based judge Andrew Napolitano could recognize the objective evidence for bribery and an impeachable offense, then any other sentient person could as well, including the daft Derswhowitz - who as wifey put it, "has shattered whatever Harvard creds and dignity he once had".
Back to Joe Conason - who writes in his recent blog post, first directly quoting Dershowitz:
“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.” He suggested that such a deal would only be impeachable if motivated by financial gain.
Could “something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest” mean literally anything? Would shooting someone on Fifth Avenue be excused, too, or only “something” like extorting a hit job by a foreign power on a political opponent?
Eminent legal minds and Democratic senators pounced on the absurdity of Dershowitz’s statement — which blithely erased Trump’s corrupt abuse of power by attributing a pure motive to him.
Dershowitz shot back, saying that the critics had willfully misinterpreted his words. But there is no way to parse them that is constitutionally palatable. They reek of a poison that would kill our system of free government."
Dershowitz shot back, saying that the critics had willfully misinterpreted his words. But there is no way to parse them that is constitutionally palatable. They reek of a poison that would kill our system of free government."
Dershowitz' argument that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense is, as Dersh himself admitted, one with which nearly ever law school academic and constitutional scholar would disagree. Even Harvard Constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe skewered Dersh's nonsense in a memorable segment on All In a week ago . This hasn't stopped the irrepressible Dersh from trying - again today (WSJ, p. A17, 'Democrats Are Lying About My Arguments') from once more attempting to achieve some salvage operation. But again it's all transparent, sophomoric sophistry and propaganda.
It's little wonder Prof. Tribe took him to task for trying to peddle such farcical codswallop, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCUGx9wHhE
Averring:
"I almost don't know where to start. My colleague has it upside down. I knew the Trump defense was going to rely on to a large extent on alternative facts, but I didn't know they were also going to use alternative law.
There is no legal principle that says something has to violate a federal criminal statute to be impeachable. When the impeachment power was put in the Constitution there were no federal criminal statutes. As the House report accompanying these articles of impeachment says, what is being charged against the president happens to be a federal crime: felony bribery. And on top of that yesterday we learned from the accountability office that the president is indeed breaking the law, the impoundment control act.
So that's why I don't know where to start since Alan is completely wacko on this. So I don't understand why the president thinks it will help him to have this kind of bizarro defense."
However, we can be sure Adolf Hitler would have admired and applauded the effort as one he'd have used to justify his 'Enabling Act' - a perverse law that destroyed the last vestiges of the Weimar Republic and paved the way for one party Nazi rule. Think this is hyper -reaction and exaggeration? Then you're not paying attention as there's already been a threat on Adam Schiff's life.
Threat on Adam Schiff's life, weeks after Trump incited violence in tweet
This is one of the ways Nazi domination began with fear and threats, as well as attacks - on Jews, socialists (real ones not the National Socialists) in Germany in the 1930s. People had better damned well wake up or they won't recognize the nation they wake up to.
See also:
And:
Excerpt:
"While it may be too late to debunk Alan Dershowitz’s “mixed-motives” theory of impeachment for the purposes of Trump’s impeachment trial, it is still important to debunk it before the election in November. Otherwise, Trump and the Republicans will successfully use this desperate bullshit over the next nine months to rationalize their refusal to call witnesses."
And:
And:
And:
