Dershowitz: Supreme Court could overturn a Trump impeachment
This is the legal advice Trump gets before he meets with Putin.
Trump could give Alaska back to Russia and not be impeached?
Collusion with an adversary and lying about it are not impeachable?
This is nuts.
Congress should do its job and boot Trump now.
Link to tweet
BY ARIS FOLLEY - 07/10/18 10:52 AM EDT
Alan Dershowitz in a new book says that in the event President Trump is ever impeached, the Supreme Court could intervene and overturn the vote to remove him from office.
Dershowitz pens in The Case Against Impeaching Trump that if evidence of collusion with the Russian government arose that incriminated Trump, it would not be a criminal offense.
It's not a crime to collude with a foreign government. Maybe it should be, but it's not, Dershowitz told the Washington Examiner prior to his Tuesday book release.
Dershowitz further explained that though such collusion would be a political sin, it does not entirely meet the Constitutions specification of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors needed for impeachment.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Which is sillier?
JDC
(10,127 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Orangeutan
(204 posts)Selling out the country to our enemy is not.
Got it. Thanks Alan. Hope they paintball your house on Martha's Vineyard.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I don't care NYT.
He is now a fucking disgrace, a clown show.
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)shun him.
Snellius
(6,881 posts)Impeach them all. Impeach everyone until there's no one left. "You're out of order!" "No, you're out of order". This whole government is out of order. This candy machine is out of order.
Impeach Alan Dershowitz! Notice he never talks when there's anyone else around to contradict him.
unblock
(52,210 posts)"colluding" in and of itself may not be a crime, but of course it depends on what exactly you're "colluding" about.
seeing as we're talking about colluding about things like espionage, electronic theft, illegal campaign contributions, and so on, there most certainly are criminal offenses involved.
moreover, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has never been understood to mean only crimes as defined by federal statutes. it's always been understood to include things like dereliction of duty or abuse of office and so on. things that aren't crimes at all, but which make someone clearly unfit for office.
moreover, it would be an enormous departure of more than two centuries of jurisprudence for the supreme court to insert itself into a constitutional process that mentions the other two branches of government but not the their, beyond the chief justice presiding over the impeachment trial. the idea that the supreme court could then act as a court of appeals for an impeached and removed official is a complete constitutional fabrication.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)To obfuscate, confabulate, and misinform the deplorables...
wryter2000
(46,040 posts)Does Putin have a pee_pee tape of him, too?
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)He's psycho in an "old guard" way.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Anything for the spotlight.