Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Dershowitz: “Nothing in the Bolton revelations … would rise to the level of … an impeachable offense”

    Dershowitz: “Nothing in the Bolton revelations … would rise to the level of … an impeachable offense”

    “That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution.”

    President Donald Trump’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz tore apart the allegations in former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s new book that Trump told him to withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors.

    Dershowitz listed actions by other presidents that one would consider actual abuse of power.

    From Fox News:

    “I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents,” Dershowitz told the House Democrats, including head House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

    He said that “all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities” now face the “realistic threat” of enduring “vague charges of abuse or obstruction,” and added that a “long list of presidents” have previously been accused of “abuse of power” in various contexts without being formally impeached.

    The list included George Washington, who refused to turn over documents related to the Jay Treaty; John Adams, who signed and enforced the so-called “Alien and Sedition” law; Thomas Jefferson, who flat-out purchased Louisiana without any kind of congressional authorization whatosever; John Tyler, who notoriously used and abused the veto power; James Polk, who allegedly disregarded the Constitution and usurped the role of Congress; and Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and others would also probably face impeachment using the Democrats’ rules, Dershowitz said.

    “Abuse of power,” he continued, has proved a “promiscuously deployed” term throughout history — and should remain a “political weapon,” not a legal instrument to take out a president.

    He further suggested that the “rule of lenity,” or the legal doctrine that ambiguities should be resolved in favor of defendants, also counseled toward acquitting the president. The Constitution permits impeachment and removal of presidents for “treason,” “bribery,” and “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but does not clearly define the terms.

    “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said. “That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like ‘quid pro quo’ and ‘personal benefit.'”

    “It is inconceivable,” Dershowitz said, that the framers would have intended such “politically loaded terms” and “subjective'” words without clear definitions to serve as the basis for impeachment.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    It all reminds me of a Harlem Globetrotters game. The Globetrotters antics depend on the cooperation of the hapless Generals. If instead the Generals put on a full-court press, body checked them in 1 on 1 defense, the Globetrotters would be forced to play the game by the rules. But no, the Generals just stand there mesmerized and wholly complicit.

    The Bolton play is like that ball-on-a-rubberband trick the Trotters used to do.

    Quid-pro-quo is NOT in the articles of impeachment. Russia! Russia! Russia! is NOT in the articles of impeachment. Bolton’s testimony is NOT in the Dems case.

    So why now if they want Bolton, doesn’t someone ask the Dems “would you like to withdraw your articles of impeachment, go back to the House and reconvene your investigation, call Bolton and rewrite your articles?” Or simply say to the Dems “you can pursue Bolton’s testimony back in the house after we dispatch the 2 articles and evidence you’ve brought before us”.

    NPR host this morning made the comment that Senator Warren, “also a Harvard Law professor” disagreed with Dershowitz. Like she is on the same level here as the professor. She couldn’t lick his shoes at Harvard.

    has anyone answered the question why does Bolton not work for Trump anymore? might be why the book says what it does

    tom_swift | January 29, 2020 at 5:28 am

    This seems pretty useless. About like giving a carefully-reasoned argument to a bunch of moth larvae about why they shouldn’t eat your sweaters.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend