How about you respond to my question first instead of just jumping in with little bites at Trump? I know it is difficult for many posters because I’m interrupting your juvenile “Individual 1” and “IMPOTUS” fun which has raised the discourse on the board tremendously.
But, if you’ll note, I was simply responding to DesertDog who repeated the assertion in the linked article that Trump had argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was “unconstitutional.” Do you agree with me that the assertion and the article are ridiculously wrong? Not just wrong, but not even in this universe remotely accurate to anything he said?
If you don’t want to respond, then just continue your fun.
I was going to post this on its own, but it actually has to do with what you say, so here:
Alan Dershowitz recently said on that while no actual crime on the books is necessary for impeachment, criminal*-like* acts are sufficient, but they must be similar to treason and bribery as mentioned in the constitution. Using this logic, he has said that “abuse of power” as stated in the first article of impeachment doesn’t rise to the level necessary. What he has not said, to my knowledge, is anything about the specific way the articles say he abused that power. To wit, that Trump directed military aid to be withheld unless a Biden investigation was announced. Now, a bribe is when you offer money to someone to do something. By this standard, what Trump did may not have been technically a bribe, but certainly withholding money already promised legitimately unless something new is done (the investigation) is essentially the same thing, and thus rises to the level of a bribe, and is a perfectly acceptable article of impeachment.
Correct me if I am wrong, as IANAL, but isn’t this disingenuous on the part of Dershowitz? Isn’t he purposely only using “abuse of power” phrasing, while ignoring the underlying charge, in order to make what amounts to a phony argument?
One of the people that I know in my life and respect the most is a criminal defense attorney in Texas, specializing in death penalty cases. For the most part her clients are guilty and she knows it and pretty much everyone knows it, but she works hard and smart and compassionately on their behalf. It’s probably about the most emotionally challenging job I can imagine. Everyone is entitled to a defense.
But there is a certain class of high powered lawyers I have no respect for and that is lawyers who help coordinate high power (and high priced) intimidation campaigns against victims. Dershowitz is one of those lawyers and he has engaged in victim smearing and intimidation in service of both Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein.
Yep. Because there are no people here illegally. If they are here illegally, then they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they can’t be breaking any laws.
I wonder if UltraVires realizes how utterly ironic that statement is.
It is not my argument. I disagree with the argument. But it is AN argument that would not get you laughed out of court. It certainly is not, as the poster and the article suggested, an argument that the 14th Amendment is “unconstitutional.” NOBODY has argued that.
Again, if I argue that flag burning should be prohibited, I am not saying, just as the 4 Justices in dissent, including Stevens, that the First Amendment is “unconstitutional.” That article was absurd.
However, to address your point, and after I’ve said I don’t want to hijack the thread, but certainly everyone here can be arrested. An invading army or the Indian tribes back in the day, would have been dealt with by U.S. justice when necessary, but they wouldn’t have been “subject to the jurisdiction.” The question is not that absurd.
Meaning what, exactly? If I may, let me just paraphrase part of what I said earlier.
I want to add to it, because maybe I wasn’t clear. So, if Dershowitz were to say to Rachel Maddow, “abuse of power doesn’t rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor”, wouldn’t a logical response from Maddow be, “but Alan, you are simply using the phrase abuse of power because it’s in the first part of the first article of impeachment, but ignoring what Trump is actually accused of in the rest of it. If you were to acknowledge what the other part of the article says, you would have to admit that since it claims that Trump in effect committed bribery, that obviously means it rises to level of an impeachable offense and therefore you argument here is nonsense.”
Assuming there is a problem with this and I am missing something, fine. But if it’s accurate, it truly boggles my mind that I have not heard one House rep, nor senator, nor any TV personality bring it up.
I think there just isn’t time to get to it. There are so many bad faith arguments here that schiff et al already have to spend a lot of their time firefighting. And I think they’re right not to focus on arguments that it should not be impeachable – because it’s a dreadful argument not only legally but in terms of public opinion too.
It’s essentially saying “OK, just five minutes ago we were saying the whole thing was a hoax and a sham, but now I want to pivot across to saying that, OK, the president put himself ahead of the country and abused his power, but we should let him off on a technicality. Vote Trump 2020!”
I am more and more tired of people using the word “bribery” and also “quid pro quo” in this thread, and all threads on this subject, and in all the newspaper and radio and on-line commentary, and coming from all the lawyers everywhere and in the once-esteemed Halls of Congress.
Coming from Trump supporters, that’s just semantic nit-pickery (argle-bargle?) to downplay Trump’s malfeasance.
Coming from Trump critics, that’s just taking the bait and falling into the trap.
What Trump did wasn’t bribery, actual or attempted, by any definition I know.
And what Trump did wasn’t a “quid pro quo”, actual (well, maybe attempted).
What Trump did was outright attempted extortion at least. This particular incendiary word is only infrequently mentioned throughout the whole sordid history of this case. Why?
Trump was in a position to threaten outright harm to Ukraine if he didn’t get his way, and he did so threaten. That’s attempted extortion. And in fact, he really did withhold the money for a while, to Ukraine’s harm. So more than attempted extortion, there was extortion threatened and performed.
Extortion.
That’s a crime even more dangerous and major than mere “bribery”. And much worse than “quid pro quo”, which per se is not necessarily wrongful at all.
Extortion is to use threats to compel someone to do something for you.
Solicitation of a bribe is to refuse to perform your professional or legal obligations, unless someone pays an extra fee that they should not have to. Bribing is to pay someone to do something for you that they should not.
Trump solicited a bribe, under extortative circumstances.
But throughout history we have conditioned foreign aid on another country doing or not doing a certain thing. For example for years we refused to trade with South Africa because of apartheid. I fail to see how the term “extortion” wouldn’t apply to that if we are using such an expansive definition.
I mean, if I don’t give my daughter her allowance unless she cleans her room, is that extortion?
I can hear the string of replies now that this is different because Trump did it for corrupt personal motives, and withholding benefits from South Africa was for a noble goal, but the motive doesn’t change whether it is extortion or not. That seems to me a deliberately pejorative term that doesn’t apply to Trump’s actions, even if he did what he is alleged to have done.
I still don’t understand bribery, though. Who took money or another thing of value?