Then by all means argue why he is wrong instead of appealing to authority. Again, I haven’t researched it enough but his presentation was compelling and he attempted (I think) to address all of the contrary scholarly opinion and did it pretty well.
I missed it. What question from Warren? I’m not in front of a TV, and it sucks because I’m about to get on the road this afternoon. Will be listening on radio.
Dersh is wrong because none of his arguments come from the Constitution. They don’t apply to the explicitly political process that is impeachment. According to the Constitution, a majority House vote on Articles of Impeachment means the President is impeached. According to the Constitution, 2/3rds Senate vote in the Senate trial means he is removed. The Constitution doesn’t define “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and thus it is up to Congress to determine that with regards to impeachment.
Yup. And to make the argument as some have done, that an impeachment must be bi-partisan, is to live in a dream world. Ideally, everyone involved in an impeachment/trial would drop their political affiliations at the door, and examine only the facts of the case. This will never happen, unless the offending action by the impeachee is so egregious, that no one could ever vote to acquit. Otherwise, to to insist that no one can be impeached/convicted unless it is bi-partisan, is the same as saying a conviction will never happen. Therefore, we might as well get rid of the process altogether.
Acquittal was a foregone conclusion. Acquittal without witnesses just makes it even more obvious that the GOP had no interest in the facts of the case, and were only interested in helping Trump. And the public overwhelmingly favors witnesses.
So I don’t feel any worse than I did a few weeks ago about impeachment. This has gone about as well as we could have reasonably hoped it would for the Democrats. They can campaign, especially in those close Senate races, that the GOP rejected fact-finding and only exists to serve Trump. Hammer it, again and again.
And every non-candidate should hammer home the message that “if you don’t go vote, you are allowing Trump’s supporters to control your life. Who the fuck wants that?”
But they don’t ultimately give a shit about the impeachment trial.
A clear majority of Americans opposed the pro-billionaire, pro-oligarch tax bill, and they signed it anyway. Americans have wanted healthcare reform for years and the last time we made major reforms, voters rewarded themselves with the tea party, which was the forerunner to #MAGA.
Lawyers talking about law things isn’t an appeal to authority. If I suggested that Code Pink or the NRA has determined that Dersh was wrong, then that would have a point.
It said something like, “Since Americans are watching the Chief Justice preside over this sham trial that doesn’t even involve witnesses, aren’t they going to think less of the Supreme Court?”
Those were not literally the words, but the question was in that spirit. It was just a total potshot against Roberts and the Court for who knows what reason. Fundraising, probably.
UV, just in the spirit of adding a little more info, here is Jonathan Turley, who was the legal scholar that Republicans called to testify about the nature of impeachment:
When Doug Collins’ hand-picked witness on a more limited definition of the impeachment power says that Dersh has gone overboard, nobody should be throwing this has-been professor a life preserver.
Haven’t followed this entire thread, but I have basic question regarding the Senate’s role.
The House impeached the President. Basically, accusing him of two Article of Impeachment (Abuse of power, obstruction of congress).
What does the Senate do? Do they (1) decide whether the articles of impeachment are true, and if they believe that, they must convict and remove the president. Or (2), decide whether the articles of impeachment are true, and if they believe that, also decide whether the punishment should fit the crime. ie., I believe he did it, but I think the punishment, given that my only options are to remove or not remove, is too harsh so I won’t convict to remove him.
Basically, what I’m seeing being reported for some Senators, generally, is we believe he did it, but don’t think he should be removed for it. Is there anything constitutionally/legally invalid about that?
Ah, when you take out Hamilton’s words and substitute your own, of course it makes sense!
Somebody on Twitter posted a video of Individual 1’s lawyers filling out the Senators’ question forms. When asked how they were able to take a video when cameras and cell phones were banned, they replied, “Apple watch.”
The way the press frames things as a new revelation or bombshell is stupid. We already know Trump had Ukraine looking into the Democrats because of the Russia investigation and its orgins coming from Ukraine. Rudy said this publicly on TV multiple times. He wasn’t hiding anything. Much of the steel dossier information, informants to the FBI and contractors with the DNC were either associated with or from Ukraine.
That is the story and that is what this whole entire impeachment operation is meant to cover up. That network of impropriety that led to an illegal investigation of the Trump campaign. And you know what, it is working so far with half the stupid public.
Haven’t followed this entire thread, but I have basic question regarding the Senate’s role.
The House impeached the President. Basically, accusing him of two Article of Impeachment (Abuse of power, obstruction of congress).
What does the Senate do? Do they (1) decide whether the articles of impeachment are true, and if they believe that, they must convict and remove the president. Or (2), decide whether the articles of impeachment are true, and if they believe that, also decide whether the punishment should fit the crime. ie., I believe he did it, but I think the punishment, given that my only options are to remove or not remove, is too harsh so I won’t convict to remove him.
Basically, what I’m seeing being reported for some Senators, generally, is we believe he did it, but don’t think he should be removed for it. Is there anything constitutionally/legally invalid about that?
How about if the President uses taxpayer money to bribe a foreign government to baselessly smear a political opponent?
Does that “proceed from the misconduct of public men”?
Is that “from the abuse or violation of some public trust”?
Lamar Alexander says, “No.” Do you agree?
It seems to meet that your defense of Trump, against all logic and fact, has got to be morally exhausting, but we all have our points of view.
I don’t hate Trump, believe it or not. I don’t trust him. I don’t believe him. But I don’t care enough about him to hate him. When he ran for President I thought he was a buffoon. When he won I thought he was going to be kept in check by a sane government, so I didn’t worry too much. Unfortunately the adults in the room were all fired or run off and the lunatic is off the chain. I think he is a detestable human being devoid of a conscious or the concept of truth. I think he’s guilty of these charges, and more. Every bit of evidence that has come out so far has proved it to be true, and Trump’s only response has been, “Nuh uh! YOU’RE corrupt.” Yes, some evidence is overt, some is circumstantial, but all points in only one direction. There’s only so far you can strain benefit of the doubt before it snaps.
I agree, except for the illegal part and the part where you are presuming that Trump is the party in the wrong.
A large group of Republican civil servants who work for the President have nothing to gain by investigating him, accusing him of obstruction of justice, nor confirming that the allegations against him seem just as terrifying as originally presented, even if the obstruction of justice element precludes the ability to prove or disprove any of it.
Whereas, it is completely reasonable to expect that a guy who has ran a large number of businesses into the ground, and only became somewhat financially steady when he gave up the CEO role to others and started a job working daytime TV, but who is very good at presenting the image of being a success, even if it requires such extreme fraudulent means that he has in fact sued and fined for fraud in the past - that he would try to lay down an image of being falsely accused, even as his advisors are being sent to jail, I’d guess one per 7 months, steadily throughout.
Jim Baker, as example, currently works at the R Street Institute. What motive does he have for thinking that it would be reasonable to investigate Donald Trump for criminal activities, if not that he was shown things that made him think, “We should investigate this guy for criminal activities.”? What’s the upside for him?
I’m also curious what upside you think there is for John Bolton and John Kelly to both be like, “No, God, please! Please Senate, Republicans investigate the hell out of that man!”?
It’s not a loaded question at all. It was a question that attempted to get to the heart of your objection to the impeachment proceedings. I was trying to figure out if your stance is “even if everything alleged is true, he should still not be impeached”.
Well, I now know how much credence to give your abilities to judge evidence. The idea that what the House has presented isn’t evidence shows me just how far you’ve gone down the partisan road. So now I know. You’re willing to ignore the sworn testimony and write it off as “assertions”.
I did. I cited the comments of founders, argued the text, and gave examples of what actual constitutional scholars concluded (hint: it’s not what Dershowitz said). You just apparently didn’t read it.
If you have very little desire to actually research what he’s saying, and you don’t listen or pay attention to what the actual constitutional scholars are saying, of course he “did it pretty well”. It’s only when you actually research the topic or listen to the experts, that it becomes clear Dershowitz is full of shit.
I do not personally hate Donald Trump. I do have utter contempt for him as a president, and a general dislike of him as a human being. However, these and hatred are not the same thing. But I hear this all the time. Democrats hate Trump, therefore he must be impeached. While I have no doubt there are some Democrats (and others) that feel like this, it is by no means a requirement. Some of us feel he must be impeached for legitimate reasons, regardless of our level of “hatred” towards him. And when I hear someone make a statement such as yours, it comes off as a cheap, lazy ploy, a weak attempt to come up with a bullshit reason we think he should be impeached, rather than actually having to get down in the dirt and refute our real opinions on the matter.
I’m not saying this applies to you in general, since you are very active in this thread and do engage in actual debate. But in my experience, Dopers here want him thrown out for legitimate reasons.