I know, right? The “attacks” are relatively easy because Dershowitz’s constitutional opinion that a crime is necessary to impeach is so catastrophically wrong. Which, were you not so deeply ingrained in partisanship, would indicate to you that maybe, since almost every expert in the field disagrees with him, he’s catastrophically wrong. And I posted numerous responses to Curtis that showed that Dershowitz’s adoption of his argument was catastrophically wrong. You are wrong too. It’s clear, to me, to most other posters in this thread, to almost every con-law expert, to everyone but Dershowitz and his lackeys, that that is a misinterpretation of the term.
This paragraph actually makes me sad. I like to think that, in most things, rationality and evidence are guiding lights. I like to think that lawyers, especially, have the ability to discern good arguments from bad arguments and the ability to cite to actual evidence for that position. When I see a lawyer so clearly putting his abilities as a lawyer aside to make an untenable argument based solely on partisanship, it makes me sad. Doing it to protect the rights of the accused (like criminal defense attorneys) or to make money (like many attorneys) or to get name recognition, or a combination of all three (like Dershowitz), sure. But to work so hard to make a bad argument on a message board simply for partisanship sake, makes me sad.
I know I pointed all this out (and still unrefuted by you) earlier, but here goes again. “Misdemeanors”, as used by the founders in the Impeachment Clause, does not mean “little crimes”. You’re using a 2020 definition for a 1783 word. First, it would be very poor writing to say “for Big crimes and little crimes”, it’s redundant and unnecessary. If you could impeach for little crimes, of course you can impeach for big crimes.
But there’s more. You have, of course, Hamilton’s writing. You have John Adams saying: "“If an office be granted to hold so long as he behaves himself well in the office, that is an estate for life, unless he lose it for misbehaviour; for it hath an annexed condition to be forfeited upon misdemeanor, and this by law is annexed to all offices, they being trusts; and misdemeanors in an office is a breach of trust.” You have a 1796 South Carolina opinion saying: "“is liable for misdemeanors in office, and subject to impeachment for misconduct if he misbehaved.” You have other state constitutions using the term misdemeanors and they did not require criminal offenses. You have actual senators and judges from that era who committed no crimes, but were impeached and removed. You have James Madison saying that misdemeanors was too broad and would include non-criminal conduct and then it gets passed. You have the great Justice Story saying, very specifically, that no crime had to have occurred to impeach.
There is a mountain of evidence that you and Dershowitz simply ignore. And that’s a shame. But at least Dersh is getting paid and getting name recognition.
Baloney. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is that standard that the founders adopted. You can’t impeach for just doing a bad job, or being disliked, but you can for actual abuse of power. Or being drunk on the bench. Or taking the name of the Lord in vain. Or trying to give land to Britan. Or for extorting a foreign govenment to announce an investigation into a political rival.