Dershowitz says no charges for Trump

[lamboguy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-you-cannot-charge-a-president-with-obstruction-of-justice-for-exercising-his-constitutional-power/article/2642440

this guy is a huge Trump supporter

[jocko699]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-you-cannot-charge-a-president-with-obstruction-of-justice-for-exercising-his-constitutional-power/article/2642440

this guy is a huge Trump supporter


Really? A Trump supporter? Can you please show me where Mr. Dershowitz has publicly supported The POTUS other than on his stance with Israel?:popcorn::popcorn:

[Dave Schwartz]

Dershowitz is a long-time liberal.

However, when it comes to the law, he shoots pretty straight and calls them as he sees them. (meaning: he is unbiased when it comes to constitutional law.)

[_______]

This is a bit of sophistry.

By definition, a President can’t commit obstruction of justice in the exercise of his office. The question then becomes, was the specific action in the exercise of his office?

The arbiter of that last question is Congress. Three times in our history, a President has been charged with that specific crime. One time, he most assuredly was facing conviction and resigned rather than face that prospect.

So score one for Alan Dershowitz making the rounds here at PA on an argument as cogent as this one. He’s undoubtably right on a very narrow well defined point.

But it’s one that ignores the actual history of our country and the political reality of how an impeachment would play out.

[lamboguy]

Really? A Trump supporter? Can you please show me where Mr. Dershowitz has publicly supported The POTUS other than on his stance with Israel?:popcorn::popcorn:he told my friend he voted for him, and was ecstatic when he won

[zico20]

This is a bit of sophistry.

By definition, a President can’t commit obstruction of justice in the exercise of his office. The question then becomes, was the specific action in the exercise of his office?

The arbiter of that last question is Congress. Three times in our history, a President has been charged with that specific crime. One time, he most assuredly was facing conviction and resigned rather than face that prospect.

So score one for Alan Dershowitz making the rounds here at PA on an argument as cogent as this one. He’s undoubtably right on a very narrow well defined point.

But it’s one that ignores the actual history of our country and the political reality of how an impeachment would play out.

But liberals do not know what the term very narrow well defined point means. The Constitution and laws to Democrats are very broad and open to any interpretation they see fit. I would be willing to bet the Democrats believe they have grounds for impeachment on over a 100 different offenses in their mind.

[boxcar]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-you-cannot-charge-a-president-with-obstruction-of-justice-for-exercising-his-constitutional-power/article/2642440

this guy is a huge Trump supporter

No he's not. But is he a very, very rare honest liberal. And he knows how to properly interpret the Constitution. For example, he said from the git go on Trump's six-nation Muslim immigration ban that all the lower courts' decisions to block or ban implementation was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court proved him right.

[boxcar]

This is a bit of sophistry.

By definition, a President can’t commit obstruction of justice in the exercise of his office. The question then becomes, was the specific action in the exercise of his office?

The arbiter of that last question is Congress. Three times in our history, a President has been charged with that specific crime. One time, he most assuredly was facing conviction and resigned rather than face that prospect.

So score one for Alan Dershowitz making the rounds here at PA on an argument as cogent as this one. He’s undoubtably right on a very narrow well defined point.

But it’s one that ignores the actual history of our country and the political reality of how an impeachment would play out.

Sadly, the rules for congressional impeachment have a much lower judicial bar that the Law of the Land does, since the former is often driven by politics. Apples and oranges.