![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Is Alan Dershowitz even trying to make reasoned arguments?
... or has he decided, since the jury is already guaranteed to rule his way, to just have fun saying whatever pops into his head?
First, it was that a President can't be impeached, much less convicted and removed from office, except for a crime. Essentially no Constitutional scholars anywhere believe this, and there's no historical basis for it. Many of the things that common sense suggests should be impeachable are things that only a President can do, and Congress seldom bothers passing laws that narrow.
Then there was this yesterday: if a President sincerely believes that his re-election is in the best interest of the country, anything he does to ensure his re-election is therefore not an impeachable "high crime or misdemeanour". (I don't have an exact quote; the above is how several different news organizations summarized what he said.)
Seriously? Has any President ever run for re-election without believing (or claiming to believe) his re-election was in the best interest of the country? No, I didn't think so. Put these two facts together, and you conclude that any President can use any powers of the Presidency (s)he wishes in order to get re-elected, and it's not impeachable. Shut down news organizations critical of the President? Lock up or disqualify the opposing nominee? Order voter purges of the opposing party? All fine, as long as you say it's in the best interest of the country. Congress has no legitimate oversight over such "policy differences"; only the (remaining, loyal, properly informed) voters do.
Indeed, this suggests that a President can immunize himself from any conceivable impeachment charge simply by saying publicly "this is in the best interest of the country".
Similarly, there was a claim yesterday that since the President determines foreign policy, it is logically impossible for a President to act in opposition to U.S. foreign policy interests, as Trump is accused of doing. If the President decides Russia didn't intervene in the 2016 election on his behalf, but Ukraine did on his opponent's behalf (and framed the Russians for it), then it is now U.S. foreign policy to find or invent evidence for the latter theory, and the rest of the U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communities are wrong or insubordinate for disagreeing with the President.
A President can't be indicted for Federal crimes, says the Justice Department, because that would need to be done by his subordinates, and the only Constitutional remedy for a corrupt President is impeachment. Nor can a President be indicted for State crimes, said his lawyers last year, because that would distract him from his job, and the only Constitutional remedy for a corrupt President is impeachment. A President can't be (legitimately) impeached, much less convicted and removed from office, for putting his own interests ahead of the country's, say his defenders now, because he gets to decide what's a "legitimate" impeachment and what the country's interests are, so the only Constitutional remedy for a corrupt President is a free and fair election. And if the President is sufficiently corrupt, he needn't worry about those pesky "free and fair elections" either.
Somebody on the President's defense team (I don't think it was Dershowitz) yesterday suggested that any impeachment whose votes are largely along party lines is illegitimate: it obviously indicates that the President's enemies were acting on partisanship, not law and the facts, when they brought the charges. (There was no explanation of why it doesn't equally indicate that the President's defenders were acting on partisanship, not law and the facts, when they dismissed the charges.) If so, then any President with sufficiently strong control over his party, even a minority party in both houses of Congress, can immunize himself from impeachment by getting all of his own party members to vote in his favor.
I'm really curious to know what, if anything, would qualify as impeachable under these theories.
First, it was that a President can't be impeached, much less convicted and removed from office, except for a crime. Essentially no Constitutional scholars anywhere believe this, and there's no historical basis for it. Many of the things that common sense suggests should be impeachable are things that only a President can do, and Congress seldom bothers passing laws that narrow.
Then there was this yesterday: if a President sincerely believes that his re-election is in the best interest of the country, anything he does to ensure his re-election is therefore not an impeachable "high crime or misdemeanour". (I don't have an exact quote; the above is how several different news organizations summarized what he said.)
Seriously? Has any President ever run for re-election without believing (or claiming to believe) his re-election was in the best interest of the country? No, I didn't think so. Put these two facts together, and you conclude that any President can use any powers of the Presidency (s)he wishes in order to get re-elected, and it's not impeachable. Shut down news organizations critical of the President? Lock up or disqualify the opposing nominee? Order voter purges of the opposing party? All fine, as long as you say it's in the best interest of the country. Congress has no legitimate oversight over such "policy differences"; only the (remaining, loyal, properly informed) voters do.
Indeed, this suggests that a President can immunize himself from any conceivable impeachment charge simply by saying publicly "this is in the best interest of the country".
Similarly, there was a claim yesterday that since the President determines foreign policy, it is logically impossible for a President to act in opposition to U.S. foreign policy interests, as Trump is accused of doing. If the President decides Russia didn't intervene in the 2016 election on his behalf, but Ukraine did on his opponent's behalf (and framed the Russians for it), then it is now U.S. foreign policy to find or invent evidence for the latter theory, and the rest of the U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communities are wrong or insubordinate for disagreeing with the President.
A President can't be indicted for Federal crimes, says the Justice Department, because that would need to be done by his subordinates, and the only Constitutional remedy for a corrupt President is impeachment. Nor can a President be indicted for State crimes, said his lawyers last year, because that would distract him from his job, and the only Constitutional remedy for a corrupt President is impeachment. A President can't be (legitimately) impeached, much less convicted and removed from office, for putting his own interests ahead of the country's, say his defenders now, because he gets to decide what's a "legitimate" impeachment and what the country's interests are, so the only Constitutional remedy for a corrupt President is a free and fair election. And if the President is sufficiently corrupt, he needn't worry about those pesky "free and fair elections" either.
Somebody on the President's defense team (I don't think it was Dershowitz) yesterday suggested that any impeachment whose votes are largely along party lines is illegitimate: it obviously indicates that the President's enemies were acting on partisanship, not law and the facts, when they brought the charges. (There was no explanation of why it doesn't equally indicate that the President's defenders were acting on partisanship, not law and the facts, when they dismissed the charges.) If so, then any President with sufficiently strong control over his party, even a minority party in both houses of Congress, can immunize himself from impeachment by getting all of his own party members to vote in his favor.
I'm really curious to know what, if anything, would qualify as impeachable under these theories.