Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Payback for McConnell maybe, since he abused his power by not allowing a vote on Obama's pick for the supreme court. Do not underestimate Pelosi's power. She is a pro.
Who cares what Alan Dershowitz says?
I didn't hear him objecting to Trump stopping witnesses from testifying, refusing to act on legal subpoenas, refusing to provide requested documents, obstructing Congress or abusing his power.
Dershowitz is a biased Trump supporter and has been from day one. Why do you think he's always on Fox propoganda state TV?
Who cares what Alan Dershowitz says?
I didn't hear him objecting to Trump stopping witnesses from testifying, refusing to act on legal subpoenas, refusing to provide requested documents, obstructing Congress or abusing his power.
Dershowitz is a biased Trump supporter and has been from day one. Why do you think he's always on Fox propoganda state TV?
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed liberal pundits who claim he’s defending President Trump simply because he pointed out that there is no collusion case against Trump based on the evidentiary facts.
“You are implying in a kind of McCarthyite way that I am somehow defending Trump and that I am making his case,†Dershowitz said on MSNBC. “Shame on you! I am making a civil liberties case. I am not part of the Trump defense team, and don’t you dare accuse me of doing that. I am not making a case for anybody.â€
Dershowitz — an internationally recognized constitutional law expert — underscored that he’s not a Trump supporter, but he does support civil liberties for all, regardless of their political affiliation. "The law applies equally, even to those you don’t like. " Dershowitz, the author of the bestselling book, “The Case Against Impeaching Trump,†made the statements during a panel discussion with MSNBC host Kasie Hunt and leftist pundit Mimi Rocah.
Dershowitz is a lifelong liberal who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and for Hillary Clinton in 2016. He said he would have made the exact same argument for Hillary if she had been elected and her political opponents were trying to undermine her by bringing a bogus collusion case against her. “I would be making the identical case if Hillary Clinton had been elected and they were trying to stretch the law to target somebody who you disapprove of. I am the only person on the show who is trying to defend civil liberties.â€
For decades, Dershowitz was celebrated by liberals for boldly championing civil liberties. He has recently been viciously attacked and disavowed by the Left for pointing out that there is no evidence to support impeachment of President Trump.
Dershowitz said what he cares about is preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and not — as many on the Left are doing — being a partisan hack for either side.
“If the evidence were to point to a crime — whether it be of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or of you — I would make that case,†Dershowitz said. “But I am not going to make the law stretch for an individual who is very unpopular. That’s my view. Get it clear.â€
As BizPac Review previously reported, Dershowitz has been trashed and ostracized by liberals for dispassionately defending President Trump’s constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties.
Liberals irrationally seem to believe that because they don’t like Trump, he has no rights. As an example of liberal hypocrisy, look at Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Maxine Waters. They vehemently champion the purported due process rights of illegal aliens even though they’re not even supposed to be in the country.
But these clowns apparently think Trump (an American citizen and president of the United States) doesn’t deserve any rights.
A defiant Alan Dershowitz said he will not surrender to liberal bullying. “I will not change my views as a result of these attempts to ostracize me,†he said. “Silence is not my style. Cowardice is not my philosophy.â€
BTW - Maybe you do not know that Fox has more than a few Dems/liberals on its programs unlike CNN and MSNBC who rarely have any Repubs/ conservatives, a difference of opinion seems to confuse CNN/MSNBC's limited viewership.
I've watched Dershowitz on TV hundreds of times since 2016.
He used to be a regular contributor on CNN.
Sometimes they'd have him head to head with Jeffrey Toobin. You could guarantee they'd always be at loggerheads with opposing views.
Dershowitz would always be on Trumps side. Always. Regardless the subject matter. Dershowitz gradually stopped appearing on CNN and started appearing more regularly on Fox where he could spout his BS unopposed.
BTW - Maybe you do not know that Fox has more than a few Dems/liberals on its programs unlike CNN and MSNBC who rarely have any Repubs/ conservatives, a difference of opinion seems to confuse CNN/MSNBC's limited viewership.
Absolute rubbish. CNN and MSNBC regularly have Republican / Conservatives. Kayleigh McEnany for example used to be on CNN all the time until she switched jobs. MSNBC employs Nicole Wallace and Joe Scarborough. I see people like Brett Stephens and Michael Steele on regularly. There are lots of others that have come and gone.
Dershowitz: Pelosi's Proposal to Withhold Senate Trial Is Unconstitutional
Impeachment (i.e. indictment) by the House and trial by the Senate, was designed by the Founders as a way to give a high public official a public forum for writing up charges and then trying him in front of a "jury of his peers", or as close to them as they can come.
The House fulfilled the first part of that plan on Dec. 18., however haphazardly. But Pelosi's scheme to wait until such charges are approved, and then deliberately delay the Senate from starting the trial section for months, deprives President Trump of the benefits of a speedy trial, the ability to call his own witnesses, and to present arguments in his defense.
Have the Democrats ever come even close to providing due process, or follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution?
Pelosi's Proposal to Withhold Senate Trial Is Unconstitutional
by Alan Dershowitz
Thursday, 19 December 2019 02:40 PM
Now that the House has impeached President Trump, the question is what happens next. Speaker Pelosi has suggested that she may withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate as part of a negotiating tactic. This ploy drives from an idea put forward by my friend and colleague Laurence Tribe, who has proposed that the Senate not conduct a trial — at least not now.
He would withhold the trial until the Senate agreed to change its rules, or presumably until a new election put many more Democrats in the Senate. Under his proposal, there might never be a Senate trial, but the impeachment would stand as a final and permanent condemnation of President Trump.
It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people.
Denying President Trump and the American people a trial in the Senate would constitute a variation on the title of my new book, "Guilt by Accusation."
President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment. It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial.
This would deny him the right to confront his accusers and to disprove the charges against him.
The Senate is allowed to make up its own rules on how an impeachment conviction will be done, what will be necessary for it, and how it will proceed.
So Dershowitz is neither completely right or wrong. There is only one instance of an impeachment going all the way in the Senate to trial and conviction, and that instance's rules were entirely different that any of McConnell's plans.
And none of us really know exactly what McConnell's plans are in their specifics. He hasn't made any announcement about the procedure in is full details.
But it is all within his rights constitutionally to do so. Just as it was within Pelosi's rights as House Speaker. The Constitution left impeachment open as to procedures because the founding fathers realized times would change.
What's the best way to plan for the unknowns of the future? Leave it open and let the future decide for itself what's legal or not.
That's what the founding fathers did, and that's how it happened.
Impeachment is a purely political matter. It is not like a criminal matter at all, even if the causes have criminality in them.
Who are Trump's peers as President? Only the members of the House and the Senate.
One house just completed the first half of the process, and it was done constitutionally; President Trump was offered the ability to defend himself to his peers in the House, and he refused to take the offer up.
There is nothing at all in the Constitution that mandates an impeachment from the House has to be sent to the Senate immediately. The Constitution says nothing at all about the timing, or how impeachment is to be done.
The fact is Pelosi could hang on to the Bill of Impeachment forever if she wanted to. The bill itself has no expiration date built into it.
Pelosi could retire without ever sending the Bill up to the Senate, and her replacement as Speaker could send it up after she's long gone. There is nothing to prevent that. There is nothing that could prevent very much at all.
And that's why McConnell envisions a trial that is not a trial. Since there are no instructions, all he has to do is put up each article of impeachment up for a floor vote individually.
If the article is denied for further Senate consideration, then the charge dies and goes away without the need for a trial. If both charges fail individually, Trump gets a free pass without a trial.
That's fair play constitutionally, because there are no set procedural rules for impeachment. Nancy's withholding the Bill is fair play as well.
What we have is 2 old foxes playing a game only very skilled foxes can play. So far, the game is stalemated.
But if you understand the game, a person can foresee some possibilities that no one has mentioned yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
