The Dershowitz Principle

30 January 2020, 12:02 PM

First, remember that Dershowitz is a criminal law professor (that is a professor of criminal law, not that he is a criminal, although there is one outstanding allegation against him associated with Epstein). He is not a constitutional law professor. Or even a constitutional lawyer. He is a criminal lawyer. Criminal lawyers work by presenting interpretations of words and sentences, even if they need to twist a sentence into a pretzel to make it mean what they want it to mean.

Dershowitz says that if "a" president thinks his is the greatest president ever, and believes that getting re-elected serves the nation's interests, then anything that president does, however unprincipled, immoral, or downright illegal, is perfectly fine and cannot be grounds for impeachment.

Republican senators are glomming on to this argument to justify their vote to acquit I-1.

If that stands, we have just lost our democracy. Our Grand Experiment has failed in less than 250 years.

Sad!

--------------------------------
pj, citizen-poster, unless specifically noted otherwise.

mod-in-training.

pj@ermosworld∙com

All types of erorrs fixed while you wait.

31 January 2020, 07:15 AM

jon-nyc

Seen on Twitter:

A legal team madder than hatters
Tore Article I into tatters.
“A quo for a quid?
So what if he did?
He’s POTUS, and nothing else matters.”

31 January 2020, 09:18 AM

CHAS

Considering human nature and the difficulties
encountered in establishing it, I am surprised it lasted as long as it did.

31 January 2020, 10:55 AM

Steve Miller

The Wall Street Journal buys in to it.

31 January 2020, 12:49 PM

ShiroKuro

I can't even right now with this....

31 January 2020, 03:03 PM

jon-nyc

I don’t think it’s as portentous as this. It’s not like they start from this argument and got to acquittal. They started with acquittal and went searching for arguments.

31 January 2020, 03:20 PM

pianojuggler

I see it as one step away from Nixon's declaration that "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal".

Convince me I'm wrong. Talk me off the ledge.

--------------------------------
pj, citizen-poster, unless specifically noted otherwise.

mod-in-training.

pj@ermosworld∙com

All types of erorrs fixed while you wait.

31 January 2020, 03:26 PM

pianojuggler

As an aside, Nixon also said:

"With all the power that a president has, the most important thing to bear in mind is this: You must not give power to a man unless, above everything else, he has character. Character is the most important qualification the president of the United States can have."

"Never forget, the press is the enemy."

"I didn't do anything wrong and I promise to never do it again."

And at the time, many people thought he was the most awful President we could ever have.

--------------------------------
pj, citizen-poster, unless specifically noted otherwise.

mod-in-training.

pj@ermosworld∙com

All types of erorrs fixed while you wait.

31 January 2020, 04:46 PM

Nina

quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I don’t think it’s as portentous as this. It’s not like they start from this argument and got to acquittal. They started with acquittal and went searching for arguments.

What difference would that make in terms of the next time, or the next? Serious question. The precedent is now set.

31 January 2020, 05:04 PM

Steve Miller

quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
What difference would that make in terms of the next time, or the next? Serious question. The precedent is now set.

And it's on Roberts' head.

What a tool he turned out to be.

31 January 2020, 06:31 PM

Daniel

quote:
Originally posted by ShiroKuro:
I can't even right now with this....

+1

~~But Dershowitz is a POS~~

31 January 2020, 06:37 PM

CHAS

quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I don’t think it’s as portentous as this. It’s not like they start from this argument and got to acquittal. They started with acquittal and went searching for arguments.

What difference would that make in terms of the next time, or the next? Serious question. The precedent is now set.

Yes, that

31 January 2020, 07:47 PM

jon-nyc

quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I don’t think it’s as portentous as this. It’s not like they start from this argument and got to acquittal. They started with acquittal and went searching for arguments.

What difference would that make in terms of the next time, or the next? Serious question. The precedent is now set.

I just don’t think they set much store in the argument itself. Anymore than McConnell would hold back on reviewing a SCOTUS nominee next month because of what he said 4 years ago.

Let’s say the next President is a Democrat who gets caught giving nuclear secrets away for campaign contributions. Not impeachable according to Dershowitz, assuming he or she considered re-election to be key to national security. You think the GOP will feel bound by the precedent?

31 January 2020, 09:26 PM

pianojuggler

Well, I guess even Dershowitz isn’t buying Dershowitz. But it takes some real word spaghetti for him to say “that’s what I said, but it’s not what I said”. Sheesh.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30...ump-cnntv/index.html

--------------------------------
pj, citizen-poster, unless specifically noted otherwise.

mod-in-training.

pj@ermosworld∙com

All types of erorrs fixed while you wait.