Reply
Regular Social Butterfly

Dershowitz Defense

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dershowitz-unconventional-defense-trump-senate-impeachment-trial-en...

 

President Trump's defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued Wednesday that a president can’t be impeached for exerting his executive powers to win an election if he believes his victory is in the national public interest.  "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," celebrity attorney Dershowitz said at Trump’s impeachment trial, which garnered chuckles from senators in the chamber. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."  "And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," he added.

 

Dershowitz’s unconventional defense came in the question phase of the trial when senators get to submit written requests to both sides to explain their case on why Trump should or shouldn’t be acquitted for two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sparked the response when he asked: "Does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?"

 

House managers allege that Trump pressured Ukraine to launch investigations into his political rival, Joe Biden, by withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to the country. They charge that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo that was ignoring the national interest -- and the will of Congress -- for the personal political purpose of winning reelection in 2020.  “The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal,” Dershowitz said in an animated speech on the Senate floor.

 

He made the case that if Trump’s motive for asking Ukraine for help was “mixed” -- both national

interest and political gain -- it was not impeachable because it’s not a purely “corrupt” intention.

"A complex middle case is: 'I want to be elected. I think I'm a great president. I think I'm the greatest president there ever was and if I'm not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly,” Dershowitz said. “That cannot be an impeachable offense."

 

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., called Dershowitz's argument "odd."

Schiff re-upped Democrats' call for testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton, who reportedly has firsthand knowledge that Trump's reason for withholding aid to Ukraine was for the investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden.  “All quid pros [quos] are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt. You don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which," Schiff said. "For one thing, you can ask John Bolton.”

 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion earlier this month saying that Trump's administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to Ukraine -- the issue at the heart of the president's impeachment trial.

 

My comments:

 

1. Adam Schiff made a fool out of himself by calling the defense "odd" because oddness is logically irrelevant.

 

2. John Bolton or others cannot prove that Trump does not believe that his election is good for America therefore their testimonies are irrelevant to Dershowitz's defense.

 

 

You are getting sleepy.
Honored Social Butterfly

The Dershowiz Defense, as long as I believe I'm acting in the best interests of the country, I can do anything. As long as he believes that? Is he serious?

 

That meansTrump could whatever he wants without any consequences. And we saw there were no consequences on the Republican side of the Senate.

Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

The Dershowiz Defense, as long as I believe I'm acting in the best interests of the country, I can do anything. As long as he believes that? Is he serious?

 

That meansTrump could whatever he wants without any consequences. And we saw there were no consequences on the Republican side of the Senate.


Good point, CeeTee.  Dershowiz has the fine distinction of getting two of the most notorious defendants in the US off the hook, OJ and trump.  He should be so proud....


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly

The Dershowitiz Defense: As long as the president believes he's acting in the national interest, he can do anything he wants.

0 Kudos
188 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Trump World doesn't get it. In America, one cannot have a trial where the prosecution is NOT allowed to introduce evidence or call witnesses. The all white Republican members of the U.S. Senate (with one exception) were a national disgrace.

Honored Social Butterfly

absolute national disgrace!!!!
Honored Social Butterfly

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 

Regular Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
217 Views
9
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.

Regular Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
190 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 


However, your alleged trial had a human witness unless you are not human.

Regular Social Butterfly


@Snoopy48 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 


However, your alleged trial had a human witness unless you are not human.


I didn't testify.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
256 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 


However, your alleged trial had a human witness unless you are not human.


I didn't testify.

 


So your original claim was false?

Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 


They do if there are some.

0 Kudos
204 Views
3
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 


They do if there are some.


And, if there are none?

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
218 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 


They do if there are some.


And, if there are none?


Still waiting for you to answer my questions. You can not ask questions without answering them.

Regular Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The National Disgrace was carried out in the Republican controlled Senate where they acted as if America is now a dictatorship headed by Comrade Trump.

 

In my entire life, I never heard of an American Trial where the prosecution was NOT allowed to intrduce evidence or call witnesses. 


I was on trial for speeding in a car and there were no witnesses but a prosecuting attorney who gave a long speech.  I said to the judge, "Before you throw me into a dungeon and throw away the key, here is a receipt for repair of my speedometer."  I was pronounced innocent.

 

In the impeachment trial, house managers said that there was already a "mountain of evidence" and "overwhelming evidence".  With evidence like that, you don't need witnesses.

 


Not true as you always need to hear from people who know what happened. What is a problem is if someone produces false material that can effect a case   with no witnesses to give the truth.


It is my understanding that camera and parking ticket trials don't have human witnesses.

 


They do if there are some.


And, if there are none?


Still waiting for you to answer my questions. You can not ask questions without answering them.


My question was rhetorical.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
292 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

neither have I Cee Tee. WE watched the GOP or what little is left of them completely and totally rip up the Constitution with their vote yesterday!!!! Abuse of power in the country is NO LONGER UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Our founding fathers are tossing in their graves!
Honored Social Butterfly

I'm impressed. 52 TRUMP CULT MEMBERS voted to acquit Trump without a trial.  In Trump World, that of course affirms the bizarre Dershowitz Defense.

 

I'm LOL but crying on the inside. This was a national disgrace for our democracy.

Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

I'm impressed. 52 TRUMP CULT MEMBERS voted to acquit Trump without a trial.  In Trump World, that of course affirms the bizarre Dershowitz Defense.

 

I'm LOL but crying on the inside. This was a national disgrace for our democracy.


And an enormous defecation on our Constitution by Trump and his gutless Republican minions!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
0 Kudos
216 Views
0
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

I'm impressed. 52 TRUMP CULT MEMBERS voted to acquit Trump without a trial.  In Trump World, that of course affirms the bizarre Dershowitz Defense.

 

I'm LOL but crying on the inside. This was a national disgrace for our democracy.


The disgrace was that the Democrats wasted taxpayer time and money by pretending that they could get more than 66% of the Senate on their side.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
242 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

history will always remember this day and what happened in the Senate, where once again they put party in front of country. FOR SHAME!!!!!
Regular Social Butterfly


@Tom5678 wrote:
history will always remember this day and what happened in the Senate, where once again they put party in front of country. FOR SHAME!!!!!

In a hundred years, history books will say, "That's where the expression, 'Trumped-up charges,' came from."

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
235 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Tom5678 wrote:
history will always remember this day and what happened in the Senate, where once again they put party in front of country. FOR SHAME!!!!!

In a hundred years, history books will say, "That's where the expression, 'Trumped-up charges,' came from."

 


In far less time, history books will say "Trump was the most incompetent and corrupt president in U.S. history"

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Honored Social Butterfly

Was it me or did Dershowitz sound like one of Al Capone's lawyers?

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

Was it me or did Dershowitz sound like one of Al Capone's lawyers?


Al Capone's lawyer, tRump's lawyer ............ really not much difference.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

Perhaps worse, he sounds like he is making a dictatorship defense, like defending hitler or stalin...they were justified in committing atrocities, because they thought that they were right!...it doesn't matter what others think. 

Honored Social Butterfly

We must always understand that LOGIC is not part of Trump World. They can make up anything they want and use any irrational statements to justify their beliefs.

 

Dershowitz said, "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." 

 

The key is, "which he believes". That means nobody else can judge him, such as the Senate. In the criminal world, this would be the equivalent of saying I was justified in killing another person because I BELIEVED he was a danger to society. 

 

But in American law, the individual doesn't make that judgement, only a jury makes that decision. Per our Constitution, that's the whole point of the impeachment process. It doesn't matter what the President believes because he/she doesn't make that decision in the impeachment trial. It's made by the Senate.

Regular Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

We must always understand that LOGIC is not part of Trump World. They can make up anything they want and use any irrational statements to justify their beliefs.

 

Dershowitz said, "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." 

 

The key is, "which he believes". That means nobody else can judge him, such as the Senate. In the criminal world, this would be the equivalent of saying I was justified in killing another person because I BELIEVED he was a danger to society. 

 

But in American law, the individual doesn't make that judgement, only a jury makes that decision. Per our Constitution, that's the whole point of the impeachment process. It doesn't matter what the President believes because he/she doesn't make that decision in the impeachment trial. It's made by the Senate.


Oh, look.  52% of the Senate agreed with Dershowitz!

 

impeachment.jpg

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
214 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:


Oh, look.  52% of the Senate agreed with Dershowitz!


..... Unconstitutionally Elevating Trump above the law and our country's Constitution!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png