Impeachment

Alan Dershowitz: John Bolton Allegations Are Not Impeachable, Nor Is Abuse of Power

"Purely non-criminal conduct, including 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of justice,' are outside the range of impeachable offenses," Dershowitz said.

|

Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer and retired Harvard law professor who is on President Donald Trump's impeachment defense team, argued during the Senate trial on Monday evening that recent allegations made in a book by former national security adviser John Bolton are not impeachable.

"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense," said Dershowitz.

In a book that is soon to be released, Bolton says that Trump held up $391 million in congressional authorized security assistance from Ukraine so he could pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into announcing investigations that zeroed in on Trump's political rivals, namely former Vice President Joe Biden. In December, Trump was impeached by the House on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with the incident.

The Bolton allegations threw a wrench into the Senate trial as Republicans mull if they want to introduce witnesses and additional evidence after arguments conclude. Lawmakers will need a simple majority to hear new testimony, and Sens. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) and Susan Collins (R–Maine) have expressed that they will likely vote in favor. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has emphasized the need for speedy proceedings and expressed his desire that no witnesses be called.

In his hourlong argument, Dershowitz also asserted that neither abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress rise to the threshold of impeachable conduct. The only time a president should be removed from office, he said, is if they commit an offense that violates a criminal statute or is "akin" to a crime. (It's worth noting that the latter caveat is a modified position for the lawyer, who in his 2018 book, The Case Against Impeaching Trump, said flatly that impeachment requires a crime.)

"Purely non-criminal conduct, including 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of justice,' are outside the range of impeachable offenses," Dershowitz said.

That position is an about-face from the stance he took during the Clinton impeachment, when he said that there "certainly doesn't have to be a crime" to impeach a president. "If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," he told CNN in 1998.

The view he expressed over two decades ago is the one in line with legal consensus, and Dershowitz himself admits that he is in the minority.

Jonathan Turley, the Republicans' witness during the House Judiciary Committee hearing in December, wrote before he testified that impeachable offenses "were meant to reach a similar level of gravity and seriousness (even if they are not technically criminal acts)." That sounds similar to Dershowitz's newest position on the subject, though Turley also noted that "the use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one's political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense." If we take that counsel, contrary to Dershowitz, then Bolton's allegations merit consideration.

NEXT: Sibling Grammy Winners Billie Eilish and Finneas O'Connell Praise Homeschooling

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I bet Dershowitz endures more social shunning for representing Trump than he got for representing alleged murderers.

    1. No doubt. In fact, I hear his name was conspicuously absent from the invite list for the last BDS Israel cocktail party.

    2. Dershowitz is a very rare creature: a genuinely principled civil libertarian who actually believes in the rule of law regardless of the principals involved.

      Scum like Welchie Boy and most of his pathetic little minions at today’s (Un)Reason aren’t fit to shine his shoes.

    3. Well, a little over half of the voting public voted for a woman who defend a rapist of a 12 year old.

      1. Every accused person is entitled to legal defense.

        Laughing about getting him off afterwards was pretty disgusting, though.

        1. And the way she got him off as equally questionable.

          1. Her hands were cold?

            1. It was like torture.

            2. Thanks, you didn’t disappoint. I was wondering how long until someone made a hand job joke. I can always rely on the Reason commentarians to deliver. And this is only partially tongue in cheek. I am glad that someone did make this joke.

        2. I definitely agree with both those statement Paulpemb.

    4. Mostly he is shunned for being an Epstein pedo buddy.

      1. Of anyone should start away from pedo comments it is you jeff.

  2. I wish someone would point out that the term “abuse of power” is entirely meaningless without some association to either an ethical standard or a criminal statute.

    No one can point to a law that was broken here. More importantly, no can point to an ethical standard that was broken. Anyone with a decent understanding of the history of the Presidency can point to any number of examples of Presidents doing exactly what the President is accused of here and it going without objection. So, whatever the standard is, this doesn’t violate it or else it would have been pointed out long before this.

    Basically the term “abuse of power” is another example of people substituting feelings over logic. The people using the term are just saying they don’t like Trump and feel what he did was wrong. That is it. There is no fact, logic or reasoning behind it.

    1. We know Obama abused his power when he had the IRS deny conservative groups legal status while Trump has only asked for an investigation which is not an abuse and within in his duties as a president.

      1. I mean… obama and the democrats only worked with 13 other countries to try and frame trump. 14 if you count Ukraine and the black register to hurt Manafort.

    2. In fact the constitution literally provides each branch with a check for when they inevitably abuse their power or try to do things beyond their purview.

      1. And while impeachment is one, I don’t know how you can say the president abused his power when you know he actually did what congress dictated.

        1. Basically they are alleging he attempted or committed conspiracy to commit abuse of power or something that’s not entirely clear if that even if he did what they are alleging would be an abuse of power.

    3. Exactly. What is even funnier, is that in reality, they are alledging an “attempted abuse of power” because Trump allowed the dispersal of the funds within the fiscal year IAW federal law.
      And WTF is obstruction of Congress????
      Congress: You have to do X!
      POTUS: I will do X, but I have concerns over corruption.
      Congress: He is guilty of Obstruction of Congress!!!

      1. Obstruction of congress is called a veto, and is specifically constitutional.

      2. “What is even funnier, is that in reality, they are alledging an “attempted abuse of power” because Trump allowed the dispersal of the funds within the fiscal year IAW federal law.”

        Not true. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

        1. Gao is not a judicial agency baby jeffrey. Their analysis is as valid as any other legal group from OLC to the Senate GOP. They are not judicial. And the irony is you have shown no care for the multiple GAO illegality determinations under obama. Weird. But you’re not a leftist.

    4. The other problem with the “abuse of power” charge is that it’s too nebulous to be of any real value in swaying public opinion. The polls may say that X% of people support impeachment, but how many are truly fired up about it–enough to get up off the sofa–outside of the Leftist enclaves? In the end, that’s what is needed for an impeachment charge to really have any punch–it has to get people grabbing for the torches and pitchforks. This ain’t cuttin’ it.

      1. The people who are demanding Trump be removed from office are all the same people who demanded he never be in office in the first place.

        The Democrats aren’t convincing anybody who isn’t already committed to their side.

        1. This is exactly right.

          The entire process was a massive waste of taxpayer money. It was virtue signaling at its worst.

          This was their only hope of not having another 4 years of Trump. A Hail Mary. They know that no democrat, and double especially this crop of nuts, has a chance in hell of beating him unless the economy tanks before the election.

          1. They’re worried they’re going to lose the House and maybe some seats in the Senate.
            It’s an attempt to sow discord (more effectively than any Russians…) and pressure R senators to betray their base (like Amash did) so Ds can beat them and hopefully take over the Senate.

    5. “Normal” public servants have to take training and sign disclosures saying they will avoid any conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest between their public duties and private associations. I doubt elected and appointed officials have to do the same, but if you held the President to this standard, then his actions certainly had the perception of a conflict of interest. Regardless of his actual intentions, pushing specifically for investigation of a political rival is a potential conflict of interest. He should have, ideally, let some senior official handle it instead. So, what he did was a little bit wrong, by standards that are widely applied to public employees, but nowhere near worthy of removal.

      1. Now do why it is okay for four people who are running for his job to be able to vote for or against his removal.

        1. Isn’t that a bigger conflict of interest, if asking for an investigation into possible corruption is a conflict of interest? (BTW, the Nexus of the investigation began before Biden even began officially running).

          1. It is a conflict of interest. Both are. Those senators should get back to campaigning.

            1. There is no conflict of interest in Trump asking Ukraine to pursue investigation of corruption involving US officials.
              Full stop.
              In fact, it’s even required by treaty.
              If anything, there is a coincidence, not conflict, of interest

      2. No it is not a conflict of interest. If it were, then it would be impossible for any member of the opposite party to ever be investigated. That is just not the standard and never has been.

        So try again because that bullshit isn’t flying.

        1. So it would be impossible for Trump to tell his AG, “Hey, it looks like the Bidens were doing some shady stuff in Ukraine. I want you to take a look at it and use your own judgement on how hard to press Ukraine about it. I will continue to press them about corruption, in general, and election interference.”

          If he had done that there wouldn’t have been a conflict of interest.

          Are you saying Trump’s actions wrt Ukraine and Biden are 100% pure (perfect!) and deserve no criticism whatsoever?

          1. Since the crime took place in the Ukraine, the AG can’t investigate it without Ukrainian assistance or invitation. Did you miss the part of the transcript where Trump asked them to work with Barr on it?

          2. “Are you saying Trump’s actions wrt Ukraine and Biden are 100% pure (perfect!) and deserve no criticism whatsoever”

            Completely irrelevant.
            The records of Hunter Biden’s employment are public.
            The statement made by Joe Biden is public.
            That is more than enough evidence for investigation.
            The effect on Trump is immaterial

          3. Are you saying Trump’s actions wrt Ukraine and Biden are 100% pure (perfect!) and deserve no criticism whatsoever?

            Criticism?

            Praise is what they deserve.

        2. In the case of the active candidates for a POTUS election in about nine months, it would be appropriate for them to either vote “Present” or just not show up for the vote (a two-thirds majority of Senators present is required for conviction, so the two actions are somewhat different).

    6. I personally find all of these scholarly opinions silly. The constitution is clear. Treason, bribery, high crimes, misdemeanors. That’s it. On the other hand congress can impeach for any reason with a simple majority vote. Who’s gonna stop them? The opinions of law professors aren’t relevant either way.

      1. On the other hand congress can impeach for any reason with a simple majority vote.

        “Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” is not ‘for any reason’ and I have no idea why we’re letting the Democrats redefine impeachment as if it is.

  3. His “akin to a crime” is in keeping with his comments about Clinton not having to commit a crime.

    1. Clinton committed a crime, beyond doubt. The only question is whether it was a high crime. I.e. doobie or stogie?

    2. It feels that all of current journalism practice is simply to give the widest possible interpretation to anything someone you agree with says while holding those you don’t to a literal standard.

      1. This is one of the most poignant comments I have read in a while! I apologize, but I’m totally stealing this from you! Cheers!

      2. +1, good response

  4. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> https://www.Money34.com

    1. which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy.

      Perhaps you should consider emigrating to the United States.

      1. Trump won’t let him in.

      2. Perhaps you should consider emigrating to the United States.

        What on earth for? We literally have people shitting in the streets here.

        1. And the racism. Don’t get me started on the racism.

        2. You know, he wouldn’t be forced to settle in San Francisco if he emigrated to the US.

  5. Do we know for certain that Russians haven’t gotten to him? Can’t believe he would defend Putin’s Puppet for any other reason.

    #ImpeachAndRemove

  6. “Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer and retired Harvard law professor who is on President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team, argued during the Senate trial on Monday evening that recent allegations made in a book by former national security adviser John Bolton are not impeachable.”
    “In a book that is soon to be released, Bolton says…”
    “In December, Trump was impeached by the House on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with the incident.”
    “The view he expressed over two decades ago is the one in line with legal consensus, and Dershowitz himself admits that he is in the minority.”
    “Jonathan Turley, the Republicans’ witness during the House Judiciary Committee hearing in December, wrote before he testified that impeachable offenses “were meant to reach a similar level of gravity and seriousness…””
    “If we take that counsel, contrary to Dershowitz, then Bolton’s allegations merit consideration.”

    This is just really shitty writing.
    It’s 5th grade level

    1. When you have to put out a dozen of these impeachment articles a week, it gets taxing.

    2. I’m afraid it’s not. 5th grade level, that is.
      This is the level of writing turned out by our current university systems.

      1. I had to take a couple of undergraduate writing courses. They were no more than what I learned in 6th grade aside from an expected advanced vocabulary. Tbh, aside from my 10th grade English teacher I wasn’t taught anything new in that subject past 6th grade

        1. Yea, but most people get better at things they do professionally.
          To be a professional writer, one should have gotten better at writing since 5th grade

          1. The way the article is written just reveals a childish mentality

            1. No disagreement. Just taking a swipe at our education system. At the least, journalists should be proficient in the use of language. That they should also be capable of honestly communicating and interpreting information is clearly a lost cause. It’s just embarrassing when such poorly constructed and communicated stories are presented by those with an advanced education in language.

    3. You think that’s bad?

      “announcing investigations that zeroed in on Trump’s political rivals, namely former Vice President Joe Biden”

      I was totally unaware that there were more than one VP Joe Biden. You learn something new every day.

  7. It seems to me that Dershowitz hasn’t done a 180 or anything, but just broaden his view a little.
    …”is if they commit an offense that violates a criminal statute or is “akin” to a crime.”
    AND
    “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime,”
    Aren’t really THAT far apart. The words used are “completely” and “great danger”. It is reasonable to assume that those types of things are “akin” to a crime. As opposed to temporarily holding up money over concerns of corruption. In which the money was released prior to the end of the fiscal year IAW federal law. In which POTUS SPECIFICALLY didn’t threaten the leader of the government for the country receiving the money that they won’t get the money unless they investigate Biden.
    But let’s assume that he has completely changed his mind. It has been over 20 years. Are people not allowed to change their views?

  8. “Purely non-criminal conduct, including ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of justice,’ are outside the range of impeachable offenses,” Dershowitz said.

    —-Billy Binion

    “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense”

    —-Alan Dershowitz

    Alan Dershowitz, according to your own quote, did not say that the “abuse of power” is outside the range of impeachable offenses. According to your own quote, Alan Dershowitz said that even if Bolton’s allegations were true, they constitute an abuse of power.

    If you can’t make your case honestly, don’t expect people to take your case seriously–and don’t be surprised if other people come to the conclusion that you’re not smart enough to understand what you read quote.

    1. “. . . even if Bolton’s allegations were true, they [do not] constitute an abuse of power.”

      —-Ken Shultz

      Fixed!

    2. This and the “why deny a quid pro quo” article really stand out, but Reason’s reporting on impeachment has really be terrible. They’ve gone full CNN on the issue. They should just stick to writing about things that actually pertain to libertarianism. Leave the politics to someone else.

      1. I remember getting headline writing assignments in Junior High.

        This one would have flunked.

        This would be a good question for the SAT to test reading comprehension. If you read a statement where Dershowitz says that something doesn’t rise to the level of an abuse of power, and you check the box next to the answer that means Dershowitz says that the abuse of power isn’t an impeachable offense, then you get that question wrong.

        If you can’t seem to get anything right so long as Trump’s name is in the question somewhere, that means you have TDS.

  9. You know Reason has reached peak TDS when a person whom they have never said a kind word about in his 40+ years in politics…John Bolton…suddenly find that his “allegations deserve merit”.

    I am quite confident in asserting that if this were anyone but Trump, they would be getting endless praise from Reason for NOT sending financial aid to other countries when we are $22T in debt. Nice principles you have there Reason.

    1. I’m not sure we’ve seen the peak yet. The election season is just starting. Most people don’t even start paying attention until the first convention.

      I would expect Reason to hit peak TDS circa November 3, 2020.

      1. Unless he wins, in which case it will spike on the 8th, and then just keep going up.

    2. The sad thing is that this could have been reason’s finest hour. It shows real principle and integrity to defend someone you don’t like. Reason’s refusal to stand up for the truth here is entirely the result of their dislike of Trump. They have shown themselves to be beltway hacks when they could have shown themselves to have real integrity. Calling bullshit on this doesn’t mean you have to like Trump and can’t continue to disagree with him.

      1. Gillespie borders on that. The issue is that even he hates Trump and consumes too much bs news (including from fellow Reason contributors.) It was interesting on yesterday’s roundtable podcast where he asked them whether Trump should be removed from office based on the impeachment allegations. They not only didn’t answer, but shut down the notion that it was even worth asking. The editors are fucking partisan left-wing idiots and the only somewhat reasonable one is constantly shut down

        1. If they had any sense, they would use their hatred of Trump as a badge of honor for defending him and telling the truth. Anyone can tell the truth when it is popular or doing so helps someone they like. What shows real integrity is telling the truth when it is unpopular and defense someone you don’t like. The thing about all of them is that more than anything else, they are conformists. Every single one of them conforms to the social and political mores of the Washington establishment. How they manage to rationalize conformity with being Libertarian is a mystery known only to them.

      2. //The sad thing is that this could have been reason’s finest hour.//

        Let us not forget who pays the bills around here. They write what they are paid to write.

  10. Abuse of power ( especially when not tethered to a high crime) is without defined standard or clarity.

    Exercised as an impeachable offense of a president, It’s destined to create legislative schizophrenia and allow the inmates to run the asylum.

    We are witnessing just that.

    1. Edit: …of a president, it’s…

      1. The Senate was designed to be and is in fact the world’s premier deliberative body…for a senator to accept Dershowitz’ argument would forever undermine the power of the Senate which is why they can’t accept his argument.

        1. Exactly how is accepting Dershowitz’ s argument ( Re: abuse of power failing the impeachment test) undermining the senate’s power?

          You lost me.

        2. He didn’t say abuse of power wasn’t impeachable, he said that Bolton’s accusations were not abuse of power and therefore not impeachable. Big difference.
          “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” said Dershowitz. From this exact story, for fuck sake.

          1. Dershowitz is arguing that the Senate is not equipped to determine what an impeachable offense is and so he is saying the Framers failed to create the world’s premier deliberative body…or in the alternative this group of senators is less than the senators throughout our history.

            Plus the foundation of Dershowitz’ argument is that he is an authority on this subject and therefore his opinion should be respected. However if that is true then McConnell must admit the Clinton impeachment was illegitimate and Bush v Gore was incorrectly decided because Dershowitz’ opinion is always correct.

            1. “Dershowitz is arguing that the Senate is not equipped to determine what an impeachable offense is…”

              Nonsense. After analyzing the apposite constitutional history, Dershowitz simply delineated the proper criteria for impeaching a president. Abuse of power fails his criteria test.

            2. No, that isn’t even close to what he stated and he is kind of widely regarded as an expert in constitutional law. He never stated the Senate isn’t equipped to rule what is impeachable, he made the argument that this case isn’t, in his opinion, impeachable.

              1. Mitch McConnell has disagreed with Dershowitz’ opinion in the past so we have already established his opinion has little value.

                1. No we established that McConnell has disagreed with him in the past. That doesn’t mean his opinion means nothing, just that on past subjects they’ve disagrees. Wow, what a vapid argument.

            3. You’re really emotionally invested in Dershowitz, McConnell and the Clinton’s.
              That’s not gonna work out well for you

              1. Actually you are invested in Dershowitz’ current opinion while also arguing his opinions have been wrong in the past.

                1. Like any sane person. It is possible to agree *and* disagree with the same person on any number of issues. Only leftists clowns peddle in absolutism.

                2. Sebastian Cremmington
                  January.28.2020 at 4:23 pm
                  Actually you are invested in Dershowitz’ current opinion while also arguing his opinions have been wrong in the past.

                  I haven’t argued in any way about Dershowitz’s past opinions.
                  This is why there isn’t any use talking to psychotics.
                  Your imagination is not reality

                  1. This thread concerns Dershowitz’ argument in the Senate dipshit.

                    1. And you haven’t proven that disagreeing with his take on one issue precludes you from agreeing with him on another issue. That is a sophomoric argument.

            4. “”However if that is true then McConnell must admit the Clinton impeachment was illegitimate and Bush v Gore was incorrectly decided because Dershowitz’ opinion is always correct.””

              No one has to do what you want them to do.

              1. Why are we listening to an authority that has been wrong in the past? As Americans don’t have to respect the words that come out of anybody’s mouth regardless of their title. So you are saying Harvard professor should be listened to now even though you say he has been wrong in the past…that makes no sense! In fact Dershowitz’ opinions are worthless because you believe his opinions have been wrong in the past.

                1. “”Why are we listening to an authority that has been wrong in the past?””

                  Who am I listening to?

                  I could say the same thing about Mueller. The CIA, and the FBI.
                  You seem to have no problem listening to authority when it says what you want to believe.

                2. “”In fact Dershowitz’ opinions are worthless because you believe his opinions have been wrong in the past.””

                  You are wrong that I am listening to Dershowitz. Since you are wrong about that, you must be wrong about everything else.

                  1. I didn’t listen to Mueller. I have always maintained the Mueller investigation was unnecessarily adversarial and McGahn failed Trump by not firing Mueller. In fact after Mueller and Starr I would hope we never have another special counsel again. (In fact Congress watered down the special counsel after Starr because they thought he abused his power).

                    So then come up with your own defenses of Trump…I will gladly continue this discourse with you. Keep in mind Trump is my ideal candidate on paper and I thought he was unfairly treated by the media and Democrats up until this Ukraine scandal.

                    1. We’ve already established that you’re wrong about everything, per your own logic

            5. The framers debated a parliament style government, or legislative superiority, and they decided no. They instead created co equal branches. So fuck off with your ignorance.

              1. Correct, with impeachment!! Lololololol!!

                1. With the clearly defined high crimes and misdemeanors as a prerequisite. LOL.

          2. I think you must have missed what Dershowitz said. Let me quote him:

            “I will argue that our constitution and its terms high crimes and misdemeanors do not encompass the two articles, charging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.”

            Regrets.

            1. Do you think Dershowitz is correct that the Clinton impeachment was illegitimate? Do you agree with Dershowitz that Bush v Gore was incorrectly decided?

              1. Clinton was charged with an actual crime, perjury. And how is Bush V Gore related to his arguments?

                1. So you disagree with Dershowitz’ prior opinions, ipso facto, Dershowitz is not a reliable authority on this subject and so we should ignore the words that come out of his mouth. So we should shut down this thread and move on to other defenses of Trump.

                  1. Retarded.

                  2. No, what Derschorwitz’s argument was wasn’t rather Clinton broke a law, but rather it reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a relevant argument to make. Does it reach that level? Learned persons can disagree with that without totally dismissing each other’s views. It is the sign of intelligence go be able to hold competing ideas and reconcile them.

                    1. So the way you evaluate an authority’s opinion is that it only has value if you agree with their opinion on the particular matter at hand. Lololololol!!!

                    2. No I disagree or agree based upon the logic of their argument. And I stated his take on Clinton was a valid point rather or not you agreed with if. Jesus are you fucking stupid?

        3. And he differentiated between criminal and non-criminal abuse of power. Meaning the latter is so nebulous that it has no definition and could hypothetically even include impeaching over a veto because the house bill passed unanimously. Non-criminal abuse of power is to abstract of a concept for impeachment is his argument. He didn’t say anything about criminal abuse of power.

    2. “without defined standard or clarity.””

      That’s a feature not a bug. It’s so they have the ability to change things as they go.

  11. Is this impeachment thing still going?

    1. Ha! It’s never ending. Ever.

    2. They have already started the next impeachment when this one fails.

      1. Gonna be tough from a minority in both the House and Senate

  12. If one accepts Dershowitz’ argument then one must admit the Clinton impeachment was illegitimate and that Bush v Gore was incorrectly decided.

    1. Because? How are those cases even remotely related to Derschorwitz’s argument? Explain please.

      1. You mean other than he mentioned them as part of his argument on the Senate floor??

        The foundation of Dershowitz’ argument is that he is an authority on the subject and that is opinion is always right. If you think Dershowitz has been wrong in the past then that undermines the value of his current opinion because his current opinion could be wrong just like his wrong opinions in the past.

        1. So he mentioned them on the floor. Clinton was charged with perjury. And he didn’t say they couldn’t question his opinion, he was making an argument not setting a hard line. And his argument was that without criminal conduct you can’t impeach over something as arbitrary as “abuse of power). It isn’t a hard concept.

          1. “And his argument was that without criminal conduct you can’t impeach over something as arbitrary as “abuse of power). It isn’t a hard concept.”

            Close. He also allowed for “criminal-like conduct” that reached the bribery/treason level even if not technically crimes.

        2. “”If you think Dershowitz has been wrong in the past then that undermines the value of his current opinion because his current opinion could be wrong just like his wrong opinions in the past.””

          Now do Bolton.

          1. Or any intel department head. Or anyone in the CIA.

          2. Or pretty much anyone in government, including Mr Parody Schiff.

          3. We are not talking about Bolton’s opinions we are talking about facts. Bolton has no reason to lie about the words that came out of Trump’s mouth. But I agree that Bolton’s opinions are worthless, however I believe his memory of words coming out of another person’s mouth will be an accurate memory.

            1. Everyone has a reason to lie, and some lie with no reason. The difference is not the reason, but the person. Some peoples are liars, others are not.

              1. Great point, we know Trump is a liar but Bolton is someone that might have opinions we disagree with but is not a liar. Excellent comment.

                1. Watching a split personality sock argue with its other socks is bizarre, to say the least.

            2. “”Bolton has no reason to lie about the words that came out of Trump’s mouth.””

              Bolton has lied in the past. So apply your own friggin concept.

              1. Bolton is a man of high character who certainly not stoop to lies or exaggerations to sell his book. What kind of person does that?

                1. Bingo—Donald J Trump lies and exaggerates to sell books. Great comment.

                  Btw, the reason liberals don’t like Bolton isn’t just because he is neocon it is also because he believes the UN is only useful to advance America’s interests. I opposed the Iraq War but I have always agreed with Bolton that from our perspective the UN exists solely to advance our interests.

                  1. Try again.

                  2. You’ve gone full Pod.

                2. Bolton is a scoundrel and possibly a scalawag as well.

            3. So, it is your opinion that Bolton’s memory is correct and that he is not lying.

              Who are you again?

            4. Bolton has millions of dollars in book sales as a reason to lie dummy.

              1. Conservatives make huge money selling books that appeal to the conservative base! Why would Bolton try to sell books to liberals when Hannity would give him a platform to sell books that appeal to his audience?? You have really thought this angle through have you??

                1. Because his audience is no longer Conservatives. He has lost his appeal, because they have evolved from his views. It isn’t fucking hard to understand. Mature people evolve over time and positions they once agree with, they reevaluate and sometimes choose to disregard. What a concept, people can change their minds over time.

  13. OK, my two cents worth:
    The NYT is totally unreliable, I do not believe anything they ‘report’.
    Bolton has a record of being ‘less than truthful’ when it suits his agenda, and he has a built in conflict of interest with the book and the election.
    So, same today as yesterday. The 2016 election results is more accurate then today’s ‘bombshell’ from the democratic propaganda machines.

    1. Bolton has a history of having wrong opinions but the notion Trump would hire a known liar as his NSA is literally grounds to remove Trump via the 25th Amendment!?! Wow, you believe Trump is mentally deficient but you have no problem with a mentally deficient president…u r nuts!!!

      1. Which politician is not a known liar? Trump hired Bolton as a salve to the more establishment GOP (and some Democrats). He fired him because he didn’t agree with him. Can you make a reasonable debate point without jumping to hysteronics?

      2. Hint the world is not allot nothing. Absolutes are only for those of limited intellectual abilities and curiosities.

      3. You mean like with Obama and Brennan?

        1. Apparently you believe Trump appointed a corrupt liar to NSC.

          1. So? He appointed someone who was recommended to him. And then fired him. Wow, what damning evidence. Fuck you a purile in your debating style.

  14. Let’s disbar Duchebagowitz. He doesn’t get to make up the law as he sees fit. And the whole Harvard BS can suck it. I’ve got a business degree and I have a bunch of books written by Harvard geniuses telling us all how Enron was a great new business model.

    1. Exactly, as Americans we don’t have to listen to the words coming out of anyone’s mouth! Being an American means I can ignore the words coming out of the mouth of a Harvard professor, a senator, a general, a CEO, literally anyone. Guess who is a Harvard law school professor?? Elizabeth Warren!! Case closed.

      So people like Elizabeth Warren and Dershowitz have track records that show they are wrong fairly often…so there is no reason to believe any opinion coming out of their mouth is correct on any given matter.

  15. Still missing the point and misrepresenting Dershowitz. He didn’t flip flop on requiring a crime. What he’s trying to highlight is how something need be named. Did Clinton technically commit a crime by fucking Lewsinky? No, but he did commit a crime perjuring himself, he was accused of felonies such as rape and sexual assault, and his actions weren’t exactly unpunished despite him not being convicted in the Senate. We can point to those charges and very clearly understand exactly what Clinton was accused of.

    Trump, on the other hand, hasn’t actually been accused of anything. “Abuse of power” isn’t a valid claim. It is nebulous and an excuse to fish through as many resources as possible in order to find something of fault that can be used to attack Trump. In order to abuse your power, you have to use your power to do something illegal. You can’t call it an abuse if your use of power is expressly authorized and legal. They’re trying to call it abuse because there isn’t an actual charge they can assign. The impeachment is vague because anything specific would have been dismissed out of hand.

    1. Assuming that 100% of the facts they present are true, what Ds are trying to do is claim that a legal, legitimate use of Presidential power (withholding funds) is corrupt and impeachable and not a valid use of power if the expectation was effectively for oppo research and not a legitimate corruption investigation. The problem with their argument has remained the same; making the case that something legal should become illegal warrants proving that the act can and was used for nefarious purposes. They have completely failed on that front and not even tried to address it. Biden’s corruption is in the public sphere.

      In effect, what Ds are trying to do is send you to jail ONLY for the act of buying a gun and then robbing a store with it instead of sending you to jail for the robbery itself. Never mind that the metaphorical robbery hasn’t even been proven. You can’t make crimes out of legal actions just because you think something illegal resulted from it. It’s comparable to how Reason advocates against hate crime laws. You can’t impeach Trump for legitimate exercise of power just because you suspect it may have been for something nefarious. This is the exact kind of paranoid bullshit that nobody wanted impeachments to become. Questioning every motive, not trusting a thing he says…these are not the result of impeachment evidence. These are prejudices Ds have held about Trump before he even sought office.

  16. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……. Read more

  17. Can we please stop responding to the troll proliferation?

    Allow each troll one handle–

    chemjeff, mtrueman, Tony, SQRLSY–like that, and don’t respond to the others.

    Because it gets real tiresome having to deal with these idiots stretching threads out by agreeing with themselves a few dozen times.

    And it’s sad that the only “loyal opposition’ reason can draw is the type whose points are so stupid that the only person who will agree with them is themselves, under a different handle.

    1. ‘prolifercation’

      sigh.

      The Karmic Law of the Internet– call anyone stupid and you will do something stupid as you do it.

  18. I earned $7000 last month by working online just for 7 to 9 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this Site. If You too want to earn such a This amount of money then come and Check it…. Read more

  19. Hi Lovely member ……….

    Why everyone is confused just join at home online job .This is really good opurtunity for home mom just join this website and Earn money by monthly check .So u cant be miss and join this site as soon as posible .
    Here what i am doo …
    ►►………►► Click For More InFo

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.