Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 ... 12  13  14 

 
bricklayer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2611
Karma: 8 (+12/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


I saw Dershowitz in a back and forth with Jeffrey Toobin on CNN. In it he claimed not to be a part of the Trump defense team. He claims that his mandate is “to determine what is a constitutionally authorized criteria for impeachment.” To determine or to argue? And who issued Dershowitz this mandate? I would suggest it was Trump’s team leader. Not part of the defense team?
1/19/2020, 4:25 pm Link to this post PM bricklayer
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 8687
Karma: 18 (+29/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


That is a really interesting distinction Dershowitz has made. I too wonder who issued the mandate for him to make this determination. Who would be paying him for it? I thought I heard him say that Trump had abused his power, but abuse of power was not an impeachable offense, since it wasn't a high crime or misdemeanor. But I read somewhere that when the framers were talking in the Federalist Papers about how to word the article, they were looking for words for what they called "abuse of power."
1/19/2020, 4:43 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 8687
Karma: 18 (+29/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


George Conway: Why Trump had to hire this legal odd couple

By George T. Conway III
Jan. 19, 2020

This is what happens when you don’t pay your legal bills.

President Trump, whose businesses and now campaign have left a long trail of unpaid bills behind them, has never discriminated when it comes to stiffing people who work for him. That includes lawyers — which is part of the reason he found the need to make some curious last-minute tweaks to his team, announcing the addition of the legal odd couple of Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth W. Starr.

The president has consistently encountered difficulty in hiring good lawyers to defend him. In 2017, after Robert S. Mueller III became special counsel, Trump couldn’t find a high-end law firm that would take him as a client. His reputation for nonpayment preceded him: One major Manhattan firm I know had once been forced to eat bills for millions in bond work it once did for Trump. No doubt other members of the legal community knew of other examples.

Of course, being cheap wasn’t the only reason Trump struck out among the nation’s legal elite. There was the fact that he would be an erratic client who’d never take reasonable direction — direction as in shut up and stop tweeting. Firms also understood that taking on Trump would kill their recruiting efforts: Top law students of varying political stripes who might be willing, even eager, to join a firm that provides pro bono representation to murderers on death row, want nothing to do with Trump.

That left Trump to be personally defended in the Mueller investigation by a random patchwork of counsel, including Jay Sekulow, a lawyer specializing in religious liberty cases, and John Dowd, a Washington solo practitioner who, according to Bob Woodward, viewed Trump as a “f---ing liar.” (Dowd denies that.) Last but not least, Trump had the assistance of Rudolph W. Giuliani — who has done more than anyone other than Trump himself to get Trump impeached.

Contrast that unimpressive crew with the team assembled by President Bill Clinton, who had not one, but two, top-notch law firms defending him: global powerhouse Skadden Arps, with heavy-hitter Bob Bennett, to handle the Paula Jones case; and the elite Washington defense firm, Williams & Connolly, led by the brilliant David Kendall, to handle the Whitewater investigation, its Monica Lewinsky spinoff and impeachment.

Precisely because he never had a defense team truly suited for the task at hand, Trump found the need now to add to the mix. But the mix still makes no sense. On the team, as of Friday, are the legal odd couple of Harvard Law School professor emeritus Dershowitz and former federal appeals court judge Starr.

It’s hard to see how either could help.

Dershowitz may be a genius in some ways, but he’s not necessarily the advocate you want on your side. Judges have told me they find him condescending in manner and tone — not the approach you want before a court consisting of 100 U.S. senators. And he’s wont to make off-the-wall arguments. As his Harvard colleague Professor Laurence Tribe has put it, Dershowitz “revels in taking positions that ultimately are not just controversial but pretty close to indefensible.” Dershowitz’s recent assertion that the Supreme Court could order the Senate not to conduct an impeachment trial illustrates the point. Not only is that claim indefensible — it’s also ridiculous.

And then there’s Starr. I know and like Starr, but I can’t comprehend what he’s doing here. He’s best known as the independent counsel whose investigation led to the impeachment of Clinton. That’s hardly helpful for Trump, because Clinton was a piker compared with Trump.

Clinton’s core offense was to obstruct a private civil action about pre-presidential conduct and cover up sexual misconduct — none of which had involved abuse of presidential power. From a constitutional standpoint, that’s a trifle compared with extorting a foreign nation by cutting off federal military funds in an effort to interfere with an upcoming U.S. presidential election.

As if that were not enough, in the Clinton case, Starr argued that Clinton had committed an impeachable offense by blocking witness testimony and documents. Oops.

Any litigator will tell you that adding to your legal team on the eve of trial most likely will not produce better lawyering but, rather, chaos. In that sense, at least, Trump will be getting the representation he deserves.

https://tinyurl.com/tcv4u8s


Last edited by Bellelettres, 1/19/2020, 4:56 pm
1/19/2020, 4:55 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 8687
Karma: 18 (+29/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


Trump’s lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus legal arguments on impeachment

By Laurence H. Tribe
Jan. 19, 2020

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard and the co-author, most recently, of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.” His Twitter handle is @tribelaw.

The president’s lawyers have made the sweeping assertion that the articles of impeachment against President Trump must be dismissed because they fail to allege that he committed a crime — and are, therefore, as they said in a filing with the Senate, “constitutionally invalid on their face.”

Another of his lawyers, my former Harvard Law School colleague Alan Dershowitz, claiming to represent the Constitution rather than the president as such, makes the backup argument that the articles must be dismissed because neither abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress can count as impeachable offenses.

Both of these arguments are baseless. Senators weighing the articles of impeachment shouldn’t think that they offer an excuse for not performing their constitutional duty.

The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie. In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

On the contrary, with virtually no federal criminal law in place when the Constitution was written in 1787, any such understanding would have been inconceivable. Moreover, on July 20, 1787, Edmund Randolph, Virginia’s governor, urged the inclusion of an impeachment power specifically because the “Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power.” Even more famously, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 defined “high crimes and misdemeanors” as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Any number of such violations of the public trust — such as working with foreign governments in ways that make the president beholden to their leaders, or cooperating with those governments to bolster the president’s reelection — clearly must be impeachable even though they might violate no criminal law and indeed no federal statute at all.

The related suggestion that, even if some noncriminal offenses might be impeachable, “abuse of power” is not among them is particularly strange. No serious constitutional scholar has ever agreed with it. The suggestion turns the impeachment power on its head.

The logic of impeachment as applied to the presidency is that the president has unique authority conferred by Article II. If he abuses that authority for personal advantage, financial or political, he injures the country as a whole. That is precisely why the framers rejected the idea of relying solely on an election to remove an abusive president from office. Indeed, waiting for the next election is an option that is obviously insufficient when the abuse of power is directed at cheating in that very election.

Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that there are “many” impeachable offenses, none of which is “alluded to in our statute book,” because the abuses of power that constitute “political offences” are “of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task” of enumerating them all through “positive legislation would be impracticable.”

https://tinyurl.com/rrk4elt
1/19/2020, 7:07 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13518
Karma: 36 (+56/-20)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


I LOVE Laurence Tribe. I've gotten to see a lot of him on Lawrence O'Donnell's show.

I appreciate his argument that the founders COULDN'T have meant that the president must have broken a federal law to be impeached -- because there WEREN'T any federal laws yet when the Constitution was written.

Anyone who has read that Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers would know that the founders were VERY concerned about presidential powers. They didn't know what the laws would be, and didn't want to limit the ability of future Congresses to limit presidents.

Beyond that, I wonder when SOMEBODY is going to finally say that Trump DID break the law by withholding congressional spending without the permission of Congress -- in violation of the Impoundment Act of 1974. The GAO determined that, I think Friday. So that should shut down Republican whining about Trump not having broken any laws.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
1/19/2020, 9:03 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13518
Karma: 36 (+56/-20)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


quote:

bricklayer wrote:

I saw Dershowitz in a back and forth with Jeffrey Toobin on CNN. In it he claimed not to be a part of the Trump defense team. He claims that his mandate is “to determine what is a constitutionally authorized criteria for impeachment.” To determine or to argue? And who issued Dershowitz this mandate? I would suggest it was Trump’s team leader. Not part of the defense team?


I think Dershowitz is trying to have it both ways. Gather publicity for himself while distancing himself JUST enough to avoid blame if the case goes the other way.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
1/19/2020, 9:09 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 12793
Karma: 20 (+48/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


quote:

JustLis wrote:

So that should shut down Republican whining about Trump not having broken any laws.



Nothing shuts down Republican whining.

---
Robbie
1/19/2020, 9:11 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13518
Karma: 36 (+56/-20)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


quote:

Bellelettres wrote:

That is a really interesting distinction Dershowitz has made. I too wonder who issued the mandate for him to make this determination. Who would be paying him for it? I thought I heard him say that Trump had abused his power, but abuse of power was not an impeachable offense, since it wasn't a high crime or misdemeanor. But I read somewhere that when the framers were talking in the Federalist Papers about how to word the article, they were looking for words for what they called "abuse of power."


As for who is paying, I'd guess the American taxpayer is footing the bill for Trump's defense. But beyond that, I'd be willing to bet that Dershowitz already has a book deal with someone to write about the Trump impeachment defense experience. He does that a lot.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
1/19/2020, 9:14 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13518
Karma: 36 (+56/-20)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

quote:

JustLis wrote:

So that should shut down Republican whining about Trump not having broken any laws.


Nothing shuts down Republican whining.


I stand corrected.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
1/19/2020, 9:15 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bricklayer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2611
Karma: 8 (+12/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


If Dershowitz is not a part of Team Trump and the Senate doesn’t call witnesses how would he make his case?
1/19/2020, 9:40 pm Link to this post PM bricklayer
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 12793
Karma: 20 (+48/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


My understanding is Dershowitz is part of Team Trump only for his opening remarks, not a continuing member.

---
Robbie
1/19/2020, 10:50 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
badhorsie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 506
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


It's not like esoteric and academic legal arguments will be understood or digested by the typical American voter. And that's who need to be swayed, not the corrupt Senate who have already decided the outcome.
1/19/2020, 11:24 pm Link to this post PM badhorsie
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 8687
Karma: 18 (+29/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


House Democrats' response to White House legal brief.

[It's too long to post here. It's thorough and clear. WaPo is the only place I have found the text, but I expect it will be printed where those of you who don't have WaPo subscriptions can read it later.]

https://tinyurl.com/uvgr5cl
1/20/2020, 5:24 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 12793
Karma: 20 (+48/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


Impeachment resolution shortens trial's opening arguments to two days per side

By Lauren Fox, Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb, CNN
Updated 6:38 PM ET, Mon January 20, 2020


(CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to give House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump's legal team each 24 hours divided over two days for their opening arguments in the Senate's impeachment trial, a move that indicates Senate Republicans are pushing to finish the trial as quickly as possible -- ahead of the President's February 4 State of the Union address.

The timeline laid out in the Kentucky Republican's four-page organizing resolution, which was obtained by CNN, is a break from the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, when the 24 hours were split over a four-day period.
Democrats are opposed to McConnell's schedule, which House Democratic aides say is an effort to "conceal the President's misconduct in the dark of night."

"It's clear Sen. McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement. "On something as important as impeachment, Senator McConnell's resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace."

The condensed timeline for opening arguments raises the prospect that the trial will have 12-hour days and go late into the night, as the trial begins at 1 p.m. ET each day.

McConnell's organizing resolution puts off the question of witnesses until after the two sides present their opening arguments and there are 16 hours of questions for senators, which they will ask through Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial.

At that point, the resolution includes a proposal in which the Senate would vote on a motion on "whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents."

If the Senate votes no, no one -- the impeachment managers, the President's legal team or senators -- will be permitted to move to subpoena witnesses or documents, according to a Senate GOP leadership aide. If the Senate approves the resolution, then both sides would be able to make motions to subpoena witnesses, at which point the Senate would debate and vote on them.

The resolution's language providing for a vote on whether to call witnesses followed exhaustive negotiations between McConnell's office and the Senate's Republican moderates, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is up for reelection, Mitt Romney of Utah, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Aides familiar with the negotiation told CNN that staff went word by word through the resolution, dissecting what language would be enough to garner the moderate votes McConnell would need to pass the resolution with just Republican support.

White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland said in a statement the White House is "gratified that the draft resolution protects the President's rights to a fair trial."

"We look forward to presenting a vigorous defense of the President on the facts and the process as quickly as possible, and seeking an acquittal as swiftly as possible," he said.

The resolution does not name any specific witnesses. If any witnesses are subpoenaed, the resolution says, they will be deposed first, before the Senate decides whether they will testify.

Schumer is expected to try to force the issue of witnesses and documents at the start of the trial, offering an amendment to McConnell's resolution.
Schumer and other Senate Democrats have pushed for the Senate to hear from four witnesses, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

But McConnell says he has Republican votes to back the rules resolution without Democratic support.

There is no mention of a motion to dismiss the impeachment articles in the organizing resolution, something that the President and his congressional allies have pushed for. But there is an option for motions in the trial after the resolution on hearing from witnesses, which would present an opportunity to propose a motion to dismiss later in the trial.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/politics/senate-organizing-resolution-released/index.html

---
Robbie
1/20/2020, 7:56 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 8687
Karma: 18 (+29/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


As I understand it, every senator is required, under penalty of imprisonment, to sit still without talking or using a mechanical device for as long as the other senators are speaking on the floor. Twelve hours of that for four days? How could any senator vote FOR that?
1/21/2020, 8:50 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 8687
Karma: 18 (+29/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


Is Dershowitz related to Kellyanne Conway?

Dershowitz calls CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin ‘bullies’ as they question him on impeachment flip-flop

By Fred Barbash
Jan. 21, 2020

Those infuriating framers of the Constitution left behind only the thinnest inkling of their real thoughts about impeachment of the president and said nothing explicit about whether removal from office requires commission of a crime. Almost all the law professors who have researched the matter have concluded that the answer is no — no crime necessary.

It’s been the overwhelming consensus, impeachment scholar Philip C. Bobbitt of the Columbia Law School told The Washington Post on Monday. And among those who accepted it was Alan Dershowitz, the fabled defense lawyer, now Harvard Law School professor emeritus and part of President Trump’s impeachment defense team.

“It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime,” he said in a television interview in 1998, during the impeachment controversy surrounding President Clinton. “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of the president and abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”

Now, he has a different view. “Without a crime there can be no impeachment,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, foreshadowing the formal brief presented Monday by Trump’s legal team to the Senate.

He got into one of his famous brawls on CNN on Monday night. Host Anderson Cooper and the network’s chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, confronted Dershowitz about his changed opinion. The resulting exchange wasn’t pretty.

“So you were wrong then,” Cooper said to Dershowitz.

“No, I wasn’t wrong. I have a more sophisticated basis for my argument,” he said, citing his research into the 1868 impeachment proceedings against President Andrew Johnson. “It’s very clear now that what you need is criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason.”


Toobin opened up on Dershowitz at the outset of the program.

“What is clear is that Alan was right in 1998 and he’s wrong now,” said Toobin. “I mean, the two statements cannot be reconciled. One is right or one is wrong and the one in 1998 was right … Look, every single law professor that has looked at this issue except you” believes that a crime is unnecessary.

Smart lawyer that he is, Dershowitz tried to make Toobin the defendant, accusing him of “lying” when he claimed “every single law professor” disagreed.

Triumphantly, Dershowitz identified one who agreed with him, Harvard Law School’s Nikolas Bowie. He referenced a December 2018 commentary by Bowie.

“Don’t make up stories about ‘every professor,’” said Dershowitz. “Please withdraw that argument that no professor said it.”

Toobin, smiling, modified his statement. “Okay, ‘virtually every’ professor.” Toobin noted that he was able to admit a mistake. Why couldn’t Dershowitz?

Cooper rejoined the fray and soon they were all talking at once.

“You were wrong,” Cooper told Dershowitz.

“I wasn’t wrong,” Dershowitz replied. “I am just far more correct now than I was then
… I think your viewers are entitled to hear my argument without two bullies jumping on everything I say.”

https://tinyurl.com/ud5jwwb
1/21/2020, 9:13 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6704
Karma: 13 (+28/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


Dershowitz has parlayed his time on TV in the OJ trial and the resulting circuitous appearances on news programs into believing himself as a TV legal rock star. He reminds me of Trump in that he will take positions and make statements in order to get himself under the lights and in front of the camera.

I'm not so sure that he hasn't descended into alls hammered. His position on this impeachment is simply something that rivals The Brothers Grimm and George Lucas. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a very broad term for a reason. It allows Congress, our elected representatives, to remove someone from their office if in the opinions of the required number of Representatives and Senators he/she has committed errors of commission or omission that requires their removal from office. A crime is not a requirement.

I'm not on the list of "constitutional scholars" nor have I been on the faculty of Harvard Law. I did finish high in my Con Law class law school class overall and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
1/21/2020, 2:16 pm Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13518
Karma: 36 (+56/-20)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


Well, there you go, Cooter. I trust your judgment because of your education and experience.

I'm just appalled by the number of legal scholars who are coming forward to insist that "abuse of power" is not grounds for impeachment. Were that true, there would be no way to remove a president who IS abusing his power as president. It makes absolutely no common sense whatsoever.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
1/21/2020, 2:31 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 12793
Karma: 20 (+48/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


quote:

JustLis wrote:

I'm just appalled by the number of legal scholars who are coming forward to insist that "abuse of power" is not grounds for impeachment. Were that true, there would be no way to remove a president who IS abusing his power as president.



Such as this one, for example.

---
Robbie
1/21/2020, 2:35 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Whatsupchuck Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 275
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Trump impeachment and trial


I'm encouraged that enough Republican senators objected to McConnell's first attempt at setting the rules that they've added days to the opening arguments and the default is for allowing witnesses unless there is a vote to disallow.

There are apparently enough of them not taking their marching orders the White House. Must be getting an earful from the constituents back home.
1/21/2020, 3:10 pm Link to this post PM Whatsupchuck
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 ... 12  13  14 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top