What is an impeachable offense?

[colfax_m]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

 

[Gdjjr]

Breathing if you're an opponent of empty suits.

 

[DGS49]

Well, let's see, he is a Democrat and an internationally-famous Constitutional Law scholar, so...

His point is simply this: If Trump had committed a serious CRIME that arose in connection with his carrying out the duties of his office, then his impeachment would have been bipartisan, and nearly unanimous. At the worst possible reading, Trump was guilty of a regulatory breach that caused no actual harm to anyone. And even the regulatory breach is questionable, since the funds were released before the end of the fiscal year.

And if inducing a foreign government to do something that makes a political opponent look bad is an impeachable offense, then Barry Soetoro should be impeached retroactively for his shenanigans in 2016.

Dershowitz is correct, and his opinion will prevail. Deal with it.

 

[Nostra]

Hmmmmm......who to believe......a Constitutional scholar, or a lefty hack on the innerweb.


It’s a tuffy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

Lindsey Graham

 

[Rye Catcher]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

How does one impeach private citizens?

 

[Rye Catcher]

Hmmmmm......who to believe......a Constitutional scholar, or a lefty hack on the innerweb.


It’s a tuffy.

Hypocrisy on display ^^^

Mockery of Pres. Obama, also a Constitutional Professor, was red meat for the right wing, of which this author of this post is clearly a card carrying member.

 

[colfax_m]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

How does one impeach private citizens?

What are you talking about? This is about the impeachment of the president.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

Clinton lied under oath.

 

[imawhosure]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

Hmmmmm......who to believe......a Constitutional scholar, or a lefty hack on the innerweb.


It’s a tuffy.

You know, as terrible as they claim Trump has been, all of his transgressions, all of his meany things, you would think they could have made a compelling case.

Does anyone have the nerve to ask why not, lol!

I mean, after all, weren't they spying on his campaign and HIM, from at least the middle of 16, through basically the 1st year of his Presidency? And this is the best they can do?

So which is it-------------------> Our alphabet agencies need a total overhaul, or the Leftists have been lying through their Socialist teeth-)

 

[JoeMoma]

Congress (The House and Senate) can impeach and then remove Trump from office for having 2 scoops of ice cream if the votes are there. I don't think the supreme court has a say as to whether the articles of impeachment meet the constitutional standard of high crimes or misdemeanors.

 

[colfax_m]

Congress (The House and Senate) can impeach and then remove Trump from office for having 2 scoops of ice cream if the votes are there. I don't think the supreme court has a say as to whether the articles of impeachment meet the constitutional standard of high crimes or misdemeanors.

Dershowitz disagrees with this too, unfortunately. He believes that SCOTUS has the power to invalidate an impeachment verdict should the president refuse to adhere to it.

 

[justoffal]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

You're all out in left field. No crime is necessary for the impeachment process.
All that is required is for the majority to dislike the target. That's why it should never be used as a political tool. Up till now there has been intelligent restraint. This Genie is officially out of the bottle Dude....just like the
Harry Reid Senate Rules change ...and you're just plain stupid if you think this isn't going to come back when you don't want it to.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

 

[colfax_m]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

 

[JoeMoma]

Congress (The House and Senate) can impeach and then remove Trump from office for having 2 scoops of ice cream if the votes are there. I don't think the supreme court has a say as to whether the articles of impeachment meet the constitutional standard of high crimes or misdemeanors.

Dershowitz disagrees with this too, unfortunately. He believes that SCOTUS has the power to invalidate an impeachment verdict should the president refuse to adhere to it.

Well he is a law professor. But I don't see an avenue cited in the constitution for the supreme court to step in.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Well, let's see, he is a Democrat and an internationally-famous Constitutional Law scholar, so...

His point is simply this: If Trump had committed a serious CRIME that arose in connection with his carrying out the duties of his office, then his impeachment would have been bipartisan, and nearly unanimous. At the worst possible reading, Trump was guilty of a regulatory breach that caused no actual harm to anyone. And even the regulatory breach is questionable, since the funds were released before the end of the fiscal year.

And if inducing a foreign government to do something that makes a political opponent look bad is an impeachable offense, then Barry Soetoro should be impeached retroactively for his shenanigans in 2016.

Dershowitz is correct, and his opinion will prevail. Deal with it.

"At the worst possible reading, Trump was guilty of a regulatory breach that caused no actual harm to anyone. And even the regulatory breach is questionable, since the funds were released before the end of the fiscal year."

The statement in bold above is submitted with no supporting evidence, and is a spin on the facts. The GAO's report made the statement that Trump violated the law in the Ukrainian Issue which had already impeached The President.

FYI: U.S. GAO - About GAO - Overview

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO examines how taxpayer dollars are spent and provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, reliable information to help the government save money and work more efficiently.

 

[ReinyDays]

One thing is clear ... the Constitution clearly gives the legislative branch exclusive rights to the impeachment and trial procedures ... Congress alone decides what an impeachable offense is ... for example, it's not a crime to have sex outside of marriage, but we can and do remove judges for dorking defendants during trial ... not a crime, just looks bad ...

Has anyone ever filed a Federal lawsuit regarding impeachment and removal from office? ... if so, what did the courts say about it? ... what's the precedent? ...