Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impeachment Standards: Dershowitz and Philbin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Impeachment Standards: Dershowitz and Philbin

    Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted today that presidents cannot be impeached for abuse of power, equating it with "maladministration". Dershowitz also said that actions with "mixed motives" cannot be impeached -- if a president can assert a national interest motive then it is not impeachable, even if it also serves a personal motive. And because, Dershowitz argued, every politician sees their re-election as a national interest, even actions taken for the purpose of personal political benefit confer this "mixed motive" protection.

    Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin later answered a question regarding Trump's professed willingness to receive information against a political opponent from a foreign government and use it for re-election, not altering the DOJ/FBI. He answered that receiving such information would not be a campaign violation or an impeachable act.

    Between the two of them, the President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election. Doing so, Philbin argues, would not be a criminal violation and, according to Dershowitz, would not be impeachable -- even if the President altered US policy in anticipation or receipt of that information in what we would traditionally call a bribe.

    To Trump supporters and people advocating against impeachment, I ask: is this an appropriate standard you want? Is it even a plausible standard of presidential behavior? Do you not see the danger and the absurdity?

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  • #2
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted today that presidents cannot be impeached for abuse of power, equating it with "maladministration". Dershowitz also said that actions with "mixed motives" cannot be impeached -- if a president can assert a national interest motive then it is not impeachable, even if it also serves a personal motive. And because, Dershowitz argued, every politician sees their re-election as a national interest, even actions taken for the purpose of personal political benefit confer this "mixed motive" protection.

    Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin later answered a question regarding Trump's professed willingness to receive information against a political opponent from a foreign government and use it for re-election, not altering the DOJ/FBI. He answered that receiving such information would not be a campaign violation or an impeachable act.

    Between the two of them, the President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election. Doing so, Philbin argues, would not be a criminal violation and, according to Dershowitz, would not be impeachable -- even if the President altered US policy in anticipation or receipt of that information in what we would traditionally call a bribe.

    To Trump supporters and people advocating against impeachment, I ask: is this an appropriate standard you want? Is it even a plausible standard of presidential behavior? Do you not see the danger and the absurdity?

    --Sam
    What Dershowitz is saying is that if a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal. This of course is ludicrous nonsense.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/o...ine/index.html
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted today that presidents cannot be impeached for abuse of power, equating it with "maladministration". Dershowitz also said that actions with "mixed motives" cannot be impeached -- if a president can assert a national interest motive then it is not impeachable, even if it also serves a personal motive. And because, Dershowitz argued, every politician sees their re-election as a national interest, even actions taken for the purpose of personal political benefit confer this "mixed motive" protection.

      Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin later answered a question regarding Trump's professed willingness to receive information against a political opponent from a foreign government and use it for re-election, not altering the DOJ/FBI. He answered that receiving such information would not be a campaign violation or an impeachable act.

      Between the two of them, the President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election. Doing so, Philbin argues, would not be a criminal violation and, according to Dershowitz, would not be impeachable -- even if the President altered US policy in anticipation or receipt of that information in what we would traditionally call a bribe.

      To Trump supporters and people advocating against impeachment, I ask: is this an appropriate standard you want? Is it even a plausible standard of presidential behavior? Do you not see the danger and the absurdity?

      --Sam
      So the DNC used foreign sources and corrupt sympathetic government officials to get a FISA warrant largely based on falsehoods to investigate the Trump campaign. Is that even a plausible standard for presidential campaigning? Never mind the fact that Dershowitz went through a list of past presidents that did similar things, including Washington, Adams and Lincoln. Politics is not bean bag Sam...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Between the two of them, the President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations...
        Hold on a minute, who said anything about receiving "stolen emails or false allegations"? That wasn't an example given by Trump's legal team as far as I know.

        So how about this: first accurately present their argument without any Shifty Schiff style "embellishments", and then I will answer your questions about whether or not it's an absurd standard.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
          What Dershowitz is saying is that if a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal. This of course is ludicrous nonsense.

          https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/o...ine/index.html
          False, Dershorwitz never said "anything [a politician] does in pursuit of his re-election is legal". What he actually said:

          "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

          Note the implication: there are other kinds of quid pro quos that should result in impeachment, but this is not one of them.

          Seems Dersh made a solid argument if people are having to twist his words to answer it.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            False, Dershorwitz never said "anything [a politician] does in pursuit of his re-election is legal". What he actually said:

            "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

            Note the implication: there are other kinds of quid pro quos that should result in impeachment, but this is not one of them.

            Seems Dersh made a solid argument if people are having to twist his words to answer it.
            What a crock.
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              What a crock.
              "Weak point. Yell louder."

              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                False, Dershorwitz never said "anything [a politician] does in pursuit of his re-election is legal". What he actually said:

                "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

                Note the implication: there are other kinds of quid pro quos that should result in impeachment, but this is not one of them.

                Seems Dersh made a solid argument if people are having to twist his words to answer it.
                So the president can only be impeached for a quid pro quo that they believe WONT help them get re-elected? Cant the president just say they believed it was going help them?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                  So the president can only be impeached for a quid pro quo that they believe WONT help them get re-elected? Cant the president just say they believed it was going help them?
                  As Dershowitz said elsewhere, a quid pro quo is only illegal if the "quo" itself is illegal. Since seeking reelection is not illegal, then a quid pro quo that might benefit a candidate's reelection chances is not illegal.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted today that presidents cannot be impeached for abuse of power, equating it with "maladministration".
                    In the absence of evidence to the contrary from the Framers, I tend to agree. I have never seen Turley address this point, and IMO that is a weakness in Turley's disagreement with Dersh.


                    Dershowitz also said that actions with "mixed motives" cannot be impeached -- if a president can assert a national interest motive then it is not impeachable, even if it also serves a personal motive. And because, Dershowitz argued, every politician sees their re-election as a national interest, even actions taken for the purpose of personal political benefit confer this "mixed motive" protection.
                    I don't think this was Dersh's strongest point. IMO it would have been stronger to argue that in cases that plausibly have mixed motives, there must be overwhelming evidence in order to conclude that a nefarious motive was dominant.

                    Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin later answered a question regarding Trump's professed willingness to receive information against a political opponent from a foreign government and use it for re-election, not altering the DOJ/FBI. He answered that receiving such information would not be a campaign violation or an impeachable act.

                    Between the two of them, the President's team has now argued that Trump could be offered and take information from foreign sources, such as stolen emails or false allegations, not alert the FBI, and use them to win re-election.
                    Were the "stolen emails" and "false allegations" actually part of the question to Philbin, or are you Schiffing those in?

                    Doing so, Philbin argues, would not be a criminal violation and, according to Dershowitz, would not be impeachable -- even if the President altered US policy in anticipation or receipt of that information in what we would traditionally call a bribe.

                    To Trump supporters and people advocating against impeachment, I ask: is this an appropriate standard you want? Is it even a plausible standard of presidential behavior? Do you not see the danger and the absurdity?

                    --Sam
                    I agree that if it is not criminal, it should not be impeachable.

                    But the larger point is that this is desperate misdirection on your part, since these hypotheticals are not pertinent to the case at hand.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                      In the absence of evidence to the contrary from the Framers, I tend to agree. I have never seen Turley address this point, and IMO that is a weakness in Turley's disagreement with Dersh.




                      I don't think this was Dersh's strongest point. IMO it would have been stronger to argue that in cases that plausibly have mixed motives, there must be overwhelming evidence in order to conclude that a nefarious motive was dominant.



                      Were the "stolen emails" and "false allegations" actually part of the question to Philbin, or are you Schiffing those in?



                      I agree that if it is not criminal, it should not be impeachable.

                      But the larger point is that this is desperate misdirection on your part, since these hypotheticals are not pertinent to the case at hand.
                      The transcript of Philbin at that point is garbled and I will have to revisit the video but I'm entirely certain that stolen emails and false allegations are contained under the "information" that he he arguing would be legal to receive. Philbin's argument, by memory, was that such information (these are my examples but they fit the category he was asked about) do not constitute "things of value" and are therefore legal to receive.

                      They are pertinent examples because 1) Trump likely directed Roger Stone to coordinate the Wikileaks email dump and 2) wanted information from Ukrainian investigations that he had no way to verify. Both of these would be legal and unimpeachable under the framework Philbin and Dershowitz argued.

                      Is that acceptable? If you think the characterization is wrong, what's the demarcation on information from foreign sources the President can legally accept without fear of impeachment? Can the President change his foreign policy in anticipation or receipt of such information and not be liable to criminal violation or impeachment?

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        The transcript of Philbin at that point is garbled and I will have to revisit the video but I'm entirely certain that stolen emails and false allegations are contained under the "information" that he he arguing would be legal to receive. Philbin's argument, by memory, was that such information (these are my examples but they fit the category he was asked about) do not constitute "things of value" and are therefore legal to receive.

                        They are pertinent examples because 1) Trump likely directed Roger Stone to coordinate the Wikileaks email dump and 2) wanted information from Ukrainian investigations that he had no way to verify. Both of these would be legal and unimpeachable under the framework Philbin and Dershowitz argued.

                        Is that acceptable? If you think the characterization is wrong, what's the demarcation on information from foreign sources the President can legally accept without fear of impeachment? Can the President change his foreign policy in anticipation or receipt of such information and not be liable to criminal violation or impeachment?

                        --Sam
                        Doesn't the President receive information stolen from foreign countries all the time and use them to make various decisions? He has an entire bureau dedicated to this. The CIA.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah, Philbin's argument (at ~2:15:00) is that "mere information does not violate federal campaign finance laws". If there is "credible information of wrongdoing", Philbin argues, it's not illegal to accept and use in an election.

                          So a campaign or candidate, Philbin argument goes, can directly work with foreign sources to obtain information against an opponent so long as the candidate believes that information to be "credible". That includes allegations that may, in fact, be false and stolen information that appears to, but may not, indicate wrongdoing by an opponent.

                          The President, in other words, can solicit foreign interference through "mere information" and not be criminally viable. He can change his foreign policy to incentivize or reward the transfer of such information and not be liable to impeachment.

                          This is the argument from the President's lawyers. Is it acceptable?

                          --Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Doesn't the President receive information stolen from foreign countries all the time and use them to make various decisions? He has an entire bureau dedicated to this. The CIA.
                            That's not a question on the topic. The issue is whether a President can receive information from foreign sources and use that information for electoral purpose.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              Yeah, Philbin's argument (at ~2:15:00) is that "mere information does not violate federal campaign finance laws". If there is "credible information of wrongdoing", Philbin argues, it's not illegal to accept and use in an election.

                              So a campaign or candidate, Philbin argument goes, can directly work with foreign sources to obtain information against an opponent so long as the candidate believes that information to be "credible". That includes allegations that may, in fact, be false and stolen information that appears to, but may not, indicate wrongdoing by an opponent.

                              The President, in other words, can solicit foreign interference through "mere information" and not be criminally viable. He can change his foreign policy to incentivize or reward the transfer of such information and not be liable to impeachment.

                              This is the argument from the President's lawyers. Is it acceptable?

                              --Sam
                              Sam isn't that exactly what the DNC and Clinton campaign did?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              160 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              400 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              114 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              379 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X