Dershowitz: “SCOTUS Could Overturn Impeachment,”

0
736

Alan Dershowitz somehow rose to prominence as perhaps the second most famous Harvard Law Professor (Lawrence Tribe being far and away the first), presumably on the basis of some scholarly work and real insight. I became an admirer of Dershowitz when he defended Dr. John Mack MD, a Putlitzer Prize-winning Harvard Psychiatrist, professor of Medicine, who treated people who had claimed to be abducted by aliens – taking them very seriously. Dershowitz noted Harvard’s pure hypocrisy in disclaiming Dr. Mack’s scholarly work (he kept records, did research, published on all of it, adhered rigidly to the scientific method) as “non-science-based” when at the very same time, Harvard has a “School of Divinity” which teaches about people walking on water and parting the Red Sea.

So, at one point, Dershowitz’s “anti-establishment” streak went to decent ends, and had some real logic behind it.

No longer.

It’s not a crime to collude with a foreign government. Maybe it should be, but it’s not,” Dershowitz tells Washington Examiner.

Dershowitz believes, amazingly, that Trump colluding with Russia would not fit the legal definition of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” required to impeach a sitting President.

The good professor Dershowitz is being too cute by a half, because the actual impeachment process is wholly political, done entirely within Congress, impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate. A “high crime or misdemeanor” is whatever the hell Congress decides it to be at the time, there is nothing within the constitution which defines “high crimes or misdemeanors” and thus it is up to Congress.

Additionally, the Framers, having already set out a process by which to remove the president, surely, surely, would have mentioned that an impeachment process was subject to appeal to the US Supreme Court if that is what they envisioned, and yet they didn’t mention anything about an appeal to the SCOTUS. So, why is Dershowitz reading such a claim in?

Because he’s clearly now a “Trump man” and because we have already decided that being Americans, we can no longer “assume” anything, we cannot even assume that Dershowitz is acting on his own volition at this point. WE don’t know how deep the infiltration runs, we just know there is infiltration.

But then, just when you think that all hope is lost, we get this ..

The Hill points out that Trump isn’t fully above the law with Dershowitz noting that Trump could be tried for collusion “if he did it because he was paid or extorted.”

Professor?

Why didn’t you just say that first? Because of course he is being extorted, he’s terrified to even speak about Putin in anything but glowing terms, and damn it, he will give back Alaska if Putin promises not to release the pee-tape, and is nice in taking back Crimea.

The damnably hard part is going to be proving that Trump is being extorted and/or paid. Because, as noted several times last night by Jonathon Chait on Chris Hayes’ show, the secrets that originated in the Kremlin will near surely stay in the Kremlin. It is what is out here, where Mueller may find evidence.

I’d like to note again, for the hundredth time, I am so gosh darn thankful that perhaps the most-respected “decent” man in America also just happens to be one of the best prosecutors in the world, and is leading the case against Donald Trump.

Liked it? Take a second to support Jason Miciak and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

avatar