sponsor




Dershowitz Lists Every President That Would Be Impeached by Dems' Standards


Download the FREE TrendingPolitics App so you never miss a Trump story

During the Senate impeachment trial on Monday night, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz gave a strong defense of President Trump as he shredded the Democrats' impeachment charade, stating that they selected "dangerous" and "wrong" impeachment charges. He also stated that "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" were not even impeachable offenses.


sponsor


"I'm sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents," Dershowitz said to the Democrats. Shortly before this moment he mentioned how he had voted for Hillary Clinton and he still did not believe President Trump committed an impeachable crime.

Dershowitz then warned that "all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities" will face the "realistic threat" of experiencing "vague charges of abuse or obstruction." He also mentioned that there is a "long list" of presidents who have been accused of "abuse of power"

***NEWLY RELEASED Trump 2020 Hat - Yours Free***

Check out that list below provided by Fox News:

The list included George Washington, who refused to turn over documents related to the Jay Treaty; John Adams, who signed and enforced the so-called "Alien and Sedition Acts"; Thomas Jefferson, who flat-out purchased Louisiana without any kind of congressional authorization whatosever; John Tyler, who notoriously used and abused the veto power; James Polk, who allegedly disregarded the Constitution and usurped the role of Congress; and Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and others would also probably face impeachment using the Democrats' rules, Dershowitz said.

"Abuse of power," he argued, has been a "promiscuously deployed" and "vague" term throughout history. It should remain a merely "political weapon" fit for "campaign rhetoric," Dershowitz said, as it has no standard definition nor meaningful constitutional relevance.

WATCH:

Fox News continues:

Dershowitz then said he was "nonpartisan" in his application of the Constitution, and would make the same arguments against such an "unconstitutional impeachment" if Hillary Clinton were on trial -- passing what he called the "shoe on the other foot" test.

It would also be wrong, under Dershowitz's logic, for Congress to impeach a future Democratic president for withholding aid to Israel unless the country ceased production in contested settlements -- even though it could be argued that that the Democratic president would have done so in part for some domestic "political" benefit.

It is difficult if not impossible, Dershowitz said, to determine the motive of a president, especially where the president's personal interest and national objectives intersect. Republicans have argued that Trump pushed for a Ukraine probe into Joe and Hunter Biden to determine whether the younger Biden was selling access to his father there.

Journalist Michael Tracey highlighted Dershowitz's points in a Twitter thread: "Dershowitz raised a valid hypothetical: say a future president (Bernie?) withholds aid to Israel unless they cease settlement construction. Per this precedent, Bernie could be accused of impeachable offenses if he can be portrayed as obtaining a “political benefit” by doing so point is you cannot easily disentangle presidential actions taken for the purpose of advancing the national interest versus actions taken for the purpose of deriving a political benefit, especially if your means of ascertaining this involves divining the president's mental state."

What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below!

sponsor
sponsor
sponsor