Monday, January 27, 2020

Because, honestly....

Impeachment is unconstitutional.

I heard Robert Ray emphasize the "upon conviction" of a crime as the standard for impeachment.  He didn't say it, but lawyers know "conviction" is a term of art, not just that a group of Senators is convinced the crime occurred (or any group, for that matter.  How many Americans are convinced O.J. did it?)  He almost but didn't quite say the President must first be convicted of a crime in order to be impeached and removed from office.  Which means, of course, a President must face the judiciary before he/she faces the Senate.

Which is no less absurd than Dershowitz' argument.  I did like Starr's mention this morning that academics (and he gave a verbal nod to Dershowitz) agree with his interpretation of the impeachment clause of Art. II (which is also Dershowitz' interpretation), and then before he was through he said the "law professors" disagree with him, but who cares what they think?  Only the BEST people!
This reasoning is how Starr counted Nixon as the "fourth impeachment" in American history. Trump's lawyers argue process as it serves their interests (Robert Ray argued process exclusively after dinner.  Must have made it easier for the Senators to snooze.  Honestly, you never argue process.  You use it, maybe abuse it, but you never argue it to the jury.  The judge, maybe; but never even in FRONT of the jury!)  For Nixon, a House committee voted on articles of impeachment, and passed them; but the full House never did. Ergo, Nixon was never impeached (he resigned first).  Accusing someone of abuse of power is not the same thing as bringing articles of impeachment to the floor of the House for a vote.  But okay:  words are actions.  Except when they aren't.  After all, accusing the President of abuse of power before a TV camera is hardly the same thing as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
What's most interesting is that I'm getting all of this from Maggie Haberman, who scrupulously avoids the more inflammatory tweets in favor of news and simple reporting, like this.
Or this.
Because, you know, this is really the point of the President's "defense." Oh, wait: it was the point of his demand on President Zelensky, too! Wotta coincidence!
Yeah, I loved that one. It sounded like a prosecutor's idea of what a defense lawyer would argue in a criminal case. Completely absurd and would earn a rebuke from the judge as well as attention to the jury charge to squeeze such nonsense out of the verdict (technical detail lawyers would understand, but trust me, the judge would screw you over for making that kind of argument in court). Speaking of which:
Well, not for rich white guys, certainly; you know, the kind Dershowitz works for (well, rich guys; OJ has to fit in there, huh?) And while we're pointing out that even the news is not swallowing this "defense" without a pound of salt:
Yeah, the sooner this is over, the sooner everyone forgets about it, right?
Before we go, one quick swipe at Dershowitz' argument specifically (all it really deserves)
And a reminder Dersh really did go there:
Good night, and thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you...
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)