Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 9

ALL PB:

PPages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259; Page 3 >>7931804, Page 4 >>7932622

Page 5 >>7932640, Page 6 >>7933253, Page 7 >>7933265, Page 8 >>7934125,

PAGE 9

Jay Sekulow Introduces Robert Ray, Alan Dershowitz

'Robert Ray

He was indep. counsel after Starr in Clinton impeachment

high crimes plus abuse of the public trust are required to impeach; that std is not met in this case.

[reviews Nixon/Clinton impeachments]

Theme: Impeachment should never be a partisan process. But Trump impeachment is. 5:06 PST

Impeachment must be limited and well-defined. Otherwise, you have "legislative tyranny."

Clinton impeachment: The articles actually charged crimes.

But those crimes were not high enough to remove the POTUS from office. 4:13 PST

He found that crimes had been committed.

But did not prosecute; he still paid a price, still showed that no one was above the law.

Clinton impeachment: what have we learned from it? Maybe nothing at all.

Last 4 months, justification for impeachment has changed over and over again.

What you are left with are "Constitutionally deficient articles."

Politics and prosecution should not mix.

What House Managers have alleged (2 articles):

Article 1: abuse of power

Says POTUS' conduct was criminal even tho there's no actual crime, no quid pro quo. House mgrs have focused on the exchange of a WH visit for the giving of a [personal] favor. Also on pressure; Z says no.

This process pits POTUS' rights to conduct foreign policy against Congress' right to control it; big surprise.

This is just politics….not a violation of the 1974 impoundment act [which asserts Congress' control of the purse]. Should never result in an impeachable offense. Focusing of [illegimate] motives of a President: degrades the Office of the President.

Dangerous standard which enables [legislative] majorities to abuse power.

One person sums up the 2 articles like this:

Article 1: Dems don't like Pres. Trump

Article 2: Dems can't beat Pres. Trump

Doesn't matter whether the call was "perfect" or not. Not sufficient to impeach.

Article 2: obstruction of Congress

Release of call record should have ended impeachment inquiry.

POTUS can't be removed bc he does not agree to Congressional demands [they could have gone to court]

Claims of executive privilege: not an impeachable offense (even in Clinton impeachment–wasn't a crime).

POTUS' only instruction for this trial: "Do what you think is right." 4:44 PST

>>7936464

Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 10 Dershowitz

ALL PB:

Pages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259; Page 3 >>7931804, Page 4 >>7932622

Page 5 >>7932640, Page 6 >>7933253, Page 7 >>7933265, Page 8 >>7934125, Page 9 >>7936464

PAGE 10

Alan Dershowitz

On Constitutional grounds, opposes impeachment of DJT.

Stand against the misapplication of the Constitution in impeachment proceedings.

High crimes and misdemeanors: this impeachment doesn't meet that standard.

Three issues to consider:

1. Does the evidence presented [shows]… that the "factual allegations occurred"?

2. If so, did they rise to the level of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

3. whether the two articles are Constitutionally criteria authorized for impeachment? 4:52 PST

He'll focus on 2 and 3.

The q today: not what [we think that] impeachment SHOULD be but what the Framers intended it to be.

For an offense to be a basis for impeachment, it must be "weighty."

Founders: would not have like vague terms like abuse of power or obstruction of Congress.

Impeachment: requires a crime and an acquittal or conviction (but not a conventional jury)

Quotes liberally from Judge Benjamin Curtis made re impeachment of Pres. Johnson.

We are not legally bound by such historical arguments but we should pay attn to them.

Constitution did not list all possible crimes/statutes; but did include common law crimes.

Criminal like conduct might be included. Example: bribery done outside the US (technically not a crime but criminal).

If such arguments are rejected, they should be rejected on the basis of reason/arguments, shouldn't just be responded to with name calling.

You can't impeach "just because." (cites Maxine Waters saying "Impeachment is what Congress says it is. There is no law [about impeachment].")

This places Congress above the law. The Framers rejected this view.

Constitution requires that critieria for impeachment must be enumerated and defined.

Originally, some of the Founders believed in possible impeachment of Pres; some did not.

Those who did searched for words to describe the kind of behavior that might be impeachable.

But broad terms aren't the same as specific criteria.

Example: should we regulate the content of social media?

Broad dangers of free speech–false info, inappropriate content, hate speech etc–must be balanced against other important policies [requires translation of broad ideas into specific criteria]

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

What are high crimes and misdemeanors? Cites Blackstone, Hamilton, Madison

There must be a political element–one reason why Dershowitz was against Clinton impeachment.

Advocates a narrow construal of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Lists presidents who could be impeached using the criteria used to impeach Pres. Trump. Includes a lot of Presidents, include all the recent ones. Almost any controversial act could be called "abuse of power."

Presidents also include their own interests when making decisions; this is just what human beings do.

Talks about quid pro quo–not an impeachable offense on its face.

Bolton "revelations": even if true, NOT impeachable.

"Maladministration": rejected by the Founders (implicit rejection of abuse of power)

Was rejected bc it's too vague even tho it's in British impeachment law. Founders did NOT want a parliamentary impeachment process.

Words like "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are standard-less.

Someone has said that President could be impeached bc of his tweets or climate change policies. NO-Dersh disagrees.

When there's a choice between a vague or specific std, always choose the latter.

These value standards CLEARLY violate the Constitution.

Example: dishonesty. It's a sin but not a crime.

Directs his remarks to House mgrs, observing they failed to distinguish sins from crimes.

Founders set the standard HIGH, not low.

Many academics may disagree with D's interpretation but what matters is that they are met with a counter-argument, not just epithets.

What if the shoe were on the other foot? Same scenario, opposite parties?

"I respectfully urge you not to let your feelings about one man–strong as they may be–to establish a precedent that would undo the work of our founders, damage the Constitutional future of our children, and cause irreparable damage to the delicate balance of our system of separation of powers and checks and balances."

>>7936486

Republican Peach Mint Defense Highlights: Mon Jan 27 2020: page 11 Cippolone

ALL PB:

Pages 1 & 2: >>7931252, >>7931259; Page 3 >>7931804, Page 4 >>7932622

Page 5 >>7932640, Page 6 >>7933253, Page 7 >>7933265, Page 8 >>7934125,

Page 9 >>7936464, Page 10 >>7936486

PAGE 11

Pat Cippolone

3 observations

FIRST, Was listening to Dersh: how would this impeachment look at an exam q?

They have been trying to impeach the POTUS since his inauguration "for no reason." [hmmm…]

SECOND, addressed to House mgrs and their previous stmts about [Clinton's] impeachment

THIRD, Starr said we are in the age of impeachment; imagine if the same energy were used to solve the problems of the American people? 6:00 PST

>>7936568 Dershowitz: Bolton allegations would not constitute impeachable offense

notable

Dersh was brilliant

Even managed to work in Bolton!

TOP-KEK

>>7937026

so what are you thinking?

serious question

i guess i'd want to see some digging on connections between these guys