Legal scholar and professor Alan Dershowitz spoke with Sean Hannity Thursday after hours of impeachment hearings; directly responding to vicious comparisons between his Senate presentation and Adolf Hitler.
“They’re going to compare you to Hitler? They’re going to go that far because you have a different opinion?” asked Hannity.
“The reason they came after me is that they saw many Senators gather around me, including Democrats, and they all said how they were impressed by my Constitutional presentation… I never, ever, said or suggested a President can do anything he wants,” said Dershowitz.
“It was stated by Schiff, it was stated by Nadler, it was stated by Schumer, everybody on CNN and MSNBC, and it was categorically false,” he added.
DERSHOWITZ ON HANNITY: Democrats Are Putting Themselves ‘ABOVE THE LAW’ on Impeachment Push
Attorney and legal analyst Alan Dershowitz spoke with Sean Hannity Wednesday night on the Democrats’ unconstitutional push to impeach President Trump; saying any move to remove him from office would be putting themselves “above the law.”
“Fox has always had a much more diverse approach. Nobody has ever told me what to say on this show or any other show. I stand up for civil liberties no matter who the president is… Congress cannot impeach President Trump, if they did, they would be putting themselves above the law,” said Dershowitz.
“The Constitution outlines what requires impeachment: Treason, bribery, high-crimes and misdemeanors. Unless there’s compelling evidence of that, impeachment is not constitutionally permissible,” he added.
The New York Times published a “draft” Articles of Impeachment against President Trump days ago; mocking up a document that could be used as a roadmap for Congressional Democrats should they attempt to remove the President from office.
“Calls for President Trump’s impeachment are getting louder. Since the release of Robert Mueller’s report, White House stonewalling of congressional subpoenas and Mr. Mueller’s first public comments, almost 60 House Democrats, a quarter of the caucus, have said they support an impeachment inquiry,” writes the New York Times.
“What might impeachment articles against Mr. Trump look like? To find out, we reviewed the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Then we edited them — by removing and adding passages — to match the president’s conduct as described in the Mueller report and elsewhere,” adds the author.
Read the first section below:
The Russian government engaged in a sophisticated campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election. On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence.May 17, 2017, a special counsel was appointed to investigate Russian interference, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. The special counsel was also given “the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the special counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” Subsequent thereto, Richard M. NixonDonald J. Trump, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entryRussian contacts and potential obstruction of justice; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
DERSHOWITZ SCHOOLS WARREN: ‘Presidential Candidates Should Have a Better Understanding of the Law’
Alan Dershowitz ripped Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “mischaracterization” of his presentation before the US Senate this week; saying presidential candidates should “have a better understanding of the law.”
“Warren doesn’t understand the law. My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me,” posted Dershowitz on social media.
“She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about ‘intent.’ I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives,” he added.
She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about “intent.” I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives. (2 of 3
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
(3 OF 3)
If Warren knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime—and intent, which is. It’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
“If Warren knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime—and intent, which is. It’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law,” concluded Dershowitz.