Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump

    “If Hillary were the president, the Republicans would clamor for her impeachment, just as the Dems do with Trump right now,” says Alan Dershowitz. He writes that a “corrupt nature” is not grounds for impeachment, and that if it is then it would mean impeachment for every politician and judge, simply for them having exercised their power. That power, by the way, is the kind that the US constitution guarantees, and it was not the reason that President Clinton was impeached, nor the reason that Nixon barely dodged impeachment. Where, he argues, do we have grounds for impeaching President Trump?

   According to Dershowitz, the president commits no crime by using his executive power. If he doesn’t use his powers to dodge or direct an internal investigation (as Nixon did) then he’s guilty of nothing. The next problem rests on whether or not someone is obliged to reveal information, and the example is General Mike Flynn lying about his contacts with Russian diplomats. He did lie, but was he obliged to reveal that information in the first place? All he did was say “hey, Sergey, can you delay the vote on the next UN resolution?” It may have made things easier for Trump, not having an anti-Israel resolution on his hands, making things a little more favorable before an election. However, it doesn’t amount to meddling.

   Another problem with today’s “Dump Trump” cult (yes, I call it a cult) is the danger of targeting Trump’s lawyer. We know the base fact, that an attorney can’t be forced to testify against his client, nor can he be expected to reveal anything the client says, it’s all covered by attorney-client privilege. However, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, has been convicted of a crime, so he hasn’t got much to lose. He can’t be a lawyer anymore, he doesn’t have any clients to lose, so he’s more likely to cut a deal with the Feds. It is this scenario that troubles Dershowitz, particularly in terms of general confidence in lawyers. Remember the character Tobias Beecher in the TV drama OZ? He was a lawyer who went to prison for manslaughter, and from the get-go was sitting duck in prison. A man like that would jump at the chance to sing to the Feds for a reduced sentence. If Michael Cohen testifies against Trump, would it make Americans less comfortable about talking to their lawyer? According to the author, the answer may be yes.

    So, what does Americas top lawyer have to say about the enticed attorney, tempted to testify by offers of immunity? He says that the 5^th and 6^th Amendments need to be followed more closely. Should the FBI bug a lawyers office, or a confession booth, or seize medical records, then the evidence would be inadmissible. However, evidence that is inadmissible at trial can still be shown to the judge, and it can prejudice the judge in his judgement. The accused can sue for damages, but what’s the use? Once the citizens see that the authorities can breach attorney privilege or medical privilege, then they’ll be less likely to trust in these professions. If the FBI raids Michael Cohen’s files, it sets a terrible precedent.

   It seems that the quest for Trump’s impeachment shows how lazy the FBI have become. If they want to find evidence against the president, they can find it on other sources, like financial records. They can find evidence of illegal payments, unpaid taxes, financial fraud, payoffs to officials. I know of a business that suspected their partner was embezzling, and they hired a forensic accountant who did an amazing audit; he found evidence of fraud, even though the partner had locked everyone out of his office and records. Finding evidence of financial misconduct is all about math, and it means hard work. Dershowitz argues throughout the book that none of the evidence against Trump is legitimate; talking to Putin wasn’t illegal, paying off Stormy Daniels wasn’t illegal either, and there’s no law requiring the President to put his money in a blind trust.

   Being an asshole, or being overly chummy with a foreign head-of-state, or hiring your greedy son-in-law, are not grounds for impeachment. If the FBI agents want evidence against Trump, let them roll up their sleeves and investigate. Hounding the accused’s former attorneys will not be a legitimate way to gather evidence.