Alan Dershowitz: Impeachment Over Protected Speech Would Harm the Constitution

[natitude]

From this Newsweek opinion piece...

Whatever one may think of President Trump's speech last Wednesday—I personally found it deeply upsetting—one thing is clear: It was fully protected by the First Amendment. Nothing the president said constituted unprotected "incitement," as narrowly defined by the Supreme Court over nearly a century of decisions. His volatile words plainly fell on the side of political "advocacy," which is protected speech.

Thoughts?

 

[SeekingGloryOnThisJourney]

I don’t think Trump should have got impeached.
Not supporting the riots but he never once said “hey gang, let’s go mob the capital!” I suppose for me it’s in the middle.

 

[RDKirk]

I don’t think Trump should have got impeached.
Not supporting the riots but he never once said “hey gang, let’s go mob the capital!” I suppose for me it’s in the middle.

When I was a kid, it was still not uncommon for a political leader in the south to say something like, "I am not a man of violence, but if the negroes perpetuating that march should should cause push good white people beyond their level of restraint, it would be understandable," knowing that there were people who would take his words for action.

 

[JohnDB]

Considering that the Capitol Building was breached BEFORE and during the time Trump made his speech...
And that he didn't say anything to suggest violence in fact he said the exact opposite of that.

If you were to give this to any politically unbiased DA in America...they wouldn't do anything with it. It's a non-starter...there's no way that the Judge wouldn't kick it out or an appeals court judge if the judge was biased.

His speech wasn't encouraging violence, the breeching of the Capitol building happened before and during his speech, and the language of inciting to riot doesn't fit what a hundred years of Supreme Court decisions says it should be to be considered inciting to riot.
Which is probably why Mitch in the Senate has said that he won't hear any impeachment from Nancy.

 

[RDKirk]

Which is probably why Mitch in the Senate has said that he won't hear any impeachment from Nancy.

It won't be Mitch's call this time.

 

[JohnDB]

It won't be Mitch's call this time.

Senate rules aren't the same as in the house.

And just because Nancy wants to speak and blather on about something that is not relevant any longer means nothing to Mitch. She doesn't run the Senate...he does. He might be angry at Trump...but that anger can be directed towards her for trying to force him to do something that he doesn't want to mess with...and legally doesn't have to.

 

[RDKirk]

Senate rules aren't the same as in the house.

And just because Nancy wants to speak and blather on about something that is not relevant any longer means nothing to Mitch. She doesn't run the Senate...he does. He might be angry at Trump...but that anger can be directed towards her for trying to force him to do something that he doesn't want to mess with...and legally doesn't have to.

It sounds like you haven't been keeping up with current events.

With the election victories of Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in both a special and regular election in Georgia, respectively, McConnell is expected to return to the position of minority leader, as both Democrats' victories ensured a 50–50 tie in the Senate, which can be broken by Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

In January 2021, McConnell indicated that he believes the impeachment of Trump for his role in inciting the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is justified.

 

[zippy2006]

From this Newsweek opinion piece...



Thoughts?

There is no case for incitement unless we revert to the draconian and regrettable Sedition Act era. According to a nearly 100-year precedent, Trump is guilty of no crime. I don't say he won't be convicted, but he is guilty of no crime. Perhaps a non-criminal impeachment over protected speech would be legitimate. Not sure. Seems like a stretch.

 

[iluvatar5150]

From this Newsweek opinion piece...



Thoughts?

I'd tell Dershowitz to keep his pants on, but he apparently already does that.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

From this Newsweek opinion piece...



Thoughts?

It's protected speech, and if not then they need to start arresting people like Maxine Waters and Eric Holder when they incited mobs to harass Trump's cabinet and Republican lawmakers, before they try to crack down on Trump, otherwise it is just the usual bias.

 

[tulc]

(snip) She doesn't run the Senate...he does. (snip)

...for about 5 more days, then he doesn't.
tulc(thought that should be pointed out)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's protected speech, and if not then they need to start arresting people like Maxine Waters and Eric Holder when they incited mobs to harass Trump's cabinet and Republican lawmakers, before they try to crack down on Trump, otherwise it is just the usual bias.

Trump hasn't been arrested nor will he be over this. That doesn't mean what he's done doesn't amount to breaking his oath of office which is why he deserves to be impeached. His statements on 1/6 aren't the only thing that happened. He's been undermining the integrity of US elections for months and the riot at the Capitol was the culmination of that disinformation campaign.

 

[RDKirk]

Nobody was ever going to actually arrest Bill Clinton, either.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Nobody was ever going to actually arrest Bill Clinton, either.

Or Hillary Clinton for that matter.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Considering that the Capitol Building was breached BEFORE and during the time Trump made his speech...

Uh, no? There were people protesting at the capitol before and during the speech, but no one broke in until after the group from the rally made it to the capitol.

Trump started speaking a little before noon and spoke for about an hour. The rioters didn't breach the police lines until about an hour after that (2:11 PM), and the first reports of people breaking into the capitol building were at 2:33 PM.

Capitol Hill riot: Timeline of how events unfolded in Washington (usatoday.com)

 

[iluvatar5150]

Dershowitz’ premise is stupid- behavior doesn’t have to be criminal for it to he worthy of impeachment. Trump would be within his constitutional rights to say nothing in his press conferences except “Mike Pence is a poopy head,” but that, too, would be worthy of impeachment because it would constitute a dereliction of his duties and a besmirching of the office.

 

[Fervent]

Let me preface this with a clear statement that I have no opinion on whether Trump's impeachment was legitimate, as I have not seen or heard his comments as involvement in politics only incites in me unChristlike attitudes and emotions. I will also add that I tend to be sympathetic to Trump given the distortions found in most media sources.

That said, there is no reason that an impeachment needs to raise to the level of criminal violations. Given the decorum surrounding the office and the responsibility in the position, a lower threshold for intolerable behavior may be applicable. The president's words and actions carry a weight that an ordinary citizens do not, and he and any other public official must be held to a standard that is above reproach. An impeachment simply should not be done on partisan grounds, or for political purposes. Speech that is not criminal, but is inflammatory in a way not meet for the office should very well be possible grounds for impeachment and removal especially if it is acted upon by the populace in a predictable fashion. He simply should not face subsequent criminal charges unless it meets the standard for an ordinary criminal proceeding.

 

[Sparagmos]

Senate rules aren't the same as in the house.

And just because Nancy wants to speak and blather on about something that is not relevant any longer means nothing to Mitch. She doesn't run the Senate...he does. He might be angry at Trump...but that anger can be directed towards her for trying to force him to do something that he doesn't want to mess with...and legally doesn't have to.

You seem to be missing a pretty major point...

 

[loveofourlord]

I don’t think Trump should have got impeached.
Not supporting the riots but he never once said “hey gang, let’s go mob the capital!” I suppose for me it’s in the middle.

No just 4-5+ months of, "They stole the election." followed by, "Now were going to stop it." kind of rhetoric. Him, Fox news, Alex Jones and others are all responsible for what happened. You can't spend 4-5+ months lying to people about how their country is stolen then be surprised they got violent.

 

[returntosender]

From this Newsweek opinion piece...



Thoughts?

He was on court TV and said that along with his comments on the other possibility