What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case Against Impeaching Trump
"Alan Dershowitz is a brilliant lawyer...He has written a new and very important book called The Case Against Impeaching Trump, which I would encourage all people...to read!"—President Donald Trump
The New York Times bestseller
“This brand new book by Professor Dershowitz is absolutely amazing….If you care about justice and the President with the witch hunt, you’re going to want to read this book.”—Sean Hannity
“Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz. Maybe it’s what happened to everyone else.”—Politico
Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. Yet he has come under partisan fire for applying those same principles to Donald Trump during the course of his many appearances in national media outlets as an expert resource on civil and constitutional law.
The Case Against Impeaching Trump seeks to reorient the debate over impeachment to the same standard that Dershowitz has continued to uphold for the law of the United States of America, as established by the Constitution. In the author’s own
“In the fervor to impeach President Trump, his political enemies have ignored the text of the Constitution. As a civil libertarian who voted against Trump, I remind those who would impeach him not to run roughshod over a document that has protected us all for two and a quarter centuries. In this case against impeachment, I make arguments similar to those I made against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton (and that I would be making had Hillary Clinton been elected and Republicans were seeking to impeach her). Impeachment and removal of a president are not entirely political decisions by Congress. Every member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution sets out specific substantive criteria that MUST be met.
I am thrilled to contribute to this important debate and especially that my book will be so quickly available to readers so they can make up their own minds.”
The New York Times bestseller
“This brand new book by Professor Dershowitz is absolutely amazing….If you care about justice and the President with the witch hunt, you’re going to want to read this book.”—Sean Hannity
“Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz. Maybe it’s what happened to everyone else.”—Politico
Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. Yet he has come under partisan fire for applying those same principles to Donald Trump during the course of his many appearances in national media outlets as an expert resource on civil and constitutional law.
The Case Against Impeaching Trump seeks to reorient the debate over impeachment to the same standard that Dershowitz has continued to uphold for the law of the United States of America, as established by the Constitution. In the author’s own
“In the fervor to impeach President Trump, his political enemies have ignored the text of the Constitution. As a civil libertarian who voted against Trump, I remind those who would impeach him not to run roughshod over a document that has protected us all for two and a quarter centuries. In this case against impeachment, I make arguments similar to those I made against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton (and that I would be making had Hillary Clinton been elected and Republicans were seeking to impeach her). Impeachment and removal of a president are not entirely political decisions by Congress. Every member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution sets out specific substantive criteria that MUST be met.
I am thrilled to contribute to this important debate and especially that my book will be so quickly available to readers so they can make up their own minds.”
150 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2018
348 people are currently reading
496 people want to read
About the author
Alan M. Dershowitz
146 books318 followersAlan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
October 14, 2020
I have decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2020 US Presidential Election. Many of these will focus on actors intricately involved in the process, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process.
This is Book #25 (a re-read) in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge.
Having read a great deal about recent topics surrounding presidential impeachment, I thought it appropriate to explore a little more about sentiments against the constitutional removal of President Trump. There are surely many Trump supporters who oppose impeachment talk, even those not employed by Fox and Friends. However, I sought something with more teeth and legally grounded. Enter, Alan Dershowitz, who makes strong and repeated assertions that talk of impeachment is not only premature, but also legally unfounded. Dershowitz presents arguments that he makes clear to the reader that he’s held for over fifty years and offers them repeatedly throughout this tome. Interestingly enough, I have read many of the texts Dershowitz hopes to debunk with his arguments, citing that these legal scholars and academics suffer from tunnel vision and could not support their assertions if the ‘shoe were on the other foot’, one of his tests to credibility. Dershowitz, an admitted civil libertarian, extols the necessity that impeachment and bringing criminal charges against opponents should not be a club to remedy ideological differences. Dershowitz also spends much time trying to erode the entire current impeachment process as being anything but supported by law. He cites strong concern about the hiring of a special prosecutor to undertake investigations into all the alleged activities that fuel the calls for impeachment, explaining that bias has rotted the core of the exploratory system. With a less than stellar Robert Mueller, an Attorney-General in Jeff Sessions who tried to play two roles, and members of Congress who are fixated on loose claims, Dershowitz goes almost so far as to call the entire process a sham. Narrow interpretation of the US Constitution is another area where Dershowitz tries tirelessly to nullify the need for considering Trump’s actions as worthy of impeachment. A firm believer of literal interpretation of the Founders’ words, Dershowitz cannot see where Trump has done anything to contravene the limits set out by those who created the political rulebook for the United States. The repetitive nature of Dershowitz’s arguments leaves the reader to wonder why he needs to constantly provide an air of self-aggrandizement, as though others could never contribute as effectively. Dershowitz shows why he is the ideal criminal defence attorney, pushing smoke into the eyes of the layperson while concocting bouts of browbeating to confound someone who simply wants some basic arguments to offset much of what is being said in print and on television. Dershowitz is to be applauded for holding firm to his ground, but makes few arguments that come across as substantial without being condescending. An interesting read for those who can comprehend his complex and highly academic views, though sure to miss the mark for many other readers.
I admit that my impeachment binge may have been one-sided, though I did learn quite a bit from the constitutional and legal areas of the matter at hand, which have helped shape my opinions. However, while I respect some of the sentiments made by Dershowitz, his approach seems to be very troubling or extremely narrow-minded. While there are some who assert that the US Constitution lays out rules that must be followed and we cannot stray from them, I have always been a ‘Living Tree’ believer, that laws, even of a constitutional nature, must grow with the society they oversee. I always marvelled at how former Justice Scalia could make rulings based on the Founding Fathers original intent without taking modernity into account, but he seemed to do so effectively. Dershowitz takes that same approach in that he tries to tie the reader into knots about believing those who call for impeachment without clearly defined reasons in the Constitution. Taking this approach not only confounds those who seek to have modern discussions, but also closes the door on having an evolving exploration, when one mind is stuck in the late 18th century. Additionally, Dershowitz offers up a rebuttal of those who speak of collusion or obstruction, refusing to see anything in federal statutes that supports claims. Again, he is happy to parse the laws to his literal favour, rather than allowing his mind to expand and work in the modern exploration of a living constitutional document. Infuriating as it is, this pales in comparison to his oft-repeated sentiment that he is the sole legal mind who has held firm and would sat the same things no matter who was being slandered. This self-aggrandizement does little to warm the reader up to his arguments, as they are forced to watch Dershowitz pat himself on the back, yet continue to call himself entirely neutral. This is likely because this text is a set of short essays published over a short time, in which Dershowitz repeats his key arguments. While this could be used effectively, the reader forced to hear that same arguments (i.e. shoe on the other foot) over and over, things quickly become mundane. I had truly hoped for some strong arguments refuting the sentiments made by the other side, but was subjected to inane arguments that chose more to mock others for being too invested rather than provide counter-claims that could sway arguments. For all this intelligence and the stellar work he has done in criminal defence, Dershowitz seeks not to help the common American turn their opinions, but wants to blather on in law school classrooms and in the clouds with those academics who can handle his banter.
Kudos, Mr. Dershowitz, for your long-winded arguments. If mockery and tying the reader in knots is your attempt to confuse people into agreeing with you simply to stop the circular arguments, you have succeeded. Heaven forbid that you change your mind and agree to help Trump on the Senate floor with the impeachment trial, for that could be as brain-numbing as watching them shampoo the carpets ahead of the trial itself.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
This is Book #25 (a re-read) in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge.
Having read a great deal about recent topics surrounding presidential impeachment, I thought it appropriate to explore a little more about sentiments against the constitutional removal of President Trump. There are surely many Trump supporters who oppose impeachment talk, even those not employed by Fox and Friends. However, I sought something with more teeth and legally grounded. Enter, Alan Dershowitz, who makes strong and repeated assertions that talk of impeachment is not only premature, but also legally unfounded. Dershowitz presents arguments that he makes clear to the reader that he’s held for over fifty years and offers them repeatedly throughout this tome. Interestingly enough, I have read many of the texts Dershowitz hopes to debunk with his arguments, citing that these legal scholars and academics suffer from tunnel vision and could not support their assertions if the ‘shoe were on the other foot’, one of his tests to credibility. Dershowitz, an admitted civil libertarian, extols the necessity that impeachment and bringing criminal charges against opponents should not be a club to remedy ideological differences. Dershowitz also spends much time trying to erode the entire current impeachment process as being anything but supported by law. He cites strong concern about the hiring of a special prosecutor to undertake investigations into all the alleged activities that fuel the calls for impeachment, explaining that bias has rotted the core of the exploratory system. With a less than stellar Robert Mueller, an Attorney-General in Jeff Sessions who tried to play two roles, and members of Congress who are fixated on loose claims, Dershowitz goes almost so far as to call the entire process a sham. Narrow interpretation of the US Constitution is another area where Dershowitz tries tirelessly to nullify the need for considering Trump’s actions as worthy of impeachment. A firm believer of literal interpretation of the Founders’ words, Dershowitz cannot see where Trump has done anything to contravene the limits set out by those who created the political rulebook for the United States. The repetitive nature of Dershowitz’s arguments leaves the reader to wonder why he needs to constantly provide an air of self-aggrandizement, as though others could never contribute as effectively. Dershowitz shows why he is the ideal criminal defence attorney, pushing smoke into the eyes of the layperson while concocting bouts of browbeating to confound someone who simply wants some basic arguments to offset much of what is being said in print and on television. Dershowitz is to be applauded for holding firm to his ground, but makes few arguments that come across as substantial without being condescending. An interesting read for those who can comprehend his complex and highly academic views, though sure to miss the mark for many other readers.
I admit that my impeachment binge may have been one-sided, though I did learn quite a bit from the constitutional and legal areas of the matter at hand, which have helped shape my opinions. However, while I respect some of the sentiments made by Dershowitz, his approach seems to be very troubling or extremely narrow-minded. While there are some who assert that the US Constitution lays out rules that must be followed and we cannot stray from them, I have always been a ‘Living Tree’ believer, that laws, even of a constitutional nature, must grow with the society they oversee. I always marvelled at how former Justice Scalia could make rulings based on the Founding Fathers original intent without taking modernity into account, but he seemed to do so effectively. Dershowitz takes that same approach in that he tries to tie the reader into knots about believing those who call for impeachment without clearly defined reasons in the Constitution. Taking this approach not only confounds those who seek to have modern discussions, but also closes the door on having an evolving exploration, when one mind is stuck in the late 18th century. Additionally, Dershowitz offers up a rebuttal of those who speak of collusion or obstruction, refusing to see anything in federal statutes that supports claims. Again, he is happy to parse the laws to his literal favour, rather than allowing his mind to expand and work in the modern exploration of a living constitutional document. Infuriating as it is, this pales in comparison to his oft-repeated sentiment that he is the sole legal mind who has held firm and would sat the same things no matter who was being slandered. This self-aggrandizement does little to warm the reader up to his arguments, as they are forced to watch Dershowitz pat himself on the back, yet continue to call himself entirely neutral. This is likely because this text is a set of short essays published over a short time, in which Dershowitz repeats his key arguments. While this could be used effectively, the reader forced to hear that same arguments (i.e. shoe on the other foot) over and over, things quickly become mundane. I had truly hoped for some strong arguments refuting the sentiments made by the other side, but was subjected to inane arguments that chose more to mock others for being too invested rather than provide counter-claims that could sway arguments. For all this intelligence and the stellar work he has done in criminal defence, Dershowitz seeks not to help the common American turn their opinions, but wants to blather on in law school classrooms and in the clouds with those academics who can handle his banter.
Kudos, Mr. Dershowitz, for your long-winded arguments. If mockery and tying the reader in knots is your attempt to confuse people into agreeing with you simply to stop the circular arguments, you have succeeded. Heaven forbid that you change your mind and agree to help Trump on the Senate floor with the impeachment trial, for that could be as brain-numbing as watching them shampoo the carpets ahead of the trial itself.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
August 18, 2018
I do not know what is more clear than Alan Dershowitz. And also more exactly to a specific point. If it is his incredible self-critical honesty within such an up front energetic personality. Or his superb logic and precise by precedent and onus defining ability. Overall his is an expression of brilliance in argument and within answer. Not just in this particular book, but it's especially evident here. And when he did this in the past for issues on the "other side"- I thought of him in exactly the same way too. When I was much younger I saw him speak on a case. Brilliant then, brilliant now.
This entire book is clear and direct language, and yet I did not find it "easy" read as others did here. In fact, I read that first entire portion three times- it's filled with exact language coupled with 200 plus years of precedent. The first sections are Dershowitz defining and relating the process and the use of this law for precedent and in possibility within the impeachment process itself. And it includes the "living" Constitution argument used by so many progressives as their core argument (and not just for impeachment either). Dershowitz parries that "living" argument with specific proofs of why/what can be made "living"redefined and which parts by founders and present laws' passages cannot ever be redefined. They are called the "dead" parts of the Constitution.
But I got my 5 star rating more from all the other sections of exact and verbatim dual argument of tangents to all this legality within the other sections of the book. And roles that other non-elected or not listed "permissions" can play against any elected USA President. Two or three of them (interviews) I saw in real time. Two of the them on Meet the Press against Todd and one against Tucker Carlson.
The entire last third of the book concerns the methods that have been used and the privacy and other rights of citizens that these committees have decimated by their actions. And how FISA court claims /approvals and other aspects of all this also deserve Nonpartisan Commission investigations. And also why Mueller should never have been appointed nor used highly questionable tactics since appointment.
Dershowitz also has chapters and explains why Mueller and especially Rosenstein should never have been used or appointed within these arenas at all. Especially Rosenstein should have been recused from the earliest communications because of past involvements and associated personal relationships. Alan Dershowitz also parries in the numbers of dual (live interview copy portions) TV program appearances how the "Republican" party of some of the actors in the DOJ of this long process as an answer to "fairness" is circular and ridiculous. They hated Trump from periods way before he was elected. With email and witness of purposes for future attack at that. He also demonstrates how they set up straw arguments in circular fashion such as the "Republican" one just mentioned. He names other ones that they raise consistently too. And then knocks the straw men down.
He does all kinds of future "if this happens/ then that cannot happen" musings in interview and at the ending. As does he predict and explain for the roles of past President and this President in the pardoning quotients of their use (and those in office in the past too). Or within bodies that have non-elected roles, as well.
This book taught me several things that I did not know at all. Especially upon the role of the Attorney General as it has existed and presently exists. Dershowitz says it is the only cabinet post that was a "mistake" by the Founders of the Constitution. And that it has never been remedied. And needs to be remedied. The Attorney General as that job has direction now- actually has two separate and conflicting purposes and fields of "oversee" within one head and that is an incorrect situation. He says it needs to be split into two separate posts as other democratic forms or republic type governmental forms have done in governments elsewhere. A "prosecution" director needs to be another separate body, apart from the main onus of the Attorney General job as assistant to the President and delegate to that authority.
It's an excellent and well written and supremely exact spoken book. And not just for impeachment knowledge either.
Alan is the most affected. He jokes that he has lost 7 lbs for lack of dinner dates. He clearly states about 5 or 6 times that he is being bullied by those of his own political persuasions. And is particularly being shunned on Martha's Vineyard, but elsewhere too. He also states 2 or 3 other issues that Hillary Clinton's win would have reversed- for them (people who have given him endless nasty and foul treatments) are now being interpreted by 180 degree as if they didn't declare the reverse not even 3 or 4 years ago. And he doesn't understand how that fact cannot be grasped in treatments for himself and for those in office now. But especially how they refuse to hear that he has not "crossed the line" and "switched sides" at all. It just doesn't play that you can set up one set of procedures for past presidents or a Hillary Clinton Secretary of State and quite another set for the opposition win.
This entire book is clear and direct language, and yet I did not find it "easy" read as others did here. In fact, I read that first entire portion three times- it's filled with exact language coupled with 200 plus years of precedent. The first sections are Dershowitz defining and relating the process and the use of this law for precedent and in possibility within the impeachment process itself. And it includes the "living" Constitution argument used by so many progressives as their core argument (and not just for impeachment either). Dershowitz parries that "living" argument with specific proofs of why/what can be made "living"redefined and which parts by founders and present laws' passages cannot ever be redefined. They are called the "dead" parts of the Constitution.
But I got my 5 star rating more from all the other sections of exact and verbatim dual argument of tangents to all this legality within the other sections of the book. And roles that other non-elected or not listed "permissions" can play against any elected USA President. Two or three of them (interviews) I saw in real time. Two of the them on Meet the Press against Todd and one against Tucker Carlson.
The entire last third of the book concerns the methods that have been used and the privacy and other rights of citizens that these committees have decimated by their actions. And how FISA court claims /approvals and other aspects of all this also deserve Nonpartisan Commission investigations. And also why Mueller should never have been appointed nor used highly questionable tactics since appointment.
Dershowitz also has chapters and explains why Mueller and especially Rosenstein should never have been used or appointed within these arenas at all. Especially Rosenstein should have been recused from the earliest communications because of past involvements and associated personal relationships. Alan Dershowitz also parries in the numbers of dual (live interview copy portions) TV program appearances how the "Republican" party of some of the actors in the DOJ of this long process as an answer to "fairness" is circular and ridiculous. They hated Trump from periods way before he was elected. With email and witness of purposes for future attack at that. He also demonstrates how they set up straw arguments in circular fashion such as the "Republican" one just mentioned. He names other ones that they raise consistently too. And then knocks the straw men down.
He does all kinds of future "if this happens/ then that cannot happen" musings in interview and at the ending. As does he predict and explain for the roles of past President and this President in the pardoning quotients of their use (and those in office in the past too). Or within bodies that have non-elected roles, as well.
This book taught me several things that I did not know at all. Especially upon the role of the Attorney General as it has existed and presently exists. Dershowitz says it is the only cabinet post that was a "mistake" by the Founders of the Constitution. And that it has never been remedied. And needs to be remedied. The Attorney General as that job has direction now- actually has two separate and conflicting purposes and fields of "oversee" within one head and that is an incorrect situation. He says it needs to be split into two separate posts as other democratic forms or republic type governmental forms have done in governments elsewhere. A "prosecution" director needs to be another separate body, apart from the main onus of the Attorney General job as assistant to the President and delegate to that authority.
It's an excellent and well written and supremely exact spoken book. And not just for impeachment knowledge either.
Alan is the most affected. He jokes that he has lost 7 lbs for lack of dinner dates. He clearly states about 5 or 6 times that he is being bullied by those of his own political persuasions. And is particularly being shunned on Martha's Vineyard, but elsewhere too. He also states 2 or 3 other issues that Hillary Clinton's win would have reversed- for them (people who have given him endless nasty and foul treatments) are now being interpreted by 180 degree as if they didn't declare the reverse not even 3 or 4 years ago. And he doesn't understand how that fact cannot be grasped in treatments for himself and for those in office now. But especially how they refuse to hear that he has not "crossed the line" and "switched sides" at all. It just doesn't play that you can set up one set of procedures for past presidents or a Hillary Clinton Secretary of State and quite another set for the opposition win.
August 1, 2018
Let me preface this by saying that I am definitely not a Trump fan, and I'm very much looking forward to the day where he is no longer my president. Nonetheless, this book definitely changed my opinion of current events. It didn't necessarily move me towards being in favor of President Trump, but definitely made me more agnostic and skeptical about the entire investigation.
"The Case Against Impeaching Trump" isn't so much a pro-Trump argument. Rather, it is a pro civil liberties argument and an argument for following the actual letter of the law during this investigation. There are discussions around understanding the nuance between what is actually a crime and what "ought to be" a crime. It discusses presuming innocence until proven guilty. And it discusses different ways in which the motives of the special prosecutor might be tainted. Most importantly, these arguments aren't specific to Trump's case.
Dershowitz constantly comes back to the "shoe on the other foot test". It's easy for anyone to think they pass this test, but there are so many nuanced pieces of the law that aren't reported. This book convinced me that neither party really passes the "shoe on the other foot test", and just makes me super skeptical of pretty much anything related to this investigation.
A second interesting piece is to see arguments that Dershowitz makes surface in the media, for example the idea that "collusion isn't a crime". Believe it or not, that is presented as a real argument in this book. While it's certainly the case that collusion is not something you might look kindly upon, the question of whether it is legal is a valid one and it matters! I definitely agree with Dershowitz's idea that we shouldn't be stretching the law to "criminalize political differences".
In conclusion, the book is worth a look if you have any interest in not being a hack for whichever party you subscribe to. It's probably even more important for you if you think the the (D)/(R) side are always right, and that media/pundits on either side actually care about the law instead of scoring points for their political team.
"The Case Against Impeaching Trump" isn't so much a pro-Trump argument. Rather, it is a pro civil liberties argument and an argument for following the actual letter of the law during this investigation. There are discussions around understanding the nuance between what is actually a crime and what "ought to be" a crime. It discusses presuming innocence until proven guilty. And it discusses different ways in which the motives of the special prosecutor might be tainted. Most importantly, these arguments aren't specific to Trump's case.
Dershowitz constantly comes back to the "shoe on the other foot test". It's easy for anyone to think they pass this test, but there are so many nuanced pieces of the law that aren't reported. This book convinced me that neither party really passes the "shoe on the other foot test", and just makes me super skeptical of pretty much anything related to this investigation.
A second interesting piece is to see arguments that Dershowitz makes surface in the media, for example the idea that "collusion isn't a crime". Believe it or not, that is presented as a real argument in this book. While it's certainly the case that collusion is not something you might look kindly upon, the question of whether it is legal is a valid one and it matters! I definitely agree with Dershowitz's idea that we shouldn't be stretching the law to "criminalize political differences".
In conclusion, the book is worth a look if you have any interest in not being a hack for whichever party you subscribe to. It's probably even more important for you if you think the the (D)/(R) side are always right, and that media/pundits on either side actually care about the law instead of scoring points for their political team.
July 26, 2018
Leave out Trump
At the end of Chapter 1 Mr. Dershowitz introduces the concept of the Rawlsian Veil from "Justice as Fairness" by John Rawls (1985.) Conceptually Rawls argues that one should take into account nothing about the individual accused but only the crime and the evidence of that crime. With that in mind I suggest reading with the idea of a President who did certain things rather than President Trump.
The essence of the book is in the first chapter. The remainder are edited reprints of other of Professor Dershowitz's writings. In my opinion The first chapter is worth the price of the book.
The first chapter does an excellent job of describing the ambiguous and non-ambiguous elements of the process of Presidential Impeachment. (Or as Professor Dershowitz calls them the "living" and "dead" parts of the Constitution.) If we accept his learned opinion there is an amazing amount of ambiguity. But almost all (hedge word almost - I am uncomfortable with making an absolute statement about a topic I hardly know) of the ambiguity is process ambiguity. For example, the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside over the "trial" in the Senate without much is any guidance as to his/her role, responsibility, or powers.
I found this, and particularly Chapter 1, to be a great learning experience. Perhaps you will too. I recommend it.
At the end of Chapter 1 Mr. Dershowitz introduces the concept of the Rawlsian Veil from "Justice as Fairness" by John Rawls (1985.) Conceptually Rawls argues that one should take into account nothing about the individual accused but only the crime and the evidence of that crime. With that in mind I suggest reading with the idea of a President who did certain things rather than President Trump.
The essence of the book is in the first chapter. The remainder are edited reprints of other of Professor Dershowitz's writings. In my opinion The first chapter is worth the price of the book.
The first chapter does an excellent job of describing the ambiguous and non-ambiguous elements of the process of Presidential Impeachment. (Or as Professor Dershowitz calls them the "living" and "dead" parts of the Constitution.) If we accept his learned opinion there is an amazing amount of ambiguity. But almost all (hedge word almost - I am uncomfortable with making an absolute statement about a topic I hardly know) of the ambiguity is process ambiguity. For example, the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside over the "trial" in the Senate without much is any guidance as to his/her role, responsibility, or powers.
I found this, and particularly Chapter 1, to be a great learning experience. Perhaps you will too. I recommend it.
August 11, 2018
I wanted a thought-provoking case against the prevailing wisdom of the day and instead spent hours listening to a self-satisfied screed from an author with a major chip on his shoulder. Little time is spent addressing the actual arguments for impeaching this specific president. Instead, we get a professorial rant about the author's general distaste for impeachment and repeated assertions that he voted for Hillary Clinton. That's lovely, and I'm right there with ya. But I still would like to hear a challenging argument against impeaching President Donald Trump.
January 11, 2019
The first pages of Alan Dershowitz's book held a slight glimmer of hope, that a reasoned, educated, and informative argument could be made that Donald Trump should not be impeached. However, in the many pages after Dershowitz's rather strict contrustcionist rendering of the impeachment procedure against a president, the author descends into the metaphorical muck of both-sides-are-wrong-ism, ignorance as to Trump's past actions, and a generally unsatisfying intellectual argument. This book comes across as a series of short bursts of thoughts, but without the overarching connecting thread that is vital to make a sound case against impeachment. If such an argument exists, and it becomes less clear one does as 2019 grows older, it is unfortunately not encapsulated in this book.
Dershowitz's best piece of advice comes at the end of the book, where he advocates that dissenters from his opinions meet him fairly and squarely in the marketplace of ideas. So let us proceed in that vein:
(1) Trump's Crimes
Dershowitz is insistent throughout his tome that Donald Trump may have acted unethically in connection with Russia, but not criminally. In fact, Dershowitz makes the bizarre case (given that he is a lawyer) that there are so many laws out there that anybody can practically be sentenced for anything!
However, the statutes do not coincide with this thinking. Many crimes serve as the potential for an indictment against Trump. Needless to say, none of these crimes has yet been proven beyond a doubt, but they are possible:
18 U.S.C. Section 371 - Conspiracy to further illegal action
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The Wiretap Act
FEC Campaign Donation/Contribution Violations
It would appear that Donald Trump is not facing some uncoordinated partisan attack, but rather a series of potential crimes well-grounded in current law and far from the norm of what presidential candidates and presidents do.
(2) Obstruction of Justice
Dershowitz reaps much from his argument that Trump could not possible have committed obstruction of justice, because a president has the constitutional authority to fire officials such as the Director of the FBI and Attorney General.
Alas, if only it were so for President Trump. Legal commentators have made the point that the fact that the president exercised a constitutional power (such as in firing Comey) is no defense if the action was done with corrupt intent to block an investigation. Trump himself has admitted that Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation. Thus, it appears that obstruction of justice is not just some imagined crime cooked up at the DNC or in East Coast elite classrooms, but a concrete crime that can, and should, be prosecuted.
(3) Both Sides-ism
Dershowitz joins a long line of esteemed commentators who declare a pox on both the houses of Hillary and Donald for the ills of the country. After all, Dershowitz argues, if Hillary had been elected, wouldn's Democrats be using the same arguments as Trump to stave off impeachment?
The simple answer is: No. The Clintoin campaign did not coordinate and collude with Russia. Hillary Clinton may not have fired James Comey. Paul Manafort is behind bars; other campaign aides and friends disgraced. And yet there is no analogy with the operatives and friends of the 2016 Clinton campaign.
The declaration that "both sides are wrong" is immensely dangerous to the health of the Republic. The Republican Party has become, under Trump, an anti-system, pro-authoritarian, and dangerously power-driven coterie that seeks SCOTUS seats, favorable Congressional districts, and miedieval walls on the border no matter the laws or norms. Democrats, and Hillary, are not free from blame, but they should not be put on the scales as equal belligerents as compared with Donald Trump.
In conclusion, Dershowitz's book failed to persuade at least this jury of one. A better book surely exists, whether written or not, as to the long-term wisdom of whether to impeach Trump. While some interesting points are made by Dershowitz, he does not convince this reader that impeachment is unwarranted.
Dershowitz's best piece of advice comes at the end of the book, where he advocates that dissenters from his opinions meet him fairly and squarely in the marketplace of ideas. So let us proceed in that vein:
(1) Trump's Crimes
Dershowitz is insistent throughout his tome that Donald Trump may have acted unethically in connection with Russia, but not criminally. In fact, Dershowitz makes the bizarre case (given that he is a lawyer) that there are so many laws out there that anybody can practically be sentenced for anything!
However, the statutes do not coincide with this thinking. Many crimes serve as the potential for an indictment against Trump. Needless to say, none of these crimes has yet been proven beyond a doubt, but they are possible:
18 U.S.C. Section 371 - Conspiracy to further illegal action
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The Wiretap Act
FEC Campaign Donation/Contribution Violations
It would appear that Donald Trump is not facing some uncoordinated partisan attack, but rather a series of potential crimes well-grounded in current law and far from the norm of what presidential candidates and presidents do.
(2) Obstruction of Justice
Dershowitz reaps much from his argument that Trump could not possible have committed obstruction of justice, because a president has the constitutional authority to fire officials such as the Director of the FBI and Attorney General.
Alas, if only it were so for President Trump. Legal commentators have made the point that the fact that the president exercised a constitutional power (such as in firing Comey) is no defense if the action was done with corrupt intent to block an investigation. Trump himself has admitted that Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation. Thus, it appears that obstruction of justice is not just some imagined crime cooked up at the DNC or in East Coast elite classrooms, but a concrete crime that can, and should, be prosecuted.
(3) Both Sides-ism
Dershowitz joins a long line of esteemed commentators who declare a pox on both the houses of Hillary and Donald for the ills of the country. After all, Dershowitz argues, if Hillary had been elected, wouldn's Democrats be using the same arguments as Trump to stave off impeachment?
The simple answer is: No. The Clintoin campaign did not coordinate and collude with Russia. Hillary Clinton may not have fired James Comey. Paul Manafort is behind bars; other campaign aides and friends disgraced. And yet there is no analogy with the operatives and friends of the 2016 Clinton campaign.
The declaration that "both sides are wrong" is immensely dangerous to the health of the Republic. The Republican Party has become, under Trump, an anti-system, pro-authoritarian, and dangerously power-driven coterie that seeks SCOTUS seats, favorable Congressional districts, and miedieval walls on the border no matter the laws or norms. Democrats, and Hillary, are not free from blame, but they should not be put on the scales as equal belligerents as compared with Donald Trump.
In conclusion, Dershowitz's book failed to persuade at least this jury of one. A better book surely exists, whether written or not, as to the long-term wisdom of whether to impeach Trump. While some interesting points are made by Dershowitz, he does not convince this reader that impeachment is unwarranted.
August 30, 2018
Dershowitz pens a dispassionate, cogent, and compelling monograph that makes the legal case that the blather that suffuses through the media regarding the impeachment of President Trump is but manifestly political agitprop. He presents his thesis in the Queen’s English, instead of legalese, for the proletariat—it is easily readable and comprehensible, and decidedly politically neutral.
This is a small book, only 150 pages. The nugget of Dershowitz’s explication lies in the first seventy pages. The remaining eighty pages are primarily transcriptions of his television interviews that enhance his thesis. He explores the constitutional duties and protections that a sitting president has. The law must be applied equally to all our citizens. But, Dershowitz notes, some parts of the law are different for a sitting president. For example, a president cannot be subpoenaed in federal court, indicted, or convicted of a crime while in office. Impeachment is the only remedy for removing a president. Such a constructional legislative action must be rare and used only after a sitting president commits an obviously egregious “high” crime—murder, treason, etc.
Dershowitz assails the radical left with constitutional vigor for their irrational rhetoric regarding President Trump and their self-righteous hypocrisy. For example, he chides the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for its leftist bent. On page 100 he writes, “Unfortunately, however, over the last several years it has turned from being a neutral civil liberties organization to a left-wing, agenda-driven group that protects its contributors and constituents while ignoring the civil liberties of Americans with whom it disagrees.” He applies an equal reproach to the “civil libertarians” who have abandoned their neutrality and have embraced the leftist agenda.
Dershowitz is an unabashedly proud liberal. He tells his audience that he voted for Barack Obama twice and voted for Hilary Clinton in the 2016 election. He is an emeritus professor of law at Harvard University, a criminal defense attorney, and a noted civil libertarian. He is a man of courage and principle and a zealous advocate of applying the principles of our Constitution equally (my emphasis). The recurring theme in his monograph is “the shoe on the other foot test.” Will the accusation (or whatever) that is leveled against a person, race, religion, etc., be equally applied to that which is different, least favored, or the opposition? For example, “If a controversial president is denied constitutional protection, then any citizen can be denied constitutional protection.”
My favorite line is, “The Constitution is fragile and imperfect, as is democracy itself. Both require the legitimacy of the governed.”
FIN
This is a small book, only 150 pages. The nugget of Dershowitz’s explication lies in the first seventy pages. The remaining eighty pages are primarily transcriptions of his television interviews that enhance his thesis. He explores the constitutional duties and protections that a sitting president has. The law must be applied equally to all our citizens. But, Dershowitz notes, some parts of the law are different for a sitting president. For example, a president cannot be subpoenaed in federal court, indicted, or convicted of a crime while in office. Impeachment is the only remedy for removing a president. Such a constructional legislative action must be rare and used only after a sitting president commits an obviously egregious “high” crime—murder, treason, etc.
Dershowitz assails the radical left with constitutional vigor for their irrational rhetoric regarding President Trump and their self-righteous hypocrisy. For example, he chides the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for its leftist bent. On page 100 he writes, “Unfortunately, however, over the last several years it has turned from being a neutral civil liberties organization to a left-wing, agenda-driven group that protects its contributors and constituents while ignoring the civil liberties of Americans with whom it disagrees.” He applies an equal reproach to the “civil libertarians” who have abandoned their neutrality and have embraced the leftist agenda.
Dershowitz is an unabashedly proud liberal. He tells his audience that he voted for Barack Obama twice and voted for Hilary Clinton in the 2016 election. He is an emeritus professor of law at Harvard University, a criminal defense attorney, and a noted civil libertarian. He is a man of courage and principle and a zealous advocate of applying the principles of our Constitution equally (my emphasis). The recurring theme in his monograph is “the shoe on the other foot test.” Will the accusation (or whatever) that is leveled against a person, race, religion, etc., be equally applied to that which is different, least favored, or the opposition? For example, “If a controversial president is denied constitutional protection, then any citizen can be denied constitutional protection.”
My favorite line is, “The Constitution is fragile and imperfect, as is democracy itself. Both require the legitimacy of the governed.”
FIN
February 18, 2019
I have tremendous respect for Alan Dershowitz. He has a brilliant legal mind but more than that he is VERY fair and VERY consistent in his interpretation of the law. He is a civil libertarian who consistently votes Democrat but he does not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome as do many of those who share his political views. He consistently applies the same rule of law to those with whom he agrees and also with those with whom he doesn't. He doesn't defend Trump's behavior or his policies but he does defend his constitutional rights as an individual and as president. He used to serve on the national board of the ACLU, yet expresses sincere disappointment that the ACLU seems to have forgotten its role as a neutral civil liberties organization and has become a "left-wing, agenda driven group that protects its contributors and constituents while ignoring the civil liberties of Americans with whom it disagrees."
Dershowitz writes about the "criminalization of politics" and his guiding principle that the primary test for whether an argument is principled or partisan is the "shoe on the other foot" test. Dershowitz writes, "Principled consistency may be difficult to achieve, especially in our current hyper-partisan atmosphere. But if we are ever to end the partisan bickering and name calling that is coarsening dialogue and making reasoned compromise impossible, we must insist on a single standard of legality and morality that applies equally to Democrats and Republicans."
Dershowitz has lost friends in New York and Martha's Vineyard for his consistency on constitutional issues and some no longer speak to him. He jokes that he has lost seven pounds on the Trump diet because he and his wife are no longer invited to dinner parties because of his politically incorrect (according to the left) views.
The Case Against Impeaching Trump is a quick read (only 146 pages) but it's full of wisdom.
Dershowitz writes about the "criminalization of politics" and his guiding principle that the primary test for whether an argument is principled or partisan is the "shoe on the other foot" test. Dershowitz writes, "Principled consistency may be difficult to achieve, especially in our current hyper-partisan atmosphere. But if we are ever to end the partisan bickering and name calling that is coarsening dialogue and making reasoned compromise impossible, we must insist on a single standard of legality and morality that applies equally to Democrats and Republicans."
Dershowitz has lost friends in New York and Martha's Vineyard for his consistency on constitutional issues and some no longer speak to him. He jokes that he has lost seven pounds on the Trump diet because he and his wife are no longer invited to dinner parties because of his politically incorrect (according to the left) views.
The Case Against Impeaching Trump is a quick read (only 146 pages) but it's full of wisdom.
August 17, 2018
Alan Dershowitz, Democrat, liberal, civil rights attorney, Hillary Clinton supporter and voter sums up his book best on page 96:
"I am doing what the ACLU is failing to do: defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, including this president's. I would be doing the same thing had Hillary Clinton been elected president and Republicans were trying to "lock her up."
He presents the legal explanation why, at this time, Trump cannot be impeached.
So if you are part of the "Get Trump at Any Costs" crowd and don't want your emotion-based belief challenged by something so simple as the law, then don't read this book - even though you should.
If aren't capable of listening to facts without prejudging, then don't read this book.
If you have an open mind to ANY side of the discussion, and want to have a discussion without name-calling and labeling, then read this book.
It may be short, but it's worth it.
"I am doing what the ACLU is failing to do: defending the constitutional rights of all Americans, including this president's. I would be doing the same thing had Hillary Clinton been elected president and Republicans were trying to "lock her up."
He presents the legal explanation why, at this time, Trump cannot be impeached.
So if you are part of the "Get Trump at Any Costs" crowd and don't want your emotion-based belief challenged by something so simple as the law, then don't read this book - even though you should.
If aren't capable of listening to facts without prejudging, then don't read this book.
If you have an open mind to ANY side of the discussion, and want to have a discussion without name-calling and labeling, then read this book.
It may be short, but it's worth it.
February 25, 2019
Excellent book explaining the legal argument against impeaching Donald Trump. I have tremendous admiration and respect for Alan Dershowitz. While I disagree with him politically, he is extremely fair and reasonable. He looks at all cases from the standpoint of what is the correct legal perspective, regardless of political opinion. While he is a liberal democrat, and supported and voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, he explains why legally there is no case to impeach Trump. Dershowitz has a brilliant legal mind, and is eminently fair. One of his main philosophies of judging situations is what he calls the "shoe on the other foot" scenario. He says to always look at the situation as if the shoe were on the other foot, and see how you would feel. If we could get more people to look at things the way Alan Dershowitz does, perhaps we could lessen the incredible division we now have in our country. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen.
July 18, 2018
Brilliant.
August 18, 2018
A carefully constructed, Constitution-based argument, politics and personalities notwithstanding.
July 30, 2018
The first chapter is probably the best possible argument for narrow, legal interpretation of impeachment.
It just happens to ignore history and real-life behaviour. More to the point, I get entirely frustrated with the pretense that the constitutional rights are equally applied to all. They demonstrably are not. No matter how high a regard one has for the Constitution, it has been stripped of all meaning in actual implementation. I find it very hard to care if any politician is getting the full theoretical protection of the 4th Amendment, when the SC has spent decades making sure the people get none.
It just happens to ignore history and real-life behaviour. More to the point, I get entirely frustrated with the pretense that the constitutional rights are equally applied to all. They demonstrably are not. No matter how high a regard one has for the Constitution, it has been stripped of all meaning in actual implementation. I find it very hard to care if any politician is getting the full theoretical protection of the 4th Amendment, when the SC has spent decades making sure the people get none.
August 18, 2018
While we are on opposite sides of the fence politically I have great respect for Alan Dershowitz's unwavering support for civil liberties and the rule of law. The opprobrium he receives for his perceived support for President Trump is unwarranted. The case against impeachment is fairly cut and dry, as he lays out early in the book. What I found most interesting is his argument for a new organization to protect civil liberties in America, now that the ACLU has become a partisan organization that often works to restrict civil liberties.
November 10, 2018
What a great pro civil liberties book. Mr Dershowitz continued to make logical and understandable arguments supporting the reasons not to impeach. I am a renewed believer in our Constitution. I would like to be a believer in our government leaderships’ interpretation of the Constitution.
June 23, 2019
Professor Dershowitz is a brilliant legal scholar. He goes on to describe the constitutional limitations of impeachment. It is a great book and an easy read.
December 18, 2018
The bad: The book is 75% articles and interview transcripts, so there is some repetition. You may have already them, but most are still worthy of a read. Additionally, because they are previously published in various news outlets, they are written in simple language, which sometimes cannot convey complex concepts well.
The other bad: Prof. Dershowitz has suffered a fair amount of social ostracism for remaining principled and he does complain about this a few times. Once would be enough.
Now the good: the first quarter of the book is worthy of taking your time to get through as it’s a quick primer on the Constitutional law regarding impeachment. I learned a few things I didn’t know, including the premise of his argument, that to be impeached, a President (or any other public official who is subject to impeachment) has to be found guilty of a crime. He distinguishes “political sin” from criminal acts, and maintains that impeachment is not a wholly political act (sorry, Maxine Waters!).
Now, here’s where he rises above so many. He completely says that his is an outlier position, and cites the law review articles and books that argue that the impeachment process can be expanded to include all sorts of vague concepts that mostly come down to “The current President is BAD.” Okay, I exaggerate, but only a little bit. Non-crimes like collusion should not lead to removal from office, unless there is an underlying crime like treason, bribery or other “high crime or misdemeanor” attached to it.
There are plenty of things Trump has done that may fall under the umbrella of political sin, and we’ll see if any rise to the level of the Constitutional mandate, but it’s good to be reminded of the difference between the two.
And he’s consistent - he’s already written books against the Clinton impeachment, and says he’d be making the exact same argument were Mrs. Clinton President today with calls for her impeachment.
I appreciate true civil libertarians and so I thought this book had value, if for no other reason than we can all use the civic lesson.
The other bad: Prof. Dershowitz has suffered a fair amount of social ostracism for remaining principled and he does complain about this a few times. Once would be enough.
Now the good: the first quarter of the book is worthy of taking your time to get through as it’s a quick primer on the Constitutional law regarding impeachment. I learned a few things I didn’t know, including the premise of his argument, that to be impeached, a President (or any other public official who is subject to impeachment) has to be found guilty of a crime. He distinguishes “political sin” from criminal acts, and maintains that impeachment is not a wholly political act (sorry, Maxine Waters!).
Now, here’s where he rises above so many. He completely says that his is an outlier position, and cites the law review articles and books that argue that the impeachment process can be expanded to include all sorts of vague concepts that mostly come down to “The current President is BAD.” Okay, I exaggerate, but only a little bit. Non-crimes like collusion should not lead to removal from office, unless there is an underlying crime like treason, bribery or other “high crime or misdemeanor” attached to it.
There are plenty of things Trump has done that may fall under the umbrella of political sin, and we’ll see if any rise to the level of the Constitutional mandate, but it’s good to be reminded of the difference between the two.
And he’s consistent - he’s already written books against the Clinton impeachment, and says he’d be making the exact same argument were Mrs. Clinton President today with calls for her impeachment.
I appreciate true civil libertarians and so I thought this book had value, if for no other reason than we can all use the civic lesson.
March 18, 2019
This will be one of the most significant books I'll read in 2019. As the Democratically led House of Representatives proceeds with numerous investigations hoping to find something that will lead to Trump's impeachment and the Mueller investigation comes to a close, Alan Dershowitz produces a book that should throw a shadow on all of these efforts. What does it take to impeach and remove a President?
In truth, there is little original thought in this writing. It's mostly a compilation of essays, articles and interviews Dershowitz has written or done since Mueller's special investigation has begun, but the value is that all of these writing and interviews are brought together in one small book. Dershowitz begins this book with a 30 page essay summarizing his case against impeachment, the rest of the book is a reprinting of the writings and transcripts mentioned about above. Finally Dershowitz ends the book with a short closing argument, which restates his position. He raises several interesting questions, including the fact that the Constitution requires evidence of "other crimes or misdemeanors" for impeachment, not just disagreement with the President's policies. What if the House votes an order of impeachment without evidence of a "crime" and the President appeals the ruling to the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, who under the Constitution presides over any impeachment process. Or assuming the Senate would approve such a measure and the President would appeal that ruling. What happens in either instance?
Dershowitz's writing is clear and easily discernible to the lay person. You almost feel you're in one of his Harvard classrooms listening to a lecture on the subject. If you're someone who didn't have to take a high school civics class or forgotten what you learned, you should read this short book. It will be at the center of controversy in 2019.
In truth, there is little original thought in this writing. It's mostly a compilation of essays, articles and interviews Dershowitz has written or done since Mueller's special investigation has begun, but the value is that all of these writing and interviews are brought together in one small book. Dershowitz begins this book with a 30 page essay summarizing his case against impeachment, the rest of the book is a reprinting of the writings and transcripts mentioned about above. Finally Dershowitz ends the book with a short closing argument, which restates his position. He raises several interesting questions, including the fact that the Constitution requires evidence of "other crimes or misdemeanors" for impeachment, not just disagreement with the President's policies. What if the House votes an order of impeachment without evidence of a "crime" and the President appeals the ruling to the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, who under the Constitution presides over any impeachment process. Or assuming the Senate would approve such a measure and the President would appeal that ruling. What happens in either instance?
Dershowitz's writing is clear and easily discernible to the lay person. You almost feel you're in one of his Harvard classrooms listening to a lecture on the subject. If you're someone who didn't have to take a high school civics class or forgotten what you learned, you should read this short book. It will be at the center of controversy in 2019.
January 15, 2019
Impeaching the current president is clearly a more popular case to make than the one against impeaching him. This collection of essays and interviews will not provide much new information if you have been following Prof. Dershowitz's opinions, but he does elucidate some interesting points. He includes a thorough introduction to his ideas as well. The difficulty level is high when, as he puts it, "the other shoe" test is so despicable. He maintains his integrity as he always has though. The challenges of impeachment are significant and what it could do to the country are just as frightening. The weapons used against your enemies can be turned against you. In a hyper-partisan society, the risks of impeachment to further divide us, if that's possible, should be considered as an ancillary to the types of tactics that would be used by this ultra opposite wing when they get the chance. Dershowitz rightly points out that we should be very careful in how we attack those we disagree with. The constitution can not be discounted and the rule of law must be preserved in challenging cases if it is to be preserved at all.
August 26, 2018
The introduction is a very succinct and compelling argument against impeachment on consititutional grounds. I think that part of the book is required reading.
I wish there was a little more time spent on detailing potential "high crimes and misdemeanors" as that vaguery is likely more pertinent than 'treason' and 'bribery'. Also how is that a president must first be convicted if Dershowitz also argues the DOJ practice says a sitting president cant be indicted? That point seems very circular, though I'm unfamiliar with the legal nuances.
I didn't find the morning show interviews worthwhile. I also thought the talk of Mueller conspiracies was tacky and the fixation on the ACLU out of place for the purpose of this book.
But overall the constitutional arguments were tough to deny. Additionally, I think he makes a good case for Rosenstein's recusal, although the political implications would be massive for Mueller.
Cant say I agree with Dershowitz on everything, but I appreciate the alternative legal analysis and therefore give the book a solid 3 stars.
I wish there was a little more time spent on detailing potential "high crimes and misdemeanors" as that vaguery is likely more pertinent than 'treason' and 'bribery'. Also how is that a president must first be convicted if Dershowitz also argues the DOJ practice says a sitting president cant be indicted? That point seems very circular, though I'm unfamiliar with the legal nuances.
I didn't find the morning show interviews worthwhile. I also thought the talk of Mueller conspiracies was tacky and the fixation on the ACLU out of place for the purpose of this book.
But overall the constitutional arguments were tough to deny. Additionally, I think he makes a good case for Rosenstein's recusal, although the political implications would be massive for Mueller.
Cant say I agree with Dershowitz on everything, but I appreciate the alternative legal analysis and therefore give the book a solid 3 stars.
June 14, 2019
This book is a collection of essays by Alan M. Dershowitz, a recognized constitutional attorney, on the impeachment process as defined in the US Constitution. In the series of essays he describes how the impeachment process has been and is still being used for political purposes and not for the "high crimes and misdemeanors" as stated in the Constitution. He stronly suggests that the political parties return to the core principles for starting an impeachment process that do not include "because I don't like him" as the reason for impeachment. The author has stayed consistent in his application of these standards including when the republicans impeached Bill Clinton. He is a life-long democrat and did not vote for Trump. He sees this as a matter of law and the US Constitution with no party preference or affiliation. Great read for amatuer constitutional scholars or anyone interested in this topic.
June 20, 2019
Excellent book from Alan Dershowitz, one of the famous(or infamous depending on point of view) lawyers in the OJ Simpson murder trial, making the case that President Trump should NOT be impeached. What makes this book interesting is the fact that Dershowitz, by his own admission, is a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election so you would think he would have made a case FOR impeaching Trump. He is not defending Trump's bad behavior in any way, but he does support civil liberties for Trump just like for anyone else. Basically, the author states that Trump can only be impeached if he has violated the Constitution and Dershowitz does not believe that he has done so. I recommend this book for both Trump supporters AND Trump haters.
July 14, 2020
He's basically just saying in order to be impeached, you have to have committed a crime, and a president cannot commit a crime by doing something the constitution gives him the power to do. It seems pretty reasonable to argue that. The focus on the then massive controversoy of firing James Comey seems rather dated, as this book is mainly a massive intro (25% of the book) on the law of impeachment and then articles Dershowitz wrote and transcripts of his TV appearances. Pairs well with Cass Sunstein's Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide
October 6, 2018
Alan Dershowitz is a brilliant lawyer as evidenced by how he consistently supports his position by case law, constitutional knowledge and thoughtful rationale. His libertarian views are only surpassed by his “need to be right” and be the “smartest person in the room”. In the interviews cited in the book (Chuck Todd among others) he constantly interrupts the host and other guests. His need to be the “smartest person in the room” is demonstrated throughout the book by the use of pejorative language such as an individual has come around and “borrowed” his perspective or constantly reminding us he is right.
In sum, his brilliance is exceeded by his arrogance which results in a mixed read.
In sum, his brilliance is exceeded by his arrogance which results in a mixed read.
December 23, 2018
Interesting if inconclusive in some areas
I respect professor Dershowitz legal perspective on the issue of Trump being impeached. He’s also right about the environment of intolerance for opposing viewpoints today. I would disagree with him about Trumps call to prosecute Hillary Clinton as being in the same class because the FBI has fairly established that she broke the law in her handling of classified information. That said though, the book is a nice analytical study of the question whether and how Donald Trump could be impeached.
I respect professor Dershowitz legal perspective on the issue of Trump being impeached. He’s also right about the environment of intolerance for opposing viewpoints today. I would disagree with him about Trumps call to prosecute Hillary Clinton as being in the same class because the FBI has fairly established that she broke the law in her handling of classified information. That said though, the book is a nice analytical study of the question whether and how Donald Trump could be impeached.
September 17, 2018
This book is for the uninitiated person with little knowledge of the legal system or the nuances of the Constitution. I have heard of Alan Dershowitz, seen him interviewed on television and trust those who say he is an expert on both fronts. I found this book to be informative, slightly repetitive, timely, and thought-provoking. I enjoyed it. Not too much legalese. Worth the effort.
October 27, 2018
The Case Against Impeaching Trump
The Case Against Impeaching Trump by Alan Dershowitz, is certainly. not one of his best books. This book is somewhat controversial because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. I am opposed to impeaching Trump because I believe that it backfire on Democrats and make Trump into a martyr.
The Case Against Impeaching Trump by Alan Dershowitz, is certainly. not one of his best books. This book is somewhat controversial because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. I am opposed to impeaching Trump because I believe that it backfire on Democrats and make Trump into a martyr.
June 26, 2019
Feels super Logical and Reasonable until you follow Dershowitz on Twitter and you realize he probably actually did diddle those kids.
January 19, 2020
I have been and continue to be a fan of Alan Dershowitz primarily because of his outspoken fairness in approaching legal and Constitutional questions even when it places him in the cross-hairs of antagonists who expect, insist, and demand - to the point of personal and professional ostracization - that he remain silent or, preferably, show allegiance to his Democratic party's espoused dogma. I find it intellectually refreshing that an admittedly liberal law professor could and would muster the courage to defend the civil rights of a controversial President who advocates views/policies that are anathema to him. Given Dershowitz' long history defending civil liberties/rights as an activist and board member of the ACLU which, he now claims, has jettisoned its non-partisanship in the Trump era, it is not surprising that he has learned the wisdom of standing on principle rather than partisan politics. I am intrigued by his "shoe on the other foot test" and, while it may lack sophistication in its straightforward simplicity, I think it is a creative and useful method for testing one's confirmation bias, hypocrisy, and consistency. Quoting Dershowitz:
I rated the book three stars for two substantive reasons: (1) while the first few chapters formally address his legal argument against impeaching Trump (recommended, well-reasoned, and persuasive), the remainder of Part I is largely regurgitated materials (TV interview transcripts, articles, essays, et al.) that repeat points, in many cases verbatim, that were previously made, and (2) an overwhelming chunk of Part II covers topics that are today obsolete (e.g., Mueller investigation) or unrelated to the title of the book (e.g., Israeli-Palestinian conflicts).
"The shoe on the other foot test is not guilty of violating the fallacy ad hominem. It does not argue that the logic of an argument itself is weakened by the weakness of its proponent(s). Indeed, it is a corollary of the fallacy ad hominem: to the extent that anyone gives additional weight to an argument because of the credibility of those offering it, those offering it must pass the shoe on the other foot test. If they don’t, then no credibility beyond the power of the argument itself should be accorded those offering the argument."The thrust of Dershowitz' contention is that a properly constructed impeachment must allege that the President committed a crime in the legally technical sense of the term. In this book, he only deals with what was anticipated in the Mueller "Russian collusion" probe -- no mention of the House's actual impeachment based upon the Zelensky phone call transcript and related allegations. I suspect that, if Dershowitz were to write an addendum, he would argue that nothing in the House's "Articles" identifies a bonafide crime; therefore, the conduct, however one evaluates its appropriateness, is not impeachable. While I am certainly not a legal scholar, I find his arguments convincing and agree with his assessment that, to "weaponize" impeachment, in a fundamentally partisan manner, for actions/behaviors that do not rise to the level of criminal violation, is inconsistent with the Constitution's language and framers' intentions ("maladministration" was abandoned), weakens our democracy, and threatens to further polarize an already fractured nation into deeper and more resolutely entrenched positions.
I rated the book three stars for two substantive reasons: (1) while the first few chapters formally address his legal argument against impeaching Trump (recommended, well-reasoned, and persuasive), the remainder of Part I is largely regurgitated materials (TV interview transcripts, articles, essays, et al.) that repeat points, in many cases verbatim, that were previously made, and (2) an overwhelming chunk of Part II covers topics that are today obsolete (e.g., Mueller investigation) or unrelated to the title of the book (e.g., Israeli-Palestinian conflicts).
January 10, 2020
The book itself is quite short at 150 pages but it is very concise and goes straight to the point. The author explains his point of view and how he chooses to be by the books when it comes to American Law (and not partisan politics) and whether you are pro or anti Trump, you need to admire this. This is a man who did a lot of research and a lot of explanations saying that we need to follow the law and how if Clinton won and the Republicans were trying to lock her up he would be defending her constitutional rights.
The author makes it clear that personally he didn’t support Trump during the election season and has disagreed with him many times after winning the presidency and again because this author is fair he also gave credit when credit is due to Trump.
If you could set aside your personal beliefs and political standing and read this book you will learn a lot about the law in America and how it is flawed and that maybe specific laws need to be more specific as to lessen the loop holes. This is a very well written book and even if you aren’t familiar with the US Law the author explains it in such a way that it becomes easy to understand.
The author makes it clear that personally he didn’t support Trump during the election season and has disagreed with him many times after winning the presidency and again because this author is fair he also gave credit when credit is due to Trump.
If you could set aside your personal beliefs and political standing and read this book you will learn a lot about the law in America and how it is flawed and that maybe specific laws need to be more specific as to lessen the loop holes. This is a very well written book and even if you aren’t familiar with the US Law the author explains it in such a way that it becomes easy to understand.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews