Quantcast
Connect with us

Jerry Nadler drops the hammer on Dershowitz: ‘I thought he was ignorant — now I know he’s lying’

Published

on

Rep. Jerry Nadler (MSNBC)

Rep. Jerry Nadler busted one of President Donald Trump’s new impeachment lawyers for lying.

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argues that Trump’s abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, but that’s not what he said two decades ago during Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

“It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” Dershowitz argued in 1998.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, ripped Dershowitz as dishonest.

“When the Constitution was written, there were no crimes because they had not passed any crimes,” Nadler said. “Congress didn’t exist. Bribery, for instance, was not made a federal crime until 1837. The fact of the matter is every constitutional scholar, everyone knows if you read the Federalist Papers, if you read the debates of the Constitution convention, they were talking about abuse of power as the worst conceivable crime a president could commit.”

“To betray the country by using the power of the office of president for other than the national reasons, for betrayal or personal reasons, or to betray the country to a foreign power — that was the worst thing the framers could imagine,” Nadler continued, “and that’s what’s involved here. The president sought to get a foreign power, Ukraine, involved in our elections.”

“Now, when I saw Professor Dershowitz’s comment that you have to have a violation of the criminal code to be in abuse of power, to be constitutionally suspect, to be constitutionally impeachable,” he added. “I thought he was merely ignorant, now that I see his 1999 quote, I know he’s lying.”

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Things are so bad for Republicans the GOP had to send money to Texas

Published

on

In 2016, then-anti-Trump Republican Sen. Linsey Graham proclaimed, "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it." It seems his prediction is coming closer to fruition.

Financial reporting reveals that the Republican Party was forced to send $1.3 million to ruby-red Texas as the election nears.

It was something spotted by ProPublica developer and ex-reporter Derek Willis Sunday.

"That's never happened before," he tweeted.

He noted that the Texas GOP raised $3.3 million in August, but nearly half of that came from their national parents.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

What the London ‘Blitz’ reveals about how much pain and tragedy people can handle in 2020

Published

on

It's hard to imagine how 2020 could possibly get worse. "If we lose Betty White," a friend said on a drive to the Supreme Court to lay flowers.

So many Americans have lost friends or family members to COVID-19. Thousands of Americans survived the virus only to desperately needed organ transplants and forever will struggle to breathe the way they once did. Others are still suffering without smell or taste even three months after having the virus. Millions of Americans are out of work. Debt is stacking up for those trying to survive in the COVID economy. A lack of health insurance can mean hospitalizations from the virus are putting people into bankruptcy.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Stop trying to convince people you’re right — it will never persuade anyone: expert

Published

on

MSNBC host Joshua Johnson noted that this year has been full of strife, with Americans having a lot to stand up about. Whether the slaying of unarmed Black men and police brutality, or healthcare, and the coronavirus, Americans are lining up to protest.

Johnson asked if people try to start tough conversations, how do they keep it productive, and when it's time to give up. In her book, We Need to Talk, Celest Headlee explains tools that people can use to have productive conversations about tough issues that help move the needle.

"Keep in mind that a protest isn't a conversation, right?" she first began. "That's a different kind of communication. The first thing is that our goal in conversations is not always a productive one. In other words, oftentimes, we go into these conversations hoping to change somebody's mind or convince them that they are wrong. You're just never going to accomplish that. There's no evidence. We haven't been able to -- through years and years of research we haven't been able to find evidence that over a conversation somebody said, 'You're right, I was completely wrong.' You've convinced me. So, we have to stop trying to do that. We have to find a new purpose for those conversations."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage.  Help us deliver it.  Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free. LEARN MORE