Thread by @ThePubliusUSA

In 1788, Alexander Hamilton predicted the Senate's corrupt acquittal of President Donald J. Trump, despite a mountain of incriminating evidence that demands his removal from office to save the republic. Consider the striking quote below.

Impeachment "will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused....

In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side, or on the other....

[A]nd in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

- The Federalist, No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton)

Hey @AlanDersh,

Your citation to Alexander Hamilton is deeply puzzling and supports the polar opposite point. You aim to accomplish Hamilton’s exact fear, namely a Trump acquittal based on partisan votes - one untethered to evidentiary concerns.

@AlanDersh And your argument that Trump cannot be impeached for an abuse of power is equally erroneous. On impeachment trials, Hamilton wrote they concern “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

@AlanDersh James Wilson, a Constitutional Convention delegate, distinguished impeachable offenses from those "within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence.” He noted "impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.”

@AlanDersh Contrary to your blatantly wrong position that U.S. presidents are more powerful than kings (which is absurd on its face), even James Madison noted that periodic elections would not suffice to check a president’s power.

@AlanDersh Because periodic elections fail to provide “sufficient security” to safeguard our republic, the founders felt that another “mode of displacing an unfit magistrate” was necessary.

@AlanDersh During the Constitutional Convention, “maladministration” was proposed as a basis on which to impeach a president. But many delegates, including Gouverneur Morris, felt that this would open the door to overturning elections for minor reasons. It was rejected as a result.

@AlanDersh George Mason then proposed “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State” as a broad, undefined category to capture other flagrant misconduct and abuses of power.

@AlanDersh Indeed, such a flexible category was necessary because presidents hold powers that citizens do not and, thus, they can betray their sacred public trust in unique ways.

@AlanDersh The origin of the phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” dates back to the English common law. And as you know, it captured offenses that would cause damage to the nation’s interest.

@AlanDersh Simply put, an abuse of presidential power is exactly what Alexander Hamilton referred to in the federalist papers. See The Federalist, No. 65.

@AlanDersh Even Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his famous 1833 treatise, Commentaries on the Constitution, that impeachable conduct often is “purely political” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

@AlanDersh Justice Story's position of course is eminently reasonable. The Constitution was drafted nearly two years before Congress promulgated our first federal law.

@AlanDersh Accordingly, arguing that a violation of federal law is required to fall within the scope of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is patently wrong. It is a disingenuous position that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

@AlanDersh P.S. Trump violated federal bribery laws and the Impoundment Control Act.

Please spread the word. If Sen. Collins uses Dershowitz’s sham reasoning to pivot from witnesses (he is trying to summarily dispose the articles after opening argument), it will be our republic’s darkest day.

@AlanDersh - I will leave this here for posterity. Your argument tomorrow will deceive the American people.