In our continued focus on Democrats who oppose impeachment, today we focus on famous lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz, who makes a strong case against impeachment, again.  We say again because he also wrote a book about the first quasi-impeachment effort which became the Mueller report.  Dershowitz details how Maxine Waters' interpretation of Congress' impeachment power is wrong and dangerous.

There are those like Congresswoman Maxine Waters who argue that Congress can impeach on any ground a majority wishes. “There is no law,” she has asserted, because then power to impeach is vested solely in the House and there is no judicial review of its actions. Even if that were true — and it is debatable —Waters’ lawless and reductionistic view confuses what Congress can get away with, as distinguished from what the Constitution obliges its members to do: namely to apply the criteria set out in the Constitution.

The voters in November 2020 can and should be the judge of President Trump.   In light of the recent struggles of their party’s candidates, it seems House Democrats fear that potential judgment and want to insert their own.  Professor Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and Trump opponent, breaks down how that judgment may damage all future Presidents in his written testimony today:

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.

As Rep Adam Schiff finishes his impeachment inquiry report there seems to be a feeling among even a few Democrats and academicians that there is nothing there for impeachment.  Keep in mind, this is without Republicans or the President even able to present their side. 

Democrat Rep. Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey stated:

No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a "small, elite group" of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.

 “To some folks, that’s reminiscent of what was done to kings and queens many years ago," he said. "Everything our country doesn’t stand for."

President Obama appointee Beryl A. Howell cleared the way for House Democrats to further leak and try to politically damage the President when she authorized the release of grand jury materials from the Mueller investigation. This violates one of the fundamental principles of grand juries: that their proceedings must be kept secret.  As Margot Cleveland wrote in the Federalist:

Access to the grand jury materials won’t transform the House’s proceedings into a “full and fair impeachment inquiry”—it will just give the Democrats more information to selectively leak to the press. . . .

[T]here’s no need to look beyond the closed doors of the committees to conclude that the Democrats aren’t requesting the grand jury materials to avoid an injustice—but to avoid a reelection.

Yesterday, the Committee on House Administration marked up the SHIELD Act (H.R. 4617, Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy Act).  The SHIELD Act contains the provisions of the Honest Ads Act, plus additional dangerous provisions.

If passed, it would likely have very little effect on foreign efforts to influence or interfere with U.S. elections.  Instead, it would regulate Americans seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights, with the effect of restricting political speech.

The RNLA sent a letter to the House opposing the SHIELD Act:

As Nancy Pelosi pushes House Democrats toward impeachment, we thought we would gather some reactions and responses from all sides of the spectrum that you may have missed.  But first off, we have to commend the President who has called for the release of the transcripts of his conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky and Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans who “hotlined” and voted unanimously to pass a resolution to provide the whistleblower complaint to Congress. 

Trump is releasing the transcript.

McConnell moving the complaint to Senate intel.

You want transparency & the facts? You got it.

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) September 24, 2019

While we are awaiting some big decisions by the Supreme Court and Democrats begin their Presidential debates, the House begins debate tomorrow on a very important issue: making our elections more secure.  While Democrats continue in their quest to Federalize elections, Republicans continue in their efforts to help states and localities secure their elections.  As a result RNLA will release the following letter tomorrow to Speaker Pelosi and Republican House leader McCarthy:

On Friday, the House Administration Committee held a markup hearing to consider H.R. 2722, also known as the SAFE Act, “a bill to protect elections for public office by providing financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure used to carry out such elections, and for other purposes, or a related measure, and for other purposes.”

As Republican Leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California has proven his unique ability to unite Americans and deliver results. Leader McCarthy is a principled conservative who consistently fights for policies that grow our economy, protect our national security, and uphold our values.

On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes”. Witnesses included John Dean, former Nixon White House Counsel, John Malcolm, Director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, and former U.S. Attorneys Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance. The scope of the hearing sought witness testimony regarding Volume II of the Mueller Report, but the hearing quickly devolved into a partisan attack on President Trump.