HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trump is telling aides he...

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:21 PM

Trump is telling aides he will 'sue' Democrats if they pursue impeachment: report

I do not remember covering this in Con Law back when I was in law school



Some legal scholars, Parker notes, are asserting that the idea of a U.S. president suing Congress for trying to impeach him is ludicrous. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, denounced Trump’s threat as “idiocy” on Twitter and posted, “Not even a SCOTUS filled with Trump appointees would get in the way of the House or Senate.”

However, attorney and Trump supporter Alan Dershowitz (who is also a Harvard Law School professor) has asserted that should Democrats pursue impeachment, the U.S. Supreme Court could intervene if the justices believed that Congress hadn’t acted constitutionally.

Dershowitz has lost it and only an idiot like trump would try this lawsuit

54 replies, 2274 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump is telling aides he will 'sue' Democrats if they pursue impeachment: report (Original post)
Gothmog Wednesday OP
DUgosh Wednesday #1
CrispyQ Wednesday #9
uponit7771 Wednesday #18
DownriverDem Wednesday #37
malaise Wednesday #45
Generic Other Wednesday #47
Stargazer09 Wednesday #51
gratuitous Wednesday #2
brush Wednesday #44
hlthe2b Wednesday #3
rampartc Wednesday #4
samnsara Wednesday #5
watoos Wednesday #6
ProudMNDemocrat Wednesday #7
KY_EnviroGuy Wednesday #8
Leghorn21 Wednesday #10
Ligyron Wednesday #11
The Velveteen Ocelot Wednesday #12
StarfishSaver Wednesday #26
The Velveteen Ocelot Wednesday #42
malaise Wednesday #46
Gothmog Wednesday #49
The Velveteen Ocelot Wednesday #54
sop Wednesday #13
think4yourself Wednesday #14
CatMor Wednesday #15
peggysue2 Wednesday #16
COLGATE4 Wednesday #17
The Velveteen Ocelot Wednesday #32
NewJeffCT Wednesday #19
Gothmog Wednesday #24
struggle4progress Wednesday #20
StarfishSaver Wednesday #21
Gothmog Wednesday #23
StarfishSaver Wednesday #25
Beausoleil Wednesday #31
StarfishSaver Wednesday #33
PRETZEL Wednesday #35
StarfishSaver Wednesday #40
The Velveteen Ocelot Wednesday #34
Beausoleil Wednesday #38
dawnie51 Wednesday #22
StarfishSaver Wednesday #27
SWBTATTReg Wednesday #28
JDC Wednesday #29
Shrike47 Wednesday #30
The Velveteen Ocelot Wednesday #43
Honeycombe8 Wednesday #36
sprinkleeninow Wednesday #39
rurallib Wednesday #41
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Wednesday #48
Gothmog Wednesday #50
liberal N proud Wednesday #52
spanone Wednesday #53

Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:22 PM

1. Hillary should sue him for election theft

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUgosh (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:35 PM

9. Thread win.

That felt so good to read!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUgosh (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:05 PM

18. THANK YOU !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUgosh (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:14 PM

37. Absolutely

trump would have sued if HRC was declared the winner. trump is so ignorant. trump cannot sue over impeachment. I am so tired of this nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUgosh (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:04 PM

45. And then some

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUgosh (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:29 PM

47. Gotta high five that response!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DUgosh (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:52 PM

51. Absolutely!

I would love to see that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:25 PM

2. Standard tactics and threats from Trump

Trying to run the presidency like he ran his businesses. Remember that one business where he paid out $25 million to settle a lawsuit in December 2016? Trump Looniversity or some such?

I guess he can threaten lawsuits with relative impunity, since he wouldn't be liable for attorney's fees for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:02 PM

44. Right, hes been suing all his sorry life to further his corruption.

He's always been able to outlast vendors and other rip-off victims with his on-retainer lawyers. Please of please try it, trump.

I would say you'd embarrass yourself but you don't even know how to get embarrasse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:26 PM

3. Dersh-bag did say something along these idiotic lines, but Trump has, of course, expanded it beyond

any belief.

The fact is, there is no way the four sane justices (and quite likely Roberts) would go along with the court getting involved in this manner. And even if they had five justices that were willing to sell out the SCOTUS for all time, I'd bet the four sane ones would WALK OUT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:26 PM

4. tribe has far more faith in the justices than i do

at the very least the suit would take an eternity to get to the supremes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:27 PM

5. wow if hes resorting to this, then his bag of distractions is pretty slim pickins....

...hes pert near done for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:28 PM

6. Reopen the Epstein trial

Dershowitz needs something to keep him occupied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:34 PM

7. DICKtator Donnie....Cry baby!!!

This is rich.

Trump is basically saying Congress is no longer a co-Equal Branch of Government.

Chalk another win in the Democratic Party column. They have the US Constitution on their side. What is Trump going to do? Suspend the Constitution? Not even the Supreme Court will let him get away with this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:34 PM

8. Another day, another dangling of a shiny object in the faces of deplorables.

Why the hell does this bullshit gain press coverage every time?

The way tRump rolls, he probably tells his aides he'll sue McDonald's over an under-cooked burger.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:39 PM

10. "WHERE'S MY



??!?!???!”

LOSER

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:40 PM

11. He also thinks China and Mexico will pay his tariffs.

Man is totally clueless.

This show is for his idiotic base to show how he's "winning".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:41 PM

12. Good luck with that.

The key is "if Congress hadn't acted constitutionally." If, however, it does - which it would and will - the courts are out of it altogether. The Constitution hands the entire power of impeachment over to Congress, so unless Congress totally jumps the rails and does something off the wall like bypass the entire process and instead hire Blackwater to capture Trump and send him to Gitmo - in which case maybe a writ of prohibition might be in order (although I'd personally enjoy the spectacle) - suing Congress to stop impeachment is quite literally a non-starter. I don't know what Dershowitz is smoking these days, or why at his age and with his former reputation he'd whore himself out to the likes of Trump, but he really needs a long rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:25 PM

26. I LOVE reading your posts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:28 PM

42. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:06 PM

46. (although I'd personally enjoy the spectacle)

I'd pay to watch that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:44 PM

49. Did they cover this concept in your law school?

I admit that I still have my copy of Tribe (Second edition if you want to date when I went to law school). The concept that one can sue for impeachment is just plain crazy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 06:08 PM

54. It doesn't ring any bells for me, either.

I think I used Tribe's first edition (I'm that old) but I don't think suing for impeachment was in that one, or in any later editions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:42 PM

13. America should sue Trump for emotional distress and mental anguish

We have all experienced significant injuries as the result of Trump's intentional and negligent actions. A class action lawsuit is the only remedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:45 PM

14. Any fourth grader understands

this government better than him. It’s not even a joke anymore. And putting our faith into questionable election systems that have been a clusterfuck since 2001 is also no longer viable.
We are well and truly screwn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:46 PM

15. He will probably sue all Americans when we vote him out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:47 PM

16. This is Trump's typical reaction

Sue anyone and everything that criticizes, disagrees or finds him personally repellant.

Bring it on, Babyfingers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:03 PM

17. That's because (unlike Trump's lawyers)

you did not graduate from the You Tube School of Law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:58 PM

32. Or the Trump University School of Law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:06 PM

19. Is Dershowitz trying to run up billable hours?

I hope he gets paid up front and in cash.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:11 PM

24. trump does not pay which is why he has such weak lawyers working for him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:14 PM

21. Dershowitz's argument is pure bullshit

And the deceptive smoke and mirrors "justification" he used proves he knows that.

The Professor Dershowitz of days gone by would have flunked a law student who used such raggedy reasoning on one of his law school exams. I miss that guy.

First, he suggests that Justices Breyer and Souter said that a president can appeal an impeachment to the Supreme Court, quoting them supposedly making this argument as if it this claim has some legal merit.

However, not only do neither of the quotes he relies upon have any binding legal authority, they both concern conviction and removal by the Senate, not impeachment. (Dershowitz, unsurprisingly, muddled his argument and conveniently edited Justice Souter's quote, probably in order to confuse the issue). Moreover, he conveniently edits one of the quotes to better suit his purpose.

"Two former, well-respected justices of the Supreme Court first suggested that the judiciary may indeed have a role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, put it this way: “Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee, echoed his predecessor: “If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results … judicial interference might well be appropriate.”


Justice White's quote came in a footnote to his concurrence in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), so it has no legal significance or precedential value. Neither does Justice's Souter's comment, which he made in his concurrence in Nixon v. U.S. (1993) (a different Nixon, an impeached judge, not Richard). His full quote is: "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " `a bad guy,' " judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence."

Neither of these comments have the force of law and neither of these Justices is currently on the Supreme Court (White is deceased, Souter is retired). But more important, these comments refer not to impeachment, but to trial and conviction, In this instance, it is very unlikely that the Republican Senate would convict Trump at all, much less do so on a buggaboo.

Trump didn't threaten to appeal conviction and removal. He said he would appeal impeachment. Nothing in Dershowitz's tortured and misleading argument supports his claim that an impeachment can be appealed - (he also doesn't offer any valid legal basis for claiming a conviction and removal can be appealed, either - footnotes in concurrences aren't law).

In other words, once again, Dershowitz is full of shit.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12163296

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:10 PM

23. We are in complete agreement on this

All of the statements cited by Dershowitz are at best dicta and have no force or effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:23 PM

25. Yes, at BEST they are dicta. But they don't even apply to impeachment in the House

They are about the possibility of the court intervening IF the Senate were to remove a president "in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results" such as, as Justice White says, using a coin toss or because they think the president is a "bad guy.""

Neither of these offhand comments has any connection whatsoever with or bearing on whether a president has standing to sue a House majority for pursuing impeachment against him.

Dershowitz knows this. He also knows that most people aren't lawyers and won't understand the difference and if he uses big enough words and throws around the names of a couple of Supreme Court justices, they'll think his argument makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:50 PM

31. So how does this square with the Chief Justice

presiding over the Senate when the Presiperp is on trial? He's going to allow it to be tossed to the full court?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beausoleil (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:58 PM

33. It would be up to the full court to decide whether to take the case and it's highly unlikely

the Court would ever agree to hear an appeal of an impeachment trial presided over by the Chief Justice.

But it probably would never get that far since an appeal would have to start in a lower court and they would no doubt toss it out as soon as it was filed - the only thing keeping the judge from tossing it out within 5 seconds of the case being filed would be his or her difficulty in stopping laughing long enough to sign the order of dismissal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:11 PM

35. Love the last comment,

but what if the reverse were the scenario.

As I read a post upthread (and it may have been yours) both Justices cited by Dershowitz is based on the premise that the Senate convicts without a trial, thus denying the President his right to defend himself,

What if it's the other way around and the Senate sets the rules by which the House is not allowed to prosecute the Articles of Impeachment to the fullest extent and then the Senate votes not to remove from office?

It just seems by the example given, wouldn't the House be allowed to appeal to the full SC?

Or, is just a moot point in that as soon as Cheif Justice Roberts calls the proceding to order, the case would be on record?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PRETZEL (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:20 PM

40. Great question

If that were to happen, the House would have no recourse since they have no due process right to a fair impeachment trial.

Kind of like how a defendant whose rights have been violated in a criminal trial can gt a reversal and new trial or the conviction thrown out altogether but, if, for some reason, the defendant gets an unfair advantage, the prosecution has no way to appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beausoleil (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:02 PM

34. The Chief Justice's role in a Senate impeachment trial

is not that of a trial judge. He’s just there to be sure the Senate follows its own rules and procedures. He has no power over the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:14 PM

38. Any appeal would still imply that the

Chief Justice screwed up.

Don't see that getting anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:47 PM

22. This does not surprise me....

Dump has sued his way to riches all his life. He has used the courts and lawyers as his personal leg breakers, and in many cases, just the threats were enough. So of course he would spew this nonsense. He is in for a rude awakening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawnie51 (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:27 PM

27. The irony is that now that he's become the most powerful man on earth, he now has less power to use

the courts to bully people into bending to his will. That's partly because the people he's trying aren't afraid of him and have more power than the small contractors he beat up on back in New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:33 PM

28. Good point and I think a very valid one, and one that rump is discovering that threatening...

all of these lawsuits and the like, like he did in NYC etc. won't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:47 PM

29. Breaking out the 'ol I'll sue! saw. What a pathetic bag of tricks he carries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:48 PM

30. I think this idiocy shows how frightened he is. No lawyer of any repute would file such an action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:31 PM

43. But he does get disreputable lawyers to work for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:13 PM

36. That's a given. He sues over everything. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:15 PM

39. Forthcoming response should be:

"Here schlumpy, SUE THIS!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:22 PM

41. He'll file it in Federal District Court in Moscow, Russia

The ?Honorable? Vladimir Putin presiding.

Surely impeachment is against the Russian constitution - and Trump is their employee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:30 PM

48. Yeah just like he was going to appeal impeachment to the Supreme Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:49 PM

50. I was on the Clinton Victory Counsel team and we look at a ton of lawsuits

The Victory Counsel team reviewed over 6000 law suits involving trump. Many were trump stiffing contractors or suing to collect gambling debts. trump likes to sue but he often forgets to pay his attorneys which is why none of the White Shoe DC firms will represent him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 06:06 PM

52. He's not guilty, not at all

Innocent people don't attack the accuser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2019, 06:07 PM

53. FUCK HIM...let him sue.

Impeach his sorry ass NOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread