Judges certainly have political connections and strong political views, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above politics when they hear cases. We expect them to, and the law presumes they do.
Trump revels in issuing pardons, because that power is essentially absolute.
The Constitution sets out no standards for granting pardons. They require no consent from Congress, and courts can't second-guess them.
Trump's attacks against the judiciary reflect his view that only he should be able to decide what he can and cannot do.
It's also not true that 'abuse of power' is not impeachable, or that a statutory crime is necessary for impeachment.
President Trump, whose businesses and now campaign have left a long trail of unpaid bills behind them, has never discriminated when it comes to stiffing people who work for him.
Any U.S. attorney's office would fall over itself to investigate, for example, a state governor who, while running for reelection against a former mayor, so much as hinted to the mayor's successor that, say, highway funds would be restricted unless the current mayor were to announce an inquiry into her predecessor's alleged corruption.
If a politician takes a bribe to do what he thinks would have been best for the public anyway, he still goes to jail. If he's president, under a Constitution that refers to impeachment specifically for 'bribery,' as well other 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' he should still be removed.
Trump's lawyers are right that if a president does what he honestly thinks is simultaneously in his personal electoral and the national interests, that's not impeachable, in the following sense: If a president cuts taxes because he thinks it will get him reelected and it will create jobs, that's fine. That's ordinary electoral politics.
If a president makes a reasoned decision about what best serves the nation's interests, even if he turns out to be wrong, he has committed no impeachable offense. The Framers didn't intend, through impeachment, to transform such policy disputes or mistakes into high crimes.
Dershowitz may be a genius in some ways, but he's not necessarily the advocate you want on your side.
Any litigator will tell you that adding to your legal team on the eve of trial most likely will not produce better lawyering but, rather, chaos.
By vesting in the House the 'sole Power of Impeachment,' the Constitution makes it wholly the House's business how to decide whether to impeach a president.
Charged with faithfully executing the laws, the president is, in effect, the nation's highest law enforcement officer.
The underlying crime in Watergate was a clumsy, third-rate burglary in an election campaign that turned out to be a landslide.
In essence, Trump thinks everything should be about him, for him, for his benefit and glorification - and he can't comprehend, and doesn't care about, anything that isn't.
Questions about Trump's psychological stability have mounted throughout his presidency.
The president may have the raw constitutional power to, say, squelch an investigation or to pardon a close associate. But if he does so not to serve the public interest, but to serve his own, he surely could be removed from office, even if he has not committed a criminal act.
Trump's erratic behavior has long been the subject of political criticism, late-night-television jokes, and even speculation about whether it's part of some incomprehensible, multidimensional strategic game. But it's relevant to whether he's fit for the office he holds.
I have contrarian tendencies.
