President Trump, United States, Vice President discussed on Mark Levin
There was a piece written in the hill, the other day by professor. Alan Dershowitz, who have enormous respect for all always a leftist. So I don't agree with that stuff. But he tries to be consistent, when it comes to the constitution and usually is, but he wrote a piece it was, it was very fascinating piece in the hill. And he said, the basically, yes, the supreme court can intervene in an impeachment matter, if that impeachment is outside the constitution. I won't elaborate you can read it yourselves. That's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. The supreme court is never going to intervene. An impeachment matter for the very reason this district judge just said. It is considered a political question about a constitutional manner. You've heard me say over and over again that there's specific language in the constitution. It's there for a reason when it comes to impeachment. But the battle between the house and the president. United States is a political battle. A whether or not you can impeach president goes down to the space on the constitutional language, but the judges are not going to get involved because it is a political battle. Not. While we're on this subject slung into the subject, we're gonna have to learn more and more about peach men. We. And it's something that on this program we are uniquely. Qualified to discuss. I mean beyond the surface level. And as I pointed out to you before one of the finest constitutional thinkers that I've read in modern times is a late professor by the name Raoul Berger. And. Robert Bork also was friends with him and admired him, but the absolutely brilliant. To me. He wrote the definitive book on peach mccone impeachment, the constitutional problems, and I can assure you, there's not a single person on TV who's talking to about this matter. Who's read the book, not one? Are looked at the original footnotes not one, except me when I appear on TV. And. Is a very, very brilliant, man. And he. He writes in part. It up here it could be a second. Scholarly. Studies more apt to provoke fresh polemics than distill incessant debate on the matter of impeachment. Even so I would maintain that history furnishes a plane answer to at least one question that has long cluttered analysis. That is the test of an impeachable offence in England. And this is what it was based on. It's not at indictable common law crime. And when the framers withheld from congress the powered inflict criminal punishment. Which had been exercised by parliament under the course of parliament as distinguished from the general criminal law, when they limited congressional sanctions on impeachment to remove and disqualification left criminal punishment to subsequent indictment and conviction. They plainly separated impeachment from criminal process, now, why am I reading this part because you've been hearing pablum? Oddly enough from people who criticize Muller on something happens to be right about, which is you candidate. Ascending present that is the position of the department of Justice, not that they special counsel or any US attorney can indict a president and then take it up with the attorney general, and he can reverse course, that's not what those memos say, and that's not what history says. That's not what history is. They separate impeachment from indictment. I want you to think this through there's more to this. I want to get into this another phase of this, but you're smart. So I want you to think along with me. And by the way, every book signing, I do people come up to me. And they say when you say people getting bored. No, we want you to dig deeply. So I'm going to do it. Would it make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, that the framers of the constitution. Would leave it to a single assistant United States attorney. With a lapdog ranger, the determine whether or not a president should be criminally indicted and yet. Withhold that power from the United States house of representatives. There were no US attorneys that are were no assistant US attorneys. There was no attorney general. There was no department of Justice, there, isn't any of that stuff in the constitution. So do you think that the framers of the constitution somehow would have authorized Robert Muller to indict a sitting president of the United States, while withholding that power from the house of representatives? Of course not. Of course not. And so you have to fit this, like a jigsaw, puzzle the so we now have department of Justice, we now have United States attorneys, we now have a system, United States attorneys now, unfortunately special counsel from time to time fine. But you still have to give. Support for and be faithful to the constitutional structure. These are an attack on the constitutional structures laid out in the constitution. So to say that one of these individuals with a lapdog grand jury can bring an indictment against a present the United States to cripple him or a secret indictment that would leak out to cripple him. Or do get an indictment and imprison him to cripple the entire executive branch when the framers of the constitution denied such power for a president in office to the house of representatives is absurd. There's absolutely no history wet, so ever or logic whatsoever. The support that position. But I've been hearing it for Dan wakes on and on and on. It's a lie. It's damnable lie. Let's go on. And he says this does Raoul Berger. Great yell. Professor. A decent regard. For the design of the founders. Resolve to avoid the excesses which forever stigmatize Johnson tries turnabout president Andrew Johnson. They wanted to remove him from office for basically political reasons. He was a democrat from Tennessee had been a Senator. And it was the vice president under ABRAHAM LINCOLN, obviously ascended to the presidency when he was assassinated, and the Republicans for furious. About him. There were some issues with him. I mean he drank very heavily and he refused, you refuse to allow congress to remove members of his own cabinet. You might say, well, of course they came back, then there was some debate. And he said, no, they can't will destroy the president's destroy the executive branch and they build a president to have confidences very much like what congress is doing now demanding the right to, to speak to the president's White House counsel. Former White House counsel and have access to the individuals documents Johnson objected in his own case as our president of Jackson, his own case. If there are indeed limits to the impeachment power. He says the Senate may know more act in excess of those limits when it acts judicially, then when it acts legislatively, what he's saying is the house, and the Senate don't have plan. Ric power. It's not simply a political question. Another Dan ally. That's out there day in and day up. These phony, legal analysts he saying there's language in the constitution. It's confining not expanding its confining. Every branch of government? He writes, is confined to the limits drawn in the constitution and the purpose of those limits was defense in the much feared legislative branch. It was not left to the unlimited discretion of that branch to disrupt the other branches through resort to the impeachment power. In other words, the house has the power to impeach not just a president, not just the vice president, not just senior presidential officials, but members of the judiciary, and he said, it's not simply a political question, although it could unfortunately devolve into that. But that would be in violation of the limits placed by that provision of the impeachment clause on that house, representatives and the United States Senate. Now tell me, ladies and gentlemen. How many of these nitwits legal analysts on cable, and on network news have explained this to you, not one? I'll be right back. Newsradio seven forty KTAR h. Seventy seven percent of rural counties, lack sufficient primary healthcare, Blue Cross Blue shield is working to fill that gap by placing, former military medics and communities improving access for them of America..