Dershowitz: Supreme Court Could Overturn Trump Impeachment Because Collusion’s Not A Crime

The retired Harvard law professor went so far as to say that the president could collude with Russia to give away Alaska and it wouldn't be criminal.

Fresh off surviving the nightmare of the Martha’s Vineyard socialite crowd shunning him at Chilmark General Store — a hellish event that commanded four New York Times’ articles — famed attorney Alan Dershowitz is peddling his new book in which he makes the case against Donald Trump’s impeachment. And it’s fair to say the arguments he makes in his latest page-turner won’t lead to him sipping Prosecco with the Northeast liberal elite anytime soon.

Writing in The Case Against Impeaching Trump, Dershowitz — who has been one of Trump’s biggest media defenders for months when it comes to the Mueller probe — claimed that even if there was overt evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election and Trump was impeached over it, the Supreme Court could ride in and save the day.

“It’s not a crime to collude with a foreign government. Maybe it should be, but it’s not,” Dershowitz told the Washington Examiner this week.

He argued in his book, which was released Tuesday, that while colluding with a foreign government to impact a presidential election would be a “political sin,” it didn’t rise to the level of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes” that is laid out in the Constitution. Dersh further wrote that the court may be forced to jump in because Trump could refuse to leave office if impeached.

The retired Harvard professor went on to claim that the Supreme Court could potentially look at this in the same light as Bush v. Gore and intervene in order to avoid a constitutional crisis, reversing a congressional decision by declaring that the president was not “convicted of a specified constitutional crime.”

At one point in his book, Dershowitz explained that Trump could go so far as to openly allow Vladimir Putin to reclaim Alaska and nothing could be done by Congress because that scenario isn’t laid out in the text of the Constitution. He did note that it would be “terrible” for the president to do that, but the only way it could be considered criminal is if Trump was “paid or extorted.”


Justin Baragona is the founder and publisher of Contemptor. He was previously the Cable News Correspondent for Mediaite and prior to starting Contemptor, he worked on the editorial staff of PoliticusUSA. During that time, he had his work quoted by USA Today and BBC News, among others. Justin began his published career as a political writer for 411Mania. He resides in St. Louis, MO with his wife and pets.
No Comment

Leave a Reply



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Us On Twitter