Dear Republican senators,


I will not try to convince you how to vote in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. I won’t even lecture you about the need for witnesses, in part because by the time you see this it will probably be too late. My request is far more humble and possibly far more consequential: When you vote to acquit Trump of the charges leveled against him, please, please, forthrightly reject the central argument of Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz.

According to Dershowitz, “abuse of power” is not an impeachable act. Seriously. Any abuse of power that doesn’t include a separate violation of criminal law is immune from impeachment, he contends. Indeed, any act — whether you call it abuse of power of corruption — is, for Dershowitz, fully within the president’s constitutional ambit.

So a president who gets fall-down drunk every day and fails to fulfill the barest minimum of his duties cannot be impeached because getting drunk isn’t a crime. Do you want to validate that nonsense?

I’m not picking that hypothetical out of the ether. During the Senate’s Q&A session Wednesday night, Dershowitz told you the Senate’s impeachment power over federal judges is different than that over presidents. Judges can be removed from the bench for violating the standard of “good behavior.” So, Dershowitz conceded, if a judge gets fall-down drunk on the job, the Senate can remove him.

It would be hard to argue otherwise, given that the first impeachment trial held by the Senate removed judge John Pickering from the bench in 1803. The primary charge was that he was “a man of loose morals and intemperate habits” who at least once was drunk on the job.

But, Dershowitz argued, the president doesn’t serve only during “good behavior” because he is answerable to the voters.

It’s an interesting distinction. The only problem: There’s nothing in the Constitution to back him up. There’s also nothing in the Constitution (or the Federalist Papers) to support the idea that so long as the president doesn’t violate criminal law, he can’t be impeached.

The standard response to this is: “What about the phrase ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ in the Constitution?” The problem here, as most constitutional scholars will tell you, is that “High Crimes” doesn’t just mean “violations of federal law.” It would be weird if it did, given that when the Constitution was ratified there were no federal crimes, save for those mentioned in the Constitution (bribery, treason and piracy).

Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 65, said that High Crimes “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Presumably, refusing to attend meetings, sign legislation or conduct foreign policy because you were too busy doing keg stands in the Rose Garden would be a violation of the public trust.

Again, Dershowitz is almost completely alone among legal scholars alive today in making this argument. But he is not alone historically.

Dershowitz cites the legal arguments of Benjamin Curtis as a precedent. Curtis was President Andrew Johnson’s lawyer during his 1868 impeachment trial. Like Dershowitz, Curtis argued that mere abuse of power wasn’t enough for a president to be impeached. The president needed to seriously violate the law.

Johnson avoided removal by one vote — and Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman persuasively argues that the one vote was secured at the last minute not through the power of Curtis’ arguments but by naked bribery.

Regardless, because Johnson survived impeachment, Dershowitz has a lawyerly point. Curtis “won,” so maybe his argument has precedential power after all.

If — and I should probably say “when” — you acquit the president, this precedent will gain even more power. And it is a terrible, dangerous, ridiculous precedent.

The president’s strategy of completely stonewalling an impeachment inquiry has damaged congressional authority enough. There’s no fixing the damage of that precedent now. But validating Dershowitz’s claims would take a sledgehammer to the checks and balances at the heart of the impeachment power. Lending credence to the idea that presidents can literally do anything they want so long as they don’t violate federal law (including promising pardons to induce henchmen to commit crimes for them — an act James Madison considered impeachable) would cover this Senate with shame.

Republican senators, I understand that you think it’s necessary to acquit President Trump. Fine. The least you could do is offer a resolution stating that Dershowitz’s argument isn’t the reason for your decision.

Monday, February 17, 2020
  • Updated

IN THE SEVEN presidential elections since 1992, the Republican presidential nominee has won the popular vote exactly once. The lone GOP candidate to receive a majority of the national vote was George W. Bush in 2004. Bush’s election-day victory over Democrat John Kerry, who had, in most obse…

  • Updated

MATT SCHLAPP, chairman of the American Conservative (cough) Union, which hosts the annual CPAC conference, tweeted that he was disinviting Mitt Romney from the confab this year because he “could not guarantee his physical safety” after the senator voted to convict Donald Trump in the impeach…

Saturday, February 15, 2020
  • Updated

FROM the day he entered the race, Joe Biden was the great hope of the Democratic establishment to spare them from the horrifying prospect of a 2020 race between The Donald and Bernie Sanders.

Friday, February 14, 2020
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
  • Updated

“SHOUT OUT, do not hold back! Lift up your voice like a trumpet!” said the prophet Isaiah, which we read in church on Sunday, but nobody shouted. We are flatlanders, brought up to be still and behave ourselves and listen to instructions, but if the instruction is to shout out and raise your …

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

LAST MONDAY’S Iowa caucuses were an epic failure for Democrats. Thanks to a star-crossed ballot-tabulation program written by alumni of the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns, final results were still unavailable as of early Thursday morning. The party that is desperate to control every Ame…

It’s comforting, no doubt, to believe that Donald Trump has survived the impeachment trial because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than did Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president. In truth, Trump, often because of his own actions, has engendered less loya…

During his floor speech explaining his vote to convict Donald Trump, Mitt Romney was overcome by emotion and paused to compose himself. The intense moment came when he spoke of his devotion to God, saying: "I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am." Lump in throat. Lon…

Sunday, February 09, 2020

JUST AS he has done throughout his business career and personal life, Donald Trump bullied his way through being only the third President in history to be impeached. He was not removed from office by the Senate — not because he was found “not guilty”, but because he threatened, stonewalled a…

Saturday, February 08, 2020
Friday, February 07, 2020

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.