@blatham,
Quote:the argument, as proffered by Alan Dershowitz, that if the president believed his election interference was in the best interest of the republic, it was both not illegal and also not an impeachable offense.
Well given the fact that the entire case against him was based on a claim that it was illegal/impeachable only if he had a corrupt motive, yes. Establishing that it was not done for a corrupt motive does in fact mean that it was neither illegal nor impeachable.
Quote:the "trial" was not a trial
Indeed. The Democrats failed to make a case for any wrongdoing, and the charges were summarily dismissed.
Quote:a nontrivial number of the jurors voted to acquit him while still acknowledging that what he did was the thing he continues to deny having done.
The mere fact that there was nothing wrong with him having committed the act in question is alone enough to justify dismissing the charges.
Quote:he can repurpose the machinery of law to investigate, harass, and punish the whistleblowers and the witnesses and those who sought to constrain him. At which point the law won't just be the thing that applies only to losers and suckers, but also the thing that can be used to put down those who sought justice in the first place.
Good. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
