Da Prof Fumbles

Trimmed proper from head to foot

Prof Alan Dershowitz proclaimed that he is not connected

to the Trump Impeachment Team and afterwards hammered

the House Managers for being against Trump.

Listening to his harangue, I formed my conclusion that I

would not pine to be in his class for the simple reason that

he will not be able to teach me anything about law even if

I ain’t never been schooled in law at no time.

Listen closely now

because this post will be buried amongst the next

6,487 posts.

His favorite topic :the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution

and for a prof who declares that his passion is his love for the country

and its Constitution he failed to declare that a great portion of his

opinion are literally out of time and may not hold true today.

As a result he has promulgated a whole lot of graduates whose opinion

may be out of tune to the times.

The framers of the American Constitution

were attempting to form a republic with a government different from the

Parliamentary form obtained in England.

It can go without saying that the whole bunch of them were commoners,

those with nobility ties being forced to flee to what is now Canada.

The republic being formed has to have arms and a militia to the delight

of the now organized NRA, even if the arms constituted mere muskets,

gunpowder and lead balls.

This is a far cry from what is obtained now—-rpg, javelins, tanks, bombs,

planes and atom bombs.

Therefore, the commoners never envisioned anything like terrorists, tarrifs,

military aid, NATO, UN, blackmail, homicides,

homicides, homosexuals, abortions,

blackmail, bribery, hacking, and foreign interference.

But they did foresaw impeachment and made rules about the matter,

only thing is their vision was limited only at the time of musketry.

This is the point in time where DA trimmed prof delivered his lecture

on Impeachment.

He began with a sermon on the podium

against the House managers about them being ignorant

of his favorite subject : the Constitution of the olden times.

He said that Congress should not be above the law,

proceeding afterwards with items he wanted to alter in the

present procedures of the Constitution.

At this point, well-versed as he is in his beloved Constitution,

he failed to realize that to the Congress belongs the right

to amend the Constitution,

and it is the Congress that makes the laws

to be followed by everybody

including lecturers of outdated Constitutions.

He pointed out wrong interpretations of words

such as misdemeanor, maladministration,

high crimes, and so forth,

but he failed to suggest different words or terms

to replace these.

It is a standing rule for anybody and everybody who profess to

know more on any subject to be able to teach it

that if he is to point out something amiss in anything,

he should be able to suggest or recommend

a replacement and/or a solution to correct it.

He therefore assumed the posture of a mother-in-law on the podium

giving sermons on what is bad without mentioning what is good.

“I shall be short”

That’s what the man said.

I was not sure whether he was referring to his stature

or the length of time he is to harangue because he stayed

on the podium as if he were reluctant to surrender it.

At any rate, I shall cut my post short.

His last comment about the topic “Abuse of power”

was that the quid pro quo involving military aid,

which was legitimately approved by a bi-partisan Congress,

is not impeachable because the “abuse” term

was misinterpreted.

This was his great fumble, and the House Managers will

make a touchdown as a consequence of this.

To be impeachable, the quid pro quo should be committed

with the intention for personal aggrandizement.

Speaking of Intentions, now this was his greatest fumble.

While expounding with an almost vehement effort on the intentions

of the framers of the Constitution,

he all but left out the factor of “intention”

from the rest of his lecture.

This is the most important feature in the Constitution.

In fact it is the soul of the Constitution—the intention, the purpose

by which the republic is formed and organized.

After all, intention actually differentiates

between a First-Degree murder

from a Second-Degree Murder,

personal from political.

INTENTION—before and after the act,

will determine whether Trump

committed an Abuse of Power or not.

One cannot read the mind of Trump as regards his intentions,

 however, this can be deduced by his actions

before and after the commission.

Ask the cops, they know.

Don’t ask the Prof, he doesn’t.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.