Can the President sell Alaska

[Willow]

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election ..."

I believe the President would need the approval of Congress to seriously offer a state to Russia.  Am I less informed than is Adam?

[DirtyDan]

Didn’t we BUY it ?

Dan

[Willow]

Didn’t we BUY it ?

Yes.  For 7.2 million dollars through a treaty ratified, as required, by the United States Senate.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election ..."

I believe the President would need the approval of Congress to seriously offer a state to Russia.  Am I less informed than is Adam?

Well, Dershowitz did say as long as he thought it was in the best interest of the country it was just fine. Who am I to contradict a Harvard Law Professor ?

Are you less informed than Adam ? Maybe ?

[Willow]

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election ..."

I believe the President would need the approval of Congress to seriously offer a state to Russia.  Am I less informed than is Adam?

Well, Dershowitz did say as long as he thought it was in the best interest of the country it was just fine. Who am I to contradict a Harvard Law Professor ?

Are you less informed than Adam ? Maybe ?

Once more, something he did not say.  I don't believe Mr. Dershowitz made any reference to Alaska.   

Apparently at least not on some very important points.   

[scooperhsd]

I suppose he could - with approval on the treaty from the Senate. Bigger question - why would we? It is worth far more than 7.2 million.

[The emperor has no clothes]

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election ..."

I believe the President would need the approval of Congress to seriously offer a state to Russia.  Am I less informed than is Adam?

Well, Dershowitz did say as long as he thought it was in the best interest of the country it was just fine. Who am I to contradict a Harvard Law Professor ?

Are you less informed than Adam ? Maybe ?

Once more, something he did not say.  I don't believe Mr. Dershowitz made any reference to Alaska.  

Apparently at least not on some very important points.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/alan-dershowitzs-standard-for-impeachment-would-make-the-constitution-self-undermining/


Once more, yes he did.
"Similarly, consider an example, widely quoted in recent days, from Dershowitz’s book The Case against Impeaching Trump. “Assume,” Dershowitz writes, “that Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. [“The way” being invasion — JLS.]

[scooperhsd]

Russia won't be that foolish - they know we would respond seriously and maybe not quite what they would expect. I can see the Navy blockading Russian held part of Alaska and cut them off from supplies - along with the Air Force doing the same for air transport. And if they are not getting supplies, your forces won't be fighting very long. A couple F15 squadrons, maybe supplemented with an F22 squadron (if Russia was using their stealth aircraft) would make it a suicide mission for resupply.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Russia won't be that foolish - they know we would respond seriously and maybe not quite what they would expect. I can see the Navy blockading Russian held part of Alaska and cut them off from supplies - along with the Air Force doing the same for air transport. And if they are not getting supplies, your forces won't be fighting very long. A couple F15 squadrons, maybe supplemented with an F22 squadron (if Russia was using their stealth aircraft) would make it a suicide mission for resupply.

I think there was no serious thought of it actually happening. It was used by Dershowitz as an example that Trump could let Russia have Alaska and it wouldn’t be an impeachable offense. (Which almost all Constitutional scholars disagree with)

[..]

Russia won't be that foolish - they know we would respond seriously and maybe not quite what they would expect. I can see the Navy blockading Russian held part of Alaska and cut them off from supplies - along with the Air Force doing the same for air transport. And if they are not getting supplies, your forces won't be fighting very long. A couple F15 squadrons, maybe supplemented with an F22 squadron (if Russia was using their stealth aircraft) would make it a suicide mission for resupply.

I think there was no serious thought of it actually happening. It was used by Dershowitz as an example that Trump could let Russia have Alaska and it wouldn’t be an impeachable offense. (Which almost all Constitutional scholars disagree with)

Schiff.

[Moonshot_1]

An Impeachable offense is simply one that can garner a majority vote in the House and 2/3rd's vote in the Senate. It is really that simple.

Impeachment isn't a criminal issue it is a political exercise.

The Founding Fathers set the standard to be Treason, Bribery, and High crimes and misdemeanors.

Can a President be removed on an "Abuse of Power" Article of Impeachment? If you get 2/3rd's vote out of the Senate, sure.

As to the issue of "Abuse of Power" and if it alone rises to the standard of Treason, Bribery, and High crimes and misdemeanors, that answer is no. The phrase "Abuse of Power" is too subjective as a standard. Eating a ham sandwich during Lent can be deemed an "Abuse of Power" by a political rival. The use of "Abuse of Power" as an Impeachment Article demands specificity. A citing of violation of Code or Law that meets the Constitutional standard.

As to the Alaska models used, the models can be easily connected to the Treason and other specific crimes long before you would settle on an "Abuse of Power" connection.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Russia won't be that foolish - they know we would respond seriously and maybe not quite what they would expect. I can see the Navy blockading Russian held part of Alaska and cut them off from supplies - along with the Air Force doing the same for air transport. And if they are not getting supplies, your forces won't be fighting very long. A couple F15 squadrons, maybe supplemented with an F22 squadron (if Russia was using their stealth aircraft) would make it a suicide mission for resupply.

I think there was no serious thought of it actually happening. It was used by Dershowitz as an example that Trump could let Russia have Alaska and it wouldn’t be an impeachable offense. (Which almost all Constitutional scholars disagree with)

Schiff.

Before Adam Schiff used an example on the Senate floor, Dershowitz wrote a much more vivid example in his recent book. Here is a story explaining it in the National Review (non liberal)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/alan-dershowitzs-standard-for-impeachment-would-make-the-constitution-self-undermining/

[Serk]

I wonder if we could trick the Russians into taking California off our hands? 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I wonder if we could trick the Russians into taking California off our hands? 

probably (but then they’d have to raise your taxes to make up for it) 

[Willow]

Russia won't be that foolish - they know we would respond seriously and maybe not quite what they would expect. I can see the Navy blockading Russian held part of Alaska and cut them off from supplies - along with the Air Force doing the same for air transport. And if they are not getting supplies, your forces won't be fighting very long. A couple F15 squadrons, maybe supplemented with an F22 squadron (if Russia was using their stealth aircraft) would make it a suicide mission for resupply.

I think there was no serious thought of it actually happening. It was used by Dershowitz as an example that Trump could let Russia have Alaska and it wouldn’t be an impeachable offense. (Which almost all Constitutional scholars disagree with)

Schiff.

Before Adam Schiff used an example on the Senate floor, Dershowitz wrote a much more vivid example in his recent book. Here is a story explaining it in the National Review (non liberal)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/alan-dershowitzs-standard-for-impeachment-would-make-the-constitution-self-undermining/

They both made reference but the context was very different.

“Assume,” Dershowitz writes, “that Putin decides to ‘retake’ Alaska, the way he ‘retook’ Crimea. [“The way” being invasion — JLS.] Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believes that Russia has a legitimate claim to ‘its’ original territory. . . . That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution”

Dershowitz in his writing gives an example that if the president allows Russia to "retake" Alaska because he believed their claim was legitimate.  He went on to say it would violate the president's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to protect the United States of America.  He did not reference President Trump.  He stated an example of what a president may or may not do.

Schiff: “If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election ...”

Conversely Adam Schiff did directly specify President Trump and implied it as a threat of what the President might do if not convicted by the Senate.  He also added a reason that the President might trade Alaska for Russia's help in securing the 2020 election.

I see a big difference.  

I do disagree with Mr. Dershowitz regarding whether failure to uphold a president's responsibility to preserve and protect would rise to impeachable.  In my opinion it would constitute treason against the U.S. of A.

[98valk]

if he did, then Sarah really could see russia from her porch.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The context was different. But the over all theme of Dershowitz, and what Schiff was trying to point out was the same. If the president did not commit a direct crime, he could not be impeached. Most “scholars” seem to disagree with this.