Take a look at what some prominent legal experts say, while challenging the notion that Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense …
Alan Dershowitz (former Harvard law professor and a staunch liberal) … “I don’t think there’s a case for impeachment here. I don’t think there’s a case for criminal prosecution. What we’re seeing is a little bit of dirty politics… You have to come up with a high crime and misdemeanor and this just doesn’t satisfy that criteria.”
Joe DiGenova (former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia) … “Let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the President said on that call, or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime. And even if he had said, you're not going to get the money, it would not be a crime.
Charlie Spies (renowned campaign finance lawyer) … “Even the most ardent Trump hater would have to go through multiple worst-case assumptions to get to the conversation being something of value in the campaign finance arena, and assumptions aren’t enough in the free speech arena.”
Gregg Jarrett (Fox News legal expert/analyst) … “If the president of the United States is made aware of suspected corrupt acts by a public official involving a foreign nation, he has every right to ask that nation to either investigate and/or produce any evidence. Indeed, it is incumbent on him to do so.”
Hans Von Spakovsky (former Federal Elections Commission member and Justice Department official under George W. Bush) … “…The impeachment process was not placed in the Constitution so it could be used for crass, partisan gamesmanship, but was instead created to remedy serious misbehavior by federal officials. Members of Congress should be wary of abusing the impeachment authority in such a manner, because it could imperil the stability of our constitutional structure by removing a duly elected president.”
U.S. Justice Department … “…the Department’s Criminal Division reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.”
