I have to admit I was looking forward to those with past experience in impeachment processes to give testimony during the senate rebuttals but ultimately it would be Dershowictz, an 81 year old man with a mind as sharp as a tact and his performance totally mesmerizing me that drew me back towards the television playing in the background while I tried to blog as my focus started lingering under the others testimony.

Here he was the one I least expected to bust it out laying it out almost from memory what the forefathers intended when it came to impeachment. Unlike those who came before him he didn't have to follow his train of thought with pointed fingers to keep himself on track, here was a man who had imprinted the information into the back of his brain. I was so impressed by him that when he got done I felt a want to write him a letter and tell him that he was awesome and should serve as an inspiration to any who went to school for constitutional law. I mean that in a totally non partisan way, if there was a man who could find wronging constitutionally and he had done it with Trump I'd believed him, that's how really impressive he was.

I think what may be missing here is that back during the Clinton years when he stated he thought abusing trust could be considered in the long run it wasn't relevant to the case as much as the focus of if perjury could be considered a high crime, which he did not consider it to rise to. Reflecting upon the issue of abusing trust afterwards he didn't feel comfortable going with the status quo on the issue and delved into historical records and came to the consensus that the framers did intent to limit the criteria for impeachment for crimes considered high crimes and bribery or crimes similar to but did not extend that to open ended or vague descriptions of abuse of power or obstruction of justice.

I don't think any of us who have ever wanted to be the best in their field would consider being lacks in the knowledge that would require such, I think at that point in his life twenty years ago that's exactly where he was at with this. It simply wasn't good enough just taking other's opinion on the matter, he drove him own self to find the answers from historical facts not opinions. He came off today like a walking talking encyclopedia of the constitution. He truly was something to be upheld. Like I said, if there was someone who could have proved to me that Trump was guilty I am convinced I would have found it in him.

I am confident that he is right when it comes to obstruction of justice. That is where the judicial branch comes in to keep the other two branches of government in check. Otherwise they could sit there all day leveling charges of obstruction. When you think about it how many times have you heard that one side has made claims they've tried to pass this or that and have always been obstructed by the other side. When it comes to abuse of power the same thing would apply, there isn't any American alive today that really believe any of the bulk of them are innocent of doing such....and the framers knew this, more than likely from their own experiences, chances are it isn't something that just happened to pop up in recent decades. In one way or the other they've all abused their power.

He also made it perfectly clear that he is not Trumps personal attorney nor being paid by Trump. He opted to be a non partisan attorney who volunteered to be part of the defense team to testify on aspects involving the constitutional debate on what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, just as he argued that Clinton's crime did not rise to the level of a high crime he argued that the charges leveled against Trump didn't rise to a high crime let alone a criminal offense.