Alan Dershowitz was on "The Beat with Ari Melber" tonight, talking about the constitutional argument he is going to make to the Senate. If his argument prevails, then American democracy as we know it will end. The interview could use some editing, as is usual with Ari's interviews, but I suggest that you watch it in full. My impressions follow below the break.
By Dershowitz's reasoning, a President need never provide documents or testimony to any body of the Congress because of the solitary powers of the Executive. My thought as to the logical progression that follows is that you can basically throw out the impeachment clause because Congress would never obtain evidence of treason or bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, especially because of the Executive branch's control of law enforcement agencies. And to put the cherry on top, Dershowitz claims that high crimes and misdemeanors means "high crimes and misdemeanors like treason or bribery," and that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress do not meet that threshold.
If his argument prevails--that the only recourse against Presidential misconduct is the next election--you can have a majority of individuals vote a miscreant out, yet the president retains his position courtesy of the Electoral College. And at that, how would you know that they had done anything wrong if a president could obstruct Congress (not a crime--Dershowitz) to avoid Congressional oversight in the first place? Without that oversight, how could you cast "an informed vote"? However, in the case of a second term president, it's basically, "Well, sucks to be you, citizen" because being term-limited, there is no threat of being voted out to constrain a President's behavior.
Goodnight, America. The Senate holds you in its hands. Sleep well.