Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz gave an extraordinarily broad view of executive power during Wednesday’s impeachment proceeding, stating that virtually anything a president does to get reelected is not impeachable if the president thinks his or her election is in the public interest.
Dershowitz, who is working on President Trump’s legal team, was asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) if it matters whether there was a quid pro quo in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine at the heart of his impeachment trial.
“The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal,” said Dershowitz, who is an opinion contributor for The Hill.
“For it to be impeachable you would have to discern that he or she made a decision solely … on the corrupt motives,” he added. “And it cannot be a corrupt motive if you have a mixed motive.”
Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://t.co/jKErQcS1Iy pic.twitter.com/zo4rL6Zbla
— ABC News (@ABC) January 29, 2020
Dershowitz went on to assert that if a president believed he or she were acting in the public interest, the motive could not be corrupt. He noted that “every public official I know” believes their election is in the public interest.
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.
………
- Discussion
-
JUST IN: Dershowitz says Trump seeking quid pro quo with Ukraine to help reelection would not be impeachable https://t.co/VBrI0QAixw pic.twitter.com/2vu0o4oIb5
— The Hill (@thehill) January 29, 2020
Everyone is talking about bad precedents. Well, if/when the senate acquits Trump, they should nonetheless expressly repudiate this argument, lest it go down in history as a “winning” argument. https://t.co/An7yV9Raby
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 29, 2020
Frankly, when it comes to the Constitution and impeachment, I'll take Alexander Hamilton over Alan Dershowitz. https://t.co/WVC2Nkpzpp
— Adam White (@adamjwhitedc) January 28, 2020
Madison said explicitly that a president has the legal authority to offer pardons. But if POTUS told people to commit crimes and then pardoned them, that would be impeachable. What if POTUS decided to get drunk and watch TV all day, everyday. Not a crime, def impeachable. https://t.co/0zw4RuihOP
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 28, 2020
Not a good moment. In fairness, I thought where he was going was that if POTUS did something he subjectively thought was in public interest, it would't become corrupt just because he also thought it would help him get reelected. Obviously, he went way beyond that — too far. https://t.co/s1zRTPRYYo
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) January 29, 2020
This is nonsense.
And when I say it's nonsense, allegedly anti-elite MAGA Twitter rises up and yells, "How dare you disagree with a LEGENDARY HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR."
I respect Alan Dershowitz, but this is table-pounding defense lawyering, not constitutional analysis. https://t.co/LEbc66yW62
— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 29, 2020
22 years ago, of course, was 1998, when Dershowitz said you didn't need a statutory crime for impeachment.
Dershowitz has now changed his mind.
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) January 29, 2020
That answer from Dershowitz was amateur Debate 101 sophistry. "I define maladministration to mean abuse of power, and since you can't impeach for one, by definition you can't impeach the other." That would lose you a match even my old Connecticut Valley high school league.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 29, 2020
“If the president thinks his own election is in the public interest, you can’t charge him with corruption while trying to get reelected” is an amazing theory, and clearly excludes the many presidents who didn’t think it would be good for the country if they were reelected.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 29, 2020
it's worth underlining just how completely bananas this argument is. Nobody but Dershowitz believes this. https://t.co/h7wga0p3YR
— Quinta "Pro Quo" Jurecic (@qjurecic) January 29, 2020
For the sake of one more moment in front of the cameras, @AlanDersh did more damage to himself in a day than he did in the past 30 years. It's impressive to see a man already starting with a tarnished reputation and then really committing to its utter immolation. https://t.co/WQ2TNr04hU
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 30, 2020
He has explicitly said abuse of power is not impeachable. He has said explicitly that absent a crime, presidential conduct is not impeachable. https://t.co/rbzYew2Yr0
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 30, 2020
Republican senators should find this argument an insult to their intelligence. https://t.co/XFrBenY8WJ
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) January 29, 2020
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.