In today’s NY Times, Alan Dershowitz is quoted as having said the following: If a president believes his re-election to be in the national interest, whatever he does to advance that goal is A-OK
Let’s follow his logic a bit. Suppose Nixon had said that his re-election was in the national interest and the Watergate burglary was needed for that (never mind that he was delusional), then that’s A-OK, right? Suppose Clinton had argued that his continued presidency was in the national interest and therefore he had to lie about sex with whoever (I have now forgotten). Suppose Trump were to shoot someone on fifth Ave. and claim that was in the national interest. This doctrine has no end.
Of course, it can apply only to the president; otherwise you could do literally anything and argue that you thought it was in the national interest. Lee Harvey Oswald could have so argued.
Imagine that Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. What other such people hang out there?
The doctrine only applies if the President is delusional enough to “believe” that there is no difference between his self interest and the national interest. In other words it only applies to Trump.
I would imagine this doctrine only applies if you’re paying Alan Dershowitz a large amount of money. And Trump apparently is paying Dershowitz enough to get the full girlfriend experience.
When I heard Dersh saying his, I couldn’t believe it. I actually yelled at the radio “Are you fucking kidding me?!” I am no lawyer or expert on the Constitution and even I saw this as a completely outrageous claim. I still don’t believe that anyone could buy into this. Except elected Republican officials and Faux News, of course.
I just want to know if this will be the thing that finally laughs Alan Dershowitz out of serious public discourse and lands him a retirement gig as co-host on FoxNews with Jeanine Pirro.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what dershowitz would said. In fact that looks to be a miss quote. He says something more along the lines of ’ if it serves the public interest it really doesn’t matter if it also serves a political interest.’
Dershowitz is talking about mixed motives. not that a present can do anything he wants if it’s going to get him re-elected. Recall that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot mic tellng a Russian representative that he would have to hold off on specific agreements / talks until after his re-election. The strong implication here is that the timing of his foreign policy was being affected by his desire to be re-elected. I don’t think you can impeach someone for that. And I think this is what dershowitz is referring to
“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.”
and
“'I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
My mother, who hates Trump but never gets remotely heated about it or makes comments shouted “WAIT WHAT DID HE JUST SAY??!!” when Dershodimwitz’s said that. I was fucking flabbergasted. It’s inconceivable to me that someone who worshipped the constitution enough to make it his life’s work would trash it so completely.
The PBS version of the Dershowitz argument before the Senate (on YouTube) he explains what he means starting at 40:50 minute mark and going to 1hr 07. Much more nuanced than a paraphrase or quote pulled out of context.
Dershowitz’s argument is very weak. But it is meant to give Republicans talking points and allow for obfuscation.
It also directly contradicts what he said during the Clinton impeachment. Out of curiosity, so reread Dershowitz’s book “Notes to a Young Lawyer”. It talks a lot about principles, but these went the wayside long before he became a presidential mouthpiece.