# The Dershowitz doctrine **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 30, 2020, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241 "2020-01-30T19:12:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/41 "2020-01-31T17:48:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > People change over time. At one time, Giuliani was a respected prosecutor. Now one wonders how he graduated from high school. Maybe Dershowitz was at one time a respected professor. But he hung out with the wrong crowd. He’s an old guy, and like a lot of old guys he spent too much time watching Fox and is now nothing more than a member of the 45 Cult. My jaw hit the floor when he argued that everybody thinks his election is in the national interest and therefore whatever you do in that endeavor is unimpeachable. Polish the turd all you want, but that’s what he said. It’s not at all what he said. Not at all. Watch his speech. He never said that nor did he imply it. It is a hit job. You realize that Dersh is a liberal Democrat, right and not a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not adding accusations – it’s right there in the Articles. That they don’t use the specific word “bribery” doesn’t make it any less of a crime. They describe in great detail the crimes of Trump, and none of Dersh’s arguments make that stuff go away. Dersh just said that the actual content of the Articles should be ignored. He really said that! Yes, he said that because that is what due process is. If you are going to indict someone for bribery, the indictment says in big words at the top “Bribery.” It lists all of the elements of the offense, that on or about X day of month, Defendant did and it lays out how the defendant violated each of the elements required by statute. Indeed, the Dems debated a bribery charge but could not agree upon it. If you want to charge Wire Fraud, you put “Wire Fraud” at the top of count two and outline the elements of wire fraud and specifically how the Defendant committed the crime. It’s called due process and fair notice. It would be thrown out of any court in the country if an indictment said “Acting Badly” at the top and then told a narrative with about six or seven crimes that prosecutors could possibly squeeze out of it. And all because not even the prosecutors themselves can figure it out so they just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. This is exactly what the left is doing in this case. You just know Trump did something wrong but cannot put your finger on it. Oh, you can roll off a statement with scary adjectives, but cannot really prove any of it. Of course, this is not a criminal trial. But fair notice and specificity in charging is a basic part of common law justice. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/42 "2020-01-31T17:58:53Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yes, he said that because that is what due process is. If you are going to indict someone for bribery, the indictment says in big words at the top “Bribery.” It lists all of the elements of the offense, that on or about X day of month, Defendant did and it lays out how the defendant violated each of the elements required by statute. Indeed, the Dems debated a bribery charge but could not agree upon it. > > If you want to charge Wire Fraud, you put “Wire Fraud” at the top of count two and outline the elements of wire fraud and specifically how the Defendant committed the crime. > > It’s called due process and fair notice. It would be thrown out of any court in the country if an indictment said “Acting Badly” at the top and then told a narrative with about six or seven crimes that prosecutors could possibly squeeze out of it. And all because not even the prosecutors themselves can figure it out so they just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. > > This is exactly what the left is doing in this case. You just know Trump did something wrong but cannot put your finger on it. Oh, you can roll off a statement with scary adjectives, but cannot really prove any of it. > > Of course, this is not a criminal trial. But fair notice and specificity in charging is a basic part of common law justice. This is a political proceeding, not a criminal one. None of this stuff remotely applies to impeachment. And this was a deliberate choice by the Founders. It’s ludicrous to suggest that “abuse of power”, if proven to the satisfaction of the House and Senate, is not an impeachable offense. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/43 "2020-01-31T18:03:32Z")
Crystallnacht? Not impeachable. Trail of tears? Not impeachable The Great Terror? Not impeachable Final Solution? You must be kidding. That is the epitomy of a politician making changes he thinks are in the public interest. Get out of here with that shaming, you liberal hack! I’m so proud today. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/44 "2020-01-31T18:13:58Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > If this is the argument, then it would seem to mean that you can’t judge a President’s decision making by the motivations that the President claims, since those motivations are always only part of the calculus for why he did what he did; no matter what justification the president provides, there’s also the (‘entirely sensible’) determination as to how it helps the President maintain popularity/win an election. > > Therefore, you are begging for others to come in and provide context by discussing their conversations with the President, viewpoints on the President’s actions, and the impact on these decisions. > > In other words, if Dershowitz is arguing that it is ridiculous to impugn a President that you don’t like just because he made decisions that benefited him, then it is equally ridiculous to exonerate a President because he or his supporters assure us that he had the country’s interest at heart. > > Instead, we should be ignoring that and hearing from all of the people who had concerns, raised questions, and sounded the alarm so that we can hear their perspective and, only then, decide if their views have merit. > > To take your charity donation example: > You donate $10 million to a charity. You and your friends all publicly proclaim that it’s because you are kind and generous. Your opponents think it’s a scam to get out of paying money you owe. > > How to reconcile this? Do we just discount the claims of a scam because, even if you are hiding money to avoid debts, you also realize that the charity will be happy to get $10 million? If that be the case, then any criminal, shady, or immoral act is absolvable by pointing out that it benefited somebody, while simultaneously ignoring those it hurt. > > Or, since people are proclaiming a bad purpose, do we conclude that there can’t possibly be a noble legitimate reason instead? Clearly not; if these people who are impugning your reputation have their own ulterior motives, this might be an illegitimate claim. > > What to do? What to do? > > I know, and I bet Dershowitz would agree: > > Let’s call the witnesses who were actually in the room when you decided to make the donation: Did they hear you explain why it was done that way? > > Let’s review your financial books to see if any of the concerns being raised are fair: Do you actually owe anybody money? > > If people are claiming you owe them money, maybe we do need to hear from them: Are they identifying legitimate debts? > … > Clearly, Dershowitz is saying we need more evidence, we need to hear from the principals involved, and we need to see the paper trail that confirms the reasons that things happened how they did. Well, you changed the analogy so it doesn’t work anymore. Let’s try this: Okay, you agree that the President is in charge of enforcing the laws, right? And you would further agree that people in the opposite political party do not have a four year immunity from prosecution just because it would look bad for the president to investigate them, yes? And you also concede that during investigations you put pressure on people. If you are investigating person X for drug distribution and you catch person Y with drugs, you lean on person Y to get to person X. No problem there, right? This is straight up what Trump did. But he is being accused of using a quid pro quo to help him win an election. But wait. We already established that you can investigate your political opponents and that always gives you a person benefit. We’ve established that you can lean on third parties, through quid pro quo or otherwise to conduct investigations. So what is the problem? I’ve heard several things: 1. He asked a foreign country to do it. So what? They are our allies. The Constitution doesn’t mandate that he go through the FBI or anyone else. 1. He wasn’t reeeeally concerned about corruption? There was enough there with Biden demanding the special prosecutor looking into Burisma to be fired. And even if you disagree, you are not the president. That’s his choice where and what to investigate, and that includes his political opponents. And if we concede that these things have both political and national policy benefits, it does not matter if Bolton or whoever heard him say something like how this will hurt Biden’s chance in the election. Because it will. That’s sort of what Dersh was getting at. If there is an investigation into any Democrat in public life, I’m sure Trump will be very happy. But what does that mean if he is? He would be happy whether the investigation was legitimate or it was a sham. The thing you should be looking for is not evidence that Trump thought it would hurt Biden, because it certainly would. You should be looking for something along the lines of “I know he didn’t do anything wrong, but I’m going to screw with him anyways.” That’s a corrupt motive, but not one anyone has ever alleged. Because Trump really does believe that the Bidens and the Clinton and Nancy and the like are corrupt. And he is trying to expose that corruption. If you think he is a fool, then elect a different president. 1. This looks like bribery and extortion. As I’ve said before, this is like bribery and extortion only in the most superficial way. If this qualifies, then almost all of our foreign policy qualifies. Every criminal plea deal in this country would be bribery and extortion. This label is hysteria. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/45 "2020-01-31T18:19:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is a political proceeding, not a criminal one. None of this stuff remotely applies to impeachment. And this was a deliberate choice by the Founders. It’s ludicrous to suggest that “abuse of power”, if proven to the satisfaction of the House and Senate, is not an impeachable offense. I think I said exactly that. But due process applies everywhere, or at least it should. As noted before “abuse of power” is so meaningless as it could be brought against every president one disagrees with. It would amount to a president serving at the pleasure of Congress. Obama over DACA, Bush over Iraq War, Clinton over Kosovo, Bush I over raising taxes after pledging not to, Reagan over Iran Contra, Carter over energy policy, etc. etc. The framers did not intend for impeachment to be a roving standard applicable whenever a party thinks they have the votes or are mad enough. It was suppose to be reserved for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors” Without simply stating what you believe Trump did, what is a definition of abuse of power that does not cover every political disagreement? > [@drad\_dog](#): > > Crystallnacht? Not impeachable. > Trail of tears? Not impeachable > The Great Terror? Not impeachable > Final Solution? You must be kidding. That is the epitomy of a politician making changes he thinks are in the public interest. Get out of here with that shaming, you liberal hack! > > I’m so proud today. I think many of those things would qualify as “high crimes” and would be impeachable. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/46 "2020-01-31T18:21:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But wait. We already established that you can investigate your political opponents and that always gives you a person benefit. We’ve established that you can lean on third parties, through quid pro quo or otherwise to conduct investigations. So what is the problem? I’ve heard several things: > > 1. He asked a foreign country to do it. > > So what? They are our allies. The Constitution doesn’t mandate that he go through the FBI or anyone else. It’s not credible that a US official seriously interested in corruption by a US citizen would go through another country rather than US law enforcement. We’re allowed to use our brains here. > [@](#): > > 1. He wasn’t reeeeally concerned about corruption? > > There was enough there with Biden demanding the special prosecutor looking into Burisma to be fired. And even if you disagree, you are not the president. That’s his choice where and what to investigate, and that includes his political opponents. This is repeating a proven-false conspiracy theory. The prosecutor was fired because he _wasn’t_ looking into corruption, including into Burisma. If Biden was acting corruptly to help Hunter, he would have been helping Shokin, not trying to get him fired. > [@](#): > > You should be looking for something along the lines of “I know he didn’t do anything wrong, but I’m going to screw with him anyways.” That’s a corrupt motive, but not one anyone has ever alleged. Because Trump really does believe that the Bidens and the Clinton and Nancy and the like are corrupt. And he is trying to expose that corruption. If you think he is a fool, then elect a different president. There’s plenty of evidence of this, shown again and again. There was never a shred of evidence of corruption regarding Biden and Burisma. And it’s not credible that Trump, of all people, was concerned about nepotism. > [@](#): > > 1. This looks like bribery and extortion. > > As I’ve said before, this is like bribery and extortion only in the most superficial way. If this qualifies, then almost all of our foreign policy qualifies. Every criminal plea deal in this country would be bribery and extortion. This label is hysteria. Name a single other instance. It’s not credible that Republicans, and you, wouldn’t be appalled if Obama had asked Russia to announce an investigation into Romney in exchange for Congressionally approved aid. Name a single instance of a President asking another country to investigate a political rival. Just one. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/47 "2020-01-31T18:32:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think I said exactly that. But due process applies everywhere, or at least it should. What “due process” has not been followed? The House explicitly followed the Constitution regarding impeachment. Each step was laid out and has been (or is being) followed. > [@](#): > > As noted before “abuse of power” is so meaningless as it could be brought against every president one disagrees with. It would amount to a president serving at the pleasure of Congress. Obama over DACA, Bush over Iraq War, Clinton over Kosovo, Bush I over raising taxes after pledging not to, Reagan over Iran Contra, Carter over energy policy, etc. etc. There’s nothing in the Constitution that would have barred this, had enough of Congress agreed. Once again, it’s an explicitly political process. > [@](#): > > The framers did not intend for impeachment to be a roving standard applicable whenever a party thinks they have the votes or are mad enough. It was suppose to be reserved for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors” > > Without simply stating what you believe Trump did, what is a definition of abuse of power that does not cover every political disagreement? Quite simply, using one’s official powers for personal (including personal political) gain when there is no reasonable chance this behavior is meant for the benefit of the country. Obviously, what differs here (or what the Senators are pretending they disagree on) is that last part – whether Trump’s actions can possibly be reasonably considered to have been meant to benefit the country (beyond his own personal political benefit). It’s not credible to me that anyone can consider Trump’s words and actions for the last 3 years, and believe that his words and actions regarding this allegation were meant for anyone’s benefit but his own. That’s not a reasonable belief, any more than believing that a proven serial child molester is attempting to befriend a child due to a desire to improve the child’s life. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/48 "2020-01-31T18:33:53Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > He said it because he knows that a lot of voters are hopelessly cynical and accept that what he said is essentially true. A lot of voters accept that all presidents are hopelessly corrupt and that probably most in Trump’s position would abuse power to ensure their reelection. I think it’s the opposite. I think there’s a realization among Republican politicians that the voters are not completely cynical. The politicians must know that even among their base, there are questions being asked like _“Sure, this is all a Democratic plot. But you guys are saying it all happened. Now I know Mister Trump is the greatest President this country ever had … but … shouldn’t he not be breaking the law? Isn’t breaking the law … kinda … I dunno … wrong?”_ So Dershowitz is giving them an excuse so they can keep on believing. He’s telling them that it’s okay for Trump to break the law because his motives are good. He’s breaking the law but he’s doing it for America. So Amen and Fuck Yeah! ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/49 "2020-01-31T18:33:55Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > As I’ve said before, this is like bribery and extortion only in the most superficial way. If this qualifies, then almost all of our foreign policy qualifies. Every criminal plea deal in this country would be bribery and extortion. This label is hysteria. Just so we’re clear… 1. The president can ask a foreign country to investigate a US citizen in order to receive congressionally approved aid. 2. The investigation can personally benefit the president. 3. The subject of the investigation need not have actually done anything wrong, as long as the president really deep down thinks they did. 4. The subject of the investigation is not subject to the protections afforded to suspects and criminal defendants per the US constitution. That’s your position? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/50 "2020-01-31T18:35:13Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think I said exactly that. But due process applies everywhere, or at least it should. > > As noted before “abuse of power” is so meaningless as it could be brought against every president one disagrees with. It would amount to a president serving at the pleasure of Congress. Obama over DACA, Bush over Iraq War, Clinton over Kosovo, Bush I over raising taxes after pledging not to, Reagan over Iran Contra, Carter over energy policy, etc. etc. > > The framers did not intend for impeachment to be a roving standard applicable whenever a party thinks they have the votes or are mad enough. It was suppose to be reserved for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors” > > Without simply stating what you believe Trump did, what is a definition of abuse of power that does not cover every political disagreement? > > I think many of those things would qualify as “high crimes” and would be impeachable. Those events were never adjudicated. If they were I’m pretty sure they would not be able to assign guilt of any technical crime by current standards. It was a horror, but it would be a bigger job to convict anyone of it. Ask Lamar. If a white male republican stood in front of you and swore it was OK it would be OK. That’s what they do. Did Dersh make an exception for crimes? It seemed pretty all encompassing, the immunity. Dersh didn’t look at crimes anyway. He wanted to circumvent the factual part and end it on his argument, without getting to crimes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/51 "2020-01-31T18:35:58Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Just so we’re clear… > > 1. The president can ask a foreign country to investigate a US citizen in order to receive congressionally approved aid. > > 2. The investigation can personally benefit the president. > > 3. The subject of the investigation need not have actually done anything wrong, as long as the president really deep down thinks they did. > > 4. The subject of the investigation is not subject to the protections afforded to suspects and criminal defendants per the US constitution. > > That’s your position? This sums it up really well. **UV** , you believe 1 through 4 here are entirely acceptable and unimpeachable? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/52 "2020-01-31T18:42:35Z")
Just to clear up one point. The Dershowitz Doctrine says it’s okay for a President to break the law in order to get re-elected if he believes his re-election helps the country. But that’s only for incumbents, right? A candidate who’s running for the Presidency can’t invoke this doctrine to justify becoming President. You have to already be President to use it. So the Ukrainian collision Trump did for the 2020 election is okay but the Russian collusion he did for the 2016 election is still illegal. And if Trump was being impeached for that, Dershowitz would no doubt being saying he should be removed from office. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/53 "2020-01-31T18:57:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What “due process” has not been followed? The House explicitly followed the Constitution regarding impeachment. Each step was laid out and has been (or is being) followed. Same for the Senate, but [Nancy Pelosi doesn’t think it was a real trial](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/democrats-impeachment-trial-trump-acquittal-109490). In another ringing defense of due process, she thinks [the defense lawyers should be disbarred](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-defense-team-disgraced-themselves-deserve-disbarment-pelosi-suggests). So apparently she thinks the Constitution doesn’t say the trial should be held in the Senate, that it does say that the Speaker should set the rules, and that the arguments of the defense must be approved by the prosecution. So Pelosi and the Dems aren’t going to accept the acquittal. What are they going to do - hold their breaths until they turn blue? Come to think of it… Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/54 "2020-01-31T19:05:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Same for the Senate, but [Nancy Pelosi doesn’t think it was a real trial](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/democrats-impeachment-trial-trump-acquittal-109490). > > In another ringing defense of due process, she thinks [the defense lawyers should be disbarred](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-defense-team-disgraced-themselves-deserve-disbarment-pelosi-suggests). > > So apparently she thinks the Constitution doesn’t say the trial should be held in the Senate, that it does say that the Speaker should set the rules, and that the arguments of the defense must be approved by the prosecution. > > So Pelosi and the Dems aren’t going to accept the acquittal. What are they going to do - hold their breaths until they turn blue? > > Come to think of it… > > Regards, > Shodan No idea what any of this apparent mind-reading of Pelosi (and “the Dems”) has to do with my post, but carry on with whatever this is if you wish. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/55 "2020-01-31T19:20:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think it’s the opposite. I think there’s a realization among Republican politicians that the voters are not completely cynical. The politicians must know that even among their base, there are questions being asked like _“Sure, this is all a Democratic plot. But you guys are saying it all happened. Now I know Mister Trump is the greatest President this country ever had … but … shouldn’t he not be breaking the law? Isn’t breaking the law … kinda … I dunno … wrong?”_ > > So Dershowitz is giving them an excuse so they can keep on believing. He’s telling them that it’s okay for Trump to break the law because his motives are good. He’s breaking the law but he’s doing it for America. So Amen and Fuck Yeah! What we’re experiencing is our own Weimar moment. There are people passionately in favor of and opposing the president, but it’s the undecided and uninterested middle on which the balance of power depends. This is a hell of a moment in our national history for sure. A Constitution written to deliberately include checks on presidential power now subjected to two diametrically opposed interpretations, one of which embraces alternative facts, alternative reality, and supposes that violations of the law, violations of the spirit of the Constitution by an Executive are democratically tolerable insofar as he believes that he is best qualified to hold disproportionate power. What despot voluntarily relinquishes power when he can simply delude himself into believing his unbridled avarice obliquely intersects with the public welfare? ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/56 "2020-01-31T19:42:32Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/57 "2020-01-31T19:48:12Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Dershowitz seems to be arguing that it’s OK for the mayor to have the voting registration center demolished even if everyone publicly understands it’s in the mayor’s reelection interest, because the mayor is so self-centered and delusional he thinks himself getting elected is in the public interest. One quibble: replace the word “thinks” with “believes”. And every American knows that you simply cannot challenge anyone’s beliefs, in any way, at any time. Once a belief is declared, it is sacrosanct and everyone else just has to defer to that belief, in America. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/58 "2020-01-31T19:53:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Well, you changed the analogy so it doesn’t work anymore. Let’s try this: > > Okay, you agree that the President is in charge of enforcing the laws, right? Yes. > [@](#): > > And you would further agree that people in the opposite political party do not have a four year immunity from prosecution just because it would look bad for the president to investigate them, yes? Agreed. > [@](#): > > And you also concede that during investigations you put pressure on people. If you are investigating person X for drug distribution and you catch person Y with drugs, you lean on person Y to get to person X. No problem there, right? Nope. > [@](#): > > This is straight up what Trump did. But he is being accused of using a quid pro quo to help him win an election. See, you lost me here. If I followed you, Trump was ‘putting pressure’ on Ukraine (which, in this analogy, is ‘person Y, caught with drugs’) to get to Biden (‘person X’). If this is going to work, though, you need to demonstrate that: 1. Trump discovered that Ukraine was acting in some illegal/criminal fashion 2. Trump also discovered that Biden was acting in some illegal/criminal fashion so, 3. Trump told Ukraine that, if they didn’t want to face the full repercussions of their criminal behavior, then they needed to help stop Biden from breaking the law. Otherwise, what you describe as a criminal investigation looks a lot like a criminal shakedown, where the police go to a person, accuse him of all sorts of unfounded criminal acts, and then threaten to manufacture the evidence to put them away for life unless they agree to falsely frame their compatriot for a crime they didn’t do. Now, I’m guessing that you will respond by saying that Trump really believed that Biden was corrupt, so he was sincere in his actions. But your analogy of putting pressure on Y to get to X was predicated on catching Y with drugs. Here, Trump has no such ‘gotcha’; instead, he’s got Rudy Giuliani and his thugs trying put drugs on Y so he can then tell Y that they have to rat out X. Otherwise, what crimes had Trump discovered? > [@](#): > > So what is the problem? I’ve heard several things: > > 1. He asked a foreign country to do it. > > So what? They are our allies. The Constitution doesn’t mandate that he go through the FBI or anyone else. Asking a foreign country to do it is a problem when it is done to bypass US laws and protections, like that ‘due process’ you keep invoking. If there’s no problem ‘asking a foreign country’ to do something that we have law enforcement channels to handle, then I can only assume that you’d have no problem if we decide that all of our police interrogations are now going to be offshored to some third world country. > [@](#): > > 1. He wasn’t reeeeally concerned about corruption? > > There was enough there with Biden demanding the special prosecutor looking into Burisma to be fired. And even if you disagree, you are not the president. That’s his choice where and what to investigate, and that includes his political opponents. It’s interesting how, in a case where the defense is relying in part of whether the conduct was indeed criminal, we suddenly morphed from the President enforcing the law, and investigating crime, to being concerned about ‘corruption’, which is not an actual violation of law. If you are going to invoke the President’s power to enforce the law to justify his actions (because he’s the President, and that’s his job), then I’d ask you to tell me what law the President believes Biden was breaking. If it’s enough for him to be concerned about something as vague as corruption, then the argument that he can’t be impeached for something as vague as ‘abuse of power’ sort of falls flat. > [@](#): > > And if we concede that these things have both political and national policy benefits, it does not matter if Bolton or whoever heard him say something like how this will hurt Biden’s chance in the election. Because it will. > > That’s sort of what Dersh was getting at. If there is an investigation into any Democrat in public life, I’m sure Trump will be very happy. But what does that mean if he is? He would be happy whether the investigation was legitimate or it was a sham. > > The thing you should be looking for is not evidence that Trump thought it would hurt Biden, because it certainly would. You should be looking for something along the lines of “I know he didn’t do anything wrong, but I’m going to screw with him anyways.” That’s a corrupt motive, but not one anyone has ever alleged. Because Trump really does believe that the Bidens and the Clinton and Nancy and the like are corrupt. And he is trying to expose that corruption. If you think he is a fool, then elect a different president. It appears that, since we’ve gone from ‘enforce the law’ to ‘investigate corruption’, you’re saying that a President can use the excuse of ‘concern about corruption’ to ignore all legal channels, written laws, or established procedure to harass, intimidate, surveil, and malign any person, anywhere, without regard to any other reason. Don’t like the President rounding up all of his political opponents so that they can be interrogated? Well, just wait until another election. > [@](#): > > 1. This looks like bribery and extortion. > > As I’ve said before, this is like bribery and extortion only in the most superficial way. If this qualifies, then almost all of our foreign policy qualifies. Every criminal plea deal in this country would be bribery and extortion. This label is hysteria. What’s the difference between a campaign contribution and giving a politician a bag of money with a big dollar sign right before he votes on a bill that will impact you financially? Since both involve the transfer of money to a politician, I guess politicians can never be bribed. Motivation, timing, practical impact…none of it matters, so no distinctions can ever be made. Did I get that right? ---
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2020, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241/59 "2020-01-31T20:00:39Z")
I’m now morbidly waiting to see how the president, without rebuke by the senate or the supreme court, will suspend/delay the 2020 elections via executive action. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dershowitz-doctrine/847241.md?page=2)