Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz accused media outlets, like CNN and MSNBC, of “willfully” distorting his arguments in defense of President Donald Trump’s use of his authority in a way that could benefit the chief executive politically.
“Every public official I know believes his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz argued from the floor of the Senate Wednesday night during Trump’s impeachment trial.
“And 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 offered the example of President Abraham Lincoln ordering Gen. William Sherman to let the troops from Indiana leave the front lines to go vote in the presidential election, and doing so to help his 1864 re-election chances.
“Everybody has mixed motives and for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached,” Dershowitz said.
CNN described Dershowitz’s argument as a “breathtaking new defense,” which the news outlet summarized as: “The President’s personal interest is the national interest when he’s up for reelection.”
CNN contributor Paul Begala wrote an Op-Ed titled, “Presenting the ludicrous ‘Dershowitz Doctrine,'” while sarcastically tweeting “L’etat c’est Trump” (The state is Trump).
“L’etat c’est Trump.” His legal team’s audacious claim that The Donald is above the law. My column @CNNOpinion
Trump impeachment defender presents the ludicrous Alan 'Dershowitz Doctrine' (opinion) - CNN cnn.com/2020/01/29/opi…
78 people are talking about this
Similarly, MSNBC titled a video clip, “Dershowitz: Anything Trump did to win re-election is in the public interest,” adding in another article that the renowned attorney, “shocks with argument.”
In a series of Thursday tweets, Dershowitz took on the news media for falsely representing his views.
“Taking advantage of the fact most of their viewers didn’t actually hear the senate Q and A, CNN, MSNBC and some other media willfully distorted my answers,” the legal scholar tweeted.
They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.
17.7K people are talking about this
“They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything,” Dershowitz continued. “I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.”
The lawyer went on to explain that there are three categories of relevant potential motives at issue for a president.
There are those in the “pure national interest,” those based in corrupt motives, and those with mixed motives.
“I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples,” Dershowitz tweeted. “Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.”
He offered the hypothetical of former President Barack Obama‘s decision not to enforce his own redline, established in 2012, regarding Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
“What it if turned out that a reason he broke his promise was that his political advisors warned him that bombing Syria would lose him votes among the hard left?” the former law professor asked.
I said that the 3rd was often the reality of politics and that helping one's own re-election efforts cannot — by itself— necessarily be deemed corrupt.
What it if turned out that a reason he broke his promise was that his political advisors warned him that bombing Syria would lose him votes among the hard left? (MTC)
226 people are talking about this
“[T]he reality of politics and that helping one’s own re-election efforts cannot — by itself — necessarily be deemed corrupt,” Dershowitz concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment