While answering questions from senators in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argued that presidents could not be impeached for having a mixed-motive.
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And mostly you’re right. Your election is in the public interest.”
“And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he added.
That answer did not sit well with politicians and pundits who argued Dershowitz’s view would “unleash a monarch.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer calls Alan Dershowitz's argument that a quid pro quo done in belief it's "in the public interest" is not impeachable "a load of nonsense."
— ABC News (@ABC) January 30, 2020
"The Dershowitz argument…would unleash a monster. More aptly, it would unleash a monarch." https://t.co/i2fJaT5dC9 pic.twitter.com/hYCzWKNSxo
Richard Nixon once made this argument: "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 30, 2020
He was forced to resign in disgrace.
In America, no one is above the law. https://t.co/MXctxLr1sj
https://twitter.com/JohnWDean/status/1222684565585698816
On Thursday, Dershowitz responded with a flurry of tweets and claimed that the media “willfully distorted my answers.”
“I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest,” Dershowitz countered.
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.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
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.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
In a series of tweets, Dershowitz laid out an example of a president doing something that they genuinely believe would be good for the country, and would help their re-election.
Ultimately, he argued that if a president receives an electoral boon as a result of their actions, that does not — in itself — make the action impeachable.
Anyone watching my answer would know that it was in response to the manager’s claim that any electoral benefit would constitute an impeachable quid pro quo. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
Finally, he accused pundits of deploying straw man fallacies against his argument.
“Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.”
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. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
While critics slammed Dershowitz, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in an op-ed that he agrees with Dershowitz’s conclusion — even if he found some of Dershowitz’s arguments dubious.
“The fact is that there is a host of non-criminal acts that could not just put lives but the nation at risk. If those acts are committed for purely personal reasons, they can be impeachable. It is the most difficult type of impeachment to prove, particularly if you are not alleging collateral criminal acts.”
“This is not just the narrowest presidential impeachment in history but the first to allege only non-criminal conduct. If there are other reasons for a president to have acted (even unwisely or catastrophically), a case for removal cannot be made,” Turley added.
