Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz took to Twitter to respond to Dems and journos who he says “willfully distorted” his answers at yesterday’s impeachment trial:
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. More to Come
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
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
He’s talking about comments like this from Sen. Schumer and Reps. Lieu and Schiff:
"Did you take Professor Dershowitz's class at Harvard Law?"
"No. That's why my arguments are cogent."
Here's Chuck Schumer bodying Alan Dershowitz at the end of this morning's news conference pic.twitter.com/ln1e13W6H7
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2020
Dear @TheJusticeDept: Today I am announcing I am going to violate federal law and solicit a foreign government to help my re-election campaign, because it’s in the public interest.
Just kidding. I’m not a criminal like @realDonaldTrump or a crazed enabler like @AlanDersh. https://t.co/7Ej30z5dER
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) January 29, 2020
We’ve seen a remarkable lowering of the bar.
According to Trump’s lawyers, everything is okay as long as the president believes it helps his reelection.
It’s not okay to solicit foreign election interference, even if you fail.
It just makes you a failed crook. pic.twitter.com/jHm82CHyw0
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) January 30, 2020
More from Dershowitz here:
What I said was that there are 3 broad categories of relevant motive:
1) pure national interest ( help the military)
2) pure corrupt motive ( get a kickback) And 3) mixed motive (help the national interest in a way that helps your reelection efforts )
(MTC)— 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
I gave as an example mixed motive President Lindon’s decision to send troops home from the battlefield to Indiana so that they would vote for his party. He genuinely believed that his party’s victory in Indiana was essential to the war effort, but it also helped him politically.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
I gave another hypothetical. President Obama promised to bomb Syrian military targets if Assad used chemical weapons. He broke his promise. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
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)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
My point is that these are complex issues and that the Framers did not intend impeachment for mixed motive decisions that contain an element of personal partisan benefit. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
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
I pointed out how open ended that argument is because politicians honestly believe that their reelection helps the national interest. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
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
And. . .
They’re still mad:
The reason this is a disingenuous argument is that category 3 would involve *public* policy decisions — the very reasons they would help reelection is that voters know about it. A secret attempt to subvert Congress’ intent to sabotage a political opponent isn’t a policy. 1/ https://t.co/XF7HBs6v3M
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) January 30, 2020
In fact, Trump was trying to DECEIVE voters by making them believe 1) he was following U.S. policy (by giving Ukraine aid when he was actually withholding it and 2) that Ukraine had independent reasons to investigate Bidens, when in fact it was based on Trump’s pressure 2/
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) January 30, 2020
This is NOT the same as pursuing a policy that will have popular support and build your political capital (because it is transparent and known). In fact, Trump understood that if voters knew about this it would be a problem for him which is why he tried to conceal it 3/
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) January 30, 2020
***
