The Danger of Democrats' Distorting Legal Arguments Against Impeachment

[] [The Danger of Democrats' Distorting Legal Arguments Against Impeachment]( by Alan M. Dershowitz • March 11, 2020 at 5:00 am [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [WhatsApp]( [Telegram]( [Send]( [Print]( - In response to a question whether it matters "If there were a quid pro quo," I said that would depend on "If the quo were in some way unlawful." If the politician's motive were "corrupt" -- for example, if he were seeking a kickback, that would be an impeachable crime. But if his entirely lawful act had "mixed motives," including his re-election, that would not turn a lawful act into a crime or impeachable offense. - "Start with the media claim that defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz said a President can do anything to further his re-election as long as he thinks it is in the national interest. This isn't what he said. The Harvard professor said explicitly that a President can be impeached for criminal acts." — Wall Street Journal, Editorial, January 30, 2020. - Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of distorting the so-called "Dershowitz doctrine" into a justification for any and all presidential actions, is that it may create a dangerous precedent. Because of the persistent mischaracterization of "Dershowitz doctrine," the Senate vote to acquit may be taken as a confirmation that a president who believes his re-election is in the public interest, can do anything he wants -- even commit serious crimes -- to help himself get re-elected. That is not what I said or believe. Nor is it the precedent the senators who vote for acquittal intended to establish. Pictured: Alan Dershowitz speaks in the United States Senate during impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, on January 29, 2020. (Photo by Senate Television via Getty Images) It has now been a month since the Senate acquitted U.S. President Donald J. Trump, but the lies persist. Democratic leaders and the media continue to put on trial what they have denominated as "The Dershowitz Doctrine": namely that a president can do anything -- even commit serious crimes -- as long as he believes his election was in the public interest. Congressman Adam Schiff described it as a "lawless" variation on the "Nixon" doctrine that whatever a president does is, by definition, lawful. Senator Schumer said that under "my" doctrine, former President Richard M. Nixon did not commit any impeachable offense, despite evidence of his numerous crimes. (Ignoring my explicit statement that I supported Nixon's impeachment.) Media pundits went even further: Joe Lockhart, former Press Secretary to President Bill Clinton, accused me of making arguments that would justify the genocides of Hitler and Stalin. [Continue Reading Article]( [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [RSS]( [Donate]( Copyright © Gatestone Institute, All rights reserved. You are subscribed to this list as {EMAIL} You can change how you receive these emails: [Update your subscription preferences]( or [Unsubscribe from this list]( [Gatestone Institute]( 14 East 60 St., Suite 705, New York, NY 10022