Using Connections to Trump, Dershowitz Became Force in Clemency Grants

New York Times logo

The lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz, who represented the former president in his first impeachment trial, used his access for a wide array of clients as they sought pardons or commutations.

WASHINGTON — By the time George Nader pleaded guilty last year to possessing child pornography and sex trafficking a minor, his once strong alliances in President Donald J. Trump’s inner circle had been eroded by his cooperation with the special counsel’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s team and its connections to Russia.

So as Mr. Nader sought to fight the charges and reduce his potential prison time, he turned to a lawyer with a deep reservoir of good will with the president and a penchant for taking unpopular, headline-grabbing cases: Alan M. Dershowitz.

Mr. Dershowitz told Mr. Nader’s allies that he had reached out to an official in the Trump administration and one in the Israeli government to try to assess whether they would support a plan for Mr. Nader to be freed from United States custody in order to resume a behind-the-scenes role in Middle East peace talks, and whether Mr. Trump might consider commuting his 10-year sentence. Continue reading.

The Sad Implosion Of Alan Dershowitz

The road leading to President Donald Trump’s acquittal from charges of which he is plainly guilty is littered with a trail of public figures selling their souls and abandoning their consciences. Few have been more dispiriting, however, than retired law professor Alan Dershowitz, whose reputation imploded in national view during Trump’s impeachment trial, all seemingly because of an unquenchable thirst for limelight. Dershowitz’s embarrassing performance in the service of a corrupt president who positively basks in a totalitarian’s view of his own power (speaking of the Constitution, he said, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president”) left Dershowitz looking like a sad and simple toady, so enthralled by media attention that he is willing to say anything for anyone in order to get it.

From its outset, the Trump presidency provided Dershowitz the welcome opportunity for attention, and he has taken advantage of it. He has been ubiquitous on cable television, sounding somewhere between silly and ridiculous on the president’s behalf, arguing that the poor beleaguered Trump was being persecuted by those bent on trampling his civil liberties. As impeachment proceedings got underway, Dershowitz found himself in increasing demand and was tapped to be on Trump’s defense team, an appointment he appeared to relish. His pitch: However accurately the articles of impeachment passed by the House summarize Trump’s conduct, Trump cannot be impeached because he has not committed a statutory crime. Before you could say, “egg on his face,” a clip surfaced of Dershowitz proclaiming the precise opposite with equal self-assurance in 1999. “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime,” Dershowitz had said. “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of the president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”

Faced with this direct contradiction from his own lips, Dershowitz launched a series of cringeworthy “clarifications” that damaged his credibility further. “I wasn’t wrong. I have a more sophisticated basis for my argument,” he explained to one interviewer. “I didn’t do research back then. I relied on what professors said,” he told another. “I am much more correct right now,” he insisted to a third, a line that may live on for its hubris and its inanity.

Dershowitz: Trump trial is my ‘worst controversy’

The Hill logoCelebrity attorney Alan Dershowitz has become the lightning rod of the Senate impeachment trial. 

Dershowitz, 81, insists he isn’t a political supporter of President Trump and that he backed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Yet the Harvard Law professor emeritus, who has repeatedly offered a public defense for Trump since his election, is now taking a star turn on the president’s legal impeachment team, delivering passionate and controversial statements extolling a broad notion of executive power.

And he’s doing so as he takes a 180 on arguments he made in 1998, when he argued against President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Continue reading.

Alan Dershowitz for the Defense: L’État, C’est Trump

At the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, Donald Trump’s lawyer said that the President can do just about anything he wants.

An hour into the Senate trial of Donald John Trump on Wednesday, the emeritus Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz came to the floor to answer a question from a former Harvard law student, Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas. In theory, it was a question that went to the heart of the impeachment case against Trump, about the President’s imposition of a quid pro quo on military aid to Ukraine and whether his motivations mattered. Dershowitz had something larger and more profound to say, however: Donald Trump has the power to do just about anything he wants to do, and there’s nothing that the U.S. Senate can or should do about it. Continue reading “Alan Dershowitz for the Defense: L’État, C’est Trump”

Dershowitz says media ‘willfully distorted’ his view of presidential power

The Hill logoHarvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz on Thursday sought to clarify remarks he made at President Trump’s impeachment trial while articulating his view of presidential power, saying media outlets “willfully distorted” his argument.

Dershowitz said CNN, MSNBC and other news outlets intentionally ignored a nuanced point he made on Wednesday about the mental state a president must possess in order to commit an impeachable offense.

“They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his reelection was in the national interest, he can do anything,” Dershowitz, a opinion contributor to The Hill, said on Twitter. Continue reading.

Video here: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480669-dershowitz-says-media-willfully-distorted-his-view-of-presidential?jwsource=cl

Dershowitz: Trump Crimes Are Excusable If His Re-election Is ‘In Public Interest’

Donald Trump’s defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz raised eyebrows on Wednesday when he argued that Trump has free reign to cheat in an election if he believes his victory would be in the best interest of the American people.

“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 said on the Senate floor, during the question-and-answer period of the impeachment trial against Trump.

Dershowitz’s argument got immediate pushback by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a House impeachment manager, who has been arguing that Trump has to be removed from office because his cheating cuts at the very heart of the Constitutional right to free and fair elections. Continue reading.

Anything a president does to stay in power is in the national interest, Dershowitz argues.

New York Times logoAlan Dershowitz, one of President Trump’s impeachment lawyers, pushed an extraordinarily expansive view of executive power during his trial on Wednesday, arguing that any action taken by the president to help his own re-election is, by definition, in the public interest.

“If the president does something that he thinks will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” said Mr. Dershowitz, a celebrity lawyer and constitutional law professor.

The assertion amounted to an argument that even if all of Democrats’ impeachment allegations are true — that Mr. Trump was, in fact, seeking election advantage when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponents — it would still be appropriate. Continue reading.

‘That’s not what you said then!’: Alan Dershowitz crashes and burns when confronted with his own words on impeachment

AlterNet logoProminent attorney Alan Dershowitz has thrust himself back into the spotlight for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial as he plans to present a constitutional argument to the lawmakers urging them to vote for acquittal. The White House doesn’t seem to mind that Dershowitz is tainted by his ties to Jeffrey Epstein; two women who say they were trafficked by Epstein have said they were made to have sex with Dershowitz, which the attorney denies.

And as all this hangs over his head, Dershowitz is making increasingly strained defenses of Trump. When Trump was facing accusations based on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report of obstruction of justice, Dershowitz made the argument that a president simply cannot obstruct justice. Now that Trump has been impeached on charges of obstructing Congress and abuse of power, Dershowitz says that these charges, too, are not sufficient for impeachment.

While he’s previously defended Trump by suggesting the president can only be impeached for actual crimes, he now seems to be reverting to the bizarre and unexplained position that the charges have to be “crime-like.” Continue reading.

In 1998, Dershowitz Said President Who ‘Abuses Trust’ Merits Impeachment

Twenty-two years ago, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argued in support of impeachment if a president “corrupts the office,” “abuses trust,” and “poses great danger to our liberty.”

On Friday President Donald Trump named Dershowitz to his team of attorneys who will defend him during his Senate impeachment trial.

Impeachment, Dershowitz told host Larry King on CNN in 1998, “certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.” Continue reading.

Georgetown law professor explains why Alan Dershowitz’s legal argument will crumble under Senate questioning: ‘No sound basis’

AlterNet logoGeorgetown law professor John Mikhail suggested on Sunday that the portion of President Donald Trump’s defense which is being covered by Alan Dershowitz is destined to fail because it has “no sound basis” in history and law.

“There is no sound basis for Alan Dershowitz to claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. In addition to being at odds with common sense, this claim is contradicted by a clear and consistent body of historical evidence,” Mikhail stated.

The law professor cited the impeachment of Warren Hastings in the 1780s. Continue reading.