Democrats tried to put me on trial in the Senate last week, denouncing what they called "The Dershowitz doctrine." Rep. Adam Schiff claimed I advocated a "Lawless" variation on Richard Nixon's view that "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that under my "Doctrine" Nixon didn't commit any impeachable offense-never mind his numerous crimes and my explicit statement that I supported Nixon's impeachment.
What did I say to warrant such demonization? I was asked whether it matters "If there was a quid pro quo." I answered that it would depend on "If the quo were in some way unlawful." If the politician's motive was "Corrupt"-for example, if he sought a kickback-that would be an impeachable crime.
If his entirely lawful act had "Mixed motives," including re-election, that would not turn a lawful act into a crime or impeachable offense.
A desire to be re-elected is not necessarily a "Corrupt" motive.
The main thrust of my hourlong opening presentation was that a president could be impeached if he committed crimes or criminal-like behavior, regardless of whether his claimed motive was the public interest.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said publicly: "I agree with Alan Dershowitz-a liberal Democrat-who explained so well that more witnesses won't change the fact that President Trump did not commit a crime or an impeachable offense."
The Senate vote to acquit may be taken as a confirmation that a president can do whatever he wants in pursuit of re-election-even commit serious crimes-if he thinks it's in the public interest.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-are-lying-about-my-argument-11580773517?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
What did I say to warrant such demonization? I was asked whether it matters "If there was a quid pro quo." I answered that it would depend on "If the quo were in some way unlawful." If the politician's motive was "Corrupt"-for example, if he sought a kickback-that would be an impeachable crime.
If his entirely lawful act had "Mixed motives," including re-election, that would not turn a lawful act into a crime or impeachable offense.
A desire to be re-elected is not necessarily a "Corrupt" motive.
The main thrust of my hourlong opening presentation was that a president could be impeached if he committed crimes or criminal-like behavior, regardless of whether his claimed motive was the public interest.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said publicly: "I agree with Alan Dershowitz-a liberal Democrat-who explained so well that more witnesses won't change the fact that President Trump did not commit a crime or an impeachable offense."
The Senate vote to acquit may be taken as a confirmation that a president can do whatever he wants in pursuit of re-election-even commit serious crimes-if he thinks it's in the public interest.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-are-lying-about-my-argument-11580773517?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
No comments:
Post a Comment