Alan Dershowitz, the most prominent member of Donald Trump’s defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, claimed on Wednesday that Trump’s actions toward Ukraine were no problem — because he believed that would help him get re-elected.
Huh? Is that really what Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, really said?
Yes.
“Essentially, if Trump withheld nearly $400 million in aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations of Democrats to help his campaign, that’s fine because Trump thinks his election is to the country’s benefit,” says NBC News.
There were three possible motives for a president to seek a quid pro quo — an exchange of something for something else — in foreign policy, Dershowitz said: 1) the public interest; 2) personal political interest, and 3) personal financial interest.
Of those, Dershowitz insisted, only the last is corrupt, and a legitimate reason for impeaching a president.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) responded that Dershowitz’s argument would throw open the door for such quid pro quos in the future, offering a hypothetical scenario to illustrate: what if President Obama had told Russia he’d withhold aid to Ukraine only if the Russians investigated his 2012 GOP opponent, Mitt Romney?
“Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that conduct?” Schiff asked the assembled senators.
The Twitterverse quickly lit up, saying Dershowitz was making “a crazy argument.”
