Tag: trump defense
Dershowitz’s Poisoned Defense

Dershowitz’s Poisoned Defense

Americans ought to thank Alan Dershowitz for his scintillating defense of President Donald Trump. Carried away on a crescendo of bluster, the retired Harvard law professor broadcast the true meaning of the acquittal preordained by crooked Senate Republicans: This president is exempt from any legal consequences, even if he seeks foreign assistance to rig his own election.

While the Dershowitz defense provoked an eruption of astonished guffaws and jeers — with “preposterous” the most frequent term of derision — it is significant precisely because it is so absurd and so blatantly disdainful of American constitutional values. It is also important to understand why the professor found himself advancing such a claim as senators prepare to vote on witnesses.

To align his closing argument with the White House and the Republicans, Dershowitz abandoned all pretense that the president didn’t shake down his Ukrainian counterpart to mount an investigation of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden in exchange for military aid and political support. Forced to acknowledge what everyone now knows about that scheme, Dershowitz instead insisted that even though Trump engaged in a quid pro quo, he is still immune from impeachment.

Prone as he is to extensive bloviation, Dershowitz dressed up his claim in dubious analogies and historical misinterpretations, with inferences drawn from the Mideast conflict and the Civil War. (If you enjoy listening to Dershowitz’s voice as much as he does, you can find the full riff on YouTube.) But with all the froth boiled away, the essence of his argument is unmistakable.

“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. Mostly you are right. Your election is in the public interest,” said Dershowitz, asserting a judgment that is true of fewer than half the politicians upon whom he gazed. “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.” He suggested that such a deal would only be impeachable if motivated by financial gain.

Could “something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest” mean literally anything? Would shooting someone on Fifth Avenue be excused, too, or only “something” like extorting a hit job by a foreign power on a political opponent?

Eminent legal minds and Democratic senators pounced on the absurdity of Dershowitz’s statement — which blithely erased Trump’s corrupt abuse of power by attributing a pure motive to him. Dershowitz shot back, saying that the critics had willfully misinterpreted his words. But there is no way to parse them that is constitutionally palatable. They reek of a poison that would kill our system of free government.

Why would Dershowitz make this silly argument now? As fresh evidence of the criminal extortion scheme accumulates, including the possible testimony of former national security adviser John Bolton, this is the last defense left to the Trump lawyers. They know that the evidence overwhelmingly proves Trump is lying, and they don’t want that evidence paraded before the public on TV. Therefore, they must insist that the evidence wouldn’t matter. According to them, Trump is innocent even if he’s guilty, because he’s the president.

If that reminds you of someone you’d rather forget, it’s former President Richard Nixon, who blurted, “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Or, as Trump more crudely expressed in the dictatorial boast, “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Both of these strutting autocrats were wrong. So are the Senate Republicans who seem prepared to violate their oath in advancing a criminal cover-up. Their craven complicity in these outrages will outlive them all, including Dershowitz.

Meanwhile, perhaps gazing up from a very hot place, Roy Cohn must be smiling. At long last, he has some very distinguished company.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

How Trump’s Latest Tweet Against Michael Cohen Backfired

How Trump’s Latest Tweet Against Michael Cohen Backfired

President Donald Trump has been lambasting Michael Cohen again, tweeting on Friday morning that his former personal attorney and fixer “lied” to Congress when he said he never asked for a presidential pardon. According to legal expert Ross Garber, tweeting on this matter was “beyond ill-advised” for the president, Law & Crime reported.

When Cohen (who is set to begin serving a three-year prison sentence in May) publicly testified before the House Oversight Committee on February 27, he stated that he had no interest in a presidential pardon from Trump for any of the crimes he has pleaded guilty to and had not asked him for one. Trump’s tweet targeted this claim directly:

But in an official statement on Thursday, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, tried to make clear that he is not contradicting his client.

Davis has been representing Cohen since 2018. Prior to hiring him, Davis said, Cohen had a joint defense agreement with Trump’s legal team. And Davis said that the entire time he has been representing Cohen, the former Trump fixer has expressed no interest in a pardon from the president.

Davis stated that “after July 2, 2018, Mr. Cohen authorized me as a new lawyer to say publicly Mr. Cohen would never accept a pardon from President Trump even if offered. That continues to be the case. And his statement at the Oversight Hearing was true — and consistent with his post-joint defense agreement commitment to tell the truth.”

Davis’ statement did not “contradict” Cohen’s testimony that he had not asked Trump for a pardon. However, Cohen did ask his lawyers to discuss the issue with Trump’s legal team, Davis said — apparently drawing a distinction between asking about a pardon and requesting a pardon.

Davis told ABC News Cohen’s claim to Congress was “literally true,’” because his client “never asked President Trump for a pardon. His lawyer explored the disingenuous ‘dangle’ repeatedly floated by Rudy [Giuliani] and Trump in one meeting and never followed up.”

After Cohen’s Feb. 27 testimony, some of Trump’s Republican allies in Congress alleged that he committed perjury during his testimony. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Mark Meadows (who chairs the House Freedom Caucus) sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr asking the Justice Department to investigate him for perjury.

Trump’s new tweet on Friday about the pardon, if true, would show conclusively that Cohen misled Congress on the topic. But his former lawyer snapped back, calling the president a liar:

Garber, a CNN legal analyst, told Law & Crime, “It is beyond ill-advised for the president to be tweeting about this. Republicans have demanded that DOJ conduct a perjury investigation. And Trump just identified himself as a key witness.”

Trump has previously contradicted other witnesses’ testimony, but he has yet to testify under oath himself, as Lawfare executive editor Susan Hennessey observed: