Democrats have been repeatedly beating the impeachment drum, saying that it's absolutely necessary to hear from witnesses in order to "get to the bottom" of what really happened with President Donald Trump and the military aid to Ukraine.
Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump's defense team who argued the Democrats' impeachment sham doesn't fit the terms of "high crimes and misdemeanors" laid out in the Constitution, appeared on "The View" to discuss the trial. Naturally, Dershowitz was asked about witnesses.
Specifically, Meghan McCain asked Dershowitz how the left could strengthen their case and convince the American people and potential skeptics that President Trump did, in fact, do something wrong.
"it's not my job to tell the Democrats how to make a better case. I think they needed evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors," he replied. "Look, I'm in this process because I love my country and I love the Constitution and I don't want to see the Constitution weaponized into a political tactic that can be used against any president."
Dershowitz made the point that the next president could be a Democrat and a Republican-controlled House could move forward with their own version of a sham impeachment process.
"They will impeach him on abuse of power. On the floor of the Senate I listed 40 American presidents who have been accused of abusing their power. From Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln to current presidents," he explained. "You can't use the concept of abuse of power. It's too broad. It's not in the Constitution. And I'm here to defend the Constitution, not any particular president. I'm here to defend future presidents as well as the current president."
Recommended
He reiterated House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler's (D-NY) previous statements that impeachment should be overwhelmingly bipartisan, something reminded the cohosts doesn't exist.
"Let me ask you something. Do you think, professor, that Trump should go under oath like Clinton did?" Joy Behar asked.
Dershowitz made the point that in his 50-year career as a lawyer he never put any of his clients on the witness stand "because it's easy to lay perjury chaps for people." He said Trump wants to testify but his personal attorneys have advised him not to.
"Alan, you just mentioned that you’ve been a lawyer for a long time and you have been a defense attorney. Even with the new Bolton revelations, we still don’t have a guarantee that Republicans will vote to hear from Bolton, and my question is, what kind of trial have you seen that doesn’t have witnesses or evidence? I mean —” Sunny Hostin said.
“Many, many,” he replied.
She was clearly taken aback by the answer.
“Okay, but if Trump didn’t commit a crime, why not let the evidence and witnesses back him up?" she asked. "Because in my experience as a prosecutor, defendants always have a list of witnesses that exonerate them.”
Dershowitz responded by setting up a hypothetical scenario.
“Let me ask you a question. You’re a prosecutor. You indict somebody for dishonesty, not a crime, dishonesty—” he said.
“I didn’t indict people for that—” Hostin interjected.
“Let me — that’s my point,” he replied. "If you ever indicted someone on a crime, you wouldn't have witnesses. You would have a motion to dismiss. Judge would dismiss it. I've had cases like that, which I've won based on no witnesses because no crime has been charged. I argue no impeachable offense has been charged. If I'm right, there are no witnesses. If I'm wrong then the rule has to be that if one side can call witnesses, the other side must be able to call witnesses. We must have equality."
"Okay. Fine," Hostin said.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member