Naval Lawyer Delivers a Kill Shot to the Left's Uproar Over Trump's Airstrikes...
Can You Guess Which Commentator These Hollywood Actors Are Mad at Regarding How...
Jewish Parents Furious at School Over Muslim Club's Pro-Hamas Display
Trump Was Right to Slam the Brakes on Fuel-Efficiency Standards
Damning Watchdog Report Reveals 'Large-Scale Systemic Failures' Leading to Obamacare Subsi...
Tech Billionaire Drops $6.25 Billion Donation to Jump-Start Trump Accounts for 25 Million...
Time for a Midterm Contract With America
Democrats Fuel Racial Strife to Get Votes
Supreme Court Should Not Let Climate Lawfare Set US Energy Policy
Former High-Level DEA Official Charged With Narcoterrorism in Alleged Plot to Aid CJNG...
Florida Man Convicted of Attempted Murder of Two Federal Officers in ATF Raid
DOJ Settlement Forces Constellation to Sell Six Power Plants in $26.6B Calpine Merger
Trump’s Not the First to Invoke Old Laws
Panic-Stricken Climate Alarmists Resort to Bolder Lies
Fear and Ideological Conformity Cannot Win on College Campuses
Tipsheet

Dershowitz Reacts to Criticism of His Latest Defense Presentation

AP Photo/Richard Drew

Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued in his presentation in the Senate on Wednesday that if a president believed his re-election was in the "public interest," then whatever quid pro quo he might be accused of is moot. Democrats and the media mocked the Harvard law professor and tried to discredit him. According to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), he and his colleagues couldn't roll their eyes hard enough while Dershowitz was speaking.

Advertisement

The lawyer and Trump defense team member responded on Twitter with a few clarifications about the motives that may drive a president to act the way he or she does.

For his third point - that helping own's re-election effort is not necessarily akin to corruption - Dershowitz used the policies of the 16th president of the United States as precedent.

Dershowitz shared a few more excerpts from his argument. For example, he asked the jurors to consider a what if scenario. What if President Obama decided to break his promise to bomb Syria for their chemical weapons attack because it would have cost him Democratic votes?

Advertisement

Related:

IMPEACHMENT

The lawyer used these hypotheticals to conclude that the Framers "did not intend impeachment for mixed motive decisions that contain an element of personal partisan benefit."

"Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack," Dershowitz tweets in closing.

Some Republican senators like Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) defended the lawyer to explain that "he was talking about rooting out corruption." And that, she said, is in the public interest.

Democrats have been hammering for more witnesses, but that effort appears to have been effectively stopped. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to have the votes needed to block that effort, end the trial, and acquit the president.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos