Alan Dershowitz is calling the media out this morning, specifically CNN and MSNBC, who he says are willfully distorting what he said on the Senate floor yesterday when he discussed how a president can act both in the public interest and in the interest of his campaign and it not be a quid pro quo that necessitates impeachment.
First, here’s a short clip from yesterday of Dershowitz making the argument that the media is distorting:
Essentially, Dershowitz says CNN and MSNBC are claiming he argued a president can do anything as long as he believes it’s in the public interest (like a dictator).
But he said that is just not true and he explains his argument again below:
Taking advantage of the fact most of their viewers didn’t actually hear the senate Q and A, CNN, MSNBC and some other media willfully distorted my answers. More to Come
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
What I said was that there are 3 broad categories of relevant motive:
1) pure national interest ( help the military)
2) pure corrupt motive ( get a kickback) And 3) mixed motive (help the national interest in a way that helps your reelection efforts )
(MTC)— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
I said that the 3rd was often the reality of politics and that helping one's own re-election efforts cannot — by itself— necessarily be deemed corrupt.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
I gave as an example mixed motive President Lindon’s decision to send troops home from the battlefield to Indiana so that they would vote for his party. He genuinely believed that his party’s victory in Indiana was essential to the war effort, but it also helped him politically.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
I gave another hypothetical. President Obama promised to bomb Syrian military targets if Assad used chemical weapons. He broke his promise. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
What it if turned out that a reason he broke his promise was that his political advisors warned him that bombing Syria would lose him votes among the hard left? (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
My point is that these are complex issues and that the Framers did not intend impeachment for mixed motive decisions that contain an element of personal partisan benefit. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
Anyone watching my answer would know that it was in response to the manager’s claim that any electoral benefit would constitute an impeachable quid pro quo. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
I pointed out how open ended that argument is because politicians honestly believe that their reelection helps the national interest. (MTC)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020
I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 30, 2020