This weekend during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, President Donald Trump’s controversial impeachment defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz — whose past clients include O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein — attempted to defend himself against the criticism of some of the more outlandish commentary that he’s delivered during Trump’s trial. Although the tape of his remarks publicly aired and remains publicly available, Dershowitz tried to insist that actually, when he said the president couldn’t be impeached for helping his re-election campaign, he meant to offer some kind of grand deference to the law. But in reality, it’s all right there — Dershowitz claimed that Trump securing a political kickback for himself was a-okay, no matter whether he was trying to rope in just precedent or every word in the Constitution itself as justification for the scheme.
He told host Chris Wallace:
‘It matters if what the president did is illegal or wrong. But if the president did something completely lawful, the fact that part of his motivation may have been to help his election can not be the quid pro quo. That’s what I said. I never said, I don’t mean, and I don’t believe that the president can do anything if he thinks it’s in the national interest. I supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon!.. These folks have totally, deliberately distorted what I said… It was deliberately wrenched out of context.’
In the original scrutinized moment on the Senate floor, Dershowitz had said the following:
‘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.’
So now, he’s trying to justify that by insisting that actually, he simply meant to tie Trump’s supposed protection of the national interest to the law, and voila — it’s okay. Nope. Besides — the president did break the law, according to the federal government agency known as the Government Accountability Office! They concluded that the delay on Congressionally approved aid for Ukraine meant as leverage to get them to investigate the Bidens was illegal.
But Dershowitz went on to not just ignore the implications of his brazenly outlandish original argument. He also complained about the supposed negative effects on his personal reputation. Remember, this guy’s clients include O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. And now, he’s complaining about his reputation! Irony is dead, apparently.
Dershowitz commented to Wallace:
‘It has hurt me. People think I actually believe a president like Nixon can do whatever he wants. It’s exactly the opposite!.. How dare they willfully and deliberately distort my position and then not give me an opportunity to respond!’
Watch:
MUST WATCH: Alan Dershowitz responds to political and media backlash over his controversial comments in defense of the President on the Senate floor. #FNS #FoxNews #ImpeachmentTrial pic.twitter.com/zIAlVjglKx
— FoxNewsSunday (@FoxNewsSunday) February 2, 2020
Well here’s your response time right here, Alan. What did he want them to do, invite him to give a speech from the Rose Garden? Have him in for a state dinner where he was the guest of honor? He’s a living example of gross entitlement — which seems right at home with Trump.
The Senate trial is set to conclude this week following Republican Senators voting down a proposal to include witness testimony. The final vote, when Trump will presumably be ruled innocent by complicit Republicans, is set for Wednesday.
