Alan Dershowitz says his job is to defend the Constitution, 'not any particular president'
HotGirl
2020-01-30
Views 1
Alan Dershowitz, a key member of President Donald Trump’s legal team amid the ongoing impeachment trial, joined ABC’s "The View" on Wednesday, arguing that his job is to defend the Constitution, "not any particular president."
"I'm here to defend the Constitution, not any particular president," he said. "I'm here to defend future presidents, as well as the current president."
His arguments against impeachment have largely been constitutional during the Senate trial, centered on the idea that the two articles of impeachment brought forth by the House against Trump -- "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" -- are not impeachable offenses.
Dershowitz, a celebrity lawyer and Harvard emeritus, told the hosts he would have made the same argument regardless of the president on trial.
"I would have been making exactly the same argument if Hillary Clinton was elected president and if she had been impeached for abuse of power or obstruction of Congress," he said, adding "the framers rejected terms just like that. They rejected maladministration as a potential term. And maladministration is virtually the same as abuse of power."
News broke on Sunday of an unpublished manuscript by former national security adviser John Bolton detailing a conversation between him and Trump about the nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine being held up pending an investigation into the president's political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The New York Times article in a way changed the conversation on whether witnesses should be allowed on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial -- and what Bolton, if subpoenaed, would say has been the source of much speculation.
When asked about the news, Dershowitz told "The View" hosts that he won't argue against witnesses, but said Bolton's testimony still wouldn't hold up against the president.
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense." he said, adding that House Democrats can't change that just by using words like "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit."
Bolton and other current and former White House aides have been barred by the White House from testifying, although Bolton said he would testify under subpoena.
"The one thing that's very clear is that if witnesses are permitted on one side, they have to be permitted on both sides," Dershowitz said in an interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Jan. 19. "And if witnesses are permitted, it will delay the trial considerably, because the president will invoke executive privilege as to people like John Bolton that will have to go to the court and we'll have to have a resolution of that before the trial continues."
Talking over each other and Dershowitz, the hosts also pressed the lawyer on why he seems to be the only constitutional scholar arguing that Trump's conduct wasn't impeachable.
"I'm here to defend the Constitution, not any particular president," he said. "I'm here to defend future presidents, as well as the current president."
His arguments against impeachment have largely been constitutional during the Senate trial, centered on the idea that the two articles of impeachment brought forth by the House against Trump -- "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" -- are not impeachable offenses.
Dershowitz, a celebrity lawyer and Harvard emeritus, told the hosts he would have made the same argument regardless of the president on trial.
"I would have been making exactly the same argument if Hillary Clinton was elected president and if she had been impeached for abuse of power or obstruction of Congress," he said, adding "the framers rejected terms just like that. They rejected maladministration as a potential term. And maladministration is virtually the same as abuse of power."
News broke on Sunday of an unpublished manuscript by former national security adviser John Bolton detailing a conversation between him and Trump about the nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine being held up pending an investigation into the president's political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The New York Times article in a way changed the conversation on whether witnesses should be allowed on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial -- and what Bolton, if subpoenaed, would say has been the source of much speculation.
When asked about the news, Dershowitz told "The View" hosts that he won't argue against witnesses, but said Bolton's testimony still wouldn't hold up against the president.
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense." he said, adding that House Democrats can't change that just by using words like "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit."
Bolton and other current and former White House aides have been barred by the White House from testifying, although Bolton said he would testify under subpoena.
"The one thing that's very clear is that if witnesses are permitted on one side, they have to be permitted on both sides," Dershowitz said in an interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Jan. 19. "And if witnesses are permitted, it will delay the trial considerably, because the president will invoke executive privilege as to people like John Bolton that will have to go to the court and we'll have to have a resolution of that before the trial continues."
Talking over each other and Dershowitz, the hosts also pressed the lawyer on why he seems to be the only constitutional scholar arguing that Trump's conduct wasn't impeachable.
Report form
RELATED VIDEOS
