01-28-2020, 08:40 AM
Anyway, while the history he cited in his argument is accurate (as far as I can tell), Dershowitz's interpretation/application of the history in attempt to defend his client Trump is self-serving and lacks credibility, to me.
Dershowitz can call himself a 'constitutional scholar rather than a defense attorney in this case' all he wants. But, he is in fact one of Trump's defense attorneys and is thus putting forth a historical foundation and personal interpretation which suits his client's purposes -- "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" kind of deal.
In fact, Dershowitz has made the exact opposite public arguments regarding criminal statutes as they relate to impeachment throughout his whole career, up til now. His constitutional interpretation and application was correct back then (when he didn't have a horse in the race), not now, in my opinion.
Dershowitz can call himself a 'constitutional scholar rather than a defense attorney in this case' all he wants. But, he is in fact one of Trump's defense attorneys and is thus putting forth a historical foundation and personal interpretation which suits his client's purposes -- "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" kind of deal.
In fact, Dershowitz has made the exact opposite public arguments regarding criminal statutes as they relate to impeachment throughout his whole career, up til now. His constitutional interpretation and application was correct back then (when he didn't have a horse in the race), not now, in my opinion.