Alan Dershowitz Lashes Out at CNN ‘Bullies,’ Flails to Explain His Contradictory Impeachment Claims: ‘I’m Much More Correct Now’

Alan Dershowitz, attorney for President Donald Trump’s Senate trial defense, lashed out at the “two bullies” he appeared with on CNN — host Anderson Cooper and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin — for pressing him on his obvious, contradictory arguments about what constitutes an impeachable offense.

During a Monday night segment on Cooper’s AC360, Dershowitz was confronted with a 1998 clip, unearthed the day before by CNN, where he confidently argued that no underlying crime was necessary to impeach a president who “corrupts the office” and “who abuses trust and who poses a great danger to our liberty.” That archival footage appeared to directly contradict Dershowitz’s Constitutional interpretation from last Friday, when he boldly claimed on MSNBC’s The Beat that “abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense.”

Confronted with the clip on air for the first time, Dershowitz began to mightily spin his past argument to comport with his current defense of Trump.

“Well, that’s true. You don’t need a technical crime,” Dershowitz said, while Cooper and Toobin faces betrayed serious disbelief. “That’s my position today. I’ve said right from the beginning you need criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason. Remember…”

“But that’s not what you said then,” Cooper pointed out.

“That’s what I said then. It’s what I said now,” Dershowitz offered up in defiance of reality, as Toobin broke into laughter.

“No, you didn’t say criminal-like behavior,” Cooper noted, reading directly from the transcript of Dershowitz’s past comments. “You said: ‘completely corrupts the office of president, abuses trust, imposes great danger.'”

“Because the issue — that issue was not before anybody,” Dershowitz said, now taking a different tack. “In the [President Bill] Clinton case, he was charged with a crime. Now the issue is whether or not you need criminal-type behavior. I’ve done a lot more research. Back then I took the word of many academics who said that.”

“So you were wrong?” Cooper said, summing up.

“No, I wasn’t wrong,” Dershowitz insisted. “I have a more sophisticated basis for my argument now having Justice [Benjamin] Curtis’ opinion and other opinions. It’s very clear now that what you need is criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason. What is very clear is obstruction of justice, I’m sorry, obstruction of Congress or abuse of power aren’t even close to what the Framers had in mind. And I will show that during my speech by going through all of the debates in Congress, Blackstone’s commentaries.”

“I mean, the two — the two statements cannot be reconciled,” Toobin stated, acknowledging the reality Dershowitz that would not. “One is right or one is wrong. And the one in 1998 is right.”

After heavy cross talk about past arguments and law professors by Toobin and Dershowitz, Cooper zeroed on the facts at hand.

“Professor, let’s not talk about a hypothetical,” the CNN host said to Dershowitz. “I want to go back. Previously, you said it doesn’t have to be a crime if the person in office completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and poses as great danger to our liberty, that is impeachable. Now you’re saying criminal-like. So corrupting the office of the president, is that in your criminal-lite or criminal-like behavior?”

“No, it’s not,” Dershowitz replied. “And that was rejected by the Framers.”

“So, you were wrong back then?” Cooper asked.

“I was saying that I’m much more correct right now, having done much more research.”

“Much more correct? What does that mean?” Cooper shot back.

“Let me explain,” Dershowitz pleaded. “Please don’t shut me off. Two against one here. Let me make my point.”

“I didn’t do research back then…” Dershowitz began to acknowledge, as Toobin once again chuckled.

“Ok, so you were wrong,” Cooper pointed out once more.

“Please let me finish,” Dershowitz shot back. “Because that issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment. Everybody knew that he was charged with a crime. The issue is whether it was a hard crime. Now the issue is whether a crime or criminal-like behavior is required. I’ve done all the research.”

“So you didn’t do the research back then. Got it,” Cooper noted.

“I didn’t do the research back then, because that wasn’t an issue,” Dershowitz repeated, yet again, still refusing to concede his analysis was, at any point, wrong, prompting Cooper to look off-camera in astonishment and then crack up. “I’ve done the research now. I wasn’t wrong. I am just far more correct now than I was then. I said you didn’t need a technical crime back then.”

Perhaps sensing that Cooper and Toobin were not buying his constant attempts at contorting his past comments, Dershowitz, a lawyer, who gets paid to suss out the tiniest nuances and details in the law, now complained: “And I think your viewers are entitled to hear my argument without two bullies jumping on everything I say, trying to pinpoint and nitpick on what I said. Let’s talk what the issues are instead of trying to attack the messenger.”

“I don’t think anybody’s attacking the messenger,” Cooper correctly pointed out, in what had been a very civil and measured debate over Dershowitz’s actual words. “I think, rationally, look, I’m not a lawyer nor have I studied law and I didn’t go to Harvard, but what you’re saying, the words you are speaking do not jibe with what you said in the past, and yet you’re not saying what you said in the past is wrong.”

Watch the video above, via CNN.