Entire MSNBC Panel Goes On a Tear Against Alan Dershowitz: ‘I Don’t Think Harvard’s Happy Tonight’
Alan Dershowitz‘s defense of the impeachment of President Donald Trump was ripped apart and blasted my a power panel on MSNBC’s special coverage of the trial with MSNBC host Chris Hayes, billing Dershowitz’s defense as a “heterodox dissident” interpretation.
“I would not have thought that the president can’t be impeached for something that isn’t a crime would have been a sort of hill they were going to die on here,” Rachel Maddow stated as the pannel began to take turns blasting Dershowitz’s senate defense of the case for impeachment against Trump.
Chuck Rosenberg, a former Department of Justice attorney, began the panel by discrediting both Dershowitz’s defense and pointing him to Alexander Hamilton‘s writing in early founding documents.
“He went from the great weight of legal authority and analysis to a distinctly minority position. And in fact, one of the people that he now stands in opposition to in holding that you need a crime or crime-like behavior in order to impeach is a fellow named Alexander Hamilton who had something to say about this in Federalist 65,” stated Rosenberg.
Rosenberg continued by adding that Dershowitz “himself admitted tonight, he is in the minority position. We heard a lot of very thoughtful academics in the House explain precisely why abuse of power and trust ought to be impeachable. I think that’s where the better argument lies.”
Maddow then stepped in to blast GOP senators for thinking Dershowitz’s defense of Trump in primetime would be a show stopper.
“It is remarkable that this is really the apex of their case. They’re doing this in primetime on Monday. They spent almost no time — they spent almost none of their hours on Saturday so they could finish up with Dershowitz in primetime on Monday night. They think this is the biggest audience they’re going to get. It was this sort of novel and experimental legal theory that impeachment isn’t what you think it is, and therefore we should never use it,” Maddow stated.
Former Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) then ripped Dershowitz by stating, “I don’t think Harvard’s happy tonight. You know, Harvard holds a place in the legal community as one where the academics are excellent, and the professors are thoughtful.”
McCaskill then made an analogy arguing that if the president went on vacation for a year, she believes Dershowitz would argue that would not be an impeachable offense.
Hayes then took aim at Dershowitz’s legal theory in defense of Trump.
“The weakest argument he made I thought was just because they allege specific crimes within the articles of impeachment, that doesn’t work because the article of impeachment is not alleging a crime. It’s alleging abuse of power. But underlying that abuse of power, they lay out the crimes. And so it really I thought it was sad. He is on a very lonely island,” Hayes stated.
“I thought — it was essentially a kind of heterodox dissident interpretation of what the sort of scholarship says on this, given to you by Alan Dershowitz… I will say this. It was at least a legal argument,” Hayes continued.
Making light of Dershowitz’s legal theory regarding the impeachment, Hayes slammed Dershowitz for at least having “the legal arguments with legal citations.”
“So he was making an argument — I thought it was a tangentious one, but the legal arguments with legal citations and all that stuff and not quite the level of weird bad faith disingenuous trolling that other people have done. Okay, let’s have an argument about this sort of constitutional scholarship,” Hayes concluded.
Watch above, via MSNBC.
Have a tip we should know? firstname.lastname@example.org