Why Did Trump Choose Dershowitz for the Impeachment Arguments?
The question of why Donald Trump chose Alan Dershowitz to defend him during the impeachment hearings has puzzled many. A common argument posits that no reputable constitutional scholar would be willing to support Dershowitz's arguments. However, this assertion has been challenged, highlighting the intricacies of this legal battle and the factors behind Trump's choice.
Understanding the Context
Trump's decision to choose Dershowitz over other potential defenders, who might have more conventional support within the GOP, was strategic. He needed someone who wasn't seen as merely a political crony but could also provide expert legal arguments. Dershowitz, a renowned constitutional scholar, fit the bill as he had the necessary authority and credibility to stand in this controversial role.
One might wonder why Trump didn't just select another Republican scholar. The answer lies in the potential for accusations of partisanship. The impeachment proceedings were highly politicized, and a Republican scholar might appear biased in favor of defending the then-president. In contrast, Dershowitz, while not a Trump supporter, is a liberal Democrat, adding an element of impartiality to his defense.
Questioning the Relevance of Partisanship
The central question here isn't about a scholar's political leanings but their willingness to present a robust defense based on constitutional principles. Democrats could have chosen a Republican to argue their case if they considered the political landscape and potential repercussions. The issue then becomes: why did Trump choose Dershowitz if no reputable scholar would do so?
One potential reason is that Dershowitz, a vocal and prominent legal figure, could bring significant media attention and public interest to the defense. His presence would likely generate more media coverage, sell more books, and increase the overall impact of the impeachment proceedings.
Limitations and Consequences of Challenging Constitutional Norms
The impeachment defense by Dershowitz underscores the limits of pushing constitutional boundaries. Dershowitz is known for his work in defending controversial cases and individuals, a part of his reputation that has been both praised and criticized. While his defense of guilty parties could be seen as a strength, it has sometimes drawn scrutiny and controversy.
It is noteworthy that Dershowitz has an impressive record as a constitutional law scholar. His past work has often centered on defending individuals from controversial legal charges. This aspect of his career might have been the deciding factor for Trump, as it aligns with the need for a more stringent defense during the impeachment proceedings.
Career and Reputation
Alan Dershowitz's career has involved many high-profile cases, including representing individuals in controversial situations. His defense of Dinesh Thruppa (a Hindu activist), Hispanic gang members, and communists in the 1950s has cemented his reputation as an aggressive and tenacious legal advocate. Dershowitz's willingness to take on these cases, regardless of the ethical or public opinion surrounding them, speaks to his championing of constitutional principles.
Furthermore, Dershowitz's status as a well-known legal scholar and his continued involvement in defending controversial cases, such as suggesting legislative changes to the child custody laws during the Florida section of the 2000 election, illustrate his commitment to constitutional law.
The unique position of arguing for someone accused of misconduct has made Dershowitz a prominent figure in legal and political debates. His reputation as a constitutional law scholar is based on his ability to defend clients and challenges to the legal system, making him a valuable resource during the impeachment proceedings.
Conclusion
Donald Trump's decision to choose Alan Dershowitz for the impeachment defense was a calculated move that leveraged Dershowitz's wide-ranging legal expertise and strong reputation as a constitutional scholar. While some argue that no reputable scholar would support Dershowitz's defense, his own record and contributions to legal scholarship provide a compelling reason for Trump's choice. The controversy surrounding this decision brings to light the intricate relationship between law, politics, and free speech.