Mr. Dershowitz did not try to deny that
Trump colluded with the Russians, instead he admitted it. His stated
reason for admitting it is that a denial of the collusion would
not be credible! On that point he is obviously right. The
public record alone makes Trump's denials about the hacking and his
collusion with the Russians patently absurd. So how do you defend a
guilty client. If you are Alan Dershowitz and your client is the
President you argue that there is no law that protects “we the
people” from the President's dangerous and unethical acts even when
those acts involve colluding with an adversarial foreign power!
One of the things Mr. Dershowitz is
ignoring in making this argument is the Emoluments Clause of the
Constitution, which states in part that “...no Person holding any
Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of
the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of
any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
There is now pending a civil lawsuit filed against Donald Trump by
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. This suit
alleges among other things that all of the conflicts of interest
created by representatives of foreign governments patronizing Trump's
hotels, golf courses, and other businesses are in violation of the Emoluments Cause.
Whether this suit will succeed or not I
cannot say, but the fear our founding fathers expressed about the
corrupting influence of foreign powers makes it very clear that the
Emoluments Clause is to be interpreted broadly. In fact I agree with
the attorneys who argue that colluding with Russian hackers and
trolls to use the materials stolen through hacking is a violation of
the Emoluments Clause. The hackers stole emails because those emails
and the information contained therein have value. Indeed, candidates
spend tens of thousands of dollars for opposition research. What was
the price Trump paid for the benefits he reaped from the use of that
information? I fear that it may be higher than any of us suspect.
And yes, I believe that conspiracy laws and laws about knowingly
receiving stolen property may also apply to the case at hand
regardless of what Mr. Dershowitz contends. Furthermore, Mr. Dershowitz' likening of the Trump campaign's use of the stolen information to a news paper publishing something like the Pentagon papers is utter nonsense; the Emoluments Clause applies to office holders not to the news media!
Not argued at the Ari Melber's moot
court are the obstruction of justice allegations, and it is the
obstruction of justice and abuse of power allegations that may prove
to be most dangerous to Trump. The purpose of any legitimate
investigation is to uncover the facts. Whether those facts indicate
that a crime has been committed is for a prosecutor and then a court
to determine. It is illegal to interfere with or obstruct an
investigation conducted by a government agency or prosecutor
regardless of whether or not the investigation would have uncovered
criminal or illegal acts. Therefore, even if you accept Dershowitz'
contention that Trump did nothing illegal in regard to the hacking
and Russia's interference with our election, Trump's firing of FBI
Director Comey and other acts he has committed in an effort to
interfere with the investigations of him and Russia were and are
criminal acts.
I might add here that it is not for Mr.
Dershowitz to tell a jury what the law is, that is done by a judge
who reads the jury instructions to the jury. So a moot court as
constituted on the show may not have been the best forum for an
argument that should be made in a summary judgment motion or some
other motion to dismiss.
