"Old Age That is Tied To Me As To a Dog's Tail"

As an academic myself, I watch @AlanDersh do what he's doing, and I say to the screen, "Doesn't he have people who love him? Everyone has someone. Where is his family?" pic.twitter.com/CEe0picswv

— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) January 29, 2020

Alan Dershowitz really needs to stop:

"[Elizabeth] Warren doesn't understand the law," he tweeted Tuesday. "My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me."

"Everybody else seemed to understand"?  Dershowitz has repeatedly said one scholar who agrees with some of the tenets of his argument is an absolute refutation that "no one" agrees with him (when "no one" clearly refers to the great weight of authorities, not to the exception that proves the rule).  So how do we interpret "everyone else" under the Dershowitz rubric?  Turns out Jeffrey Toobin answered that question, but it comes in another conversation that we'll get to in a minute.

Dershowitz alleged that Warren, his former colleague at Harvard Law School, "willfully mischaracterized what I said," adding that "it's the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law."

And how about Presidents?  Trump has repeatedly taken credit for signing a bill into law which Obama signed in 2014.  Trump has repeatedly said Art. II of the Constitution gives him unlimited powers.  Trump's ignorance of the law of the land is almost legendary.  Why does Dershowitz defend Trump, but denigrate Warren, on this issue?  More of his super-clever reasoning that "everybody else" understands?

Following an argument, and following the purported legal reasoning in an argument, are two different things.  There are two standards of measure involved.  An argument can be sound, but legally baseless.  A legal argument can be sound, but unpersuasive and poorly presented.  A well-presented argument can be legal nonsense.

To be fair, I didn't hear Dershowitz' argument to the Senate, and I haven't read a transcript.  But it was so bad Josh Marshall trashed it succinctly.  And was it really any better than this exchange?

“I mean, Alan, you are equating maladministration with the abuse of power,” said Toobin. “You are the only scholar who does that.”

“Again, you’re wrong,” said Dershowitz. “Let me give you a cite. Today’s New York Times,” Professor Nicholas Bowie says that almost exactly. He says that maladministration, abuse of office, abuse of power — read it in The New York Times.”

Stop right there, because that's an appeal to authority, and nothing more.  Dershowitz again hides behind another law professor who seems to agree with Dershowitz' reasoning (although he doesn't, as we shall see).  Dershowitz seems to think one law professor who can be said to agree with Dershowitz' argument is a devastating riposte to Toobin's argument.  But really:  twice nothing is still nothing.  And it gets worse:

“And I’ve read that article and let me finish, Alan. Let me finish,” said Toobin. “Nicholas Bowie, in that article, says you are wrong!”

“That’s right. And that’s why it makes his argument so much stronger,” said Dershowitz. “He thinks I’m wrong and yet he agrees with me that maladministration, abuse of power and abuse of office are essentially the same. I’m not quoting him for his conclusion. You can quote him from his conclusion. I’m quoting him for the point that you just made saying no scholars think abuse of power is the same as maladministration.”

“The best you can do is quote a scholar who thinks you’re wrong?” said Toobin.

QED.  One scholar.  And that scholar thinks Dershowitz is wrong.  Yeah, powerful argument you got there, Professor.

“Jeff, why is abuse of power an impeachable offense?” asked Cooper.

“Because impeachment is about what the president can do wrong,” said Toobin. “It is about abuse of the office of president. This is the difference between the Clinton impeachment and this impeachment. Anybody can lie about sex in the grand jury. Only a president can withhold aid from a congressionally authorized taxpayer money in return for dirt for his political enemies. That abuse of presidential power is exactly what Alexander Hamilton was talking about in Federalist No. 65. It is why there is an enormous consensus that abuse of power is an impeachable offense that only you and the president’s lawyers think is not an impeachable offense.”

“Let me make a categorical statement,” said Dershowitz. “If Hillary Clinton were under impeachment for abuse of power, virtually all the scholars that say abuse of power is an impeachable offense would be on the other side. They do not pass the shoe on the other foot test.”

“How do you know?” said Toobin incredulously. “You know every law professor?”

Toobin nicely turns Dershowitz' idiotic argument against him.  But Dershowitz wasn't done yet.

“Do you think there’s abuse of power?” Cooper asked Dershowitz directly.

“I don’t think we get to that issue, whether he abused his power,” said Dershowitz. “Did George Washington abuse his power?”

A question worthy of Donald Trump.  Honestly, I think we need to set an upper age limit on Presidents, beyond which the candidate cannot seek office.  Too damned many really old people in this country now, and too damned many of them clearly incapacitated and incapable of providing leadership, or counsel to leadership.  I'm quite serious about this.  I don't know that Trump's problem is age alone, but he and Dershowitz are both older than me, and I'm thinking more and more 65 is a pretty good retirement age.  Trump definitely has other problems, but old age is one of them not to be overlooked.