Fake News
In our current political climate it is difficult to determine what is fact and what is fiction. In the past when a President, Press Secretary, or Senior Counselor spoke, we generally understood that what they were saying was the truth as they knew it. The general honesty of those holding high office was expected. There is the story of President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis,determing whether to inform his press secretary Pierre Salinger about the seriousness of the situation. His decision: don’t tell Pierre because it would force him to lie to the press. His honesty was more important than his knowing what was going on.
Fiction is distraction: “red herrings” or “straw men.” Bring up a past action by Hillary Clinton like Uranium One or who investigated her emails to keep America’s focus from the pinpoint targeting of the Mueller investigations. Use Fox News to keep the “Trumpsters” from falling into the trap of the truth. And if all else fails, tweet, tweet, tweet.
Alan Dershowitz, retired Harvard professor of law, has made himself a “planet” in the alternative universe that is the Trump/Fox world. Dershowitz brings a unique set of credentials to the cause. He made his bones representing the highest profile clients. Patty Hearst, Mike Tyson, Claus Van Bulow, and most notably, OJ Simpson are on his list.
Dershowitz has liberal credentials and is an avowed Clinton supporter, but he has always been a hawk when it comes to Israel. He was vocal in his criticism of the Obama administration for taking an “even hand” in the Middle East, and supports the Kushner/Trump policy of siding completely with Israel. He even threatened to leave the Democratic party if Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, were chosen as Chairman.
Dershowitz is presenting an “alternate” view of the current Presidential crisis. His argument: that whatever actions were taken by the Trump campaign to contact, coordinate or conspire (collude) with the Russian government to change the election doesn’t matter, as there is no law against it. He further argues that, no matter how reprehensible those actions may be, the Mueller investigation itself is the danger to our political system. The investigation represents, in his view, an effort to de-legitimatize the outcome of the election, and by doing so, threatens the whole American political process.
Dershowitz states that the statutes the could be used: charges of taking campaign aid from a foreign government, coordinating the use of stolen emails, and making “quid pro quo” deals with Russia, do not apply to what was done by the Trump campaign. In fact, he even suggests that the charges of obstruction of justice against Trump and those around him may be moot, as the underlying offenses aren’t really against the law.
He is a distraction: a “liberal” who has taken the Trump side. Lawyer after lawyer, from fellow Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe to multiple federal prosecutors debunk his arguments. He has taken this contrarian view, perhaps to further his own political goals for Israel: a “wolf” in liberal “sheep’s clothing.”
There will be more distractions like Dershowitz. Trump may soon create one himself by agreeing to Israel’s demand that Jerusalem be recognized as their capital. The fact that this will disrupt and possibly destabilize the Middle East is small price for him to pay for the change of topic from his judicial woes. And that won’t be “fake news.”
This morning (Monday) on Fox News – Alan Deshowitz premised the following:
– the President of the United States – in his role as the chief law enforcement officer on the US – cannot obstruct justice
– the President of the United States – can legally fire the FBI director for any reason as he is the President
Dershowitz sees this ultimate power of the Presidency as based on his ability to appoint and direct the members of the executive department, of which the Dept of Justice is one.
However, US Constitution Article II, Section 3 states: “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”
As the President, if he himself has violated those laws such as accepting aid from a foreign government in a campaign, or acting to keep evidence of that action from the Justice Department, then he would have failed to “faithfully execute” the laws. Dershowitz would argue that those laws somehow do not apply – creating a “king” for a President, with impeachment or election, the only processes that apply to him. While the Constitution does NOT state that the President is immune from prosecution, this is an “assumed” but not stated power of the President. The assumption is that since Congress is given the power to impeach and convict the President, that is the ONLY approved Constitutional method.
Dershowitz does have one point (though I think he is serving as another distraction from the acts of Trump.) The ultimate answer – impeach and convict Trump.