Video and Transcript: Dershowitz answers question on Quid Pro Quo

Watch the video and read the transcript of Alan Dershowitz’s discussion of Quid Pro Quo during the 8th day of the Trump Impeachment trial in the Senate.

Read Transcript:

Chief Justice: The question is addressed to Counsel for the President. As a matter of law does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true the quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?

Alan Dershowitz: Chief Justice. Thank you very much for your question. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the rolling out of a peace plan by the President of the United States regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict and I offered you a hypothetical the other day. What if the democratic president where to be elected and Congress were to authorize much money to either Israel or the Palestinians, and the democratic president were to say to Israel, โ€˜No I’m going to withhold this money unless you stop all settlement growthโ€™, or to the Palestinians, โ€˜I will withhold the money Congress authorized to you unless you stop paying terrorist. And the President said, โ€˜quid pro quo, if you don’t do it, you don’t get the money, if you do it, you get the money.โ€™ Thereโ€™s no one in this chamber that would regard that as in any way unlawful. The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal.

Now, we talk about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure can have one a motive in the public interest and the Israel argument would be in the public interest. The second is in his own political interest and third, which hasn’t been mentioned, would be in his own financial interest, his own pure financial interest, putting money in the bank. I want to focus on the second one for just one moment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly you right, your election is in the public interest, and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

I quoted President Lincoln. When President Lincoln to General Sherman to let the troops go to Indiana so that they can vote for the Republican Party, let’s assume the president was running at that point and it was in his electoral interest to have these soldiers put it risk the lives of many, many other soldiers who would be left without their company. Would that be an unlawful quid pro quo? No, because the President, A believed that it was in the National interest, but B he believed that his own election was essential to victory in the Civil War.

Every president believes that, that’s why it’s so dangerous to try to psychoanalyze a president, to try to get into the intricacies of the human mind. Everybody has mixed motives, and for there to be a constitution impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached.

How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisors and their pollsters? If you’re just acting in the National interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisors? Just do what’s best for the country. But if you want to balance what’s in the public interest with what’s in your party’s electoral interest, in your own electoral interest, it’s impossible to discern how much weight is given to one to the other.

Now, we may argue that it’s not in the National interest for a particular president to get reelected, or for a particular senator or member of Congress, and maybe we’re right. It’s not in the National interest for everybody who’s running to be elected. But for it to be impeachable you would have to discern that he or she made a decision solely on the basis of, as the house manager put it, corrupt motives, and it canโ€™t be a corrupt motive if you have a mixed motive that partially involves a national interest, partly involves electoral, and does not involve personal pecuniary interests, and the house managers do not allege that this decision, this quid pro quo as they call in the question, is based on the hypothesis that was a quid pro quo, I’m not assessing the facts, they never alleged that it was based on pure financial reasons.

It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country โ€˜unless you build a hotel with my name on it, and unless you give me a million dollar kick back, I will withhold the funds.โ€™ Thatโ€™s and easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest, but a complex middle case is, โ€˜I want to be elected, I think I’m a greatest president there ever was, and if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly. That cannot be an impeachable offense, Thank you, Chief Justice.

The Thinking Conservative
The Thinking Conservativehttps://www.thethinkingconservative.com/
The goal of THE THINKING CONSERVATIVE is to help us educate ourselves on conservative topics of importance to our freedom and our pursuit of happiness. We do this by sharing conservative opinions on all kinds of subjects, from all types of people, and all kinds of media, in a way that will challenge our perceptions and help us to make educated choices.

Columns

Trans-wormal

No worm ever said "I am anthropomorphizing, I am a butterfly" to a toad or flock of geese and expected acknowledgement and support.

In Greenlandโ€™s Icy Capital, Past Troubles Haunt Hopes for the Future

As geopolitical realities and ongoing economic growth raise the stakes, U.S. interest in Greenland and the dream of independence may change things in a big way.

How a Chinese Government Statistician Was Forced to Report Fake Data

Chinese local govt employee produced a non-authorized report on bees and was visited by police and threatened with being sent to a mental hospital.

โ€˜This One Time, at Groomer Campโ€™

All Camp Brave Trails programs focus on helping LGBTQ+ youth find what they need most to thrive: their people, their place, and their passion.

Why Recognizing a Palestinian State Now Undermines U.S. Interestsย 

A recent American Conservativeย article suggests President Trump recognize a Palestinian state, but this would undermine the interests of the United States.

News

Tax Deductions You Can Take Without Itemizing

Itโ€™s not always beneficial to itemize. With IRSโ€™s current standard deduction for 2025 most Americans who canโ€™t itemize go with standard deduction.

US Economy Adds 139,000 New Jobs in May, Topping Market Forecasts

U.S. economy added 139,000 new jobs last month, surpassing economistsโ€™ expectations and indicating U.S. labor market remains in a robust position.

Guatemalan Deportee Arrives in US After Judge Orders Trump Admin to Facilitate Return

โ€œAmericaโ€™s asylum system was never intended to be used as a de facto amnesty program or a catch-all, get-out-of-deportation-free card,โ€ McLaughlin said.

Trump-Musk Feud Escalates Over Spending Bill: 5 Things to Know

A public feud between Musk and Trump took a turn for the worse. Musk claimed president wouldnโ€™t have won without him and president suggested Muskโ€™s subsidies could be pulled.

Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Wisconsin Violated First Amendment by Denying Tax Exemption to Catholic Charity

Supreme Court ruled unanimously that WI violated the First Amendment by not granting Catholic charity an exemption from paying unemployment tax.

Appeals Court Rules San Diegoโ€™s Yoga Ban Is Unconstitutional

The city of San Diegoโ€™s ban on yoga classes in public parks and beaches was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

Supreme Court Rejects Mexicoโ€™s Lawsuit Against Gun Companies

SCOTUS said gun companies should not face lawsuit in which Mexican govt was trying to hold them liable for cartel-related violence involving firearms from US.

FDA Not Recommending Newly Approved COVID-19 Vaccine: Official

FDA approved a new COVID-19 vaccine but is not recommending people receive it, the agencyโ€™s top vaccine officials said on June 4.
spot_img

Related Articles