As the previous week transitioned into the Labor Day weekend, Alan Dershowitz faced disappointing news from the Eleventh Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s decision, effectively dismissing Dershowitz’s defamation lawsuit against CNN. This marks one of the lowest points for Dershowitz since the infamous incident at the Martha’s Vineyard pierogi stand, where he was denied a potato dumpling.
Interestingly, following what has been dubbed PierogiGate, residents and visitors of Martha’s Vineyard rallied in support of Dershowitz’s vendor rival by queuing for pierogies. The sentiment echoed in chants of “USA! USA!” as they showcased local solidarity.
Returning to the matter at hand, Dershowitz initiated legal action against CNN after his involvement in advocating for Donald Trump‘s controversial stance, which implied a threat to withhold aid from President Zelenskyy unless the Ukrainian leader assisted in constructing a corruption narrative against Joe Biden related to his son Hunter Biden‘s business dealings. This conspiracy theory was not only ludicrous but also posed significant geopolitical risks, which were tragically validated when Congress moved to impeach Trump for attempting to manipulate U.S. foreign policy for personal fundraising efforts. Although Trump managed to escape conviction largely due to the Democrats’ lack of a supermajority in the Senate, Dershowitz’s legal expertise played a role in his defense.
During his defense of Trump, Dershowitz argued that presidents are permitted to engage in foreign policy quid pro quo, even when personal interests, rather than national interests, are at stake, provided the president believes that their personal success is intertwined with the country’s well-being. This raises valid concerns: could this rationale extend to justifying a president’s reelection efforts? Dershowitz suggested that it quite possibly could!
[A] complex middle case is: I want to be elected. I think I am a great President. I think I am the greatest President there ever was, and if I am not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly. That cannot be [an impeachable offense].
The saying goes, “If the president does it, it isn’t illegal.”
The mainstream media quickly seized upon Dershowitz’s controversial assertion that the law permits presidents to pursue personal benefits while conducting foreign policy. Unbeknownst to many at the time, this perspective would soon find resonance in the Supreme Court, which might endorse extreme presidential actions, including deploying SEAL Team 6 against political adversaries, based on a president’s personal interpretation of their electoral mandate. Critics were quick to ridicule Dershowitz for suggesting that a little corruption might be acceptable for those in power.
However, Dershowitz contended that the media’s interpretation of his clear statements was fundamentally flawed. In response, CNN invited Dershowitz to clarify his position. Fueled by frustration, he subsequently filed a $300 million lawsuit against CNN. The Eleventh Circuit’s response was a resounding “LOL, no.”
For more updates on litigation, regulatory matters, business deals, and trends in financial services, consider subscribing to Finance Docket, a collaboration between the Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
