Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law School professor, drew fire from fellow academics and Democrats for his controversial argument during President Trump’s impeachment trial.

They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, the emeritus Harvard Law School professor tweeted before Trumps impeachment trial resumed without Dershowitzs presence at the defense table.
Let me be clear once again (as I was in the senate): a president seeking re-election cannot do anything he wants. He is not above the law. He cannot commit crimes. He cannot commit impeachable conduct.
Senate Republicans seize on Dershowitz argument, say Trumps actions arent impeachable
But that is exactly how Dershowitzs remarks were interpreted.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Dershowitzs argument a load of nonsense. By Dershowitzs logic, Schumer told reporters, President Richard M. Nixon did nothing wrong in Watergate, Schumer said of the 37th president who resigned before facing impeachment.
The Dershowitz argument frankly would unleash a monster, more aptly it would unleash a monarch, Schumer added.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Dershowitzs reasoning would undermine U.S. elections by essentially inviting foreign interference.
In this case, The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, she told reporters.
Hillary Clinton quote-tweeted a video clip of Dershowitz on the Senate floor Wednesday with the message: In America, no one is above the law.
The House voted in December to impeach the president on charges of abuse of power, for allegedly withholding military aid from Ukraine until its government announced investigations into Trumps political rivals, and obstruction of Congress.
Dershowitzs controversial statement came in response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) about quid pro quos.
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, Dershowitz said.
Justice Department lends its firepower to defend Trump in investigations into his private finances
As the Senate question-and-answer session continued Thursday, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif), one of the House impeachment managers, invoked Dershowitzs argument, calling it a descent into constitutional madness and said there is no limitation to such an argument no matter how corrupt the quid pro quo is.
Dershowitz was watching from his home in Miami not sidelined from the trial, he said, but because of a prior commitment. Trumps other lawyers, he added, begged me to stay.
Dershowitz insisted in an interview that if a president commits a crime, then he can be impeached. If a presidents action is lawful, however, he said it cannot be turned into an impeachable offense just because the decision was motivated in part to help his reelection.
He was responding, he said, to an assertion from House managers that any action by a politician motivated in part by a desire to be reelected was corrupt.
This was not an accidental misreading, Dershowitz said soon after writing a column to rebut the criticism. Politicians, pundits and academics all ganged up on me basically to deliberately and willfully distort what I said.
Dershowitzs argument this week was an extension of the case Trumps legal team has made in recent days. Even if the president did use his office to press for an investigation of a political rival, they say, his actions do not add up to an impeachable offense because no crime was committed.
That view is at odds with the position of mainstream constitutional scholars, who note that a statutory crime has never been required for impeachment. Dershowitzs colleagues and former students were similarly troubled by his most recent assertion.
Its really alarming because its part of the notion that the president can do whatever he wants. What if, for instance, the president ordered the criminal prosecution of his opponent in an election? said Harvard law professor Charles Fried, a longtime colleague of Dershowitzs who served as solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan. I dont understand the Dershowitz argument.
Trump legal team advances blanket defense against impeachment
Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, said if theres no difference between a politicians personal interest and the public interest, then presidents can abuse their powers, for instance, by arresting their opponents.
The skys the limit in terms of what horrible abuses a president can do that would be entirely unimpeachable. Thats an astonishing position, said Kerr.
Throughout the Senate trial, Dershowitz has been repeatedly referred to as professor by lawmakers, the presidents attorneys and even Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the proceedings.
Kerr noted that Dershowitz is not participating as a scholar, but as a vigorous advocate for his client, President Trump.
His ethical responsibility is to say whatever helps Trump, said Kerr, who was a student in Dershowitzs legal ethics class in 1997.
The key lesson of the class: When you are a defense attorney, your loyalty is to your client, and you should do anything you can to help your client, right up to the line of violating the ethics rules.
The particular argument Dershowitz is making, Kerr said, may be unpersuasive legally, but lawyers make unpersuasive arguments all the time.
Felicia Sonmez and John Wagner contributed to this report.
Who is paying the president’s impeachment lawyers?
Local newsletters: Local headlines (8 a.m.) | Afternoon Buzz (4 p.m.)
Like PostLocal on Facebook | Follow @postlocal on Twitter | Latest local news