The shunning of Martha Vineyard’s most infamous lawyer


To the Editor:

As the weather gets warmer and folks who vacation on the Vineyard think ahead to get-togethers and whom to invite to parties, I am reminded of all the stories from 2018 and 2022, etc., of a certain Harvard Law School professor emeritus and his constant bellyaching re: not being invited to gatherings and to speak while he is so principled.

Professor Alan Dershowitz is correct re: folks not getting the whole story re: his defense of former President Trump. Most of the commentary is incomplete.

The truth is Prof. Dershowitz’s actions since 2017 are actually worse than most commenters say:

1) While everyone has a right to a defense, President Trump’s impeachment trial was not a judicial proceeding. He was not on trial for his liberty.

2a) Please see an interview that Prof. Dershowitz held with Josh Barro promoting his book “The Case Against Impeaching Trump,” held at a NYC Barnes and Noble on C-SPAN dated July 11, 2018. 

2b) Barro brings up this point, and Dershowitz states that it would be embarrassing to a president to be the only president ever removed from office via impeachment. 

2c) So, to be clear, the ego of the president of the U.S. is more important than the protection of 330 million Americans, plus arguably the nearly 8 billion people in the world, since the U.S. is by far the most powerful military power in the world.

3) Prof. Dershowitz did not defend President Trump by stating: a) he did not commit an impeachable offense; b) 2020 was an election year, so just let the voters decide, nor c) negotiate for a censure rather than impeachment.

4) What Prof. Dershowitz did do was turn the Constitution into origami to protect this president. Prof. Dershowitz did this by the following:

—Suggesting that the president of the U.S. could give Alaska back to Russia, and that is not impeachable.

—Suggesting that because the Constitution gave the president certain powers that protect them even if those powers are used corruptly, for that reason the President has full control over all investigations, and can obstruct investigations into himself/herself and/or associates, and prosecute political opponents for whatever reason he/she wants.

I’d like to point out to Trump supporters that the Democratic Party has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, and when the Republicans have won, they have tended to “thread the needle.”

Do you want “the Dershowitz Impeachment Doctrine” to be the precedent when you are out of power? Really?

Keep up the shunning.

Dave Segal
Port Washington, N.Y.